From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Mon Sep 17 2007 - 11:50:35 EDT
>Subject: A letter to The Australian Bureau of Statistics >From: "Sumitra Shah" <shahs@stjohns.edu> >To: "International Association...snip...iaffe-l@lists.carleton.ca> > >Dear folks, > >I am taking the liberty of sending you a copy of my letter to The >Australian Bureau of Statistics. The background is this: the Bureau >is revising its research classifications and is planning to remove >history of economic thought(HET) and economic history from the >economics listings. The people in the field are extremely upset and >have sent letters in favor of keeping the fields under economics. > >Some leading scholars in the field argue that it is the heterodox >schools' close affiliation with HET that has caused its demise even >in the U.S.A. Some of us disagree and it also led to a discussion of >heterodoxy. I sent links to the TPM blog on Hip Heterodoxy which we >had discussed on this list. Following is my letter in support of our >Australian colleagues in the history of economics field. In it I try >to address the Bureau's concern about how research should be relevant >to socio-economic objectives. > >Best, Sumitra >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >I am joining my colleagues in the History of Economics Society in >requesting you that the proposal to move history of economic thought >(HET) as an academic field out of the economics departments should be >rescinded. Sandra Peart, the president of HES, and the executive >board and many others have ably made the case that such a change >would be harmful to the teaching of economics and to the research >activities of scholars interested in the field. > >I would like to focus on another area of research which is thriving >in many economics departments in the U. S. I am referring to feminist >economics which has emerged as an important specialization. Its >investigations and findings are used by international bodies like >United Nations to formulate policies which make a real difference in >the lives of women around the world. That difference is crucial for >the very survival of women in poor and developing countries. An >example is the "Program on Knowledge Networking and Capacity Building >on Gender, Macroeconomics and International Economics" at the >University of Utah which is hosted by the economics department. > >One of the strengths of feminist economics is to understand the >weaknesses of economics as currently practiced by revealing the >biases built in the making of economic theory from its inception. The >androcentric hidden assumptions of the discipline can make for >misguided analyses and policy prescriptions that maybe harmful to >women, even if impeccable scientific tools are applied in the >process. The very development of gender as a category of economic >analysis is based on critically examining the history of economic >thought. That does not detract from the power of economics as a >science; it only enriches it. I would like to suggest that it is the >purpose of universities and public institutions to encourage >multi-faceted research into the economic aspects of our lives. HET >and feminist economics are integral parts of some of our research >programs. And so it is true for many others which my colleagues have >mentioned as closely dependent on the history of economics. Removing >HET from the economics departments will adversely affect their >viability. Thank you. > >Sumitra Shah >St. John's University
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT