some economists thought that the Lakatosian framework served only as a defense of
dominant economic theories.
One can argue that in spite of the criticisms the ideas of Kuhn and Lakatos have had
positive effects. The most important effect was the stimulus that these ideas gave to the
study of the growth of economic knowledge. Indeed, there has been a proliferation of
economic literature dealing with the structure of economic theories. Attempts to combine the
two theories in order to synthesize a new one which might fit better to economics, is another
example of positive effects (e.g. Goodwin, 1980). Furthermore, one can observe some recent
trends to draw from other more modern philosophers of science (for instance, Pheby (1988)
attempts to draw from the work of L. Laudan). This leads to the important issue of the
appropriateness of scientific philosophies for economic thought. Some authors believe that
economists have the habit of attaching to philosophy of science with a time lag (Rosenberg,
1986, p.136). As Redman states (1993, p. 143):”...the fascination with Popper, then Kuhn,
and finally Lakatos represents a simple chronological succession that lags the developments
in the philosophy of science.” Our discussion and the recent interest with the work of more
modern philosophers of science supports the above view.
Furthermore, given that Kuhn’s and Lakatos’ ideas were initially embraced but
subsequently criticized by many economists, our discussion also supports the emerging view
among historians of economics and economic methodologists, that ideas imported from the
philosophy of the Natural sciences seem to be inadequate and rather limiting for economic
thought (for a review see Zouboulakis, 2001). Thus, it can be argued that other alternative
models of scientific evaluation might be more appropriate for the case of economics. The
Science Studies approach, the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge and Cultural history are
examples of alternative approaches which are gaining acceptance among economists as
24