Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
On revolutions and crises in economic science
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2026-4-27-43
Abstract
The paper studies the applicability of Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions to economics. We analyze three key “revolutions”: marginalist, Keynesian, and Lucasian (rational expectations), identifying their stages and characteristics. The focus is made on the asymmetry between crises (external and internal) and theoretical responses to them, as well as on the complex interactions among economic theory, policy, and ideology. The presented analysis suggests that Kuhn’s model is useful for describing periods of turbulence in economics, albeit with significant caveats.
About the Author
V. S. Avtonomov
HSE University; Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and
International Relations, RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vladimir S. Avtonomov
Moscow
References
1. Avtonomov V. (2013). Abstraction as a mother of order? Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 4, pp. 4—23. (In Russian). https:// doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2013-4-4-23
2. Avtonomov V. S. (2020). Is there a connection between methodology of economic science and economic policy? In: Avtonomov V. S. In search of man: Essays in history and methodology of economic science. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publ.; St. Petersbourg: Faculty of Liberal Arts of St Petersbourg State University, pp. 435—476. (In Russian).
3. Avtonomov V., Avtonomov Y. (2016). General theory of “method debates” in economic science. Obshchestvennye Nauki i Sovremennost, No. 4, pp. 5—20. (In Russian).
4. Blaug M. (2015). The formalist revolution of 1950s. In: Origins: Qualitative changes in economic reality and economic science. Moscow: HSE Publ., pp. 37—56. (In Russian).
5. Origins (2023). 150th anniversary of marginal revolution. Moscow: HSE Publ. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-2582-1
6. Kapeliushnikov R. I. (2018). On current state of economics: Subjective semisociological observations. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 5, pp. 110—128. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-5-110-128
7. Keynes J. M. (2007). The general theory of employment, interest, and money. Moscow: Eksmo. (In Russian).
8. Kuhn T. (1977). The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Moscow: Progress. (In Russian).]
9. Mankiw N. G. (2009). Macroeconomist as scientist and engineer. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 5, pp. 86—103. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2009-5-86-103
10. Ambrosino A., Cedrini M., Davis J. (2024). Today’s economics: One, no one and one hundred thousand. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 59—76. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2023.2238857
11. Angrist J., Pischke J.-S. (2010). The credibility revolution in empirical economics: How better research design is taking the con out of econometrics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 3—30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.2.3
12. Azariadis C. (2018). Riddles and models: A review essay on Michel De Vroey’s. A history of macroeconomics from Keynes to Lucas and beyond. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 1538—1576. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20181439 Backhouse R., Cherrier B. (2017).
13. The age of the applied economist: The transformation of economics since the 1970s. History of Political Economy, Vol. 49, No. 5, pp. 1—33. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-4166239
14. Backhouse R., Tribe K. (2018). The history of economics. A course for students and teachers. Newcastle upon Tyne: Agenda.
15. Bakeev M. (2023). Why not be data-driven? Historical arguments and their (ir)relevance to modern economics. Unpublished manuscript, Duke University. https:// ipl.econ.duke.edu/seminars/system/files/seminars/3763_paper.pdf
16. Baumberger J. (1977). No Kuhnian revolutions in economics. Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1—20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1977.11503410
17. Baumol W. (2009). Endogenous growth: Valuable advance, substantive misnomer. In: M. Boyanovsky, K. Hoover (eds.). Robert Solow and the development of growth eco nomics. Durham: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-2009-029
18. Blanchard O. (2017). The need for different classes of macroeconomic models. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.
19. Colander D. (2010). Building a science of economics for the real world. Testimony, submitted to the Congress of the United States, House Science and Technology Committee, July 20th.
20. De Vroey M. (1975). The transition to neoclassical economics: A scientific revolution. Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 415—440. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1975.11503296
21. De Vroey M. (2016). A history of macroeconomics. From Keynes to Lucas and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511843617
22. Dillard D. (1978). Revolutions in economic theory. Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 705—724. https://doi.org/10.2307/1057724
23. Drakopoulos S., Karayiannis A. (2005). A review of Kuhnian and Lakatosian “explanations” in economics. History of Economic Ideas, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 51—73.
24. Duarte P. G., Lima G. T. (2012). Microfoundations reconsidered: The relationship of micro and macroeconomics in historical perspective. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.
25. Eichner A., Kregel J. (1975). An essay on post-Keynesian theory: A new paradigm in economics. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 1293—1314.
26. Frickel S., Gross N. (2005). A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements. American Sociological Review, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 204—232. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000202
27. Hutchison T. (2000). On the methodology of economics and the formalist revolution. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
28. Keynes J. M. (1937). The general theory of employment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 209—223. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882087
29. King J. E. (2012). The microfoundations delusion: Metaphor and dogma in the history of economics. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781009123
30. Krueger J., Kutzner F. (2017). Homo anomalus: Richard Thaler’s Kuhnian adventure. American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 130, No. 3, pp. 385—389. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.130.3.0385
31. Loasby B. (1971). Hypothesis and paradigm in the theory of the firm. Economic Journal, Vol. 81, No. 324, pp. 863—885. https://doi.org/10.2307/2230322
32. Lucas R. E. (1972). Expectations and the neutrality of money. Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 103—124. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(72)90142-1
33. Lucas R. E. (1976). Econometric policy evaluation: A critique. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Vol. 1, pp. 19—46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2231(76)80003-6
34. Lucas R. E. (1987). Studies in business-cycles theory. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Lucas R. E. (2004). Keynote address to the 2003 HOPE conference: My Keynesian education. History of Political Economy, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 12—24. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-36-Suppl_1-12
36. Negishi T. (1979). Microeconomic foundations of Keynesian economics. Amsterdam: North Holland.
37. Parsons D. (1985). Was Keynes Kuhnian? Keynes and the idea of theoretical revolutions. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 451—471. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400004336
38. Ramsey F. P. (1928). A mathematical theory of saving. Economic Journal, Vol. 38, No. 152, pp. 543—559. https://doi.org/10.2307/2224098
39. Stanfield R. (1974). Kuhnian scientific revolutions and the Keynesian revolution. Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 97—109. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1974.11503164
40. Stigler G. J. (1969). Does economics have a useful past? History of Political Economy, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 217—230. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-1-2-217
41. Wren-Lewis S. (2016). Unravelling the New Classical Counter Revolution. Review of Keynesian Economics, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 20—35. https://doi.org/10.4337/ roke.2016.01.03
Review
For citations:
Avtonomov V.S. On revolutions and crises in economic science. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2026;(4):27-43. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2026-4-27-43
Views:
327
JATS XML
Email this article 