In this discussion on the reclassification of the History of Economic Thought and Economic History within Australia, the following statement we have received from one of the key decision makers making this determination in Australia should be noted. The second point he makes is, I think, of very great importance to our international colleagues. '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.' Whether there is an international classification scheme that removes HET and EH from within the Economics discipline we have not yet been able to establish. But should this be the case, then this reclassification is more than just a local event. I might finally note that the criterion for whether to consider History of Economics "non active" is whether we receive a sufficiently high level of public money in undertaking our research. I know that metrics in education are often bizarrely inappropriate, but this would be something special even there. Steven Kates