Imre Lakatos originally conceived his methodology of scientific research programmes (MSRP) as a procedure for analysing and appraising developments in the natural sciences. Yet he deliberately designed the Nafplion Colloquium as an opportunity to test its applicability to the history of economics, and thereby to encourage an assessment of its wider implications. In so doing he undoubtedly gave hostages to fortune, for there was every likelihood that MSRP would be interpreted too loosely and applied to circumstances to which it is scarcely appropriate. Some members of the Colloquium did not hesitate to suggest that these deficiencies were exemplified in the present case, and in revising my paper for publication I have endeavoured to take account of their legitimate misgivings. While confidently predicting that it will not be long before Imre's spirit cries out, in the manner of its illustrious antagonist: ‘Je ne suis pas Lakatosiste!’ I have no desire to hasten that evil day, for this essay is designed as a constructive contribution to the collective effort to assess the value of MSRP as a research tool for the historian of economics.

As a rule, historians are notoriously reluctant to commit themselves to any specific theory or interpretative framework, preferring instead to concentrate on small- or medium-scale problems for which, so they imagine, no general theory is required.