What’s in a name? Tony Lawson on neoclassical economics and heterodox economics

In this article I respond to Tony Lawson’s ‘What is this ‘School’ called neoclassical economics?’ Lawson’s paper is provocative because it reformulates neoclassical economics, based on Veblen’s original intent, as a mismatch created by recognising the value of an evolutionary approach to the economy whilst remaining over-reliant on elements of a ‘taxonomic’ approach. For Lawson many heterodox economists may be neoclassical under this description. I argue that there is clearly a case to be heard but that the reformulation of the neoclassical raises a number of issues. There are issues concerning the specific critique of the current usage of the term ‘neoclassical’—regarding genealogy and meaning. There are specific issues regarding the further development of the new (old Veblen) definition of the neoclassical: how clear is the definition in a practical context as a way to identify a ‘neoclassical group’, based on the commitments of the critique and the definition, what does it mean to be ‘more realistic’, and what is the strategic value of such a provocation for heterodoxy? I argue that the combination of these are reasons for more consideration of issues of social ontology not less insofar as the terms of the argument are incomplete, and this invites both Lawson and those he is criticising to progress the argument, particularly on method.