A Review of Kuhnian and Lakatosian “Explanations” in Economics

monopolistic competition, qualifies as a progressive Lakatosian research programme.⁸
McGovern (1994) has shown that the modern international trade theory has progressed in
a Lakatosian manner.

Blaug (1976) argued that the human capital theory is developing in a SRP
fashion. In subsequent work, Blaug (1980, pp. 224-239) reaffirmed that the neoclassical
theory of human capital has the basic ingredients of the Lakatosian programme. He held
that human capital theory started with the work of T. Schultz in the 1960’s and continued
with G. Becker. The hard core of this subprogramme according to Blaug, is defined as:
“People spend on themselves in diverse ways not only for the sake of the present
enjoyment but also for the sake of future benefits.” (Blaug, 1980, p.225). The protective
belt of the human capital research programme is made of the various human capital
theories (Blaug, 1980, pp.224-239).

Coats (1976, pp. 53-4) identified the marginal utility explanation of value as a
Lakatosian programme consisting of eight hard core propositions, and five positive
heuristics. Wong (1978, pp. 1-3) has argued that there is a Samuelsonian programme of
revealed preference theory and shows it to run in a Popperian rational reconstruction
approach. Cross (1982) by making some adjustments in the Lakatosian process, shows
that the development of monetarism could be explained in the same terms. More
specifically, he argues (1982, pp. 336-7) that from 1953 until 1973 the monetarist
approach exhibited increased empirical content, but from 1973 until 1981 it experienced
empirical and theoretical degeneration. In a similar tone, Maddock (1984, 1991)
maintained that the rational expectations macroeconomic program had developed in a
Lakatosian fashion, starting at the mid 1970s and running until today.⁹ Moreover,
Backhouse (1991) maintained that a modified Lakatosian programme holds for modern

16

<<   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   >>

More intriguing information