The final resolution over the classification of History of Economic
Thought and Economic History within the Australian system of research
classification codes has now been announced. As most on this site will
recall, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) had made a provisional
decision to relocate both HET and EH away from its current
classification as part of Economics and into a new category under the
heading, ?History, Archaeology, Religion and Philosophy?. The
opposition to such a shift was both national and international in which
two almost identical but entirely separate campaigns were waged by
historians of economics and economic historians to overturn this
decision. And while following these campaigns there had been an earlier
statement from the ABS that it would be recommending the preservation of
both areas within the overall Economics classification, final
confirmation had not occurred until now. 

On 31 March, the ABS released its final revised classification codes
entirely in keeping with its previously stated undertakings. The
classification code History of Economic Thought and Economic History has
been removed as a separate part of the Economics classification with HET
being placed within Economic Theory and EH now listed as part of Applied
Economics. Economics is categorised as Division 14 within which there is
now ?Group 1401 Economic Theory?. In relation to this group, the ABS
classification codes now makes a specific statement to say that included
in this group is the history of economic thought. This is the relevant
statement from the ABS?s Revised Research Classification Code for
Group 1401: 

?This group covers economic theory. It includes history of economic
thought.
This group has five fields: 

     140101 History of Economic Thought 
     140102 Macroeconomic Theory 
     140103 Mathematical Economics 
     140104 Microeconomic Theory 
     140199 Economic Theory not elsewhere classified.? 

Should it be thought that the placement of history of economic thought
as first in this listing reflects any judgment on the subject matter
itself, it should be noted that the classification list is merely in
alphabetical order. 

It is then noted by the ABS under the heading ?Exclusions? that
?history and philosophy of economics is included in Group 2202
History and Philosophy of Specific Fields.? But when one actually
follows the pathway to Group 2202 all one finds are eleven subject codes,
each representing histories of vast areas of the academic world. Had
historians of economics not taken the steps it took, History of Economic
Thought would have been utterly lost, placed under Grouping 220208
?History and Philosophy of the Social Sciences?. As a subject
area, history of economic thought would have completely disappeared. 

In many ways it is regrettable that the ABS was adamant that it would
not retain a separate division containing just HET and EH. But that is a
much lesser matter than the near miss disaster that would have occurred
had history of thought and economic history been hived off into some far
off region in the nether world of academic obscurity. This was a fight
in which it turns out HET and EH had even more to lose than was ever
fully understood at the time. History of economic thought and economic
history are not separate from economics; they are as much part of
economics as microeconomic theory and international trade and it is
absolutely right that this understanding is now to be embedded in the
Standard Research Classification Codes. 


>From our perspective, there is no doubt that had the proposed change
been made it would have diminished economics as a subject within
Australia and the standing of Australian economists overseas. There is
also no doubt that the outcome the ABS has now proposed is appropriate,
as the testimony from so many economists from across the world has so
eloquently shown and for which we in Australia remain extremely
grateful. But none of this is to deny just how close run this entire
episode has been. Nor does any of this foreclose on the possibility that
this same threat may recur when the classification system is next
revised in ten years time although possibly sooner. But that is for
another generation of historians of economics to deal with should this
issue ever arise again. 

As for our colleagues overseas, there are many warnings in this local
episode which ought to be borne in mind, particularly the difficulties
involved in convincing individuals utterly unsympathetic to the study of
the history of economics that it is in fact an important area of
research and an absolutely integral part of the subject matter of
economics itself. 

Steven Kates