9. Klamer (1984, p. 286) in the New Classical economics or the rational expectation
approach recognized an “analysis resembling Lakatos’ positive heuristics”.
10. Janssen (1991, p. 697) examining the microfoundations and the modern
macroeconomic “schools” argued that neither monetarism nor Keynesianism shared wide
or narrow Lakatosian ingredients.
11. Salanti (1991) and Backhouse (1993) criticized Weintraub’s argument about the
significance of the programme of general equilibrium and its relevance with the Lakatosian
methodology. Similarly, Janssen commented (1991, pp. 698-9) that the “general Equilibrium
analysis” a wider programme than the neo-Walrasian explored by Weintraub, has no positive
or negative heuristics.
12. However Blaug (1990, p. 504) contrary to Hands, insisted that “Lakatos was quite right
to highlight the prediction of novel facts” as necessary ingredient of a “better” programme.
13. It has been argued recently that Kuhnian ideas have also provided a shield against
criticism for mainstream economics (see Fullbrook, 2003).
27
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. An alternative way to model merit good arguments
3. POWER LAW SIGNATURE IN INDONESIAN LEGISLATIVE ELECTION 1999-2004
4. The Effects of Reforming the Chinese Dual-Track Price System
5. How much do Educational Outcomes Matter in OECD Countries?
6. The name is absent
7. Business Networks and Performance: A Spatial Approach
8. ESTIMATION OF EFFICIENT REGRESSION MODELS FOR APPLIED AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS RESEARCH
9. Globalization and the benefits of trade
10. An Incentive System for Salmonella Control in the Pork Supply Chain