analysis for macroeconomic schools of thought such as Mainstream, Post Keynesian,
Marxian and Neo-Austrian. Even more recently, G. Argyrous (1992) writes that with certain
modifications the concept of paradigm (or disciplinary matrices, Kuhn’s subsequently
substitute term) can explain to a great extent the historical development of the Neoclassical
consumption function. Dobson (1994, p. 76) argued that financial economic theory of the firm
shows a paradigm shift in a Kuhnian sense but he does not adequately analyses its specific
characteristics. A more recent application of Kuhnian approach is to be found in a study of
the philosophical foundations of transaction cost economics. Following Kuhnian
methodology, Miller (1993) believes that this field serves a puzzle-solving role for
neoclassical economics and thus it can not be considered as new-institutional economics but
part of the orthodox school. The above discussion is summarized in table 1a and table 1b:
Table 1a.
Schools of Economic Thought and Kuhnian Paradigms | ||
Classical |
Neoclassical |
Radical/ Post-Keynesian |
Gordon, 1965 |
Coats, 1969 |
Eichner and Kregel, 1975 |
Dow, 1985 |
Dow, 1985 | |
Gordon, 1965 |
Sweezy, 1971 | |
Miller, 1993 |
Zweig, 1971 | |
Ward, 1972 |
Table 1b
Economic Theories as Kuhnian Paradigms | ||
General Equilibrium |
Theory of the Firm |
Consumption Function |
Coats, 1969 |
Loasby, 1971 |
Argyrous, 1992 |
Dow, 1981 |
Dobson,1994 |
7