After 1945, the synthesis of Keynesian and neoclassical economics resulted in a clearly defined mainstream position based on a division of the
field into microeconomics (generally neoclassical but with a newly developed theory of market failure) and macroeconomics (divided between
Keynesian and monetarist views on such issues as the role of monetary policy). Austrians and post-Keynesians who dissented from this
synthesis emerged as clearly defined heterodox schools. In addition, the Marxist and institutionalist schools remained active.
Hence, while mainstream economics may be defined in terms of the "rationality-individualism-equilibrium" nexus, heterodox economics may be
defined in terms of a "institutions-history-social structure" nexus. Note that there is a different emphasis in distinguishing mainstream and
heterodox economics in this way than is involved in distinguishing them as closed-system and an open-system approaches respectively. It is
often claimed that neoclassical theory is appropriate as a tool only under certain limited conditions, where there is "perfect" or "near-perfect"
competition. While there is a large body of neoclassical analysis of imperfect competition, this terminology may be seen as incorporating the
assumption that non-competitive markets represent minor deviations from an ideal or perfect norm
In recent years more attention has been given people such as Frederick Soddy who in Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt, turned his attention to
the role of energy in economic systems. He criticized the focus on monetary flows in economics, arguing that real wealth was derived from the
use of energy to transform materials into physical goods and services. Soddy's economic writings were largely ignored in his time, but would
later be applied to the development of biophysical economics and ecological economics and also bioeconomics in the late 20th century.
