« Mandatory health insurance | Main | Secret postcards »
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
