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