A Review of Kuhnian and Lakatosian “Explanations” in Economics

Drakopoulos, Stavros A. and Karayiannis, Anastassios (2005): A Review of Kuhnian and Lakatosian “Explanations” in Economics. Published in: History of Economic Ideas , Vol. XIII, No. 2 (2005): pp. 51-73.

Abstract

In the last few decades the influence on economics of the ideas of T. Kuhn and I. Lakatos was considerable. The increasing use of terms like “paradigms” and “scientific research programmes” in almost every field of economics, is indicative of the influence of these two philosophers. Furthermore, the introduction of the ideas of Kuhn and Lakatos in economics gave the stimulus for work on the nature of growth of economic knowledge. The paper starts by presenting the main influence of T. Kuhn on theories concerned with the evolution of economic theory. It continues with a review of the main criticisms regarding the appropriateness and applicability of Kuhnian ideas for economics. The same approach is followed in the case of I. Lakatos. After a classification and discussion of the main findings, the paper attempts to offer an interpretation of the general impact of these two philosophers science on ideas relating to the development of economic theories.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Development of economics; Economic Methodology; Kuhn; Lakatos
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B0 - General; A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics

References

Amariglio, J. (1988) “The Body, Economic Discourse and Power: An Economist’s Introduction to Foucault”, History of Political Economy, vol. 20, pp.583-613.

Argyrous, G. (1992) “Kuhn’s Paradigms and Neoclassical Economics”, Economics and Philosophy, vol. 8, pp. 231-247.

Arouh, A. (1987) “The Mumpsimus of Economists and the Role of Time and Uncertainty in the Progress of Economic Knowledge”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, vol. 9, pp. 395-423.

Backhouse, R. (1991) “The Neo-Walrasian Research Program in Macroeconomics”, in N. de Marchi, M. Blaug (eds) Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology Research Programmes, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 403-426.

Backhouse, R. (1992) “Lakatos and Economics”, in S. Todd Lowry (ed) Perspectives on the History of Economic Thought, Volume VIII: Contributions to the History of Economics, Aldershot: Edward Elgar, pp. 19-34.

Backhouse, R. (1993) “Lakatosian Perspectives on General Equilibrium Analysis”, Economics and Philosophy, vol. 9, pp. 271-282.

Backhouse, R. (1994) ‘The Lakatosian Legacy in Economic Methodology”, in R. Backhouse (ed) New Directions in Economic Methodology, London: Routledge.

Backhouse, R. (1997) Truth and Progress in Economic Knoweldge, Chetelnham: Edward Elgar.

Bensel, T. and Elmslie, B. (1992) “Rethinking International Trade Theory: A Methodological Appraisal”, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, vol.128, pp.249-265.

Bianchi, M. and Moulin, H. (1991) “Strategic Interactions in Economics: The Game Theoretic Alternative” in N. de Marchi, M. Blaug (eds) Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology of Research Programmes, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.179-196.

Bird, A. (2002) “Kuhn’s Wrong Turning”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, vol.33, pp.443-463.

Blaug, M. (1972) “Was There a Marginal Revolution?”, History of Political Economy, vol. 4, pp. 269-280.

Blaug, M. (1975) “Kuhn versus Lakatos, or Paradigms versus Research Programmes in the History of Economics”, History of Political Economy, vol. 7, pp. 399-433.

Blaug, M. (1976)”The Empirical Status of Human Capital Theory: A Slightly Jaundiced Survey”, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 14, pp.827-55.

Blaug, M. (1980) The Methodology of Economics: or How Economists Explain, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blaug, M. (1983) “A Methodological Appraisal of Radical Economics”, in A.W.Coats (ed) Methodological Controversy in Economics: Historical Essays in Honor of T.W.Hutchison, London: JAI Press Inc, pp. 211-245.

Blaug, M. (1990) “Second Thoughts on the Keynesian Revolution”, in M.Blaug (ed) Economic Theories, True and False? Essays in the History and Methodology of Economics”, Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 88-106.

Blaug, M. (1991) “Afterwords”, in N. de Marchi, M. Blaug (eds) Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology of Research Programmes, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 499-512.

Bloor, D. (1987) Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge, New York: Columbia University Press.

Bofinger, P. and Wollmershauser, T. (2003) “Managed Floating as a Monetary Policy Strategy”, Economics of Planning, vol. 36, pp.81-109.

Bronfenbrenner, M. (1971) “The ‘Structure of Revolutions’ in Economic Thought”, History of Political Economy, vol. 3, pp. 136-151.

Brown, E. (1981) “The Neoclassical and Post-Keynesian Research Programs: The Methodological Issues”, Review of Social Economy, vol. XXXIX, pp. 111-132.

Caldwell, B. (1982) Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century, London: Allen and Unwin.

Caldwell, B. (1991) “The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes in Economics: Criticisms and Conjectures”, in G.K.Shaw (ed) Economics, Culture and Education: Essays in Honour of Mark Blaug”, Aldershot: Edwards Elgar Publishing, pp. 95-107.

Coats, A.W. (1969) “Is There a ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ in Economics?”, Kyklos, 22, pp. 289-94, repr. in W.Marr, B.Raj (eds) How Economists Explain: A Reader in Methodology, New York: University Press of America, 1982, pp. 273-9..

Coats, A.W. (1972) “The Economic and Social Context of the Marginal Revolution of the 1870’s”, History of Political Economy, vol. 4, pp. 303-324.

Coats, A.W. (1976) “Economics and Psychology: the Death and Resurrection of a Research Programme”, in S. Latsis (ed) Method and Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43-64.

Cross, R. (1982) “The Duhem-Quine Thesis, Lakatos and the Appraisal of Theories in Macroeconomics”, Economic Journal, vol. 92, pp. 320-340.

De Marchi, N. (1976) “Anomaly and the Development of Economics: the case of Leontief paradox,” in S. Latsis (ed) Method and Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109-127.

De Marchi, N. (ed.) (1988) The Popperian Legacy in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

De Marchi, N. and Blaug, M. (eds) (1991) Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology of Research Programmes, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,.

De Marchi, N. (1991) “Introduction: Rethinking Lakatos”, in N. de Marchi and M. Blaug (eds) (1991) pp.1-30.

De Vroey, M. (2001) “Price Rigidity and Market Clearing: a Conceptual Clarification”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 25, pp.639-655.

Dillard, D. (1978) ‘Revolutions in Economic Theory”, Southern Economic Journal, vol.44, pp.705-24.

Dobson, J. (1994) “Theory of the Firm: Beyond the Sirens”, Economics and Philosophy, vol. 10, pp. 73-89.

Dow, S. (1981) “Weintraub and Wiles: The Methodological Basis of Policy Conflict”, The Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics, vol. 3, pp. 325-339.

Dow, S. (1985) Macroeconomic Thought: A Methodological Approach, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Dow, S. (2002) Economic Methodology: An Inquiry, London: Routledge

Edwards, R. (2001) “Paradigms and Research Programmes: Is it time to move from Health Care Economics to Health Economics”, Health Economics, vol. 10, pp.635-649.

Eichner A. and Kregel, J. (1975) “An Essay on Post-Keynesian Theory: A New Paradigm in Economics” Journal of Economic Literature, vol.13, pp.1293-1314.

Fawundu, F. (1991) “Blaug on Kuhn versus Lakatos and the Marginalist Revolution”, Atlantic Economic Journal, vol. 19, pp.29-32.

Fine, B. (2002) “Economics Imperialism and the New Development Economics as Kuhnian Paradigm Shift?” World Development, vol. 30, pp.2057-2070.

Fisher, R. (1986) The Logic of Economic Discovery: Neoclassical Economics and the Marginal Revolution, Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books

Friedman. M. (1953) “The Methodology of Positive Economics”, in his Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3-43.

Fullbrook, E. (2003) “Real Science is Pluralist” in E. Fullbrook (ed) The Crisis in Economics, London: Routledge.

Fulton, G. (1984) “Research Programmes in Economics”, History of Political Economy, vol. 16, pp. 187-205.

Glass, J. and Johnson, W. (1989) Economics: Progression, Stagnation or Degeneration?, London: Wheatsheaf.

Goodwin, C. (1980) “Toward a Theory of the History of Economics”, History of Political Economy, vol. . 12, pp.610-19.

Gordon, D. (1965) “The Role of the History of Economic Thought in the Understanding of Modern Economic Theory”, American Economic Review, vol. 55, pp. 119-127.

Hands, D. (1984) “The Role of Crucial Counterexamples in the Growth of Economic Knowledge: two Case Studies in the Recent History of Economic Thought”, History of Political Economy, vol. 16, pp. 59-67.

Hands, W. (1985) “Second Thoughts on Lakatos”, History of Political economy, vol. 17, pp. 1-16.

Hands, D. (1990) “Second Thoughts on ‘Second Thoughts’: Reconsidering the Lakatosian Progress of The General Theory”, Review of Political Economy, vol. 2, pp. 69-81.

Hands, W. (1993) “Popper and Lakatos in Economic Methodology”, in U. Maki, B. Gustafsson and C. Knudsen (eds), Rationality, Institutions and Economic Methodology, London: Routledge.

Hands, W. (1997) “Conjectures and Refutations: The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge and the History of Economic Thought”, History of Political Economy, 29, pp.695-739.

Hands, W. (2001) Reflection without Rules: Economic Methodology and Contemporary Science Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hausman, D. (1992) The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hausman, D. (1994) “Kuhn, Lakatos and the Character of Economics”, in R. Backhouse (ed) New Directions in Economic Methodology, London: Routledge.

Hendry, D. (1993) Econometrics: Alchemy or Science? Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Hill, L. and Rouse, R. (1977) “The Sociology of Knowledge and the History of Economic Thought”, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, vol. 36, pp.299-309.

Hoover, K. (1991) “Scientific Research Program or Tribe? A Joint Appraisal of Lakatos and the New Classical Macroeconomics”, in N. de Marchi and M. Blaug (eds) Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology of Research Programmes, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 364-394.

Hutchison, T. (1938) The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory, London: Macmillan.

Hutchison, T. (1976) “On the History and the Philosophy of Science and Economics”, in S. Latsis (ed) Method and Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 181-206.

Janssen, M.C.W. (1991) “What Is this thing Called Microfoundations?”, History of Political Economy, vol. 23, pp. 687-712.

Johnson, L. (1983) “Economic Paradigms: A Missing Dimension”, Journal of Economic Issues, vol.17, pp. 1097-1111.

Kim, J. (1991) “Testing in Modern Economics: The Case of Job Search Theory” in N. de Marchi, M. Blaug (eds) Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology of Research Programmes, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.105-131.

Klamer, A. (1984) “Levels of Discourse in new Classical Economics”, History of Political Economy, vol. 16, pp. 263-290.

Krecke, E. (2003) “Economic Analysis and Legal Pragmatism”, International Review of Law and Economics, vol. 23, pp. 421-437.

Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. (2000) The Road since Structure (J. Conant and J. Haugeland, eds), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kunin, L. and Weaver, F. (1971) “On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions in Economics”, History of Political Economy, vol.3, pp.391-97.

Lakatos, I. (1978) The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, vol.1 of his Philosophical Papers, ed. by J. Worrall and G. Currie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Langlois, R. (1982) “Austrian Economics as Affirmative Science: Comment on Rizzo”, in I. Kirzner (ed) Method, process, and Austrian economics, Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, pp. 75-84.

Latsis. S. (1972) “Situational Determinism in Economics”, British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, vol. 23. pp. 207-245.

Latsis, S. (1976) “A Research Programme in Economics”, in S. Latsis (ed) Method and Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-41.

Leijonhufvud, A. (1976) “Schools, ‘Revolutions’, and Research Programmes in Economic Theory”, in S. Latsis (ed) Method and Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 65-108.

Lipsey, R. (1981) “The Understanding and Control of Inflation”, Canadian Journal of Economics, vol.14, No. 4.

List, J. (2004) “Neoclassical Theory versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace”, Econometrica, vol.72, pp.615-625.

Loasby, B. (1971) “Hypothesis and Paradigm in the Theory of the Firm”, Economic Journal, vol. 81, pp. 863-885.

Louca, F. (2001) “Intriguing Pendula: Founding Metaphors in the Analysis of Economic Fluctuations”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol25, pp.25-55.

McGovern, S. (1994) “A Lakatosian Approach to Changes in International Trade Theory”, History of Political Economy, vol. 26, pp. 351-368.

McGovern, S. (1995) “On a Maze of Second Thoughts and on the Methodology of Economic Methodology”, Journal of Economic Methodology, vol.2, pp.223-37.

Maddock, R. (1984) “Rational Expectations Macrotheory: A Lakatosian Case Study in Program Adjustment”, History of Political Economy, Vol. 16, pp. 291-309.

Maddock, R. (1991) “The Development of New Classical Macroeconomics: Lessons for Lakatos”, in N. de Marchi, M. Blaug (eds) Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology Research Programmes, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 335-359.

Maki, U. (1980) “Methodology of Economics: Complaints and Guidelines”, Finnish Economic Papers, vol. 3, pp.77-84.

Maki, U. (1992) “Social Conditioning in Economics” in de Marchi, N. (ed) Post-Popperian Methodology of Economics, Boston: Kluwer.

Mehta, G. (1974) The Structure of the Keynesian Revolution, London: Martin Robertson.

Mehta, G. (1979) “The Keynesian Revolution, International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 6, No.3.

Miller, E. (1993). “The Economic Imagination and Public Policy: Orthodoxy Discovers the Corporation”, Journal of Economic Issues, 27, pp. 1041-58.

Mirowski, P. (1987) “Book Review: The Logic of Discovery”, Journal of Economic History, vol. 42, pp. 295-6.

Morgan, M. (1991) “The Stamping Out of Process Analysis in Econometrics”, in N. de Marchi, M. Blaug (eds) Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology of Research Programmes, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.237-265.

Nightingale,J. (1994) “Situational Determinism Revisited: Scientific Research Programmes in Economics Twenty Years On”, Journal of Economic Methodology, vol. 1, pp. 233-252.

O’Brien,D.P. (1976) “Theories of the History of Science: A Test Case”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, vol. 23, pp. 133-151, in A.W.Coats (ed) Methodological Controversy in Economics: Historical Essays in Honor of T.W.Hutchison, London: JAI Press Inc, 1983, pp. 89-124.

Pernecky, M. (1992) “The Keynesian Revolution From a Philosophy of Science Perspective: Revolutionary or Evolutionary?", Methodus, vol. 4 pp. 126-134.

Pheby, J. (1988) Methodology and Economics: a Critical Introduction, London: Macmillan.

Redman, D. (1993). Economics and the Philosophy of Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Remenyi, J. (1979) “Core-Demi-Core Interaction: Towards a General Theory of Disciplinary and Subdisciplinary Growth”, History of Political Economy, vol. 11, pp. 30-63.

Rizzo, M. (1982) “Mises and Lakatos: a Reformulation of Austrian Methodology”, in I. Kirzner (ed) Method, Process, and Austrian Economics, Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, pp. 53-73.

Robbins,L. (1979) “On Latsis ‘Method and Appraisal in Economics’: A Review Essay”, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. XVII, pp. 996-1004, repr. in A.W.Coats (ed) Methodological Controversy in Economics: Historical Essays in Honor of T.W.Hutchison, London: JAI Press Inc, 1983 pp. 43-54.

Rosenberg, A. (1986) “Lakatosian Consolations for Economics”, Economics and Philosophy, vol. 2, pp.127-39.

Salanti, A. (1991) “Roy Weintraub’s Studies in Appraisal: Lakatosian Consolations or Something Else?”, Economics and Philosophy, vol. 7, pp. 221-234.

Salanti, A. (1994) “On the Lakatosian Apple of Discord in the History and Methodology of Economics”, Finnish Economic Papers, vol.7, pp.30-41.

Schabas, M. (1990) A World Ruled by Number: W. S. Jevons and the Rise of Mathematical Economics, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Shearmur, J. (1991) “Popper, Lakatos and Theoretical Progress in Economics” in N. de Marchi, M. Blaug (eds) Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology of Research Programmes, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,

Stanfield, R. (1974). “Kuhnian Scientific Revolutions and the Keynesian Revolution”, Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 8, pp.97-109.

Steedman, I. (1991) “Negative and Positive Contributions: Appraising Sraffa and Lakatos”, in N. de Marchi, M. Blaug (eds) Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology of Research Programmes, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 435-450.

Stigler, G. (1969) “Does Economics Have a Useful Past?”, History of Political Economy, vol. 1, pp. 217-30.

Sweezy, P. (1971) “Toward a Critique of Economics”, Review of Radical Political Economics, vol. 3, pp. 59-66.

Vint, J. (1994) Capital and Wages: A Lakatosian History of the Wage Fund Doctrine, Aldershot: Edward Elgar. Ward, B. (1972) What’s Wrong with Economics?, New York: Basic Books.

Weintraub. E. R. (1979) Microfoundations: The Compatibility of Microeconomics and Macroeconomics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weintraub,E.R. (1985a) “Appraising General Equilibrium Analysis”, Economics and Philosophy, vol. 1, pp. 23-37.

Weintraub,E.R. (1985b) General Equilibrium Analysis: Studies in Appraisal, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weintraub,E.R. (1988) “The Neo-Walrasian Program Is Empirically Progressive”, in N. de Marchi (ed) The Popperian Legacy in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 213-27.

Weintraub, E.R. (1999) “How should we write the History of Twentieth Century Economics?”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 15, pp.139-152.

Winch, D. (1969) Economics and Policy, London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Wong,S. (1978) The Foundations of Paul Samuelson’s Revealed Preference Theory: A Study by the Method of Rational Reconstruction, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Zouboulakis, M. (2001) “Why do Evaluative Histories Matter After All?, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol.23, pp.369-381.

Zweig, M. (1971) “Bourgeois and Radical Paradigms in Economics”, Review of Radical Political Economics, vol.3, pp.43-58.