about the way that economic ideas develop. The increasing use of terms like Kuhnian
paradigms and Lakatosian research programmes indicates the influence of these
philosophers on the formation of ideas about the development of economic theory.
Furthermore, the substantial growth of the relevant literature is another indication of the
previous point (see for instance the volume by de Marchi and Blaug, 1991).
In the recent years however, the influence of Kuhn and Lakatos among economic
methodologists seems to have weakened. In particular, various forms of naturalism,
pragmatism and constructivism are gaining popularity. Furthermore, science studies and
cultural history are viewed more appropriate as tools for the historical reconstruction of
economics (for a comprehensive treatment of the new currents in economic methodology,
see Hands, 2001). In spite of this, a great number of economists continue to employ Kuhnian
or Lakatosian modes of methodological explanation in almost all fields of economics. One
can find recent examples from the theory of choice (List, 2004), monetary economics
(Bofinger and Wollmershauser, 2003), development economics (Fine, 2002), law and
economics (Krecke, 2003), market equilibrium (De Vroey, 2001), health economics
(Edwards, 2001), economic fluctuations (Louca, 2001). This implies that in spite of the
relative decline among methodologists, these ideas are still influential among practicing
economists. Thus, it seems that a critical survey of the influence of these two philosophers of
science on the economic methodology might be useful for the appropriateness of use of
Kuhnian and Lakatosian concepts in economics and for the further understanding of their
continuing influence on economics in general. Furthermore, this survey will attempt to update
older surveys by examining recent uses of Kuhnian and Lakatosian concepts.
Given the above, the paper will start with a presentation of the main influence of T.
Kuhn as is found in influential works. The next section will concentrate on the main