A Review of Kuhnian and Lakatosian “Explanations” in Economics

economics as being characterized by competing research programmes rather than by one
paradigm.

Hausman engages in a more substantial criticism. He states (1994, p. 199):

“Kuhn’s account of disciplinary matrices provides a checklist of what to look for in
examining the large-scale structures of economic theorizing, but the basic
principles of microeconomics have a different status and role than do Kuhn’s
symbolic generalizations. Consequently, economics does not fit his schema very
well.”

An example of a symbolic generalization in economics is that agents are self-interested.

However, selfish agents are fundamental in much of microeconomics but not in all of it
(Hausman, 1994, p.198). In more general terms, Hausman (1992, p. 84) writes: “The basic
claims of equilibrium theory are not quite symbolic generalizations in Kuhn’s sense, because
economists are not firmly committed to all of them.”

From the above analysis, table 3 presents the main categories of criticism exercised
by historians of economic thought upon Kuhn’s explanation in relation to economics.

Table 3

11

<<   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   >>

More intriguing information