In the literature of Economics itself, branches have evolved thanks to different positions held by economists on different economic issues, and most importantly, on the efficacy and desirability of economic policies to address such economic issues. The so-called Classical and Keynesian poles apart positions have stood as the firm foundation for the germination of a couple of developments in economics. But, it may be reiterated that these positions have been premised upon several assumptions which often go diametrically opposite to real-world circumstances. The growing concern of the disconnect of the mainstream economics from the conditions of the real world has made a vacuum. The attention that heterodox economics has been receiving should be regarded as a response to this fill this vacuum. Heterodox economics has grown to occupy an important place in modern economic thinking, and in the years to come, in the field of teaching as well, the elements discussed in heterodox economic will have an indisputable place. In the field of policy making, too, the principles of heterodox have been used. Nevertheless, mainstream economics does not seem to have been shaken by the claims of heterodox economics. For economics to continue as rigorous social science, much celebrated neo-classical tools and its ideas are still more important
