What's in a name? Tony Lawson on neoclassical economics and heterodox economics
回应托尼·劳森对新古典经济学的重新定义，指出其基于凡勃伦原意的重构虽具启发性，但引发关于术语使用、定义清晰度及对异端经济学战略价值等问题，呼吁进一步探讨社会本体论。
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.