DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ

Kıymet YAVUZASLAN (Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi, Aydın İktisat Fakültesi, İktisat Anabilim Dalı, Aydın, Türkiye)
Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi
4 0
Yıl: 2018 Cilt: 0 Sayı: 33 Sayfa Aralığı: 217 - 231 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.30794/pausbed.425851 İndeks Tarihi: 19-02-2020

DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ

Öz:
İktisadi karar birimlerinin, iktisat biliminde ele alınan konulara içgüdüsel olarak değil, belirli ilkelere dayanarak yaklaştığıdiğer bir ifadeyle rasyonel davrandığı varsayılmaktadır. Kültürel farklılıklar ve teknolojik gelişmelerin de etkisiyle insanlarınbirbirleriyle etkileşiminin artması, ekonomik kararlarında insanların rasyonel davranışlardan uzaklaşmasına nedenolabilmektedir. Bu yüzden insan davranışlarının incelendiği psikoloji biliminin, ekonomik analizlerdeki önemi, tüm dünyadagün geçtikçe artmaktadır. Ekonomideki karar birimlerinin davranışlarının laboratuvar ortamında kontrollü bir şekildeincelenmesine olanak sağlayan deneysel iktisat yaklaşımı bu yüzden son yıllarda yaygın olarak kullanılan bir yöntem halinegelmiştir. Bu çalışmada; pek çok ülkede deneysel iktisat ile yapılmış ve davranışsal iktisada katkı yapmış deney bulguları biraraya getirilerek, ekonomik kararlarda etkili olan kültürel etkenler analiz edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak iktisadi kararların kültürlerarasında farklılıklar gösterdiği görülmüştür.
Anahtar Kelime:

EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE CULTURAL DIVERSITY BY EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS

Öz:
It is assumed that economic decision-making units approximate the subjects discussed in economics based on certain principles in other words by rational behavior, not instinctively. Because of the influence of cultural differences and technological developments, the increasing of the people interaction with each other is leading people away from rational behavior in their economic decisions. Therefore, the importance of psychology in the analysis of human behavior is increasing day by day all over the world. The experimental economics approach, which allows for a controlled examination of the behavior of economic decision-making units in the laboratory environment, has become a widely used method in recent years. In this study; cultural factors influencing economic decisions were analyzed by combining experimental findings that were made by experimental economics in many countries and contributed to behavioral exploitation. As a result, economic decisions have shown differences between cultures
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Abeler, J., Nosenzo, D. (2014). “Self-Selection into Laboratory Experiments: Pro-Social Motives Versus Monetary Incentives”. Experimental Economies, 18(2) 1-20.
  • Akdere Ç., Büyükboyacı, M. (2015). “Davranışsal İktisat ve Sınırlı Rasyonellik Varsayımı”, İktisatta Davranışsal Yaklaşımlar, Der. Devrim Dumludağ vd., İmge Kitabevi. İstanbul.
  • Akın, Z., Urhan, B. (2010). İktisat Deneysel Bir Bilim Olmaya Mı Başlıyor?. İktisat, İşletme ve Finans, 25(288), 9-28.
  • Akın, Z., Urhan, B. (2015). “Davranışsal Oyun Teorisi”. İktisatta Davranışsal Yaklaşımlar, Der. Devrim Dumludağ vd., İmge Kitabevi. İstanbul.
  • Aknin, L. B., Barrington-Leigh, C. P. Dunn E. W., Helliwell, J. F., Burns, J., Biswas-Diener, R., Kemeza I., Nyende, P., Ashton-James, C. E. ve Norton, M. I. (2013). “Prosocial Spending and Well-Being: Cross-Cultural Evidence for a Psychological Universal”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 104(4), 635-652.
  • Aktan, C. C., Bahçe, A. B. (2007). Kamu Tercihi Perspektifinden Oyun Teorisi, Modern Politik İktisat: Kamu Tercihi. Ed. C. C. Aktan ve D. Dileyici. Seçkin Yayınları, Ankara.
  • Alesina, A., Baqir R., Easterly, W. (1997). “Public Goods and Ethnic Divisions”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 1243–84.
  • Alesina, A., Devleeschauwer, A., Easterly, W., Kurlat, S. ve Wacziarg, R. (2003) “Fractionalization”. Journal of Economic Growth, 8, 155–94.
  • Andersen, S., Ertaç, S., Gneezy, U., Hoffman, M. ve List, J. A. (2011). “Stakes Matter in Ultımatum Games”, American Economic Reviews, 101: 3427-3439.
  • Baç, M. (2007). “İktisadi Analizin Disiplinlerarası Uygulamalarında Durum ve Öngörüler”, http://research. sabanciuniv.edu/848/1/BacTUBAmakale.pdf, (12.10.2017)
  • Bossaerts, P., Plott, C. R. (2008). The Handbook of Experimental Economics Results Vol. 1: Non-market and Organizational Research, Eds. Plott, C. R. ve Smith, V. L. Oxford: North-Holland.
  • Buchan, N. R., Croson, R., ve Dawes, R. M. (2002). “Swift Neighbors and Persistent Strangers: A Cross-Cultural İnvestigation of Trust and Reciprocity in Social Exchange”. American Journal of Sociology, 108(1), 168–206.
  • Buchan, N. R., Johnson, E., ve Croson, R. (2006). “Let’s get personal: An international Examination of the Influence of Communication, Culture and Social Distance on Other Regarding Preferences”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 60, 373–398.
  • Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton University Press.
  • Chamberlain, E. H. (1948). “An Experimental Imperfect Market. Journal of Political Economy”, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 56, No. 2, 95-108.
  • Chen, M. K. Lakshminarayanan, V., Santos, L. R., (2006). “How Basic Are Behavioral Biases? Evidence from Capuchin Monkey Trading Behavior”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 114, no. 3, 517-537.
  • Chuah, S., Hoffmann, R., Jones, M., Williams, G. (2007). “Do Cultures Clash? Evidence From Cross-national Ultimatum Game Experiments”. Journal of Economic Behavior Organization, 64(1), 35-48.
  • Collier, P. (2001). “Implications of Ethnic Diversity”. Economic Policy, 16, 127–166.
  • Cornand, C., Heinemann, F. (2015). Experiments on Monetary Policy and Central Banking,” in J. Duffy (ed.), “Experiments in Macroeconomics, Research in Experimental Economics, 17, Emerald Group Publishing, 167‐227.
  • Cox, C., Robenson, B., Smith, V. L. (1982). Theory and Behavior of Single Object Auctions. Research in Experimental Economics, https://excen.gsu.edu/jccox/research/SingleObjectAuctions.pdf, (28.06.2017)
  • Cronk, L. (2007). The Influence of Cultural Framing on Play in the Trust Game: A Maasai Example. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 352–358.
  • Duffy, J. (2014). Macroeconomics: A Survey of Laboratory Research. Handbook of Experimental Economics Vol. 2, Eds. J. Kagel, A.E. Roth, (forthcoming), http://www.upf.edu/leex/_pdf/events/macro_survey_duffy.pdf
  • Easterly, W., Levine, R. (1997), “Africa’s Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 1997, 1203–50.
  • Eğilmez, M. (2017). İçgüdüsel Ekonomi. (05.12.2017), http://www.mahfiegilmez.com/2017/11/icguduselekonomi_ 18.html
  • Eğilmez, M. (2015). Siyasal Ekonomi ve Davranışsal Ekonomi. (18.06.2017) http://www.mahfiegilmez. com/2015/11/siyasal-ekonomi-ve-davranssal-ekonomi.html
  • Engel, C. (2011). “Dictator Games: A Meta Study”. Experimental Economics, Vol. 14, Issue 4, 583-610.
  • Eren, E. (2017). “İktisatta Yeni Heterodoks Gelişmeler”. Kırklareli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 6 – Sayı: 2, 134-151.
  • Eser, R., Toigonbaeva, D. (2011). Psikoloji ve İktisadın Birleşimi Olarak, Davranışsal İktisat, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, Nisan 2011, 6(1), 287‐321.
  • Fan, J. X., & Xiao, J. J. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in risk tolerance: A comparison between Chinese and Americans. Journal of Personal Finance, 5, 54–75.
  • Fagiolo, G., Roventini, A. (2012). “Macroeconomic Policy in DSGE and Agent-Based Models”. Institute for New Economic Thinking Research Note, No: 006, 1-34.
  • Fearon, J. (2003). “Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country”. Journal of Economic Growth, 8, 195–222. FED. (23.10.2017). “About Center for Behavioral Economics and Decision Making”. https://www.bostonfed.org.
  • Fehr, E., Schmidt, K. (1999). “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation”. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114:817–68.
  • Friedman, D. (1994). Experimental Methods: A Primer for Economists. Cambridge University Press.
  • Fréchette, G. (2008), “Laboratory Experiments: Professionals vs. Students”, Working Paper, New York, New York University.
  • Gaffard, J., Napoletano, M. (2012). Introduction. Improving the Toolbox: New Advances in Agent-Based and Computational Models. Agent-Based Models and Economic Policy, eds. Jean-Luc Gaffard and Mauro Napoletano, OFCE: 7-13.
  • Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., Zingales, L. (2006). “Does Culture Affect Economic Outcomes?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 23–48.
  • Harbaugh, W.T., Krause, K., Liday, G. S. (2000). “Bargaining by Children”. Working Paper, University of Oegon. Harrison G., List J. (2004), “Field Experiments”, Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 1009‐1055.
  • Heinemann F., Noussair C. N. (2015). “Macroeconomic Experiments”, (16.08.2017) macroeconomics.tu-berlin. de/fileadmin/fg124/heinemann/publications/Heinemann-Noussair-macro-experiments.pdf
  • Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., McElreath, R., Alvard, M., Barr, A., Endminger, J., Nerich, N., HilI, K., Gil- White, F., Gurven, M., Marlowe, F. W., Patton, J.Q. ve Tracer, D. (2005). “Economics Man” in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies”. Behavioral and Brian Science, Vol 28(6), 795-815.
  • Hertwig, R., Ortmann, A. (2011). “Experimental Practices in Economics: A Methodological Cballenge For Psycbologists?”. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2-4(3), 383-403.
  • Hey, J. D. (1991). Experiments in Economics, Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.
  • Hey, J. D. (1994). Introduction and Overview, Experimental Economics: Studies in Emprical Economics, Ed. J.D. Hey, Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
  • Hey, J. D., Cagno, D. D. (2016). “Does Money İmpede Convergence?”, Experimental Economics, Springer; Economic Science Association, vol. 19(3), 595-612, September.
  • Hoffmann, R., Tee, J. (2006). “Adolescent-Adult Interactions and Culture in the Ultimatum Game”. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(1), 98-116.
  • Holt, R. P.F., Rosser, J.B., Colander. D. (2010). “The Complexity Era in Economics”. Middlebury College Economics Discussion Paper, S.10-01: 1-23.
  • İncekara, A., Mutlugün, B. (2015). İktisada Giriş. Sentez Yayınları, İstanbul.
  • Kagel, J. H., Roth, A. E. (1995). The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press.
  • Kahneman, D., Trevsky, A. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk”. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society. 263-291.
  • Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. P., Sarin, R. (1997). “Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112/2, 375-405.
  • Kahneman, D. (2003). “A Psychological Perspective on Economics”. American Economic Review. 93:2, 162-168.
  • Knack, S. ve Keefer, P. (1997). “Does Social Capital Have An Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation”. Quarterly Journal of Economics. No: 12, 50–88.
  • Markman, A., Blok, S., Dennis, J., Goldwater, M., Kim, K., Laux, J., Narvaez, L., Taylor, E. (2005). “Culture and individual differences”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(6), 831-831. doi:10.1017/S0140525X05380149.
  • Miguel, T. (1999). “Ethnic Diversity, Mobility and School Funding: Theory and Evidence from Kenya”. Working Paper, Harvard University,
  • Modigliani, F. ve Brumberg R. H. (1954). “Utility Analysis and the Consumption Function: An Interpretation Of Cross-Section Data”, Kurihara ed., Post Keynesian Economics, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, pp. 388-436.
  • Ochs, J. (1995). Coordination Problems, The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Ed. J. Kagel, A. Roth, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.
  • Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., van de Kuilen, G. (2004). “Culturel Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence From A Meta-Analysis”. Experimental Economics, 7(2), 171-188.
  • Plott, C. R. ve Smith, V. L. (2008). The Handbook of Experimental Economics Results Vol. 1: Non-market and Organizational Research, Eds. Plott, C. R. ve Smith, V. L. Oxford: North-Holland.
  • Polanyin, K. (2017). Büyük Dönüşüm: Çağımızın Siyasal ve Ekonomik Kökenleri, Çev. Ayşe Buğra, 14. Bs. İletişim Yayınları.
  • Powell, M. ve Ansic, D. (1996). “Gender Differences in Risk Behaviour in financial Decision-Making: An Experimental Analysis”. Journal of Economic Psychology, No: 18, 605- 628.
  • Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press.
  • Reuben, Ernesto. (2008). (09.08.2017). Unpublished Lecture Notes, http://ereuben.googlepages.com/expteach.
  • Ricciuti, R. (2008). “Bringing Macroeconomics into the Lab”. Journal of Macroeconomics 30(1), 216‐237.
  • Riedl, A. (2010). “Behavioral and Experimental Economics Do Inform Public Policy”. Finanzarchiv. 66(1), 65-95.
  • Roth, A. E., Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, M. ve Zamir, S. (1991). “Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittburgh and Tokyo: An Experimental Study”. American Economic Review, 81(5):1068–95.
  • Slonim, R. ve Roth, A. E. (1998). “Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment In The Slovak Republic”. Econometrica, 66, 569-96.
  • Smith, V. L. (1962). “An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior”. Journal of Political Economy, 70 (2) 111-137.
  • Smith, V. L. (1976). Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory, American Eeonomic Review, 66(2), 274-279.
  • Smith, V. L. (1994). “Economics in the Laboratory”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 113-131.
  • Simon, H. A. (1955). “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 69:1, February, 99-118.
  • Soydal, H. (2010). Yeni Ekonomi/Kuantum-Nöroekonomi. Konya: Palet. Ülken, H. Z. Millet ve Tarih Şuuru, 3. Bs. İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul,2016.
  • Telegraph, (2017). “Nudge” Guru Richard Thaler Wins The Nobel Prize for Economics, http://www.telegraph. co.uk/business/2017/10/09/nobel-prize-awarded-us-behavioural-economist-richard-thaler/, (10.11.2017)
  • Thaler, R.H. (2015). Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
  • Tsang, E. (2007). “Computational Intelligence Determines Effective Rationality”. Centre for Computational Finance and Economic Agents, Working Paper Series, WP 015-07: 1-9.
  • Vriend, N. J. (1996). “Rational Behavior and Economic Theory”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. Vol. 29: 263-285.
  • Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. (1998). “Cross-cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk”. Management Science, 44, 1205–1217.
  • Zaman, A., Karacuka, M. (2011). “The Empirical Evidence Against Utility Maximization”. SSRN Electronic Journal, DOI10.2139/ssrn.2033641
  • Zinkhan, G., Karande, K., (1991). “Cultural and Gender Differences in Risk Taking Behaviour Among American and Spanish Decision Makers”. Journal of Social Psychology,131 (5), 741-742.
APA YAVUZASLAN K (2018). DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ. , 217 - 231. 10.30794/pausbed.425851
Chicago YAVUZASLAN KIYMET DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ. (2018): 217 - 231. 10.30794/pausbed.425851
MLA YAVUZASLAN KIYMET DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ. , 2018, ss.217 - 231. 10.30794/pausbed.425851
AMA YAVUZASLAN K DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ. . 2018; 217 - 231. 10.30794/pausbed.425851
Vancouver YAVUZASLAN K DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ. . 2018; 217 - 231. 10.30794/pausbed.425851
IEEE YAVUZASLAN K "DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ." , ss.217 - 231, 2018. 10.30794/pausbed.425851
ISNAD YAVUZASLAN, KIYMET. "DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ". (2018), 217-231. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.425851
APA YAVUZASLAN K (2018). DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 0(33), 217 - 231. 10.30794/pausbed.425851
Chicago YAVUZASLAN KIYMET DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 0, no.33 (2018): 217 - 231. 10.30794/pausbed.425851
MLA YAVUZASLAN KIYMET DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol.0, no.33, 2018, ss.217 - 231. 10.30794/pausbed.425851
AMA YAVUZASLAN K DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2018; 0(33): 217 - 231. 10.30794/pausbed.425851
Vancouver YAVUZASLAN K DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2018; 0(33): 217 - 231. 10.30794/pausbed.425851
IEEE YAVUZASLAN K "DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ." Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 0, ss.217 - 231, 2018. 10.30794/pausbed.425851
ISNAD YAVUZASLAN, KIYMET. "DENEYSEL İKTİSAT VE KÜLTÜREL FARKLILIKLARIN DENEYSEL İKTİSATLA İFADESİ". Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 33 (2018), 217-231. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.425851
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 10:25

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları