On the other hand, Scottish Enlightenment has some basic assumptions, such as spontaneous order and market economy. This is the most important difference of the Scottish Enlightenment from the French Enlightenment thought. As mentioned above, French Enlightenment thinkers knew that they would resist the change projects of the society. For this reason, they thought that society would have to force change, which means to pressure people for social transformation (Köktaş, 2016,p. 558). They also favored the use of violence and oppression in this direction. The Scottish Enlightenment opposed this understanding, with the idea of spontaneous order. According to this understanding, most social institutions did not appear in the framework of a pre-designed project. Social and political institutions have emerged spontaneously as a result of human needs. Thus, a natural order not previously designed was established. It is also necessary for the social and political rules and institutions to rise from the very beginning. More precisely, institutions and rules will already be drawn from society and politics if they are not needed. Hence, the political power must not intervene in this self-functioning scheme.

 It is clear that the sense of self-regulation is quite different from the general approach of the French Enlightenment. The French Enlightenment defends the active intervention of the social life in the name of “progress” of political power. In contrast, the Scottish Enlightenment asserts that the state should refrain from interfering with social life as much as possible. This has allowed the concept of “limited state”, which Locke also defended, to come to life. From this point of view it can be said that the Scottish Enlightenment plays a very important role for the liberalization of the process of development. As a matter of fact, this understanding emerged in the same direction in terms of ideas on the economy.