Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

ANALİTİK YAKLAŞIMIN TEORİ ÜRETME KAPASİTESİ: GİRİŞİMCİLİK VE REFAH TEORİSİ ÖRNEĞİ

The Capacity Of Analythic Approach To Generate Theory: An Example On Entrepreneurship And Welfare Theory

Journal Name:

  • Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2009

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The aim of this study is to deal with the relations between the welfare theory and entrepreneurship in general, and in addition, the relations between Pareto approach of welfare and the concept of entrepreneurship by means of analytical method. In this study, it is essentially pointed out that the Pareto approach and the analysis of Edgeworth Box diagrams which is the supplementary of this, indirectly includes the assumption that the entrepreneurship is a different function compared to ownership of capital. This is also means that if entrepreneurship depends on the ownership of capital, the Pareto welfare maximization can’t be realized. At the same time, in this study, it is pointed out that the contrary in which the Pareto welfare approach needs assumption of the perfect competition , but the culture of entrepreneurship can improve thanks to the opportunities in imperfect market environment
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmanın amacı genel olarak refah teorisi ile girişimcilik arasındaki ilişkileri, ilave olarak ise Pareto refah yaklaşımı ile girişimcilik kavramı arasındaki ilişkileri analitik yöntemle ele almaktır. Esas olarak şu gösterilmeye çalışılmıştır ki, Pareto yaklaşımı ve bunun uzantısı niteliğinde olan Edgeworth kutu diyagramları analizi, girişimciliğin sermaye sahipliğinden ayrı bir fonksiyon olduğu varsayımını üstü örtülü olarak içermektedir. Bu aynı zamanda, girişimcilik fonksiyonu sermaye sahipliğine bağlı olduğu zaman Pareto refah maksimizasyonunun gerçekleşemeyeceği anlamına da gelmektedir. Bunun yanısıra, çalışmada Pareto refah yaklaşımının tam rekabet varsayımını gerektirdiği, fakat girişimcilik kültürünün kusurlu piyasa ortamları içerisindeki fırsatlar sayesinde gelişebildiği çelişkisine dikkat çekilmektedir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-analitik-yaklasimin-teori-uretme-kapasitesi-girisimcilik-refah-teorisi-ornegi.pdf
  • 2
113-125
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. ALCHIAN, A. A. (1953), “The Meaning of Utility Measurement”, American
Economic Review, March.
2. BERKOWITZ, Daniel ve John E. JACKSON, (2006), “Entrepreneurship and the
Evolution of Income Distributions in Poland and Russia”, Journal of
Comparative Economics; 34: 338-356.
3. BILSEN, Valentijn ve Jozef KONING, (1998), “Job Creation, Job Destruction and
Employment Growth in Newly Established Firms in Transition Countries:
Survey Evidence From Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary”, Journal of
Comparative Economics, 26(3); 429-445.
4. COHEN, Boyd ve Monika I. WINN, (2007), “Market Imperfections, Opportunity
and Sustainable Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing, 22; 29-49.
5. DİNLER, Zeynel (1988), Tarım Ekonomisi, Uludağ Üniversitesi Güçlendirme
Vakfı.
6. DUBIN, R. (1978). Theory Developmen,. NewYork.
7. EYÜBOĞLU, Dilek (2004), Girişimciliğin Geliştirilmesi, MPM, Ankara.
8. FRYE, Timothy ve Andrei SHLEIFER, (1997), “The İnvisible Hand and the
Grabbing Hand”, American Economic Review, 87; 354-358.
9. GETZ, Donald ve Jack CARLSEN, (2005), “Family Business in Tourism: State of
the Art”, Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1); 237-258.
10. GIERCH, H. (1982), “Müteşebbisliğin Rolü ve Yeni Firmaların Gelişme Sürecine
Girişi”, Büyüme ve Müteşebbislik, 27 MTO Kongresi, Manila, TOBB,
Ankara.
11. HARBISON, Frederick, (1966), “Müteşebbis Organizasyonun Ekonomik
Kalkınmadaki Rolü”, Çev: Ünver Çınar, İktisadi Kalkınma: Seçme Yazılar,
ODTÜ, Ankara, 425-439.
12. HARPER, Malcolm ve Tan Thiam SOON, (1979), Small Enterprises in
Developing Countries: Case Studies and Conclusions, Intermediate
Technology Publicationsw Ltd., London.
13. HENREKSON, M. (2005), “Entrepreneurship: A Weak Link in the Welfare
State?”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3); 437-467.
14. HICKS, J. R. (1939), “The Foundation of Welfare Economics”, Economic Journal,
December; 696-712.
15. HICKS, J. R. (1941), “The Rehabilitation of Consumer’s Surplus”, Review of
Economic Studies, February.
16. JACKSON, John E., Jacek KLICH ve Krystyna POZNANSKA, (2005), The
Political Economy of Poland’s Transition: New Firms and Reform
Governments, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
17. JURJADA, Stepan ve Katherine TERRELL, (2001), “What Drives The Speed of
Job Reallocation During Episodes of Massive Adjustment?”, Working
Paper. Institute For The Study of Labor, Bonn.
18. KALDOR, N. (1939), “Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal
Comparisons of Utility”, Economic Journal, September; 549-552.
19. KOUTSOYIANNIS, A. (1987), Modern Mikro İktisat, Çev: Muzaffer Sarımeşeli,
Teori Yayınları, Ankara.
20. LERNER, Abba. P. (1944), The Economics of Control, Macmillan, Newyork.
21. LEVESQUE, Moven (2004), “Mathematics, Theory and Entrepreneurship”,
Journal of Business Venturing, 19; 743-765.
22. LIPMANN, Stephen, Amy DAVIS ve Howard E. ALDRICH, (2005),
“Entrepreneurship and Inequality”, Research in the Sociology of Work, 15;
3-31.
23. LITTLE, I. M. D. (1957), A Critique of Welfare Economics, Second Edition,
Clarendon, Oxford.
24. LOWE, Andy (1988), “Small Hotel Survival-An Inductive Approach”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 7(3); 197-223.
25. MICHAEL, Steven C. (2007), “Transaction Cost Entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Business Venturing, 22; 412-426.
26. MÜFTÜOĞLU, T, Y. ÜRPER, M. BAŞAR ve B. T. TOSUNOĞLU, (2004),
Girişimcilik, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
27. PFEIFER, Y. (1983), “Small Business Management”, The Management of
Hospitality. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 189-202.
28. PIGOU, A. C. (1932), The Economics of Welfare, Fourth Edition, Macmillan,
London.
29. ROBRINS, L. (1938), “International Comparisons of Utility”, Economic Journal,
September.
30. SCHUMPETER J. (1943), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Allen and
Unwin, London.
31. WARD, J. ve C. ARANOFF, (1990), “To Sell or Not to Sell”, Nation’s Business,
78; 63-64.
32. WHETTEN, D. A. (1989), “What Constitutes A Theoretical Contribution?”,
Academy of Management Review, 14; 490-495.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com