Comparing the principles of the neoclassical, Keynesian, neo-Keynesian, post-Keynesian and other schools, it is difficult to see a consensus on certain universal principles. There are ideas and intuitions reasonably reflected by almost all of them, but there is hardly agreement on principles.
- One of the most critical areas would be the laws of evolution of an economy. The neoclassical school often resorts to comparative analysis without explaining what the supposed transition between different equilibria would be like. W. S. Jevons himself accepted comparative analysis as a provisional solution, and at the end of the 19th century it was hoped that a truly dynamic theory would be developed during the 20th century, but it never came.
- Likewise the Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu theorem suggests that supply and demand analysis would not necessarily lead to a single equilibrium price, etc.
- A third point of contention is whether there are emergent phenomena in macroeconomics, or whether all macroeconomics can be reduced to microeconomics.
Addition: In these circumstances, the question is: Are there guiding theoretical principles common to all schools of economic thought? Which of these would be the most basic? Do any of them seem to be fundamentally and universally accepted by all schools?