İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi

GÖNDERBİLGİ
EnglishTürkçe

Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/SJ.2023.43.2.0048   IUP :10.26650/SJ.2023.43.2.0048    Tam Metin (PDF)

Davranışsal İktisat Perspektifinden Armağan Teorisi Çerçevesinde Ticaret ve Barış

Banu Özüşen, Levent Kösekahyaoğlu

Ticaret, geçmişten günümüze tüm toplumların ekonomik, sosyal ve kültürel ilişkilerinin bir sonucudur. Günümüzde, “ticaret barışı teşvik eder” hipotezi çerçevesinde yapılan ekonomik analizlerle, ticaretin barışı geliştirdiği ve sürdürdüğü sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada hipotezin arkeolojik ve antropolojik verilerle kanıtlanması amaçlanmaktadır. Arkeoloji, ticarete konu olan metalarla ilgili olarak önemli veriler sunarken, antropoloji, mübadeleye dayalı ilişkilerde insan davranışlarının doğasını anlamaya kaynaklık eder. İktisat ise bireylerin seçimlerini ve davranışlarını analiz etmektedir. İnsanın hayatta kalma stratejileri ve karar verme mekanizmalarının işleyişi ile ilgili olarak antropoloji ve iktisat ortak çalışma alanında kesişmektedir. Çalışmada, sosyal antropolojinin önemli eserlerinden olan Marcel Mauss’un “Armağan Üzerine Deneme” perspektifinde, para öncesi toplumların iktisadi, kültürel ve hukuki olgularından hareket edilmiş, ticaretin armağan ve barışçıl ilişkiler üzerine inşa edilmesine odaklanılmıştır. Ticaret ve armağanın çerçevesi “faydacılık, hukuki bağ, ticari ilişki ve barış” olarak çizilmiş, geçmiş toplumlarla günümüz toplumları arasında karşılaştırmalı bir bakış açısı sunulmaya çalışılmıştır. Temeli ahlak felsefesine dayanan faydacılık yaklaşımı, bireyin tüm eylemlerinde mutluluğu amaçladığı üzerine şekillenmesi sebebi ile armağan teorisi içinde ele alınmıştır. Arkeolojik ve antropolojik kaynaklarla birlikte son dönem çalışmalar mübadele, armağan ya da ticaret sistemlerinin temelinde barışçıl ilişkilerin varlığını gözler önüne sermektedir. Çalışma ile ayrıca, ticaret ve barış üzerine yapılacak araştırmalara, iktisat bilimine ve disiplinler arası çalışmalara katkı sağlaması amaçlanmıştır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler: Ticaret, Barış, Armağan teorisi, Davranışsal iktisat, Faydacılık
DOI :10.26650/SJ.2023.43.2.0048   IUP :10.26650/SJ.2023.43.2.0048    Tam Metin (PDF)

Trade and Peace within the Gift Theory from a Behavioral Economics Perspective

Banu Özüşen, Levent Kösekahyaoğlu

Trade has been a fundamental aspect of human societies throughout history, shaping economic, social, and cultural relationships. Economic studies rooted in the “trade promotes peace” premise have shown that trade can both foster and maintain peace. This study substantiates this hypothesis by drawing upon archeological and anthropological evidence. Archeology provides important insights into trade objects, while anthropology is a source of understanding human behavior in exchange-based relationships. Meanwhile, economics analyzes the choices and behaviors of individuals, exploring the mechanisms underpinning human survival strategies and decision-making processes. This study bridges the realms of economics and anthropology by examining the economic, cultural, and legal phenomena of pre-monetary societies from the perspective of Marcel Mauss’s seminal work, “The Gift.” Specifically, it investigates how the trade built on the foundation of gift-giving can contribute to peaceful relations. The framework for this analysis encompasses utilitarianism, legal bonds, commercial relationships, and peace. Moreover, it offers a comparative perspective between historical and contemporary societies. Gift theory is deeply rooted in utilitarianism, aligning with the moral philosophy that individuals should seek happiness in their pursuits. Importantly, this study is not limited to a specific historical period. Recent research, supported by archeological and anthropological sources, highlights the existence of peaceful relations based on barter, gift exchange, or trade systems. Through this study, we aspire to make a valuable contribution to ongoing research on trade and peace, as well as interdisciplinary investigations rooted in the basis of gift theory.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Trade, Peace, Gift theory, Behavioral economics, Utilitarianism

GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


This study, it is aimed to prove the “trade promotes peace” hypothesis with archeological and anthropological data. A comprehensive framework, encompassing utilitarianism, legal bonds, commercial relationships, and peace, is established to examine the intricate interplay between trade and the concept of gift-giving. Moreover, the study endeavors to comparative perspective, drawing parallels between past and present societies. 

The study is structured into three distinct sections. In the first section, we conducted a meticulous review of the empirical literature, focusing on modern-day societies. We explore the profound interdependence fostered by trade, which yields increased financial gains and improved overall welfare for countries. Furthermore, we emphasize the significant economic losses incurred by countries in conflicts, underlining the crucial role of trade in promoting peace. A recurring theme in these studies is the unwavering commitment of countries to safeguard their welfare gains from trade, leading to a tangible reduction in the risk of conflicts. Remarkably, the risk of conflict decreases while the rate of trade among countries continues to increase.

Tracing evidence that trade thrived on peaceful social relations in early civilizations has traditionally been the scope of archeology and anthropology. Consequently, in the second section of this study, we delve into archeology research related to trade. This research provides illuminating insights into the historical facets of trade, commodities involved, distribution mechanisms, quantities, and temporal aspects of mutual exchanges. It is well known that early societies engaged in long-distance trade as far back as the Upper Paleolithic, and these exchanges encompassed not only essential goods but also luxury items. Furthermore, it is considered that the exchange of goods was not always barter-based; at times, information or services may have been offered in exchange for goods. Such exchanges necessitate safe routes and interactions, which remain crucial but inadequately explained. This underscores the significance of anthropological and interdisciplinary studies that explore the links between trade and peace, offering a comprehensive perspective. 

The third and final section of this study employs the work of Marcel Mauss to determine the traces of peace relations within the realm of trade. We begin with an overview of Mauss’s influential work. The framework for analyzing trade and gifts is delineated as “utilitarianism, legal bond, commercial relationship, and peace.” Subsequently, we strive to establish a comparative perspective that links early societies and their contemporary counterparts. In this context, Marcel Mauss’s great work, “The Gift,” renowned within social anthropology, serves as a central reference point. Mauss’ work explores the profound implications of gift-giving, encompassing fields as diverse as economics, sociology, law, psychology, trade, and international relations. This study attempts to identify areas where Mauss’s work leaves unanswered questions, serving as a guide for further exploration. 

Within the gift cycle prevalent in primitive or archaic societies lies the basis of contemporary legal, economic, and social phenomena. Before the written rules, for primitive or prehistoric societies, the gift cycle offers a comparative perspective with today’s societies in showing the basis of legal and commercial relationship. The cycle of gifts transcends mere acts of giving, receiving, and reciprocating; it represents a complex web of relationships, seemingly unrequited but with an implicit expectation of reciprocation within a reasonable timeframe, thereby dictating the course of interactions among individuals or societies. Gift-giving paves the way for social interaction based on a peaceful relationship. The seemingly voluntary yet inherently obligatory gift cycle, whether involving two or more parties, imposes certain obligations upon all participants within an acceptable timeframe, establishing a legal framework that the parties willingly uphold.

The utilitarian approach, a moral philosophy rooted in maximizing individual happiness or minimizing suffering through actions, aligns closely with gift-giving. Utilitarianism is generally recognized as the perspective that deems the morally right action to be the one that generates the greatest good or maximum benefits. Gift-giving aligns with the utilitarian principles of classical economics, as it enhances an individual’s happiness. The initial giver of a gift takes the first step toward establishing a social and economic relationship based on peace. The sustainability of this relationship hinges upon the response of the other party to the gift. The act of giving a response gift within a reasonable timeframe, offering something of greater value after a delay, or choosing not to reciprocate can alter the course of relations among individuals or societies. In addition, the concept of gift-giving can be assessed from an anti-utilitarian standpoint. If an individual derives happiness from the act of giving gifts, this action closely aligns with utilitarianism. Utility, in this context, functions as an individual’s survival strategy, operating through cognitive processes that often operate swiftly.

Gift-giving is regarded as an initial step toward establishing peaceful relations. A gift marks the beginning of a mutual and complex relationship built on trust. The initial giver of the gift makes a choice under the uncertainty surrounding whether the gift will be reciprocated. Perhaps this act is intended to minimize the risk of a potential conflict arising. In summary, the exchange of gifts contributes to the development of social relations between individuals and societies. 

Irrespective of the presence or absence of written legal regulations, every society inherently desires to live in social order and economic prosperity. Trade, serving as the determinant of international relations and a fundamental factor of peace within and between societies, has been an enduring factor in social and economic relations across nearly all societies since the last ice age. Trade conducted within the framework of peace not only enhances interdependence and prosperity among countries but also paves the way for the permanent establishment of peace.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Ambrose, S. H. (1998). Chronology of the later stone age and food production in East Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science, 25(4), 377-392. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1997.0277 google scholar
  • Ambrose, S. H. (2003). Did the super-eruption of Toba cause a human population bottleneck? Reply to Gathorne-Hardy and Harcourt-Smith. Journal of Human Evolution, 45(3), 231-237. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2003.08.001 google scholar
  • Anderton, C. H., & Carter, J. R. (2001). The impact of war on trade: an interrupted times-series study. Journal ofPeace Research, 38(4) 445-457. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433010380040 03 google scholar
  • Axworthy, L. (2012). Forewords. In O. Brown, M. Halle, S. Pena Moreno., & S. Winkler (Eds.), Trade, aid and security an agenda for peace and development. Earthscan. https://www.iisd.org/ system/files/publications/tas_book.pdf google scholar
  • Baujard, A. (2013). Utilitarianism and anti-utilitarianism (GATE Working Paper No. 1332). http:// dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2357441 google scholar
  • Begg, D., Fischer, S., & Dornbusch, R. (2010). İktisat (V. Serin, çev. ed.). Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. google scholar
  • Bentham, J. (2021). Yasamanın ilkeleri (B. Asal, çev.). On İki Levha Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Caille, A. (2007). Faydacı aklın eleştirisi (D. Çetinkasap, çev.). İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
  • Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Rabin, M. (2003). Behavioral economics: Past, present, future. Advances in behavioral economics. Princeton University Press google scholar
  • Carter, T. (2011). A true gift of mother earth: The use and significance of obsidian at Çatalhöyük. Anatolian Studies, 61, 1-19. google scholar
  • Childe, G. (2009). Tarihte neler oldu? (A. Şenel ve M. Tunçay, çev.). Kırmızı Yayınları. google scholar
  • Childe, G. (2019). Geçmişi bir araya getirmek (C. C. Aydın, çev.). Alfa Basım. google scholar
  • Damasio, A. (2021). Descartes’in yanılgısı (F. E. Çetin & E. Kumral, çev.). ODTÜ Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Diamond, J. (2013). Düne kadar dünya (C. Yücel, çev.). Akılçelen Kitaplar. google scholar
  • Doğan, İ. B. (2008). Tarihöncesinde ticaret ve değiş tokuş. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. google scholar
  • Dolfsma, W., Eijk, R. Van der., & Jolink, A. (2009). On a source of social capital: gift exchange. google scholar
  • Journal of Business Ethics, 89(3), 315 -329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-0002-z google scholar
  • Egbert, H. (2018). Marcel Mauss and economic theories: The institution of money (MPRA Paper No. 85522). google scholar
  • Glick, R., & Taylor, A. M. (2005). Collateral damage: trade disruption and the economic impact of war. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(1), 102-127. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25651393 google scholar
  • Goldscmidt, W. (1951). Nomlaki ethnography. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/anthpubs/ucb/text/ucp042-005. pdf google scholar
  • Haar, E. (2010). The liberal divide over trade, peace and war. International Relations Sage Journals, 24(2), 132-154. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0047117809362401 google scholar
  • Halle, M. (Ed.) (2012). Conclusion: Prospects for peace and progress. In O. Brown, M. Halle, S. Pena Moreno, & S. Winkler (Eds.), Trade, aid and security. An agenda for peace and development. Earthscan. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/tas_book.pdf google scholar
  • Hayakawa, H. (2000). Bounded rationality, social and cultural norms, and interdependence via reference groups. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, 43(1), 1-34. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00106-2 google scholar
  • Hegre, H., Oneal, J. R., & Russett, B. (2010). Trade does promote peace: New simultaneous estimates of the reciprocal effects of trade and conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 47(6), 763-774. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0022343310385995 google scholar
  • Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan or the matter, forme, & power ofa common-wealth ecclesiasticall and civill. https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hobbes/Leviathan.pdf google scholar
  • Kant, I. (2022). Ethica, etik üzerine dersler (O. Özügül, çev.). Fol Kitap. google scholar
  • Kartal, M. (2009). Türkiye’de son avcı-toplayıcılar konar-göçerlikten yerleşik yaşama geçiş epi-paleolitik dönem. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. google scholar
  • Komter, A. (2007). Gifts and social relations: The mechanisms of reciprocity. International Sociology, 22(1), 93-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580907070127 google scholar
  • Laertius, D. (2021). Epikür, mutlu olma sanatı (A.Leblebici, çev.). Karbon Kitaplar. google scholar
  • Laibson, D., & List, J. A. (2015). Principles of behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 105(5), 385-390.https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151047 google scholar
  • Marshall, L. (1961), Sharing, talking, and giving: Relief of social tensions among! Kung Bushmen. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, 31(3), 231 -249. https://doi. org/10.2307/1157263 google scholar
  • Mauss, M. (2017). Armağan üzerine deneme (N. Özyıldırım, çev.). Alfa Basım Yayım Dağıtım. google scholar
  • Mill, J. S. (2017). Faydacılık (S. Aktuyun, çev.). Alfa Basım Yayım Dağıtım. google scholar
  • Montesquieu, C. S. (2019). Kanunların ruhu üzerine (B. Günen, çev.). Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. google scholar
  • Oka, R., & Kusimba, C. M. (2008). The archaeology of trading systems, Part 1: Towards a new trade. Synthesis, Journal of Archaeological Research, 16(4), 339-395. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/41053254 google scholar
  • Polachek, S. W. (1980). Conflict and trade. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(1), 55-78. https:// doi.org/10.1177%2F002200278002400103 google scholar
  • Polachek, S. W., & Seiglie, C. (2006). Trade, peace and democracy: An analysis of dyadic dispute (Working Paper IZA Discussion Papers, No. 2170, Germany). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0013%2806%2902031-X google scholar
  • Polachek, S. W., & Xiang, J. (2008). How opportunity costs decrease the probability of war in an incomplete information game (IZA Discussion Paper No. 3883, Institute of Labor Economics). https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-20081218105 google scholar
  • Renfrew, C., Dixon, J. E., & Cann, J. R. (1966). Obsidian and early cultural contact in the Near East. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 32, 30 -72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X0001433X google scholar
  • Renfrew, C. (1969). Trade and culture process in European prehistory. Current Anthropology, 10(2-3), 151-169. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2740471 google scholar
  • Renfrew, C. (Ed.) (2005). Characterisation and exchange theory. In C. Renfrew & P. Bahn (Eds.), Archaeology the key concepts (pp. 23-26). Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203491096 google scholar
  • Rider, R. (1998). A game-theoretic interpretation of Marcel Mauss’ ‘The gift’. The Social Science Journal, 35(2), 203-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0362-3319(98)90040-4 google scholar
  • Rousseau, J. J. (2016). Toplum sözleşmesi ya da siyaset hukuku ilkeleri (İ. Yerguz, çev.). Say Yayınları. google scholar
  • Rousseau, J. J. (2021). İnsanlar arasındaki eşitsizliğin kaynağı (R. N. İleri, çev.). Say Yayınları. google scholar
  • Runnels, C. (1989). Trade models in the study of agricultural origins and dispersals. Journal of google scholar
  • Mediterranean Archaeology, 2(1), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v2i1.2977 google scholar
  • Sahlins, M. (2010). Taş devri ekonomisi (Ş. Özgün, çev.). bgst yayınları. google scholar
  • Samuelson, P. A (1966). İktisat (Y. Demirgil, çev.). Menteş Kitabevi. google scholar
  • Scarre, G. (2002). Utilitarianism. Taylor & Francis e-Library. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003070962 google scholar
  • Sever, H. (1995). Yeni belgeler ışığında Koloni Çağında (M.Ö. 1970-1750) yerli halk ile Asurlu tüccarlar arasındaki ilişkiler. Belleten, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 59(224), 1-16. google scholar
  • Simon, H. (2000). Bounded rationality in social science: today and tomorrow. Mind & Society, 1(1), 25 -39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02512227 google scholar
  • Smith, A. (2000). Milletlerin zenginliği doğası ve nedenleri üzerine bir inceleme (M. Acar, çev.). Liberus Kitap. google scholar
  • Smith, M. (2004). The archaeology of ancient state economies, Annual Reviews Anthropology, 33, 73-102. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.144016 google scholar
  • Sverdlik, S. (2012). The origins of “the objection”. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 29(1), 79-101. google scholar
  • Şenel, A. (1982). İlkel topluluktan uygar topluma geçiş aşamasında ekonomik toplumsal düşünsel yapıların etkileşimi. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları 504, SBF Basın ve Yayın Yüksekokulu Basımevi. google scholar
  • Tainter, J. (1988). The collapse of complex societies. Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • Tunçbilek, Ş. S. (2020). İkinci adam ya da kayda değer bir istisna: Sosyal bilimlerde konumlandırılamayan bir düşünür olarak Marcel Mauss. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 40, 499-539. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2020.40.1.0008 google scholar
  • Weber, F. (2018). Sunuş, Armağan üzerine deneme (N. Özyıldırım, çev.). Alfa Basım. google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Özüşen, B., & Kösekahyaoğlu, L. (2023). Davranışsal İktisat Perspektifinden Armağan Teorisi Çerçevesinde Ticaret ve Barış. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 43(2), 395-420. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2023.43.2.0048


AMA

Özüşen B, Kösekahyaoğlu L. Davranışsal İktisat Perspektifinden Armağan Teorisi Çerçevesinde Ticaret ve Barış. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi. 2023;43(2):395-420. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2023.43.2.0048


ABNT

Özüşen, B.; Kösekahyaoğlu, L. Davranışsal İktisat Perspektifinden Armağan Teorisi Çerçevesinde Ticaret ve Barış. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, [Publisher Location], v. 43, n. 2, p. 395-420, 2023.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Özüşen, Banu, and Levent Kösekahyaoğlu. 2023. “Davranışsal İktisat Perspektifinden Armağan Teorisi Çerçevesinde Ticaret ve Barış.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 43, no. 2: 395-420. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2023.43.2.0048


Chicago: Humanities Style

Özüşen, Banu, and Levent Kösekahyaoğlu. “Davranışsal İktisat Perspektifinden Armağan Teorisi Çerçevesinde Ticaret ve Barış.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 43, no. 2 (May. 2024): 395-420. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2023.43.2.0048


Harvard: Australian Style

Özüşen, B & Kösekahyaoğlu, L 2023, 'Davranışsal İktisat Perspektifinden Armağan Teorisi Çerçevesinde Ticaret ve Barış', İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 395-420, viewed 3 May. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2023.43.2.0048


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Özüşen, B. and Kösekahyaoğlu, L. (2023) ‘Davranışsal İktisat Perspektifinden Armağan Teorisi Çerçevesinde Ticaret ve Barış’, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 43(2), pp. 395-420. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2023.43.2.0048 (3 May. 2024).


MLA

Özüşen, Banu, and Levent Kösekahyaoğlu. “Davranışsal İktisat Perspektifinden Armağan Teorisi Çerçevesinde Ticaret ve Barış.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, vol. 43, no. 2, 2023, pp. 395-420. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2023.43.2.0048


Vancouver

Özüşen B, Kösekahyaoğlu L. Davranışsal İktisat Perspektifinden Armağan Teorisi Çerçevesinde Ticaret ve Barış. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi [Internet]. 3 May. 2024 [cited 3 May. 2024];43(2):395-420. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2023.43.2.0048 doi: 10.26650/SJ.2023.43.2.0048


ISNAD

Özüşen, Banu - Kösekahyaoğlu, Levent. “Davranışsal İktisat Perspektifinden Armağan Teorisi Çerçevesinde Ticaret ve Barış”. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 43/2 (May. 2024): 395-420. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2023.43.2.0048



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim29.07.2022
Kabul03.08.2023
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma27.10.2023

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.