Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Chapter
  • Print publication year: 2007
  • Online publication date: June 2012

10 - Popper and Lakatos in Economic Methodology

Export citation

Summary

D. Wade Hands (1951–) was educated at the University of Houston and then Indiana University and has taught at the University of Puget Sound since 1980. He is one of the leading figures in contemporary economic methodology. Hands was President of the History of Science Society in 2005–2006 and is currently the editor of The Journal of Economic Methodology. His most important book, Reflection without Rules, won the Spengler Book Prize from the History of Economic Society in 2004. This essay provides a brief introduction to the ideas of Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos and to the issues that arise in applying them to the philosophical understanding of economics.

Overview

The purpose of this chapter is to critically reappraise the methodological advice offered to economists by Popperian philosophy, in particular Popperian falsificationism and Lakatos's ‘methodology of scientific research programmes’. These two philosophical positions and the difficulties they raise for economic methodology are carefully considered in the chapter. It is argued that while economists have benefited from the influence of Popperian philosophy in a number of ways, neither falsificationism nor Lakatos's methodology provide an appropriate guide to the acceptance or rejection of economic theories. The implications and caveats surrounding this argument are considered in the conclusion.

Introduction

Popperian philosophy of science has been extremely influential in economic methodology. Popperian ‘falsificationism’, first introduced into economics by Hutchison (1938), remains one of the dominant approaches to economic methodology.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
References
Blaug, M. (1976) ‘Kuhn versus Lakatos, or paradigms versus research programmes in the history of economics’, in Latsis, S. J. (ed.) Method and Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 149–80.
Blaug, M. (1980) The Methodology of Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blaug, M. (1987) ‘Ripensamenti sulla rivduzione Keynesiana’, Rassegna Economica, 51: 605–34.
Blaug, M. (1991) ‘Second thoughts on the Keynesian revolution’, History of Political Economy 23: 171–92 (English translation of Blaug 1987).
Caldwell, B. J. (1982) Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century, London: Allen & Unwin.
Caldwell, B. J. (1984) ‘Some problems with falsificationism in economics’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 14: 489–95.
Caldwell, B. J. (1991) ‘Clarifying Popper’, Journal of Economic Literature 29: 1–33.
Carrier, M. (1988) ‘On novel facts: a discussion of criteria for non-ad-hocness in the methodology of scientific research programmes’, Zeitschrift fur Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 19: 205–31.
Coddington, A. (1975) ‘The rationale of general equilibrium theory’, Economic Inquiry 13: 539–58.
Cross, R. (1982) ‘The Duhem–Quine thesis, Lakatos, and the appraisal of theories in macroeconomics’, Economic Journal 92: 320–40.
de Marchi, N. (1976) ‘Anomaly and the development of economics: the case of the Leontief paradox’, in Latsis, S. J. (ed.) Method and Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–27.
Marchi, N. (ed.) (1988) The Popperian Legacy in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diamond, A. M. Jr. (1988) ‘The empirical progressiveness of the general equilibrium research program’, History of Political Economy 20: 119–35.
Dilworth, C. (1986) Scientific Progress: A Study Concerning the Nature of the Relations Between Successive Scientific Theories, second edition, Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.
Duhem, P. (1954) The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, (translated by P. P. Wiener), Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Fisher, F. M. (1986) The Logic of Economic Discovery, Washington Square, New York: New York University Press.
Fulton, G. (1984) ‘Research programmes in economics’, History of Political Economy 16: 187–205.
Gardner, M. R. (1982) ‘Predicting novel facts’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 33: 1–15.
Gellner, E. (1974) Legitimation of Belief, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glass, J. C. and Johnson, W. (1988) ‘Metaphysics, MSRP and economics’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39: 313–29.
Hands, D. W. (1985a) ‘Karl Popper and economic methodology: A New Look’, Economics and Philosophy 1: 83–99.
Hands, D. W. (1985b) ‘Second thoughts on Lakatos’, History of Political Economy 17: 1–16.
Hands, D. W. (1988) ‘Ad hocness in economics and the Popperian tradition’, in Marchi, N. (ed.) The Popperian Legacy in Economics and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 121–37.
Hands, D. W. (1991) ‘The problem of excess content: economics, novelty and a long Popperian Tale’, in Marchi, N. and Blaug, M. (eds) Appraising Economic Theories, Aldershot: Edward Elgar 58–75.
Hands, D. W. (1992) ‘Falsification, situational analysis and scientific research programs: the Popperian tradition in economic methodology’, in Marchi, N. (ed.) Post-Popperian Methodology of Economics, Boston: Kluwer.
Hausman, D. M. (1985) ‘Is falsificationism unpracticed or unpracticable?’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 15: 313–19.
Hausman, D. M. (1988) ‘An appraisal of Popperian economic methodology’, in Marchi, N. (ed.) The Popperian Legacy in Economics and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 65–85.
Hutchison, T. W. (1938) The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory, London: Macmillan (reprinted, 1960, New York: Augustus M. Kelley).
Hutchison, T. W. (1988) ‘The case for falsificationism’, in Marchi, N. (ed.) The Popperian Legacy in Economics and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 169–81.
Koertge, N. (1979) ‘The problems of appraising scientific theories’, in Asquith, P. D. and Kyburg, H. E. Jr. (eds) Current Research in Philosophy of Science, East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 228–251.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, second edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (First edition 1962, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.)
Lakatos, I. (1970) ‘Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes’, in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–196.
Lakatos, I. (1971) ‘History of science and its rational reconstructions’, in Buck, R. C. and Cohen, R. S. (eds) Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 8, Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel, pp. 91–136.
Latsis, S. J. (1972) ‘Situational determinism in economics’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 23: 207–45.
Latsis, S. J. (ed.) (1976a) Method and Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Latsis, S. J. (1976b) ‘A research programme in economics’, in Latsis, S. J. (ed.) Method of Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–41.
McCloskey, D. (1985) The Rhetoric of Economics, Madison Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
Maddock, R. (1984) ‘Rational expectations macrotheory: A Lakatosian case study in program adjustment’, History of Political Economy 16: 291–309.
Pheby, J. (1988) Methodology and Economics: A Critical Introduction, London: Macmillan.
Popper, K. R. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Hutchinson.
Popper, K. R. (1965) Conjectures and Refutations, second edition, New York: Harper & Row.
Popper, K. R. (1970) ‘Normal science and its Dangers’, in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 51–8.
Popper, K. R. (1972) Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Popper, K. R. (1976a) ‘The logic of the social sciences’, in Adorno, T. W.. (eds) The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology (translated by G. Adey and D. Frisby), New York: Harper & Row, pp. 87–104.
Popper, K. R. (1976b) Unended Quest, La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.
Popper, K. R. (1983) Realism and the Aim of Science (edited by Bartley, W. W. III) Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman & Littlefield.
Popper, K. R. (1985) ‘The rationality principle’, in Miller, D. (ed.) Popper Selections, Princeton: Princeton Universtiy Press, pp. 357–65.
Radnitzky, G. (1982) ‘Knowing and guessing: if all knowledge is conjectural, can we then speak of cognitive progress? on persistent misreading of Popper's work’, Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschafstheorie 8: 110–21.
Rosenberg, A. (1989) ‘Are generic predictions enough?’, Erkenntnis 30: 43–68.
Roth, A. E. (1986) ‘Laboratory experimentation in economics’, Economics and Philosophy 2: 245–73.
Salanti, A. (1987) ‘Falsificationism and fallibilism as epistemic foundations of economics: a critical view’, Kyklos 40: 368–92.
Smith, V. L. (1982) ‘Microeconomic systems as an experimental science’, American Economic Review 72: 923–55.
Smith, V. L. (1985) ‘Experimental economics: reply’, American Economic Review 75: 265–72.
Watkins, J. (1978) ‘The Popperian approach to scientific knowledge’, in Radnitzky, G. and Anderson, G. (eds) Progress and Rationality in Science, Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel, pp. 23–43.
Watkins, J. (1984) Science and Skepticism, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Weintraub, E. R. (1985a) ‘Appraising general equilibrium analysis’, Economics and Philosophy 1: 23–37.
Weintraub, E. R. (1985b) General Equilibrium Analysis: Studies in Appraisal, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weintraub, E. R. (1988) ‘The NeoWalrasian program is empirically progressive’, in Marchi, N. (ed.) The Popperian Legacy in Economics and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Worrall, J. (1978) ‘The ways in which the methodology of scientific research programmes improves on Popper's methodology’, in Radnitzky, G. and Anderson, G. (eds) Progress and Rationality in Science, Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel, pp. 45–70.