Abstract
Describes how mathematics enjoyed a virtual monopoly as the privileged method of economic inquiry in the post‐war period. Counters the argument that such a position generates negative consequences, such as monopoly rents and the abuse of dominant positions. Argues that competing schools of economic thought such as Chicago, Harvard, neoclassical and post‐Keynesian, neo‐Australian, evolutionary and institutional economists all hold positions that diverge on essentials. Suggests that the market structure of post‐war economies is not a monopoly but a heterogeneous asymmetric oligopoly with a few large and a fringe of small suppliers. Analyses the relationship between two large and two fringe suppliers, stating that the oligopoly metaphor suggests that there is competition between schools that may lead to winners and losers and to changes in the market shares. In conclusion, offers a projection of what the author expects, i.e. who will lose and how the market structure will change, offering an insight into the role of mathematics.