With the process of continuous specialisation within economics and
with its incessant subdivision into different schools, the practitioners
of the discipline are becoming more and more alienated from each other.
The need and opportunity to communicate are disappearing. When a
dialogue takes place, one side is often unable to hear the other. And
even when the other side is heard, it is simply not understood. No
attempt is made to explain the causes of such compartmentalisation among
economists. Rather, the aim is to underline the three non‐ideological
consequences of specialisation within the economics profession. The
effects of a mutual misunderstanding are: (1) various names are used to
define the same concept; (2) the same name is employed to describe
different notions; and (3) the relative character of a given approach is
not recognised. Several examples are utilised to underscore the major
points. It is concluded that, unless generalisation supersedes
fragmentation, no coherent picture of the economic world is possible.