In mainstream economics （the neoclassical economics）, it is accepted that every company that competes under the perfect competition market has the same technological equipment. So, technology is approached as a simp...In mainstream economics （the neoclassical economics）, it is accepted that every company that competes under the perfect competition market has the same technological equipment. So, technology is approached as a simple efficiency increase whose source is unknown. In terms of established economics view, technology is like a ＂black box＂ that cannot be predicted. As the creator of the concept of＂creative destruction＂, Joseph Schumpeter （1883-1950） caused significant changes in terms of the view of neoclassical economics about technology. On one hand, Schumpeter created a new point of view about the concept of＂innovation＂ by using key concepts, such as ＂invention＂, ＂imitation＂, and ＂business cycles＂. Schumpeter＇s ＂creative destruction＂ concept carries out the role of a new map for the new institutional economics trend which accepts ＂technology＂ as an institution. On the other hand, if one is to understand why the ideology differs between neoclassical economics and new institutional economics, ＂transaction costs＂ should be analyzed. Since, transaction costs and creative destruction have a relationship between each other; Schumpeter and Coase＇s ideas are resembling each other. While doing this, this paper will try to discuss the question of how to accept the technology as ＂external＂ instead of ＂internal＂ limit neoclassical economics. In this process, it will primarily base the dimension on the concept of＂technology＂ developed by Schumpeter. The second station is an inquiry between Schumpeter＇s and Coase＇s ideas about technology. Although new institutional economics （NIE） and neoclassical economics can be confused, they can be seperated from each other by the way they look at technology. Because, technology is accepted as an external theme by neoclassical economics, on the contrary, NIE acceptes technology as an internal fact. One of the most important reasons why technology is internal in terms of NIE can be evaluated by ＂transaction costs＂. As a result, the author will give effort to create a critical presentation in order to readdress the viewpoint of mainstream economics about ＂technology＂.展开更多
Economic movements have close relation with historical transformations. Historical and social transformations have seriously determined economic views, so, economic movements have been the indicators of economic wars ...Economic movements have close relation with historical transformations. Historical and social transformations have seriously determined economic views, so, economic movements have been the indicators of economic wars of social classes. But no concept can describe sharp contrast in economics better than the two opponent concepts in economics： ＂orthodox＂ and ＂heterodox＂ economics. In this article, the reason why neo-classic economics, also called as orthodox economics, has a serious place in economic literature while the opponent＇s economic movements, named heterodox economics, do not defend only one ＂truth＂ and are not as important as orthodox economics will be examined. While doing this examination, Louis Althusser＇s ＂ideology＂ and Antonio Gramsci＇s ＂hegemony＂ will help us as these two concepts are quite instructive in understanding the irreplaceable significance of orthodox economics. As a result, by discussing alternative point of views about economics, positive emphasis of multivocality in economics literature will be revealed. On the other hand, every heterodox economics cannot criticize orthodox economics in the same way. In this study, institutional economics, which is accepted to be part of heterodox economics, will be discussed thoroughly. Institutional economics had a serious attitude against orthodox economics. In this study, generally the points in orthodox economics that institutional economics opposes will be emphasized, and although both economics approaches＇ ideological attitude will be attempted to be discussed generally, it will become easy to discuss the reason why heterodox economics developed an opposing ideology against the ideology of orthodox economics.展开更多
文摘In mainstream economics （the neoclassical economics）, it is accepted that every company that competes under the perfect competition market has the same technological equipment. So, technology is approached as a simple efficiency increase whose source is unknown. In terms of established economics view, technology is like a ＂black box＂ that cannot be predicted. As the creator of the concept of＂creative destruction＂, Joseph Schumpeter （1883-1950） caused significant changes in terms of the view of neoclassical economics about technology. On one hand, Schumpeter created a new point of view about the concept of＂innovation＂ by using key concepts, such as ＂invention＂, ＂imitation＂, and ＂business cycles＂. Schumpeter＇s ＂creative destruction＂ concept carries out the role of a new map for the new institutional economics trend which accepts ＂technology＂ as an institution. On the other hand, if one is to understand why the ideology differs between neoclassical economics and new institutional economics, ＂transaction costs＂ should be analyzed. Since, transaction costs and creative destruction have a relationship between each other; Schumpeter and Coase＇s ideas are resembling each other. While doing this, this paper will try to discuss the question of how to accept the technology as ＂external＂ instead of ＂internal＂ limit neoclassical economics. In this process, it will primarily base the dimension on the concept of＂technology＂ developed by Schumpeter. The second station is an inquiry between Schumpeter＇s and Coase＇s ideas about technology. Although new institutional economics （NIE） and neoclassical economics can be confused, they can be seperated from each other by the way they look at technology. Because, technology is accepted as an external theme by neoclassical economics, on the contrary, NIE acceptes technology as an internal fact. One of the most important reasons why technology is internal in terms of NIE can be evaluated by ＂transaction costs＂. As a result, the author will give effort to create a critical presentation in order to readdress the viewpoint of mainstream economics about ＂technology＂.
文摘Economic movements have close relation with historical transformations. Historical and social transformations have seriously determined economic views, so, economic movements have been the indicators of economic wars of social classes. But no concept can describe sharp contrast in economics better than the two opponent concepts in economics： ＂orthodox＂ and ＂heterodox＂ economics. In this article, the reason why neo-classic economics, also called as orthodox economics, has a serious place in economic literature while the opponent＇s economic movements, named heterodox economics, do not defend only one ＂truth＂ and are not as important as orthodox economics will be examined. While doing this examination, Louis Althusser＇s ＂ideology＂ and Antonio Gramsci＇s ＂hegemony＂ will help us as these two concepts are quite instructive in understanding the irreplaceable significance of orthodox economics. As a result, by discussing alternative point of views about economics, positive emphasis of multivocality in economics literature will be revealed. On the other hand, every heterodox economics cannot criticize orthodox economics in the same way. In this study, institutional economics, which is accepted to be part of heterodox economics, will be discussed thoroughly. Institutional economics had a serious attitude against orthodox economics. In this study, generally the points in orthodox economics that institutional economics opposes will be emphasized, and although both economics approaches＇ ideological attitude will be attempted to be discussed generally, it will become easy to discuss the reason why heterodox economics developed an opposing ideology against the ideology of orthodox economics.
