İktisadi Düşünce Tarihi

by E.K. Hunt, Müfit Günay (Translator)

İktisadi düşünce tarihi bağlamındaki tüm dinamiklerin tekil sorunlara ve özgül koşullara getirilmiş yanıtlardan ibaret olduğunu öneren Hunt, Aydınlanma'dan günümüz uzanan bir tarih aralığında kotardığı derinlikli ve deneye dayalı bir çözümlemeyle görkemli bir yapıta imza atıyor.

E. K. Hunt, Utah Üniversitesi’nde iktisat profesörüdür. Çalıştığı beş ayrı üniversitede hem verdiği dersler hem de yaptığı araştırmalarla sayısız ödül kazanmıştır. Araştırmalarını İktisadi Düşünce Tarihi, Marksçı İktisat Kuramı ve Kuramsal Refah Ekonomisi alanlarında yoğunlaştıran Hunt, çeşitli kitapların ve pek çok bilimsel makalenin de yazarıdır.

Genres: Economics, History, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Reference, Politics

639 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1975

Reviews

[Tuncer Şengöz · Rating 5 out of 5]

İktisadi Düşünce Tarihi ile ilgili şimdiye kadar okuduğum en iyi ve en kapsamlı kitap.Bir seneyi aşkın bir süre boyunca başucu kitabım oldu. Dönüp dönüp baştan okudum. Tekrar okuyacağım.

[Prithu Puranjan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Padho ...Zarur padho ise!!!!

[Stefanos · Rating 2 out of 5]

Used this book as a textbook for my History of Economic Thought class at Northeastern University. Overall, the book did have good scholarship and presented a thorough look at different strains of thought in economic history. Hunt and Lautzenheiser did a good job at explaining the nature of different strains of economic thought and what role they played in the progression of economics as a discipline.

However, this book and its analyses are so heavily biased that I can't exactly recommend this as a text to use if you're looking to learn objectively about the history of economic thought. The authors' radical worldview is quite apparent and it colors the way that they analyses of different ideologies are presented. Classical and neoclassical thinkers and strains of thought are presented in a much more critical manner than that of radical thinkers. This may give a false impression to reader on the state of economics as a discipline. Contrast the way classical economists such as Say, Mill, and Bastiat are presented and compare it to the way that Marx, Veblen, and Sraffa are presented for instance. Despite the fact that Marxian and other radical economic schools of thought are quite marginal in the field of economics, this book gives them little scrutiny compared to the way that they present classical and neoclassical economic thinkers and ideas.

[Dylan Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've read many things from Hunt mainly because I attended the University of Utah where Hunt had taught previously. While this book is fantastic for exploring different economic ideas over time it falls short in the critique and arguments against several theorists such as Smith or Mill. I love studying much of the doctrine of economics as I search to find my own concrete theories concerning the theory of value, human nature, and economic systems in which the most can be gained. I feel however that this book fails to deliver the more important aspects of explaining the purpose and conclusions of the authors studied and instead briefly describes their theories and moves straight to jumping into arbitrary critiques. Not a bad read, but there are better ways to study economic history.

[Algernon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Highly laudable as a critical overview of economic theory that is accessible for readers who are not trained in economics. Both history and theory are presented with some technical detail. Its critical perspective on many theories, and in particular the dominant 'neoclassical' paradigm, are intended to provoke thought and debate about conditions most human beings take for granted.

[John Mihelic · Rating 5 out of 5]

I hear it told that the grad schools of economics in general don’t really focus on the history and development of the discipline. In conversation, I’ve come to understand this is in part because there’s no easy linear thread to take a student from basic thinking of economics to the full flourishing of the field now. As a former chemistry teacher for high school students, we taught the history of thought because what was possible in the past reflected the theories and technical abilities of probing deep at the atomic level to the point where we could walk students from the Greek definition of “atom” to VESPR theory and it was linear.

Economics is a discipline that is still in contention, no matter what those at the orthodox schools will teach you (mostly at the macro level, but no one outside a select group of self-styled wonks really care about micro stuff. You can’t convince people that the stock market isn’t the real economy or that at the federal level the government isn’t a household. Heck, you can’t convince policy makers that the economy isn’t a household). What Hunt and Lautzenheiser show is that the development of thought is a dynamic process that is a search for truth. One of their big themes that they talk about often is that the class position of the theorist really reflects and drives what they focus on (and what escapes their attention).

Overall, this is very thorough. It was a textbook for my master’s-level history of economic thought class, and we basically only went from Smith to Keynes. It was good enough that I kept it around and finished the chapters that were not assigned for class over the summer. I was well-rewarded for it too, as one of the things that I haven’t had a good grasp on was the measurement of capital (I’ve read other books on it) and the whole Cambridge Controversy. This book had the clearest explanation for that whole thing that I’ve read.

[Michele Boldrin · Rating 1 out of 5]

I would say: junk. Ideological junk, almost amusing to peruse.

It is hard to describe the confusion, manipulation, ideological nonsense, plain brutal mistakes and so on that this book contains. It is the kind of text that inspire "debating rage", the desire to call the authors and say: let's debate public, what you wrote is so wrong that it cannot go without correction.

[Tornike Chivadze · Rating 5 out of 5]

Professor Anwar Shaikh has recommended me this book several years ago. Indeed it's one of the best introduction in political economy. Some people are complaining that its ideological but it's clear from the title that its written in critical perspective and that's better then other "neutral" introductions which are implicitly ideological... It's must read with heilbroners worldy philosophers..

[Johnathan · Rating 1 out of 5]

I thought this book was going to actually be about the history of economic thought but it turned out to be a hardcore extremist marxist propaganda. The author is clearly not an academic and the arguements presented can be described as psuedo-intellectual at best.

[Márcio Karsten · Rating 1 out of 5]

Um livro escrito por um analista socialista, enviesado. Parei de ler no começo do quarto capítulo. Um lixo.

[Davide · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book skillfully discusses the history of economic thought from a much needed critical perspective. It acts as an overview of the most important economic theorists of capitalism, from the classical economists such as Smith, Ricardo, Malthus and Marx, to early and later neoclassical economists such as Jevons, Menger, Walras, Marshall, Clark and Samuelson, to early institutionalists such as Veblen, and others such as Keynes, and even Sraffa. However, the book (especially after the first 5 chapters) is primarily a critique of the dominate neoclassical school of economics. The authors argue that the neoclassical school contains both a weak philosophical base from which to analyze economic relations (i.e. utilitarianism)and that it is generally detached from historical, political, institutional and social context of capitalism. The authors show that in attempts to create "objective" and "value free" forms of economic analysis, the mainstream neoclassical theorists instead often create inconsistent theories that are merely justification of existing power structures of capitalism. One of the most interesting elements of the book was the many moments in which the authors show that theorists throughout time often when faced with inconsistencies in their own theories, fall straight onto their own class biases to explain away these inconsistencies. There are a lot of other good themes in the book, especially how different theories of value present different understandings of social relations under capitalism. For example, labor theories of value tend to emphasize that there is constant conflict and struggle among classes (workers, landlords, and capitalism) over shares of the wealth produced form the production process. In contrast, marginalist theories of value, which argue that each factor of production (land, labor and captal) are paid wages/interest/rent equal to their marginal productivity, focus on the idea of social harmony, that the market which liberates individual to exchange, creates the optimal social outcomes. Overall, the book works both as an amazing critique of the mainstream school while also being a great critical overview of economic thought. While there are times where the book gets very technical (mostly only in the last 200 or so pages),his a must read for anyone interested in getting an introduction into critical political economy.

[Alex Staub · Rating 2 out of 5]

Writers in the Social Sciences generally fall under 2 categories - people who are literate and comfortable with mathematical notation and methods, and those illiterate and thus uncomfortable with it. Or as one of my professors liked to say "Scientists and story tellers". The authors of this book, as do most social scientists, fall squarely in the latter category, enamored by the use of complex rhetoric devices, obscure vocabulary, and the fantasy world-building prowess of socialist (or interpretivist, critical theorist) writers. Conversely, they struggle with concepts that go beyond pre-20th century economic models, denouncing entire theories by describing their methodological foundations as performative rites of passage and "esoteric maths", while ignoring proofs and models in apparent service of the poor reader.

In the author's defence, the book's first half is a laudable and highly informative portrayal of early economic thinkers that - if it had ended before Veblen - would have easily deserved 4-5 stars. However, after that point, the bias oozes from every page, the authors dropping every pretense of a semi-scientific review of economic theory.

Now I am biased myself, while simultaneously far from being able to fully understand, let alone coherently distill and explain micro- or macroeconomic theories from a wholistic standpoint. This makes it all the more impressive that the authors set out to write a manuscript titled "history of economic thought". After suffering through the final chapters of this tome, a more honest title would be "Some history of early economic thought - but mainly socialist fan fiction"

[Emre · Rating 5 out of 5]

28 yıllık hayatımda okuduğum en güzel, en dolu kitap. Bundan sonra da tekrar tekrar okuyacağıma eminim.
İktisat öğrencilerine bu kitabı okumasını şiddetle tavsiye ediyorum. Lisans bölümlerinde gösterilen (doğal olarak öğrencinin iktisadın sadece bunlardan oluştuğunu düşündüğü) ortodoks teorilerin ne kadar yetersiz varsayımlar ve zayıf temeller üzerine kurulduğu görülüyor. Aynı zamanda heteredoks birçok iktisadi akımın katkılarına ve önemli noktalarına çok titiz çalışmalarla değinilmiş. Benim en çok hayran olduğum yönü ise günümüz ekonomik sistemine (yani kapitalizm) yazarın yönelttiği ahlaki eleştiriler oldu. Emekçinin bir meta olarak görüldüğü ve fiyatlandığı, insanın kendi doğasına yabancılaştığı bir dünyada, daha iyi bir düzen için yolun başındaki öğrencilere üzerine düşünecek çok şey veriyor.
Not: Bazı incelemelerde tarafsız olmadığı yönünde eleştiriler yapılmış. Yazar kitabın başından itibaren yanlı olduğunu (olmamanın imkansız olduğunu) belirtiyor.

[Waley He · Rating 4 out of 5]

Obvious Marxian biases

[Reader · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pure Stalinism. The only merits this book has to understand the insane distortion of history it spews.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

good overview of Economic thought development in a Capitalist Society

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

I do like the book, even though i support capitalism and its ideas, but a really great book especially for those who do not know anything about economic history in general

[Phurpa Wangdi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really want this book and want to go through this book

[Ahmed · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unconvincing