Mainstream economics has been running the gauntlet of adverse criticism for decades.
These critiques claim as a message of central importance that mainstream economics
has lost its relevance for understanding reality. By making a brief comparison between
the methodological strategies of the main stream and institutional economics I suggest
that the firm demarcation between the streams stems from the difference between their
methodologies. Its peculiar interest directed mainstream economics to take a unique
methodological path and consequently the adherents have not been able to be on the
lookout for certain facets of socio-economic reality. However, the chosen path, the
axiomatic-deductive strategy proved to be an appropriate method for identifying economic
laws. This claim is justified even by some recent efforts of new institutional economics.
In order to support the conversation between the schools I highlight some causes that
currently make it impossible to start a rational discourse.