Tarihî Gelişimi Bağlamında Paranın Doğasını ve İcadını Tartışmak
Discussing The Nature and Invention of Money in the Context of Its Historical Development

Summary/Abstract: Purpose – One of the controversial topics of economic theory and history is the nature and invention of money. To date, there has been no satisfactory explanation of the nature of money, and the claim that money was invented by the Lydians has been weakened by new evidence. This paper attempts to provide a coherent explanation of what money is. It also investigates when and by whom money was invented. Design/methodology/approach – In addition to the historical-comparative method, the interpretive or historicist method was also used for this research. However, the critical method, which states that concepts and theories are not free from power relations, contributed to the questioning of the Lydian claim. In addition, institutional economics has been used to focus on the idea of money, not the money object, about what money is. Findings – In addition to metalism, theories of state and credit did not make a clear distinction between money itself and its functions, or between the concept of money and money object. This situation has weakened the explanation or understanding of the money phenomenon. It has been argued in this paper that money is the legal symbol that represents value. In addition, the invalidity of the assumptions of imprinting, electron mine, and the pioneering of Lydia, which are the basic foundations of the Lydian claim, were revealed. Discussion – The reason why there is no coherent explanation of what money is and when it was invented is the Western-centred character of economic theory. The way that economic theory can appeal to all societies is through the discussion and questioning of its Western-centred character. This paper is an attempt to that purpose.

• Details
• Contents