ABSTRACT
The continuing prominence and vigor of contending schools of economic thought has been one of the more distinctive features of the discipline's recent history, a feature inconsistent with the powerful pressures to professional conformity. Naturally enough, mainstream (neo-classical?) economists view these rival positions with mixed feelings — indifference, contempt, hostility, or at best condescension — either denying their significance (like the reviewer who claimed over 90 percent of economists are neoclassical, as though numbers were the relevant criterion), or dismissing them for failure to produce a viable alternative paradigm or intellectual framework.
