Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T06:59:31.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kuhn's Paradigms and Neoclassical Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

George Argyrous
George Argyrous
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Thirty years after its publication, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is still the source of much discussion in economics. Its rel-ativistic tone has often been used to fuel the claims of dissident traditions against the prevailing orthodoxy, or at least to plead the case for intellectual pluralism (Dow, 1985). Through his arguments regarding the incommensurability of different theoretical approaches to a particular subject, Kuhn's work has allowed many to argue that dissident traditions are just as legitimate as orthodoxy for analyzing a subject, since there is no objective or independent means of arbitrating between them. This has caused an opposing response by those more supportive of the prevailing theoretical approach to economics. The latter have tried to find a defense to relativist challenges in more “rational” philosophies of science, such as that of Lakatos (Blaug, 1975).

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , October 1992 , pp. 231 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Arena, J. J. 1964. “Capital Gains and the ‘Life Cycle’ Hypothesis of Saving.” American Economic Review 54:107–11.Google Scholar
Bhatia, K. B. 1972. “Capital Gains and the Aggregate Consumption Function.” American Economic Review 62:866–79.Google Scholar
Blaug, M. 1975. “Kuhn versus Lakatos, or Paradigms versus Research Programmes in the History of Economics.” History of Political Economy 7:399–433.Google Scholar
Blinder, A. S. 1976. “Intergenerational Transfers and Life Cycle Consumption.” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 66:87–93.Google Scholar
Bodkin, R. 1959. “Windfall Income and Consumption.” American Economic Review 49:602–14.Google Scholar
Bonin, J. M. 1968. “Consumption, Durable Goods Spending, and Changing OASDHI Seasonality.” American Economic Review 58:468–76.Google Scholar
Bowden, R. 1974. “Risk Premiums and the Life Cycle Hypothesis.” American Economic Review 64:211–16.Google Scholar
Darby, M. R. 1972. “The Allocation of Transitory Income Among Consumers' Assets.” American Economic Review 62:928–41.Google Scholar
Dow, S. C. 1985. Macroeconomic Thought: A Methodological Approach. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Duesenberry, J. S. 1949. Income, Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Eisner, R. 1958. “The Permanent Income Hypothesis: Comment.” American Economic Review 48:972–90.Google Scholar
Eisner, R. 1958. “A Permanent Income Theory of Investment: Some Empirical Elaborations.” American Economic Review 59:832–49.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1957. A Theory of the Consumption Function. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Heilbroner, R. L. 1973. “Economics as a ‘Value-Free’ Science.” Social Research 40:129–43.Google Scholar
Heilbroner, R. L. 1990. “Economics as Ideology.” In Economics as Discourse, edited by Samuels, Warren J., pp. 101–16. New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Houthakker, H. S. 1958a. “The Permanent Income Hypothesis (A Review Article).” American Economic Review 48:396–404.Google Scholar
Houthakker, H. S. 1958b. “The Permanent Income Hypothesis: Reply.” American Economic Review 48:991–93.Google Scholar
Jones, R. C. 1960. “Transitory Income and Expenditures on Consumption Categories.” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings (05) 50:584–92.Google Scholar
Kotlikoff, L. J. 1988. “Intergenerational Transfers and Savings.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 2:41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreinin, M. E. 1961. “Windfall Income and Consumption – Additional Evidence.” American Economic Review 51:388–90.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1970a. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed.Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1970b. “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, pp. 1–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1970c. “Reflections on My Critics.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, pp. 231–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1977. The Essential Tension. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznets, S. 1954. National Income and Its Components. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Landsberger, M. 1966. “Windfall Income and Consumption: Comment.” American Economic Review 56:534–40.Google Scholar
Laumas, P. S., and Mohabbat, K. A.. 1972. “The Permanent Income Hypothesis: Evidence from Time Series Data.” American Economic Review 62:730–34.Google Scholar
Lipsey, R. G. 1985. Positive Economics for Australian Students. 2nd ed.London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Masterman, M. 1970. “The Nature of a Paradigm.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, pp. 59–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Menchik, P., and David, M.. 1983. “Income Distribution, Life Time Saving and Bequests.” American Economic Review 73:672–90.Google Scholar
Mirowski, P. 1984. “Physics and the Marginatosi Revolution.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 8:361–76.Google Scholar
Modigliani, F., and Ando, A.. 1957. “Tests of the Life Cycle Hypothesis of Savings: Comments and Suggestions.” Bulletin of the Oxford University Institute of Statistics, 19:99–124.Google Scholar
Modigliani, F., and Ando, A.. 1963. “The ‘Life Cycle’ Hypothesis of Saving: Aggregate Implications and Tests.” American Economic Review 53:55–84.Google Scholar
Modigliani, F., and Brumberg, R.. 1954. “Utility Analysis and the Consumption Function: An Interpretation of Cross-section Data.” In Post-Keynesian Economics, edited by Kurihara, K. K., pp. 388–436. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Nagatani, K. 1972. “Life Cycle Saving: Theory and Fact.” American Economic Review 62:344–53.Google Scholar
Okun, A. M. 1971. “The Personal Tax Surcharge and Consumer Demand, 1968–70.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1:167–212.Google Scholar
Okun, A. M. 1977. “Did the 1968 Surcharge Really Work?: Comment.” American Economic Review 67:166–69.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1970). “Normal Science and its Dangers.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, pp. 51–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, J. L., and Aigner, D. J.. 1970. “Cross-Section and Time Series Tests of the Permanent-Income Hypothesis.” American Economic Review 60:341–51.Google Scholar
Springer, W. L. 1975. “Did the 1968 Surcharge Really Work?” American Economic Review 65:644–58.Google Scholar
Springer, W. L. 1977. “Did the 1968 Surcharge Really Work?: Reply.” American Economic Review 67:170–72.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. W. N. 1970. “Against ‘Normal Science.’” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, pp. 25–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, B. B. 1978. “Empirical Tests of the Life Cycle Hypothesis.” American Economic Review 68:457–60.Google Scholar