Following the failure of standard economic models to predict the global financial crisis, interest in competing research programmes has increased. This paper seeks to critically assess the state of four distinct economic research programmes (the neoclassical synthesis; complexity economics; prospect theory; and neuroeconomics) using the methodology of scientific research programmes (MSRP). Two central conclusions are drawn. Firstly, complexity economics can be judged as progressive in light of the global financial crisis, whereas new variant theories in the protective belt of the neoclassical synthesis remain to be empirically corroborated. Secondly, the global financial crisis cannot be used to argue for either the progressivity or the degeneration of either prospect theory or neuroeconomics, since neither of these programmes predicts novel macro-economic phenomena.
How to Cite:
Daniell, H., 2013. The Global Financial Crisis and the Methodology of Economic Research Programmes. Rerum Causae, 4(1), pp.54–63.