Is the term "neoclassical economics" outdated and in need of retirement? This paper argues for the terminasion of the term "neoclassical economics," contending that its meaning has become too ambiguous and unwieldy to be useful. As president of the History of Economics Society, the author declares the term dead, though not the content itself. The paper acknowledges the difficulty in defining the precise content of neoclassical economics and clarifies that the argument is against the term, not the underlying economic ideas. The role of historians of thought is to record content, not to determine it. By advocating for the abandonment of the term "neoclassical economics," this paper invites a critical re-evaluation of how we categorize and discuss economic thought, encouraging a more nuanced and precise vocabulary for understanding the evolution of economic ideas.
Published in the Journal of the History of Economic Thought, this paper directly aligns with the journal's mission to explore the evolution of economic ideas and critically examine the development of economic theory. By questioning the continued relevance of the term "neoclassical economics," the research contributes to the journal's ongoing engagement with the historical context and conceptual foundations of economic thought. The emphasis on defining and categorizing economic concepts reflects the journal's commitment to intellectual rigor and clarity.