Adam Smith Lives!

Additional support for HET/EH

This update today, from John Lodewijks in Australia:

Time is running out for us but here are 3 more emails that may put extra
pressure on the ABS:

1.  A wonderful letter from Nicos Theocarakis on behalf of the HET and
EH community in Greece.

2.   An article from Steve Kates that will appear in today's Australian
Financial Review - equivalent of your Wall Street Journal.

3.  A letter I wrote to the boss of the ABS.
________________________________________

The HET and EH community in Greece will send tomorrow the following
letter to Dr Brett joining the voices of our colleagues abroad.

Yours sincerely,

Nicos Theocarakis

University of Athens

September 11, 2007

Dr. David Brett
Australian Bureau of Statistics

Asrc.comments@abs.gov.au <mailto:Asrc.comments@abs.gov.au>

Dear Dr. Brett,

We, the undersigned are academic economists and economic historians,
members of the Greek Society for the History of Economic Thought.  Our
research includes work in the fields of  the History of Economic Thought
and Economic History.   We wish to add our voices to those of our
colleagues abroad who "urge you to reconsider the decision to 'relocate'
'economic history' and 'history of economic thought' into the 'History,
Archeology, Religion and Philosophy' category of the Australian Bureau
of Statistics."

Such a decision, if applied, will certainly compromise seriously the
positions and research support of researchers in these fields.   This
"collateral damage", however, would not be the greater of all evils.
Most importantly this decision will have dire implications for the
future of these fields and for economics in general.

It is no coincidence that the Journal of Economic Literature classifies
methodology together with history of economic thought.  It is difficult
to do the one without the other.  Ostracizing history of economic
thought outside its proper discipline deprives economists from the tools
to contemplate competently on the methods best for their science.  In
fact, the history and methodology of a discipline is an established
integrated subfield in other sciences ('hard sciences' included!). To
mention a few examples from other subjects, the history of psychology
has a separate code in the PsycInfo database (Psychology), the history
of Physics is included in the American Institute of Physics
classification system PACS (Physics and Astronomy Classification
Scheme), and also the history of Mathematics has a separate code in
Mathematics Subject Classification of the American Mathematical Society.

The process of "relocation", once started, it will be irreversible.
Teachers of HET and economic history will cease to exist in Economic
Departments.   If, in the future, economists realize the error of their
ways, it would be extremely difficult, even impossible, to retie the
severed thread of research.  They will not be any of us around.
Economists whose research is primarily in other fields will be
discouraged to contribute to HET and economic history in this
competitive age of quantitatively assessed research output.    This
would be unfortunate, since there is a long line of illustrious
economists who have contributed to HET while their major contribution is
in other fields.  This list includes Nobel Laureates such as George
Stigler, Friedrich Hayek, Paul Samuelson, James Buchanan, Kenneth Arrow,
Gerard Debreu, Lawrence Klein, Robert Solow, Herbert Simon and Vernon
Smith.   Indeed the list of Nobel Laureates includes also Robert Fogel
and Douglass North whose primary area of research is economic history,
published in economic journals, worked in economic departments and have
served as presidents of economic associations.  Lesser mortals
presumably need not apply.

In truth, you cannot teach economics, or practice it, without a
knowledge of history of thought and of economic history. Students will
be unable to understand the processes through which economic theory is
being created and its relation to history and economic reality.
Relevance will be lost.   Those who claim otherwise, adopt an extreme
methodological position and instead of fighting it out in the field of
scientific debate prefer to silence the opposition by bureaucratic
means.  "Relocation" means taking sides, even unwittingly.  It may also
mean that economics will become a poorer subject practiced by
historically illiterates engulfed in their formalistic esoterica plus a
toolbox of quantitative techniques.  This will affect negatively the
enrollment to economics courses everywhere.   They would be substituted
by business courses in business or management departments who, oddly
enough, are more hospitable to historians of economic thought and
economic historians, since, practical people as they are, are not
convinced that teaching economics can be done without its history.  It
would be a pity if you have in the future to reclassify economics under
"Religion".

Moreover, it takes one to know one: philosophers and non-economic
historians even though they have enhanced, occasionally significantly,
the understanding of our science, they are a different breed and they
cannot, by training, carry out the bulk of research that is required in
these fields.   But even if they publish important contributions, they
will do it in partibus infidelium, in places out of reach for economists
and in manner that eventually will become incomprehensible to economists
who by then would have lost any touch with historical and philosophical
arguments and the ability to understand them.  Of course, intelligent
people - as economists are - are bound to reinvent through reasoning in
the course of their research, principles that are commonplace in the
fields of HET and Economic History but with the inelegance of the
amateur bereft of serious scholarship and of deeper understanding of the
issues involved.

We urge you to reconsider. "Relocation" would mean a disservice to
economics. It would be a wrong representation of what the fields of
history of economic thought and economic history are about.   Certainly,
if you "relocate", eventually these fields will truly become part of
"History, Archeology, Religion and Philosophy".   This would a case of
"self-fulfilling reclassification".  We think that you agree with the
principle that a Statistics Bureau should not create reality but depict
it.

Yours sincerely,

Avraam-Albert Arouh, Professor, Economics, The American College of
Greece-Deree College.

Stavros A. Drakopoulos, Professor, Department of Philosophy & History of
Science, University of Athens.

Aristides N.Hatzis, (Ph.D., Law & Econ, University of Chicago),
Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy & History of Science,
University of Athens.

Anastassios D.Karayiannis, Associate Professor, Dept of Economics
University of Piraeus.

Vassilis Kardasis, Professor of Economic History, Dept of Economics
University of Crete.

George E. Krimpas,  Professor Emeritus, Dept of Economics, University of
Athens, Past Head of the Dept of Economics, Past Vice-Rector of the
University of Athens, Past Dean of the Faculty of Law, Economics &
Politics, Former Ambassador of Greece to the OECD.

Theodoros Mariolis, Assistant Professor, Dept of Public Administration,
Panteion University, Athens.

Stavros Mavroudeas, Associate Professor, Dept of Economics, University
of Macedonia.

John Milios, Professor of Political Economy and the History of Economic
Thought, Department of Humanities, Social Sciences and Law, National
Technical University of Athens.

Dimitris Milonakis, Associate Professor of Political Economy, Deputy
Head, Dept of Economics, University of Crete.

Dimitrios S. Patelis, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Sciences, Technical
University of Crete.

Socrates Petmezas, Associate Professor of Economic and Social History,
Department of History and Archaeology, University of Crete.

Michalis Psalidopoulos, Professor, Dept of Economics, University of
Athens

George Stathakis, Professor, Dept of Economics, University of Crete.

Nicholas J. Theocarakis Ph.D. (Cantab.), Assistant Professor, Dept of
Economics, University of Athens.

Euclid Tsakalotos, D.Phil. (Oxon.), Professor, Dept of International
and. European Economic Studies, Athens University of Economics and
Business.

Lefteris Tsoulfidis, Associate Professor, Dept of Economics, University
of Macedonia.

Michael Zouboulakis, Associate Professor in the History and Methodology
of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Thessaly.


____________________________________________


The following is an unedited version of an article that will be
published in the Education Section of the AFR on Monday.

An Historical Injustice

Dr Steven Kates

In June this year I went to the United States for a number of purposes
but amongst the main ones was to meet with Professor Thomas Sowell, a
fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford. Sowell is one of the most
widely published economists in the world, has written a host of books on
a variety of subjects in economics and politics, is highly influential
in his policy work and has a syndicated column that appears in the press
across the US.

The person he met with, me that is, has worked in the economics
department of a major bank, spent a quarter of a century as the
economist for Australia's largest business association and now divides
his time between a university appointment in a school of business and
his work as a commissioner investigating major economic policy issues on
behalf of the federal government.

But what Thomas Sowell and myself have in common is this. Both of us did
our doctorates on the same subject and both of us had our PhDs published
soon after. And the subject: Say's Law, a notion that was first
articulated in the first decade of the nineteenth century but which has
remained controversial amongst economists ever since.

Both of us, that is, had undertaken our doctoral research work in the
branch of economics referred to as the History of Economic Thought. And
it is this area of economics which is now about to be removed by the
ABS, along with Economic History, from amongst the legitimate fields of
economics. It is to be cast out on some lonely outpost, classified
within a new catch-all division of social sciencey type subjects which,
in the ABS's own conceptual system, is referred to as "History,
Archaeology, Religion and Philosophy".

The president of the Australian historians of economics society has
received a letter of explanation from the ABS outlining the reasoning
for this decision. How does the ABS get to make such decisions?

The first and main reason given for this change is this: "The processes
used in History of Economic Thought are primarily historical and
philosophical rather than economic."

How many different ways is this untrue. It is not whether historians of
economics are steeped in economics, deal with major economic issues and
provide policy advice based on the unique perspective that HET provides.
It is that the "processes" are not economic.

On this basis one would have to conclude that mathematical economics is
not economics but maths, or that econometrics is not an area of
economics but statistics instead. Behavioural economics, a burgeoning
field, would be psychology, and so on.

If the classification system is really based on "processes" and not
subject matter, then it is a classification system that is clearly built
on a flawed premise. It appears to have been based on the practices of
the "hard" science rather than the subject matter of the social
sciences.

Economics must deal with events that occur within historical time.
Historical events are the feedstock of economic theory; they are an
economist's only laboratory.

The second reason given was that "groups (formerly disciplines) which
are not useful for describing either the breadth of R&D or how spending
is apportioned, were restructured."

To translate, students of the history of economic thought and economic
historians seldom sought, or received, public money. As noted by the
ABS, these areas had been responsible for "only 1.2% of all public
sector R&D in economics in 2004 (the most recent data available), thus
is too narrow to be useful for understanding where economics R&D
expenditure occurs."

Thus, HET and Economic History should be excluded from the discipline of
economics because such economists do not apply for grants, and even if
they do apply, very seldom receive a cent. If more public funds were
being spent on these areas, we would be classified as part of economic
theory. But because we go about our work without requiring huge sums of
money, we cannot be included as a branch of economics.

It's a classification thing which has no merit in terms of subject
matter. A group of economists is dropped from being officially
designated as economists because they don't apply for grants, not
because they are not engaged in the study of economies.

So how might this decision be reversed? This, too, the ABS has
explained: "If this change is undesirable to your research community, we
can contemplate undoing these changes on the following grounds: Evidence
that R&D activity is significantly underreported or anticipated to
significantly increase in the near future. Evidence that the assumption
that History of Economic Thought R&D primarily involves processes that
are historical and philosophical is false.

That is, either show we intend to spend lots more public money or show
that we do not largely employ historical or philosophical processes in
our research. But, as this letter also states, irrespective of what we
show, "the Economic History and History of Economic Thought group will
not be reinstated."

Well, we think it should be. Historians of economics and economic
historians are economists and work as economists everywhere - one such
person even used to run the ABS.

Economics is a policy science. Economies cannot be studied without
studying the history of those economies. Without a thorough
understanding of historical circumstance, it is impossible to develop or
implement sensible economic policies.

Similarly, economic theory itself cannot be studied without also having
some understanding of how those theories were developed. Few PhDs in
economics are complete without a "literature review" which is expected
to encompass an historical compendium of all of the relevant theoretical
approaches that have been previously used to analyse whatever the topic
being studied happens to be.

The decision to drop history of economics and economic history from
within the economics classification is a decision that needs to be
reviewed and reversed.

Dr Steven Kates


__________________________________________________


September 9, 2007

Brian Pink,

Australian Statistician

Australian Bureau of Statistics

ABS House

45 Benjamin Way

Belconnen ACT 2617

CC: daniel.casey@dest.gov.au; director@chass.org.au

Dear Brian,

I am writing to express my concern over the proposed Australian Bureau
of Statistics revision of its research classifications. As I understand
it this is part of a DEST commissioned review of the use of the
Australian Standard Research Classification. My specific concern relates
to the proposal, effective from 2008, to remove from the Economics
listings the fields History of Economic Thought and Economic History.
Instead "Economic History" and "History of Economic Thought" will be
"relocated" into a category of "History, Archeology, Religion and
Philosophy". It is also proposed that in any future revision History of
Economic Thought and Economic History will be eliminated entirely.

Our universities have asked us for feedback on these proposed changes to
transmit to you by September 14. We have also made our concerns known
via the ABS email site: asrc.comments@abs.gov.au.

Could I ask you to look at the amount of feedback the ABS has received
on that site. I think you will agree that it is very substantial and in
almost complete consensus apposing the elimination of the fields History
of Economic Thought and Economic History from the Economics category. I
hope you might also note the standing of the representation that has
been made.

Strong support has come domestically from the:

President, Economic Society of Australia=20

President, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand

President, History of Economic Thought Society of Australia

Chief Executive Officer. Universities Australia

Senior Staff, Productivity Commission

Australian Research Council Federation Fellows

Former Governor, Reserve Bank of Australia

Executive Director, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia.

more from Australia

John Lodewijks writes that "it is not going well.  They will not be moved despite the avalanche of protests. David Brett made it clear that no matter what we did, they were not about to restore either HET or EH to within the economics discipline. I am amazed that a junior bureaucrat in the public service can make these crucial decisions that will affect so many academics, despite the mountain of protests."

Here is the answer he received from the authorities in Australia that prompted his assessment:

Tim Sealey [t.sealey@universitiesaustralia.edu.au]  Sent:   Fri 9/7/2007 3:52 PM
To:   Alex Millmow

Cc:   david.brett@abs.gov.au; Glover, Barney; David Rome

Subject:   RE: URGENT: Proposed changes to the RFCD Code: Response by 12Sept

Dear Alex

I have looked at the information you have sent.  It would appear that
people have got a rather peculiar view of what the ABS and the committee
is trying to do with the revision.

Having spoken to Barney Glover (the nominated Universities Australia
rep) and David Brett of the ABS we concur that the issues raised have
little to do with the integrity of the classification system but more to
do with apparent benefits of visibility of various subject matter areas
within the classification structure.

One of the main reasons for the revision is to reduce the number of
research projects classified as "other not elsewhere classified" which
in some areas represented a significant proportion of the research
effort.  Secondly, we need to be able to make international comparisons
that have consistency with international standards.  The body seen as
most representative at this point in time is the OECD hence the
alignment with that organisation's Fields of Science. Third there has to
be greater alignment between research activity and Socio-economic
objectives.  Finally, an economic measure of research activity was
chosen to limit the inclusion of non-active areas of research.  The
figure decided upon was $250k with some flexibility for rapid growth
areas or areas of significant importance that did not meet the economic
benchmark.  Taking all of these factors into consideration the History
of Economic Thought and Economic History have been classified
appropriately by the ABS.

The revisions to the RFCD and the SEO proposed by the ABS in
consultation with the whole sector (not just universities) would appear
to be the most appropriate course of action in terms of simplification
and consistency of terminology.

No classification system is perfect but one has to bear in mind what the
goals of classification are.  The more individual codes we have the more
likely it is that areas will be exposed as not performing or not
worthwhile, or that the classification system becomes unwieldy and of no
practical use.

A further important point that should be made is that the revision is
made on the basis of needs in relation to the ABS.  Therefore, talk of
the revision impacting on RQF funding or an area's viability are not
only premature but not likely to come to fruition.  These points have
been discussed by the Revision Committee.

However, it has been agreed that the issues raised by you will be tabled
for discussion at the next revision meeting on the 27 September.

I trust that this helps to ease the concerns expressed by your
colleagues.

Cheers

Tim Sealey, Assistant Director, Statistics and Data Analysis
Universities Australia

updates

Bruce Caldwell reports that he received the same letter I did from Australia.  I had thought as much...
___________
Spencer Pack writes:

From: Pack, Spencer J.
Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 12:50 PM
To: 'asrc.comments@abs.gov.au'
Subject: history of economic thought



Dear Dr. Brett:

     Please add my name to Sandra Peart's letter. I consider the history of economic thought (or theory) to be part of economics, just as the history of philosophy is part of philosophy, and the history of political theory is part of political theory. There are, in fact, various approaches to the study of the history of economic thought. However, it seems to me that to do it well, you really need to know and practice contemporary, as well as past economic theory. Contemporary economic theory can and should inform our knowledge and understanding of past economic theory; and past economic theory can and should inform our understanding of contemporary economic theory. Hence, the history of economic thought should, in my opinion, be classified as economics.


Sincerely yours,

Spencer J. Pack, Professor of Economics
Connecticut College, New London, CT. USA

from Deirdre McCloskey

Dear Sandy,

Here's my contribution:

David Brett
Australian Bureau of Statistics

Dear Dr. Brett:

I have heard of the astonishing proposal to take the history of
economics (the study of past economics) and even economic history (the
study of past economies) out of departments of economics.

You will do permanent damage to the prestige of Australian economics by
doing so.  No serious economic scientist---though a good many
non-serious ones, it must be admitted, 3rd-raters with no intellectual
depth---sees the past as a foreign country.  To make Australia the only
country in the world to adopt such an anti-intellectual line is to
reinforce the incorrect but widespread impression that Australian is a
land of ignoramuses, and glad of it.

Look at it this way.  Most of what we know about economies and their
analysis is, well, past.  In fact, all of it is.  Time moves, alas, in
one direction.  So cutting off slightly old, or even very old, economic
facts is like doing an astronomy that confines itself to the Solar
System, or the local star group.

Let me give you an example from my own current work.  We will never
understand the rise of capitalism and the modern world until we
understand what happened in Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries.  The
crux of "what happened" was an intellectual change in attitude towards
markets.  So history of thought joins with economics is illuminating the
most important event in world history since the domestication of plants
and animals, and casts light therefore on present economic policy.

I love the Lucky Country, and have spent a good deal of time there.
(See my brief CV attached.)  One of its attractions was precisely the
combination of democratic values with intellectual rigor (my friend the
late Noel Butlin was the model of this).  The proposal throws all that away.

Sincerely,

Deirdre McCloskey

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

Kevin Quinn's letter

As I expected, the letter from Australia is a form letter.

Here is Kevin Quinn's contribution:

Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:23:18 -0400
To: asrc.comments@abs.gov.au
From: Kevin Quinn <kquinn@bgsu.edu>
Subject: Your Repugnant Proposal to Write the History of Economic Thought and  Economic Theory Out of the Discipline of Economics

Dear David Breit:

Surely you are kidding, right?  So, let's see: Milton Friedman' and Anna Schwartz's Monetary History of the United States: not a work of economics, according to David Breit! Axel Leijonhufvud's On Keynesian Economics and The Economics of Keynes: not a work of economics, according to David Breit!   I could go on and on and on. If you go through with this bone-headed and philistine proposal, you and your organization will be a laughing-stock in the eyes of any genuine economist, The economy and the discipline of economics have a history, and understanding this history is part of what it means to be an economist: ask Amartya Sen, James Buchanan, Vernon Smith - ask any living Nobelist, I daresay. But I suppose you know better.

Kevin Quinn
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, Ohio

response from Australia

Posts by Stephen Gordon at Worthwhile Canandian Initiative, here

and by Gavin Kennedy at Adam Smith's Lost Legacy, here

This answer, from the Australian authorities, doesn't exactly give away the farm but at least it's an acknowledgment of some sort...
__________

ASRC Review

Thank you for your submission to the ASRC review. Your input to the
consultation process is very much valued, and we will be giving close
consideration to your suggestions. This feedback together with others we
have received or may yet receive prior to 14th September will guide our
decision making processes as the classification is finalised. Note the
review process does not finish on the 14th September as there will be
ongoing consideration of submissions and discussions with experts in
respective fields.

Your concerns with regard to the proposed treatment of Economic History and
History of Economic Thought have been formally noted by the review team and
are being carefully considered. We will not finalise our recommendations in
this regard until we have considered all input from interested parties.

Without wishing to pre-empt the consideration of submissions yet to be
received, you should take some encouragement from the fact that we consider
your argument to have substance.

Again, thank you for your valued input. Please direct any future
correspondence to Dr. David Brett (david.brett@abs.gov.au) or to
asrc.comments@abs.gov.au

Regards,

Glyn Prichard
Director
Innovation and Technology National Statistical Centre

More support, from Canada

Robert Leonard, at UQAM, writes:
____________

Dr. David Brett
Australian Bureau of Statistics

Dear Dr. Brett,

I understand that you have recently received a letter from the Executive
Committee and former officers of the History of Economics Society, requesting
that you reconsider the proposed re-classification in Australia of the research
fields, History of Economic Thought and Economic History.  As a historian of
modern economics, and a member of various scholarly grant evaluation committees
here in Canada, I would like to endorse their request.

Notwithstanding the general decline in historical sensibility within the
economics discipline over the last generation, historians of economic thought
and economics historians alike continue to rely on the support of academic
economists for their research.  Economists remain the primary audience for such
historical work.  For that reason, it is important that national statistical
classifications continue to reinforce, rather than erode, the place of
historical research within the economics discipline.

It is, perhaps, hard to conceive of a simple re-classification having
substantial deleterious effects on fields of research, but in this particular
case, I fear that it most likely would.  For that reason, I would like to add my
voice to the request that you re-consider the proposed modification.

I remain,

Yours sincerely,

Robert Leonard
Head of Dept. and Professor of Economics
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)
Montreal, Canada

HET and Economic History being threatened "down-under"

Some of you may know of the difficulties facing those who teach and do research in the history of economic ideas in Australia.  This note was recently sent to the HES listserve by John Lodewijs.  After some initial discussion, I composed the letter below the first note and sent it on behalf of the HES.  If you feel inclined to do so, please consider joining in the attempt to reverse the relocation decision.  Email your comments and concerns to Dr. David Brett at
Asrc.comments@abs.gov.au

Thanks.
 

___________________________

Dear fellow HES subscribers,

The study of HET and Economic History
is being threatened in Australia.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics is revising its research
classifications. Effective from 2008 they are removing from the
Economics listings the fields History of Economic Thought and Economic
History. These will no longer be considered as legitimate research
fields in economics. Instead "Economic history" and "history of economic
thought" will be "relocated" into a category of "History, Archeology,
Religion and Philosophy". It is also proposed that in any future
revision HET and Economic History will be eliminated entirely.

This has dire implications for tenure, promotion, research funding and
even our academic positions.

The effect of this, of course, is to legitimate the view that the study
of the history of economics is not itself a part of economics.

We are asked to provide feedback by 12 September but as can be seen
below  the ABS person responsible for this says "The Economic History
and History of Economic Thought group will not be reinstated". It's a
done deal. This defeats the whole purpose of getting feedback. Note also
the tone, saying in effect - we are lucky to be classified anywhere, in
the next revision we will be totally eliminated.

There is additional information below. First is a letter that Tony
Aspromourgos has sent and on the public record indicating his dismay at
this development. Then the ABS person responsible for this
reclassification, David Brett, provides his justification for the
deletion of HET and Economic History in a public letter to Alex Millmow,
President of HETSA.

If you feel moved to complain about this, and support your HET
colleagues in Australia, please email your concerns to:

asrc.comments@abs.gov.au


You might also like to let your colleagues in Economic History know
about this.

Thanks for your help.

John Lodewijks

_______________________________

Dear Colleagues,

I'm pasting a letter in below that I've just sent to Dr. Brett at the Australia Bureau of Statistics.  If you would like to "sign" the letter and make your views known, please email David Brett at asrc.comments@abs.gov.au to let him know.  Note that time is short so if this interests you please send your notes in soon.  Thanks in advance for your support.

Sandra Peart
____________



September 5, 2007

Dr. David Brett
Australian Bureau of Statistics

Asrc.comments@abs.gov.au

Dear Dr. Brett,

We urge you to reconsider the decision to “relocate” “economic history” and “history of economic thought” into the “History, Archeology, Religion and Philosophy” category of the Australian Bureau of Statistics.  Such a relocation will carry with it serious implications for tenure, promotion, and research support for economists who work in the history of economic thought and economic history.  Looking to the future, this decision will mean that fewer professors will be versed in the historical approach to economics.

The result will be costly both for the economics profession as a whole and also for the students we teach.  The history of economic thought has always been an important component of the literature on economics. It has shown the richness of the roots of economic theory and provided a base for the debate and discussion of the competing schools of economic ideas.

A relocation of the History of Economic Thought and Economic History will privilege technical approaches over the literary approach. We suggest that economics needs both approaches.  Senior figures in the profession accept this.  At the 2007 History of Economics Society annual conference, Nobel laureate, James Buchanan gave the Distinguished Visitor Lecture, “Let Us Understand Adam Smith”.  That lecture will be published in the Society’s journal, Journal of the History of Economic Thought¸ published by Cambridge University Press. It should be noted that a second Nobel laureate, Vernon Smith, was on the 2007 HES conference program as well and that Vernon Smith has also given the HES Distinguished Visitor Lecture in the past.

In recent years the mathematical and quantitative sides of economics have been emphasized at the expense of areas such as the history of economic thought.  There is, however, much evidence of growing interest in the History of Economic Thought and Economic History as research areas at the graduate level.  The Society supports a young scholars program at its annual conference; each year, the number of applications increases and we now receive many more applicants for support than we can fund.

As additional evidence that senior members of the economics profession support the historical approach, we note that Nobel laureates Kenneth Arrow, Ronald Coase and Paul Samuelson welcomed the establishment of the European Journal of the History of Economic Thought in 1992 and Paul Samuelson is a member of the editorial board of the journal. The major history of economic thought journals, EJHET, HOPE, and JHET, all publish fine scholarly articles and have included contributions by Samuelson, Buchanan, Debreu, Klein, Solow Simon and Arrow.

Though the point is obvious, we cannot emphasize enough that these are senior economists, as opposed to researchers in “Philosophy, Religion, and Culture”.  Though there are of course writers in these latter areas who also take an interest in the history of economic ideas and economic history, our strength lies primarily within the economics discipline, itself.

The case must be also made for continued support of the Economic History and History of Economic Thought on the basis of the mission of teaching undergraduate economics majors.  The typical economics professor today has had little training in moral reasoning or civic engagement, and his or her interests are narrowly defined by formal modeling and statistical testing.  This means that the economics major – absent the historical approach – is becoming less and less appropriate for students interested in business or public policy.  At the undergraduate level, economics students increasingly become familiar with techniques they rarely understand.  At the national level in the United States, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) has strenuously made the case for increased breadth in our undergraduate education.  An education in economics that includes room for historical approaches to economic thinking, falls squarely within the AAC&U recommendations and offers students opportunities for applied moral reasoning and policy analysis.

Indeed, if we to lose EH and HET as part of economics, we can expect that a professoriate trained with PhDs in economics will find it difficult not only to teach economics majors, broadly conceived, but also to communicate economic ideas to students in introductory courses who are there to meet general education requirements.  The resulting increased narrowness of graduate training in economics will make it even less likely that new PhD’s will be able to teach introductory courses that have the breadth and context to reach students who aren't necessarily interested in the major but who wish to learn economics as part of a liberal education program.  As a consequence, the economic literacy of the citizenry itself will suffer.

For all these reasons, we urge you to reconsider your decision.

Yours sincerely,



Sandra Peart, President, History of Economics Society, Dean, Jepson School of Leadership Studies, University of Richmond

Humberto Barreto, HES Electronic List Moderator, Professor of Economics, Wabash College
Brad Bateman, HES Past President, Provost and Executive VP, Denison University
Evelyn Forget, HES Vice-President, Professor and Academic Director, Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba
Wade Hands, HES Past President, Professor of Economics, University of Puget Sound
Steven Horwitz, HES Executive Committee, Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics, St. Lawrence University
Thomas (Tim) Leonard, HES Secretary, Economics, Princeton University
David M. Levy, HES Executive Committee, Professor of Economics, George Mason University
Maria Cristina Marcuzzo, HES Executive, Direttore del Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche Università di Roma "La Sapienza"
Perry Mehrling, HES past Vice-President, Professor of Economics, Columbia University

Doingasyoulike

Continuing on the transformation theme:  in the nineteenth century, a series of attacks on political economy made the case of transformation (downwards --> devolution) as a consequence of (wrong) choices.  Perhaps the best example of this transformation message comes in the seemingly innocent tale by Charles Kingsley, The Water Babies:  A Fairy Tale for a Land-Baby.  In it, a fairy tells Tom (the chimney sweep) and Ellie this story of the Doasyoulikes, who fail to work for a living:

and there were the remnant of the Doasyoulikes, doing as they liked, as before.They were too lazy to move away from the mountain; so they said, If it has blown up once, that is all the more reason that it should not blow up again. And they were few in number: but they only said, The more the merrier, but the fewer the better fare. However, that was not quite true; for all the flapdoodle-trees were killed by the volcano, and they had eaten all the roast pigs, who, of course, could not be expected to have little ones. So they had to live very hard, on nuts and roots which they scratched out of the ground with sticks. Some of them talked of sowing corn, as their ancestors used to do, before they came into the land of Readymade ; but they had forgotten how to make ploughs (they had forgotten even how to make Jews' harps  by this time), and had eaten all the seed-corn which they brought out of the land of Hardwork years since; and of course it was too much trouble to go away and find more. So they lived miserably on roots and nuts, and all the weakly little children had great stomachs, and then died.

“Why," said Tom, " they are growing no better than savages.”

“And look how ugly they are all getting,” said Ellie.

“Yes ; when people live on poor vegetables instead of roast beef and plum-pudding, their jaws grow large, and their lips grow coarse, like the poor Paddies who eat potatoes.”

Having chosen not to work, the Doasyoulikes first become "Irish".  In the next 500 years, they devolve more and lose the ability to reason and speak (which, as Adam Smith argued, are requisite for exchange).  Kingsley's readers would not miss the Man and Brother reference:

      And in the next five hundred years they were all dead and gone, by bad food and wild beasts and hunters; all except one tremendous old fellow with jaws like a jack who stood full seven feet high; and M. Du Chaillu came up to him, and shot him, as he stood roaring and thumping on his breast. And he remembered that his ancestors had once been men, and tried to say, “Am I not a man and a brother?” but had forgotten how to use his tongue; and then he had tried to call for a doctor, but he had forgotten the word for one.  So all he said was “Ubbobboo!” and died.