É minha obrigação postar o link para o texto do David Colander (2000) de tempos em tempos. O ponto dele: existe Economia contemporânea, tão diversa que não dá para encaixar em uma "escola" ou definir facilmente. (Sim, é um ponto semelhante ao do Marcos Lisboa em A Miséria da Crítica Heterodoxa, 1997). Escreve Colander:
The problem is its use [do termo neoclássico] by some heterodox economists, by many nonspecialists, and by historians of thought at unguarded moments, as a classifer for the approach that the majority of economists take today. (...)The worst use, and the place one hears the term neoclassical most often, is in the discussions by lay people (..) who object to some portion of modern economic thought. To them bad economics and neoclassical economics are synonymous terms. Economists today are not neoclassical according to any reasonable definition of the term. They are far more eclectic, and concerned withdifferent issues than were the economists of the early 1900s, whom the term was originally designed to describe. If we don’t like modern economics, we should say so, but we should not take the easy road, implicitly condemning modern economics by the terminology we choose.