In the 1950s and 1960s, the main line of conceptual development in most of the social sciences was contradictory to that in economics. In most social sciences other than economics, the single most influential framework was probably the one the late Talcott Parsons presented. Economics, on the other hand, was not influenced by this framework and even proceeded along an opposing line. Diversity and debate are, of course, desirable, so these differences had their uses. Still, in another respect they were (or should have been) troubling. The substantive domains of the social sciences overlap a great deal, so the mutually contradictory frameworks sometimes led to opposing results that could not all be true. Scientific progress normally leads to scientific consensus, presumably because results become so compelling that all competent investigators are persuaded and professional disagreements focus on new and not-yet-settled issues that are, in turn, eventually often also resolved.

In more recent years, the theoretical evolutions of the different social sciences have perhaps been more encouraging. The habits of thought in these sciences are probably not so different now as they were a couple of decades ago. Significant numbers of leading people in each of the social sciences are working along quite resonant lines. Work is also going on in different disciplines that is cumulative across disciplines. This is clearly true, for example, in the work on the Arrow paradox, on the theory of deterrence and strategy, on collective action and public goods, and on spatial models of political interaction.