In the last twenty-five years – from 1996 to 2021 – a series of actions have marked the evolution of the economy: from transformations linked to new information and communication technologies to the Covid-19 pandemic, among other things, through to the financial and economic crisis of the second half of the first decade of the 21st century. In this article, we look at the impact of events in the last twenty-five years on economics teaching, whether this is evolving alongside the economic reality or not, what has given rise to a mismatch between economics and the social and economic reality. To analyze this, in the first section, we will tackle the social mission of the “economist” in the sense of being teachers of highly diverse collectives, and in the second section, we will reflect on the evolution of economics teaching at University. The analysis leads us to conclude that, although economics teaching has varied over time, it has not undergone substantial change in recent decades. The lack of diversity of thinking in economics curricula joins forces with a lack of diversity among prominent thinkers and professionals to often translate into an incomplete view explaining the complex economic reality and an interaction with other disciplines, particularly social sciences.

Economics as it is currently taught in the majority of universities worldwide is the object of controversy. Various groups of students and lecturers are questioning the economics education being given by universities and colleges. The criticism being made has intensified in the wake of the crisis, but a number of different protests were also springing up earlier to this. The system is cyclical and crises are inevitable, not a thing of the past as per the belief spread by the dominant school of thought in economics. Because of its inexstricable attachment to equilibrium models, neoclassical economics is incapable of understanding the dynamic processes in the economy, making it insufficient not only because of its inability to predict crises, but also because of its inability to provide the tools needed to understand the workings of the economy.

Neoclassical economics should not be the only theory currently in force. This does not mean the IS–LM model should not be studied, but its limitations and restrictions must be highlighted; as an equilibrium model it does not correspond to what happens in reality, which is disequilibrium and vulnerability. It is thus necessary to take into account other ideas, such as Marxist, Keynesian, Schumpeterian, institutional and post-Keynesian theories.

This article examines how the advent of the third industrial revolution (the knowledge economy) transforms the scientific paradigm of the economy and, therefore, purposes new challenges for the economic analysis and teaching. Linking to the history of economic thought, the paper obtains two main conclusions. First, there is a need to articulate new behavior and new performance metrics of the economy. In particular, it suggests the need to move from individual behavior towards the collective behavior, from the monetary transaction towards the knowledge exchange, from oligopolistic competition to the business networks, from the economic firm towards the social firm, and from the national, international and world economy to the global economy. Secondly, it also suggests new approaches for teaching economics. In particular, recover all branches of economic thought (beyond neoclassical economics), and reconfigure the organization of teaching towards an interdisciplinary and transversal knowledge network to solve economic and social problems.