I thought that the ABS might appreciate a view from a fellow bureaucrat: To whom it may concern, I understand that you are revising the Australian Standard Research Classification, and that part of the proposed revision is a reclassification of the economic history and history of economic thought group from an economics 'Field of Research' to one for history, archaeology, religion and philosophy. I understand also that one of the reasons for doing so is that the research and development (R&D) processes in economic history and the history of economic thought are like those used in history and philosophy rather than those used in other economics disciplines. Focusing mainly on processes, it would be difficult to justify an economics R&D field at all, since so much of what economic researchers do is use processes used in other disciplines. So, on process grounds, you could justify redistributing the subdisciplines of economics not only among history and philosophy, but also among politics, sociology, psychology, applied maths, computer science and statistics. (This is an incomplete list-some economic research, for example, employs processes used in literary criticism, geography, biology etc.) >From a process perspective, research in Austrian school economics, institutional, evolutionary, experimental and behavioural economics, and other heterodox approaches, often bears little resemblance to the processes used in mainstream economics research. I believe that you are seeking views on the proposal from the academic community, but I thought I might send one, too, as an indirect beneficiary of economics research funding. I am an applied economist in the public sector. I currently work in the New Zealand Treasury on transport and competition policy, and I have previously worked in the New Zealand Commerce Commission and before that in the Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services' research arm, the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics. Work in these areas-which consists of communicating theory, policy debates and empirical analysis to economists and non-economists-has depended on research in the history of economic thought. In my opinion, for officials, a knowledge of economics that does not include an appreciation of its history is deficient. One of Australia's greatest public servants, Sir John Crawford, said: '. the great issues of public economic policy must be capable of literary exposition if administrators and politicians are to be educated and influenced'. Research in the history of economics, which emphasises a literary approach and places theoretical debate in its historical and political context, is an essential part of the public sector economist's training. Since the mid-90s, Australian governments have realised the benefits of outcomes and output-based budgeting and performance measurement for its own purposes. Research in the history of economics contributes to outcomes and outputs in economics. Directing education research funding according to processes rather than according to outcomes and outputs will diminish the product of research. In this case, reclassifying the history of economics will undermine the quality of Australian economics. I hope my comments have been helpful, and I hope the ABS reconsiders its proposal. Yours sincerely, Anthony Casey Crawford, J. 1957, Do administrators take any notice of economics?, National Archives of Australia: A4112/1, Box 1-Vol. 1949/1963.