ABSTRACT
Tony Lawson asks why and under what circumstances we should use the term ‘neoclassical’ to refer to a specific school of economics. His answer is both nuanced and strategic. It is nuanced in the sense that, though Lawson believes that a conception of neoclassicism can be salvaged, that conception differs significantly from accounts defended by neoclassical economists themselves and by prominent historians of economic thought. It is strategic in the sense that, following a careful reconstruction of how Veblen’s original conception of neoclassicism might be extended to strands of modern economics, Lawson eventually suggests that the term should be abandoned.
