ABSTRACT
In the last few chapters, in examining the responses of various mainstream sub-projects to explanatory failure, I have identified, in effect, the broad limits of mainstream economics (as well as examined the questionable nature of the sort of theorising which takes place within these limits). Now the finding that there are indeed limits to what can be pursued by the mainstream project may come as a surprise to some. For a common complaint of its critics is that the project appears to be sufficiently 'arbitrary', 'elastic', 'malleable' or 'slippery' that, if the incentive is strong enough, it can be made to accommodate more or less anything. In particular, if any assumption frequently made in orthodox contributions is singled out and criticised for being particularly unrealistic or otherwise untenable, proponents of the project seem always able to replace, adapt, amend or short-circuit the assumption. The nature of the orthodox project appears to be sufficiently arbitrary that its proponents can always come up with some alternative.
