I. IntroductionEconomists have long debated the nature of the determinants of the origin and development of economic theories. Many economists have maintained that these determinants are internal to the discipline itself. Economics, they typically have argued, consists of a logical system of laws which predicts the facts. Economics develops as new laws are deduced which encompass additional phenomena. The professionalization of economics enforces standard method while scholarly interaction within the profession prompts the direction of work. Economics consequently is autonomous and objective [85]. Yet other economists have maintained that economics develops in response to extra-scientific or external factors. Economists, they have argued, function within a socio-economic, cultural and political context. How economists perceive events in this external context affects their whole approach to economics-their scope of study, definitions, methods, even their facts. Economics as a result is highly subjective [31; 63]. This debate over the autonomy of economics never has been resolved.Similarly, economists have differed over the process which governs the acceptance or rejection of theories. Most economists have regarded theory appraisal as an objective matter. They have proposed that hypotheses of alternative theories should be tested in terms of their empirical predictions. Economists should reject theories which fail the tests and choose that theory which tests best. If alternative theories test equally well, economists should apply logical criteria, such as consistency and simplicity. Yet, some methodologists have seen theory choice as an extra-scientific, or subjective affair. They have claimed that economists rarely choose theories on the basis of testing, which is difficult in economics, and arbitrarily use logical criteria. In reality, factors such as social forces, rhetorical persuasion or policy relevance decide between theories [15; 60; 87]. Again, this controversy has remained unresolved.In the recent literature, economists have employed the methodology of scientific research programs to address these issues [7; 15; 50; 91; 96]. This essay applies the research program methodology to a case study of the development of the Phillips curve. This meth-*The author is indebted to Bob Coats and an anonymous referee for their extensive comments, as well as to Bruce Caldwell, Al Eichner, Wade Hands, David Laidler, Mark Perlman, and Ann Schwier for their suggestions. 834 THE PHILLIPS CURVE: WHICH? WHOSE? TO DO WHAT? HOW? odology treats science as a problem-solving activity occurring in scientific research programs (SRPs). Such programs are composed of the following elements: 1. A hard core which is irrefutable and consists of: a. Presuppositions, metaphysical beliefs, or ideologies. Presuppositions may be implicit or informally stated. They underlie the SRP. b. Heuristics, or methodological rules, including: (i) A negative heuristic which indicates paths of research that would conflict with the hard core and should be a...
