The Austrian School is a different school if we compare it with neaclassic school; but the
Public Choice School and other schools of economics are not the purely neoclassic way
neither. Austrian methodology is not neoclassic but Buchanan himself share some ideas with
them like the idea of subjective costs instead of objective costs, for instance. Many of
the conclusions of the Austrian Economists are valuable. Why should we exclude any school?
I think that an equilibrium between mainstream economics and tolerance towards diversity
in economic theory is desired in our profession. Or maybe we should change the name into
History of Orthodox Economics. But this is very restrictive. And it is the best way to
avoid renewal and evolution.
  
Maria Blanco