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.