Anthony Casey, fellow bureaucrat, weighs in

I thought that the ABS might appreciate a view from a fellow bureaucrat:


To whom it may concern,

I understand that you are revising the Australian Standard Research
Classification, and that part of the proposed revision is a reclassification
of the economic history and history of economic thought group from an
economics 'Field of Research' to one for history, archaeology, religion and
philosophy. I understand also that one of the reasons for doing so is that
the research and development (R&D) processes in economic history and the
history of economic thought are like those used in history and philosophy
rather than those used in other economics disciplines.

Focusing mainly on processes, it would be difficult to justify an economics
R&D field at all, since so much of what economic researchers do is use
processes used in other disciplines. So, on process grounds, you could
justify redistributing the subdisciplines of economics not only among
history and philosophy, but also among politics, sociology, psychology,
applied maths, computer science and statistics. (This is an incomplete
list-some economic research, for example, employs processes used in literary
criticism, geography, biology etc.)

>From a process perspective, research in Austrian school economics,
institutional, evolutionary, experimental and behavioural economics, and
other heterodox approaches, often bears little resemblance to the processes
used in mainstream economics research.

I believe that you are seeking views on the proposal from the academic
community, but I thought I might send one, too, as an indirect beneficiary
of economics research funding. I am an applied economist in the public
sector. I currently work in the New Zealand Treasury on transport and
competition policy, and I have previously worked in the New Zealand Commerce
Commission and before that in the Australian Department of Transport and
Regional Services' research arm, the Bureau of Transport and Regional
Economics.

Work in these areas-which consists of communicating theory, policy debates
and empirical analysis to economists and non-economists-has depended on
research in the history of economic thought. In my opinion, for officials, a
knowledge of economics that does not include an appreciation of its history
is deficient. One of Australia's greatest public servants, Sir John
Crawford, said: '. the great issues of public economic policy must be
capable of literary exposition if administrators and politicians are to be
educated and influenced'. Research in the history of economics, which
emphasises a literary approach and places theoretical debate in its
historical and political context, is an essential part of the public sector
economist's training.

Since the mid-90s, Australian governments have realised the benefits of
outcomes and output-based budgeting and performance measurement for its own
purposes. Research in the history of economics contributes to outcomes and
outputs in economics. Directing education research funding according to
processes rather than according to outcomes and outputs will diminish the
product of research. In this case, reclassifying the history of economics
will undermine the quality of Australian economics.

I hope my comments have been helpful, and I hope the ABS reconsiders its
proposal.


Yours sincerely,

Anthony Casey

Crawford, J. 1957, Do administrators take any notice of economics?, National
Archives of Australia: A4112/1, Box 1-Vol. 1949/1963.

Comments

[Bernardo Aito]

Hi all,

please feel free to vote on my "What will the FED do on Sep 18th" poll on (no ads):

http://thedailyeconomist.blogspot.com/

Bernardo