As recent postings indicate the ABS is now recommending that HET and Economic History be retained in the economics classification. This is a very pleasing development.

The ABS has received a very substantial volume of feedback opposing the elimination of the fields History of Economic Thought and Economic History from the Economics research classification. 

Strong support has come domestically from the:

President, Economic Society of Australia

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.


Internationally, there are letters of support from:


President of the Royal Economic Society, UK

Chair of the Economics section of the British Academy

President of the (British) Economic History Society

President, North American History of Economics Society

President, Italian Association for the History of Political Economy

Board, Society for the History of economic Thought, Japan

28 Members, Greek Society for the History of Economic Thought


This is in addition to the countless number of academics, both here and overseas, that have written in support or worked through their universities to complain about the reclassification. The study of the history of economic thought clearly has a lot of support internationally and sometimes from unexpected sources. For example, on the 14th of September I received an email from Edmund Phelps saying that the move to dump HET from the economics research classification would be an "unambiguous disaster". 


Hence we are optimistic with this recent development that HET and Economic History research can remain in the economics field. However, it is not a done deal yet.

 
The timetable is as follows. A revised ABS Research Codes document will be discussed at a meeting of the ABS Revision Committee on the 27th of September and then circulated to all the peak bodies/major stakeholders for final comment. A final recommendation would then be made in November. However, after that there is a certification process and the ABS hope to publish the final outcome in March 2008.

So the issue is not settled yet. There are still opportunities for a policy reversal. While we can be cautiously optimistic for a favourable outcome, if we have an opportunity to influence these further deliberations we should do so.

 
John Lodewijks