Who will win the Nobel Prize in economics this year?
Greg Mankiw asks and receives many answers.
One guess is William Nordhaus, for his concept of "green accounting." An environmental prize is overdue but perhaps Nordhaus is too skeptical about stringent anti-global warming measures to get the appropriate reception in Stockholm.
Another option is Eugene Fama, both for testing CAPM for securities prices and for figuring out what is wrong with it. You can imagine pairing his prize with either Richard Thaler (behavioral finance) or Kenneth French (Fama's co-author on many important papers).
Or how about Oliver Williamson and/or Jean Tirole for principal-agent theory as applied to the business firm?
I would offer the prize jointly to Anne Krueger, Jagdish Bhagwati, and Gordon Tullock for their work on rent-seeking, but that is not my prediction. Readers, what do you think?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 6, 2007 at 09:09 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
It's about time Bengt Holmstrom's contribution to microeconomic theory gets recognized, much more than Oliver Williamson or Jean Tirole, in my opinion.
Posted by: Arsène Lupin at Oct 6, 2007 9:38:33 AM
I am not too familiar with the big names, But I hope Jagdish Bhagwati wins this time, He really deserves a Nobel Prize for his contributions to his field.
Holmstrom too has done some amazing work. lets see!
Posted by: rahul at Oct 6, 2007 10:24:29 AM
Naomi Klein and Joe Stieglitz, joint prize.
Posted by: Erik at Oct 6, 2007 11:15:22 AM
Well, Stiglitz has already won, and if Naomi Klein and Econ Nobel ever reach the same sentence again, I'm becoming an artist.
How about William Baumol? Tirole has a good shot, but he's still too young, isn't he? Peter Diamond, James Mirrlees, and Jerry Hausman are never mentioned, but they should be. Is Lionel McKenzie still alive?
That said, if I were a betting man, I'd say Fama or Fama/Thaler, though I think behavioral economics is not important enough to deserve multiple Nobels in only a few years.
Posted by: cure at Oct 6, 2007 11:40:19 AM
"Well, Stiglitz has already won,"
and so has Mirrlees!
Posted by: tom at Oct 6, 2007 12:17:46 PM
For environment, theory of the firm and a lot more the octogenarian Keynesian Prof.Baumol is the right name.There is no meaning in giving prize to finance theorists-a narrow field.
Posted by: GVV at Oct 6, 2007 12:44:51 PM
I'm surprised you have Jean Tirole & Oliver Williamson in the same price —— but it might make sense the way you put it. I remember the Coase-Williamson duo was hot the year Coase got it, so it might be that —— that would be a big boost for my advisor.
Otherwise, William Baumol makes sense: whom with, if I may assume the price is not given to lone rangers?
Maybe Fama: the association with Thaler would be an interesting sign, saying that science, or at least economics, is a debate.
Is it me, or, apart from Tirole, none of these are hard-core neo-classicals?
Maybe you are just considering that the balance shifts every year, this year winner won't be an unemployment or inflation specialist.
Posted by: Bertil at Oct 6, 2007 12:46:34 PM
Similarly Anne Krueger doesnot deserve a prize.Krugman,Bhagvathi and Dixit are some deserving names.
Posted by: GVV at Oct 6, 2007 12:47:09 PM
It is very unfortunate that Armen Alchian and Harold Demsetz seem to be completely forgotten by the profession, as Jack Hirshleifer was - he would have definitely deserved the recognition.
Posted by: Tobia Mill at Oct 6, 2007 12:54:06 PM
It may be too soon for the folks at Nobel who seem to insist on waiting til you are older than the hills before you can win, but I nominate Paul Romer for (re)opening up research into the actual causes of growth. For too long the field of economics bizarrely treated "technology" as exogenous, with "exogenous" being a polite way of saying: We have no freaking clue what we are talking about.
Since Romer is probably too young to win, I'd vote for Barro or Feldstein.
How about the Nobel "Peace" Prize? I'll vomit if Al Gore wins it, he's an irresponsible rabble rouser who selectively uses the worst possible, least likely outcomes (conveniently without citation I might add, making it hard for otherwise lazy media folks to fact check him) and presents them as if they were facts to an uninitiated audience.
I hereby move that the Nobel Peace Prize henceforth be restricted only to those who actually help bring about peace.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Oct 6, 2007 12:55:52 PM
http://www.econales.com/weblog/2007/10/and-the-sverige.html
See my post our the economicsforwhatalesyou.com blog
Posted by: Alexandre Padilla at Oct 6, 2007 1:21:31 PM
Bill Nordhaus for "green accounting"? That honor would clearly have to be shared by Martin Weitzman.
In any case, it seems much more likely that either or both -- together perhaps with Partha Dasgupta -- win for contributions to environmental economics in general.
Posted by: G Wagner at Oct 6, 2007 1:22:34 PM
Richard Posner for his numerous contributions to the economic analysis of law.
Posted by: BL at Oct 6, 2007 1:48:14 PM
Halbert White.
Posted by: mark at Oct 6, 2007 2:25:25 PM
Halbert White.
Posted by: mark at Oct 6, 2007 2:25:42 PM
Halbert White.
Posted by: mark at Oct 6, 2007 2:25:47 PM
Gordon Tullock - He, as much as James Buchanan contibuted to recognition of the Public Theory concept, and should have stood with him then. But, as noted, he may be doubly recognized for both that and "Rent-Seeking." Not to be overlooked is his co-authored "Calculus of Consent."
A collection of his "Selected Works" (C.K. Rowley, Ed.) is available from Liberty Fund.
And, another plus, he, like Adam Smith, is NOT an "economist."
Incidentally, being of his generation, I was long through at U.Va. before he came, and was never his student, though I hope to have gained something from his works.
Richard Posner's time will come.
R. Richard Schweitzer
s24rrs@aol.com
Posted by: R. Richard Schweitzer at Oct 6, 2007 2:31:06 PM
It should be noted that the "Economics Nobel" is not adjunct to the Nobel Peace Prize, having been separately established.
Posted by: R. Richard Schweitzer at Oct 6, 2007 2:34:30 PM
I vote for Fama, because his work withstood (is that the right word?) the test of time the best. (Fair disclosure: I almost took his course at Chicago, and now wish I had).
Posted by: RG at Oct 6, 2007 3:12:22 PM
I would add Susan Rose Ackermann to Anne Krueger.Against Krueger is only her work at the much maligned IMF.I have quoted Tullock in a third of my published works but he is not seen as an economist.Still he would be my first choice beside Krueger and Ackermann.
Tirole for his work on regulation.
Williamson for his work in the theory of the firm could be seen as a follower not an innovator but he deserves it.
Baumol for his work ranging from welfare economics to the hetherodox( The Baumol disesases)
I agree with the Roemer option , but he coulb be 20 years or more late.Development economics was the fad in the 70s.
A dark horse: Kahn. An economist who succed in the real world
Posted by: jean at Oct 6, 2007 3:20:05 PM
I'd be more interested to know what Nobel Prizes you would take away. Say the top 5 economists who shouldn't have deserved the prize *when* the prize was awarded rather than in light of subsequent economic research.
Posted by: Seer at Oct 6, 2007 3:50:47 PM
Here is a futures market for the prize:
http://www.nobelpreisboerse.de/stocks.aspx?stc=6
It looks like Prescott and Barro lead at this point.
Posted by: ryan israelsen at Oct 6, 2007 4:05:30 PM
How long will it take for anybody to point out that Prescott has already won?
Posted by: ryan israelsen at Oct 6, 2007 4:09:10 PM
I'd like to see Janos Kornai finally win for explaining the basic flaw in socialist economic systems (soft budget constraints), but I don't believe he'll get it.
In environmental economics, I agree with those who point out that the contributions of Weitzman, Dasgupta and Baumol have been more important than Nordhaus's.
As long as we're nominating non-economists (Tullock and Posner), what about Elinor Ostrom. Her work on CPR regimes and institutional analysis is both important and influential.
Posted by: Dan Cole at Oct 6, 2007 5:51:34 PM
Richard Nelson, Nathan Rosenberg, and Paul David for their contributions to the economics of technological change.
Posted by: anonymous at Oct 6, 2007 7:15:46 PM
I think it should go to Muhammad Yunus.
Microfinance: Practical. Field tested. Helps the poor.
John
Posted by: Shakespeare's Fool at Oct 6, 2007 8:35:33 PM
I have made guesses in the past, some of which are in Tyler's list. I shall stick to commenting
on fields. First of all, I doubt it will be macro, which rules out Barro et al. Why? Macro got
it last year. Phelps. So, no macro this year. While Fama or Fama and Thaler or Fama and Mandelbrot
or Fama and French, or some combo of these will eventually get it, I seriously doubt finance will get
it this year. Too damned many problems in the financial markets. I think the committee is gun shy
after giving it to Merton and Scholes, only to have LTCM blow up and nearly tank the world system.
The only way that one would happen would be if Fama were paired with someone else who is not as big
of a tub thumper for the EMH. That just looks like garbage right now.
While environmental has never gotten it, trade has not had it for a very long time. Some combo of
people out of there look very likely to me. I would also point out that Williamson is the most
cited economist of all time. The others mentioned by Tyler are all serious possibilities.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Oct 6, 2007 9:29:48 PM
I would have to vote for Dixit: I believe that he's due for one soon.
Posted by: Brandon at Oct 6, 2007 10:21:49 PM
My favourite one from Mankiw's blog:
"Brad Delong for his contributions to the blogosphere"
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 6, 2007 10:55:32 PM
Can someone direct me to a summary of Nordhaus' work?
To what extent is Norhaus' work dependent on or related to Alex Hartick's?
Many thanks.
Posted by: Mark at Oct 7, 2007 3:05:20 AM
Wistful thinking --- for Sam Peltzman.
All the green accounting, one must wonder what offsetting behaviors might emerge in conjunction with the green revolution.
Posted by: Rashid at Oct 7, 2007 5:46:25 AM
ryan, I'm pretty sure that's not a futures market.
Posted by: mike at Oct 7, 2007 10:23:18 AM
Well, the contracts "pay" $1000 if the candidate wins the prize and $0 otherwise. Maybe you are referring to the fact that prizes and not money are at stake?
Posted by: ryan israelsen at Oct 7, 2007 11:23:34 AM
Lars Hansen
Posted by: phil at Oct 7, 2007 1:48:32 PM
"Here is a futures market for the prize:
http://www.nobelpreisboerse.de/stocks.aspx?stc=6
It looks like Prescott and Barro lead at this point."
A closer look at the site seems to show it was last updated in October 2004, just before Prescott won. So it WAS a futures market. But isn't any longer.
Posted by: Will at Oct 7, 2007 7:19:47 PM
Yep. That's why I said "How long will it take for anybody to point out that Prescott has already won?"
Posted by: ryan israelsen at Oct 7, 2007 9:10:03 PM
癌症 肺癌 胃癌 肝癌 肾癌 食道癌 子宫颈癌 乳腺癌 卵巢癌 直肠癌 结肠癌 皮肤癌 甲状腺癌 胰腺癌 前列腺癌 膀胱癌 骨癌 鼻咽癌 脑瘤
Posted by: edfghtgfh at Oct 8, 2007 12:13:37 AM
L.P. Hansen. He had the Ely lecture this year. But he might still be too young.
Posted by: pinus at Oct 8, 2007 2:25:27 AM
Why so little research on "rent-seeking" in cultural economics?
Posted by: EffZi at Oct 8, 2007 7:10:31 AM
Why not the Nobel Prize to Alan Greenspan?
Posted by: Jacopo at Oct 8, 2007 9:49:59 AM
Sandy Grossman, and to the above comments that financial theorists, and for that matter empiricists, should not be considered I ask why not?
Posted by: Tyler at Oct 8, 2007 12:11:54 PM
I vote for Janos Kornai (soft budget contstrains).
Posted by: Tamás at Oct 8, 2007 2:12:31 PM
I vote for Janos Kornai (soft budget contstrains).
Posted by: Tamás at Oct 8, 2007 2:15:00 PM
Give it to Philip Mirowski for his work in the history of economic thought. No one has done more toward advancing our understanding of economics as a science -- and no field in the discipline has done more to advance our grasp of the significance of economics as a science and discipline. A history of economic ideas Nobel Prize is long overdue.
Posted by: PrestoPundit at Oct 8, 2007 6:22:21 PM
What about Martin Feldstein-Barro for their work on Social Security? What about a R McKinnon/H Desoto/Rabushka Nobel for economic development issues? Or maybe a Nordhaus-Alesina Nobel for Political Business cycles? Or how about a Laffer-Barro-Feldstein nobel for tax-deficit issues (too late for Jude Wanniski). Of course, people would joke about a joint nobel for Supply Side economics and Ricardian equivalence, but that's nothing new since the Hayek-Myrdahl prize. That last one would be seen as political, but if they could give it to Stiglitz after he shilled for Clinton, why not Laffer?
Posted by: D MacKenzie at Oct 8, 2007 10:30:44 PM
In the past three years Americans have swept the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. It only takes three to make a pattern, which one may very easily be commencing.
In previous publications the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has said the U.S. is a definite contender once again. They have good reason to believe so seeing as how there are two possible nominees who both work at Columbia University, Christopher Sims and Jagdish Bhagwati.
Two Americans won the prize last year for pioneering the use of psychological and experimental economics in decision-making to make markets safer. Daniel Kahneman, based at Princeton, and Vernon L. Smith of George Mason University received the prizes. Also, in 2001 three Americans won the economics prize for advances in ways to analyze markets that can be applied to both developing and advanced economies. In Addition of the 51 people who have received the prize since it was first awarded in 1969, 34 have been from the United States.
If history repeats itself, which it usually tends to do, the United States will bring home another golden medallion!
Posted by: atdaniel41 at Oct 9, 2007 1:36:32 AM
Mankiw and Hubbard, for their reckless Economic advice to President Bush and destroying American Economy. They deserve Nobel! No Economist has done so disservice to the Profession of Economics. So they must be awarded!
Posted by: David at Oct 9, 2007 6:42:14 AM
D Mckenzie,
Prof.Myrdal got his Nobel not for his development studies or institutional economics but for his early contributions in pure dynamic analysis through his pathbreaking Wicksellian reformulation in his great book "MONETARY EQUILIBRIUM".He was a pure macro-monetary theorist in his youtful period.
Posted by: GVV at Oct 9, 2007 10:30:06 AM
D Mckenzie,
Prof.Myrdal got his Nobel not for his development studies or institutional economics but for his early contributions in pure dynamic analysis through his pathbreaking Wicksellian reformulation in his great book "MONETARY EQUILIBRIUM".He was a pure macro-monetary theorist in his youtful period.
Posted by: GVV at Oct 9, 2007 10:31:05 AM
YAIR MUNDLAK merits a Nobel in Econ.
Posted by: GTat at Oct 9, 2007 11:47:41 AM
I can't believe the masturbation that is going on here. Most works cited failed in description as well as in policy on the type of things going on in the real world. Ask Bernanke about it...shame, shame, shame...
Posted by: RebelwithaCause at Oct 9, 2007 5:37:57 PM
How about Thomas J. Sargent and Lars P. Hansen
Posted by: Zar at Oct 9, 2007 11:52:26 PM
Professor Leif Johansen
Professor Peter Dixion
Computable General Equilibrium.
Posted by: UQ at Oct 10, 2007 12:20:14 AM
kevin murphy
Posted by: at Oct 10, 2007 12:31:07 AM
kevin murphy
Posted by: at Oct 10, 2007 12:31:37 AM
How about Milgrom and Roberts- or, indeed, the whole gang of 4, including Kreps and Wilson?
Peter Diamond, who someone mentioned, is an extraordinary economist with contributions in many areas.
Posted by: kevin quinn at Oct 10, 2007 10:31:10 AM
My money is on Tom Sargent. Quite likely joint with Sims.
Posted by: mv at Oct 10, 2007 12:58:57 PM
Williamson is due. I see places remarking that he's "the most highly cited economist," but the rankings never mention him. I suspect that's because the rankings are done within econ. journals, and that Williamson's "accomplishment" is either (1) erroneous or (2) counts all the non-econ literature. Surely, OEW has had an enormous impact in the law literature, business, and other social sciences. Whether that fact matters in Sweden is another matter...
Posted by: Seth Greenpoint at Oct 10, 2007 9:39:59 PM
One should take into acount the people on the committee when making these predictions: http://nobelprize.org/prize_awarders/economics/committee.html
Here's the list:
Jörgen Weibull (Chairman)
A.O. Wallenberg Professor of Economics
Peter Englund (Secretary)
Professor of Banking and Insurance
Lars Calmfors (Member)
Professor of International Economics
Per Krusell (Members)
Professor of Economics
Karl-Gustaf Löfgren (Members)
Professor of Economics
Timo Tiräsvirta (Member)
Professor of Economic Statistics
Posted by: DRDR at Oct 10, 2007 11:05:35 PM
Being quoted outside economics journals matters, see Coase
Posted by: jean at Oct 11, 2007 12:10:38 AM
How about evolutionary/behavioral ecology?...the expansion of economics to non-humans. Several major figures are cited >12,000 times each, although outside economics journals. In its favor is that the theory actually works....plants and animals really do obey economic rules...all driven by natural selection haveing designed them. Economists are SO limited in what they think economics really is.
Posted by: john at Oct 11, 2007 10:23:45 AM
Armen Alchian is an excellent choice; David Henderson raises that missed opportunity each year. Personally, I'd like to see the Nobel committee give Michael Jensen a serious look. His agency paper w. the late Bill Meckling is one of the most-cited papers in financial economics. Jensen's contributions have been far-ranging & not limited to written publications. As a founding editor of the Journal of Financial Economics, he helped nurture & usher in high-quality empirical papers, papers that are about more than mere tweaking of an equation. He has also done the profession a huge service with his SSRN website. I am a friend of his but stand by my comments steadfastly.
Posted by: Eric G. Wruck at Oct 12, 2007 10:45:01 AM
Dick Nelson and Sid Winter. Not a prediction, just a recommendation.
Posted by: Deborah Savage at Oct 12, 2007 2:00:49 PM
Interesting that Weibull is chair of the committee. If my recollection is correct, his Ph.D. is actually in math, not in econ. Wonder if that shifts weight more towards a Milgrom/Roberts/Krep/Wilson prize?
Posted by: Ron Miller at Oct 12, 2007 5:51:02 PM
Post a comment
扫码加好友，拉您进群
全部版块
我的主页
