A Review of Kuhnian and Lakatosian “Explanations” in Economics

NOTES

1. On the other hand, Bronfenbrenner (1971) believed that the three revolutions in
economics (1776, 1871, 1936) took place through a dialectical process and maintained that
these revolutions could be identified only by modifying Kuhn’s theory.

2. Pernecky (1992, p. 131) argued that "the Kuhnian model is insufficient in providing an
explanation for the Keynesian revolution because there is much overlap between the pre-
Keynesian and Keynesian paradigms".

3.The significant influence of Lakatosian views can also be seen from their popularity
among many econometricians. For instance, Hendry (1993) appeals to Lakatos’ ideas in
order to support his econometric methodology.

4. Rosenberg (1986, p.138) believes that the methodology of scientific research programmes
“is useful for understanding the rise of marginalism, the Keynesian revolution and the rational
expectations counter-revolution”.

5. For an argument against Blaug’s interpretation see Fawundu (1991).

6. This argument was criticized by Caldwell (1991, pp. 101-20).

7. Robbins (1979, pp. 51-2) agrees that the Lakatosian process could be applied in the
observations of Latsis and de Marchi but also in other episodes of the history of economic
thought. However, he questioned the applicability of such approach “to the development of
branches of more general theory”, such as the theories of value and distribution, and of
economic growth (Ibid., p. 52).

8. Hands (1985, pp. 120-1) argued that such a programme is coming closer to “a legitimate
Lakatosian rational reconstruction of a particular step in the development of an economic
research program”.

26

<<   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   >>

More intriguing information