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