from Doug Mackenzie

Doug Mackenzie [dmackenz_2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 11:35 AM To: Asrc.comments@abs.gov.au Cc: History of Economics Societies [hes@eh.net]; Sandra Peart Attachments:

To whom it may concern, it has come to my attention that Australian authorities might reclassify economic history and history of economic thought. This move would remove Economic History and History of Economic Thought as fields in economics. It also has been suggested that economic history and history of economic thought might be declassified in the future. I see no valid reason for such moves. Economic theory is useless if not applied to real world events. Economic historians have contributed greatly to the development of economics. These contributions have been recognized by the Nobel Committee. Douglass North and Robert Fogel won Nobel prizes for their work in economic history. As for History of Economic Thought, it is often seen as important for teaching economics, especially in a liberal arts environment. I would go further by first pointing out that examination of the the ideas of past generations of economists often leads to new theoretical insights. Second, the history of ideas is important to understanding history itself. Many of the most important social movements in history were driven by ideas. The Enlightenment and the Progressive Era were clearly driven by ideas. A full understanding of history requires more than analysis of statistical data and historical events. The history of ideas is indispensable to understanding history generally. Economic History and History of Economic Thought belong in economics because economists understand economic theory far better than any other scholars. In my experience, historians rarely know much about economics, and are often unreceptive to economic reasoning. On a personal note, one of the members of my dissertation committee was a business historian. She is the only historian I have met who I could really work with. She also admitted quite freely that there are serious communication problems between economists and historians. As I see it, the idea of moving economic history in to history will only work on paper. In reality we are not particularly welcome among historians. As for history of economic thought, history departments generally pay little attention to intellectual history as it is. Given the attitude that many historians take towards both economics and the history of ideas, the idea of integrating History of Economic Thought into history simply will not work. We are not welcome there either. We belong in economics, and are far more welcome here too. My own department is highly supportive of my research in Economic History and the History of Economic Thought. If anything, Economic History and History of Economic Thought should assume more prominent positions in economics. Thank you for your time. Doug MacKenzie, PhD Department of Economics and Finance SUNY Plattsburgh

Comments

[Paola]

Dear Doug,
I completely agree with you. The same thing is happening in Italy. In the Italian University system someone tried to eliminate Economic History and History of Economic Thought from important fields (it is very long to explain to you the path of Economic History and History of Economic Thought as fields in the University), but the scholars won their battle (for the moment). The problem remains in the Italian National Council of Research, where a lot of "scientists" consider these two fields as part of History in general. But I agree with you when you write "In my experience, historians rarely know much about economics, and are often unreceptive to economic reasoning". My tutor was prof. Luigi De Rosa, a brilliant economist firstly and one of the most important economic historians in Italy and in the world (I don't know if you had the opportunity to meet him. Unfortunately he died 3 years ago during an Economic history course in Spain while he was speaking). In the past he fought tenaciously so that the Economic History and History of Economic Thought were recognized as autonomous fields in the University and in the Italian National Council of Research and to avoid that they were considered the "Cinderella" of Economics. Today, all his work is in part forgotten. And the young scholars don't have his spine.
Cordially,
Paola Avallone