A Review of Kuhnian and Lakatosian “Explanations” in Economics



More recently, the idea of a Kuhnian type explanation has reappeared in connection
to Keynesian macroeconomics. In particular, McGovern (1995) argues that the failure to
find Lakatosian novel facts in Keynesian macroeconomics must lead to the adoption of a
Kuhnian type investigation. As is seen from table 2 most of historians of economics identify
the existence of the Keynesian revolution and secondly of the marginalist.

Table 2

_______________________________Kuhnian revolutions_______________________________

Keynesian_______________

Marginalist________________

Formalist__________________

Coats, 1969________________

Coats, 1972________________

Ward, 1972_______________

Dillard, 1978_________________

O’Brien, 1976_______________

Leijonhufvud, 1976__________

Schabas, 1990____________

McGovern, 1995___________

Mehta, 1974, 1979_________

Stanfield, 1974______________

Ward, 1972_______________

Winch, 1969

III. Criticisms of Kuhn

Apart from the positive influence of Kuhn, the application of his ideas to economics
has also generated critical discussion and controversy. A significant number of economists
were attracted to his views in late sixties, however, almost in the same period there were the
first criticisms. There were two main lines of criticism: (a) the vagueness of Kuhnian
terminology; and (b) its non-appropriateness for the explanation of economic progress. Let us
see the first line of criticism.



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. Towards a framework for critical citizenship education
5. LAND-USE EVALUATION OF KOCAELI UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS AREA
6. AN ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM
7. Reputations, Market Structure, and the Choice of Quality Assurance Systems in the Food Industry
8. Ein pragmatisierter Kalkul des naturlichen Schlieβens nebst Metatheorie
9. Industrial Cores and Peripheries in Brazil
10. The name is absent