Leijonhufvud (1976) and Hutchison (1976) believe that the differences between the two
disciplines are many and significant. This renders the application of Lakatosian methodology
to economics extremely problematic. Apart from the general criticism, there have been
specific attacks concerning the Lakatosian explanation for the advancement of economic
science: (a) looseness in hard core propositions; (b) vagueness in terminology; (c) non-
appropriateness for explaining the advancement of economics, d) problems of empirical
testing and e) justification for the status quo.
Let us see now some of the main criticisms starting with Maki (1980) who argued
that the Lakatosian concept of “hard core” is too narrow to be applied to economics.
Similarly, Hoover (1991) argues that the new classical economics cannot be characterized in
terms of an invariant set of hard core assumptions. Another example of relevant criticism is
taken by Hausman (1994) in regard to Weintraub’s (1985a,b) application of Lakatos to
general equilibrium theory. Hausman (1992, p. 88; 1994, p. 204) argued that some hard core
propositions of general equilibrium theory have also been accepted by members of
alternative schools like Marxian and Institutionalist economists. Furthermore, the hard core
cannot include the assertion that preferences are complete or transitive, because there are
neo-Walrasian explanations which involve incomplete or intransitive preferences.
In regard to the second kind of criticism, some historians have attacked the Lakatosian
framework in the same terms as in the case of Kuhn. Redman (1993), for instance, cites
works by economists who use Lakatosian terms. As she shows (1993, pp. 144-5) it seems
that there is confusion regarding the use of the term “research programme”. Even
supporters of the Lakatosian approach admit that there is still some confusion among
economists as to the usage and precise meaning of these terms (see e.g. Glass and
Johnson, 1989, and Hands, 1993, p.69).
19