Roy Weintraub asks:

Will the HES Executive Committee and the ESHET Executive Committee
(joint sponsors of this list) be doing anything about this in the name
of the Societies? Can someone respond to this list for the Committees?

We have received a very supportive letter from Sandra Peart. Indeed a
number of supporting letters have been sent to the ABS by HES members.
For that we are very thankful. Any further help would be very much
appreciated.
 
The Australian economic historians are also on the case. Here is an open
letter from Simon Ville.
 
___________________________________________________
 
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:15:51 +1000 (EST)

>From: <[log in to unmask]>

>Subject: OZ.S: Proposed changes to RFCD codes

>To: [log in to unmask]

Dear Colleagues

As you may be aware, DEST has commissioned the Australian Bureau of
Statistics to review the use of the Australian Standard Research
Classification (ASRC). The RFCD codes is one of these classifications,
which will change to Fields of Research. As you will see from the
statement below, major and negative changes are proposed for economic
history. This appears to be largely the handiwork of one person in ABS
(David Brett). His logic is that economic history uses the processes and
methods of history rather than economics and that the lowish amount of
R&D money generated by our area requires a lower classification wherever
it is located. These points are addressed in a general statement below.
We urge all economic historians to register their objections through
their own university and, if you wish, with David Brett himself. Our
statement is a guideline - you may wish to modify it to your reflect
your own views. Feedback needs to be provided by 10th September.

Kind regards

Simon Ville

President, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand

The economic history community in Australia is strongly opposed to
foreshadowed changes to its classification suggested by the proposed
reforms to the RFCD codes. Under the new Fields of Research categories,
'economic history and history of economic thought' is removed as a four
digit classification within economics and is relocated as a 6 digit
classification in the History and Philosophy category.

Economic history is an active field of research in Australia. Its peak
body, the Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, manages
the Australian Economic History Review, an internationally significant
journal in its field which recently was admitted to the Social Science
Citation Index. In addition, the Society hosts an annual conference
which receives in excess of 50 papers, and offers a range of prizes for
best article, PhD, honours thesis, and conference paper. 

While the new classification retains a place for economic history, it is
downgraded in importance and is incorrectly located in history and
philosophy. In Australia, as overseas, the overwhelming majority of
economic history research is conducted in economics schools and commerce
faculties and explicitly uses the methodologies and theories of these
disciplinary areas. This fact is recognised by the Research Quality
Framework, which locates economic history and its journals in Panel 10
(Economics, Commerce, Management). Economic history research does not
seek substantial research grant expenditure, in most cases it is capital
extensive work that draws upon pen & paper (laptop) and access to an
archive. The substantial output of economic history, though, can be
clearly indicated by the contents of the Australian Economic History
Review, the regular contribution of Australian authors to overseas
journals in the field, and the authorship of monographs. Further details
can be provided.

__________________________________________________________________
 
We are also getting press coverage. Many emails have been sent to 
 

[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  

Very high profile Australian economists have been writing to voice their
disapproval, including those that are Chairs of our various Economics
Societies.

The pressure seems to be paying off. The ABS is starting to be less
dogmatic. Now they are saying we can stay in the economics
classification IF we remove the word "history" from our title. For
example, we might use the label "Development of Economic Theory and
Policy" or "Review of Economic Analysis". This is unacceptable to many
members. Steve Kates writes "The ABS should not tell us what to call our
subject area because it is convenient for their classification system.
We have to tell them that we are economists who learn our trade by
studying the history of our subject. In my view we should not give an
inch". The fight continues.

John Lodewijks