« What is a bank? | Main | What is New Trade Theory? »

Paul Krugman wins the Nobel Prize

He is cited for trade theory and, appropriately, location theory and economic geography.  He could have been cited for his work on currency crises as well.  Here are the most basic links on Paul, it is hard to know where to start.  I have to say I did not expect him to win until Bush left office, as I thought the Swedes wanted the resulting discussion to focus on Paul's academic work rather than on issues of politics.  So I am surprised by the timing but not by the choice.

Here's Krugman's NYT column from today; there is so so much on him and by him.  Here is his blog.  Here is a short post-prize interview.  He has been influential in pushing the United States toward a bank recapitalization plan.  Here is Krugman on video, from just the other day, talking about the crisis and how bad it might get.  Krugman, of course, also called the housing bubble in advance.

Krugman is very well known for his work on strategic trade theory, as it is now called.  Building on ideas from Dixit, Helpman, and others, he showed how increasing returns could imply a possible role for welfare-improving protectionism.  Krugman, however, insisted that he did not in practice favor protectionism; it is difficult for policymakers to fine tune the relevant variables.  Boeing vs. Airbus is perhaps a simple example of the argument.  If a government can subsidize the home firm to be a market leader, the subsidizing country can come out ahead through the mechanism of capturing the gains from increasing returns to scale.  Here are some very useful slides on the theory.  Here is Dixit's excellent summary of Krugman on trade.  Krugman himself has admitted that parts of the theory may be less relevant for rich-poor countries trade (America and China) rather than rich-rich trade, such as America and Japan.

I am most fond of Krugman's pieces on economic geography, in particular on cities and the economic rationales for clustering.  He almost single-handedly resurrected the importance of "location theory," an all-important but previously neglected branch of economics.  Here is the best summary piece of Krugman's work in this area.  I believe this work will continue to rise in influence.

I have my own favorite pieces by Krugman.  This include his short critique of Austrian trade cycle theory and his short piece on why the British had such bad food.

He is also, by the way, a loyal MR reader but he is not the first reader to win the prize.

Krugman's books:

Here is my review of Conscience of a Liberal.  That book argued that politics and policy can reshape the distribution of income in a more egalitarian direction.  Peddling Prosperity is one of the best-written economics books, ever, as are also The Age of Diminished Expectations and Pop Internationalism.  The latter started a trend of Krugman as a debunker of erroneous economic claims.  The supply-siders and the low-level industrial policy advocates were early targets of his pen.  Pop Internationalism is also the work of Krugman's most likely to be popular with market-oriented economists.  Here is a collection of Krugman's earlier writingsThe Great Unraveling -- circa 2004 -- is for me too under-argued.  His book Currencies and Crises is in my view his most underrated work; it provides a very readable introduction to some of his ideas on financial crises and it has a nice use of the concept of option value.  Development, Geography, and Economic Theory is a very good and very readable introduction to his work on economic geography.  That and the currency book are my two favorites by Krugman.  Geography and Trade is useful plus here is a more technical collection on the spatial economy.

Krugman has a widely used Principles text, co-authored with his wife Robin Wells.  He also has a leading text in international economics co-authored with Maurice Obstfeld.

Here are profiles and bio pieces, none very recent.  Here is Krugman on how he works -- very personal and insightful.  Some of Krugman's thinking on the liquidity trap -- a key issue today for the crisis -- can be found here.

Krugman of course is a controversial figure in the blogosphere and in politics but I believe for today it is best to set those issues aside.  His Wikipedia page has lots on the critics plus some bio as well.  Daniel Klein for instance argued that Krugman should do more to speak out for freer markets in various settings.

Krugman's early columns for Slate.com were an important model for shaping what the econ blogosphere later became.  They are models of clarity and rigor which we all would do well to emulate.  His exposition of Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage is remarkably good and it is one of the best pieces of popular economics writing I know.

Award analysis: This was definitely a "real world" pick and a nod in the direction of economists who are engaged in policy analysis and writing for the broader public.  Krugman is a solo winner and solo winners are becoming increasingly rare.  That is the real statement here, namely that Krugman deserves his own prize, all to himself.  This could easily have been a joint prize, given to other trade figures as well, but in handing it out solo I believe the committee is a) stressing Krugman's work in economic geography, and b) stressing the importance of relevance for economics.  Daniel Davies also sees it as a career-based award. 

Who are the big losers?  Avinash Dixit and Elhanan Helpman and Maurice Obstfeld have to feel their chances for the prize went down significantly.

Addendum: Here is Bryan Caplan on "Paul Krugman, Guilty Pleasure."

Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 13, 2008 at 07:13 AM in Economics | Permalink

Comments

I must second Nassim Taleb in calling for the cancellation of the Nobel Prize in Economics. It is a dangerous platonification and legitimization of a heavily politicized field of inquiry. Krugman is a case in point, with his shrill left-wing columnry. Economists with Nobel Prizes are as dangerous as the banks and corresponding printing presses they man.

Posted by: time for classical liberal nobel prize winners to return their medal in protest at Oct 13, 2008 7:26:13 AM

I was delighted to hear this. Paul, your economic journalism and popular texts (especially Peddling Prosperity) was a significant reason why I chose to undertake a degree in economic. An award well deserved!

Posted by: Andrew at Oct 13, 2008 7:26:21 AM

Intriguing choice etc etc, but I'm most interested to hear about the food column, which I've looked up. Speaking as a brit, I'm not convinced by the "have" bad food premise. "had", perhaps (70s/80s in particular), but I think the standard of food for most (maybe this is my middle class perspective)is pretty good, and that my experiences of New York less than totally convincing...
Anyway, as for the prize, it seems a nice time to emphasise/remind about trade rather than finance in international economics.

Posted by: Andrew at Oct 13, 2008 7:37:06 AM

Am a bit disappointed with this, but don't want to sound too unfair. I know Krugman has done good work on location theory, but now he seems to be pretty much just a political commentator. I think the prize going to Krugman sends out the wrong message about economics. Mind you, havign said that, who really cares about it outside of the profession anyway?

Posted by: Nick at Oct 13, 2008 7:37:07 AM

P.S. Andrew - Krugman's article about British is a "had". It's about how demand has changed over time, and the Brits now demand better foood.

Posted by: Nick at Oct 13, 2008 7:38:35 AM

I'd like to know whether it is really politicised, because I don't know. One thinks that if it were politicised you wouldn't get the Mankiw's and Cohen's of this world saying that Krugman deserved the prize. In the economics blogosphere there's an awful lot of people who say "Krugman's a partisan hack in the NYT but an excellent economist". For what it's worth, I think there's an awful lot of people who would say Greg Mankiw is a partisan hack on his blog but an excellent economist. Same again from the other side about Delong.

I would actually really like to know what economists think about this.

Posted by: Finnsense at Oct 13, 2008 7:42:16 AM

I think you should add his great book The Accidental Theorist and Other Dispatches from the Dismal Science.

Posted by: Michael Greinecker at Oct 13, 2008 7:45:37 AM

I just read Krugman's piece on Austrian "hangover" theory. I'd love to see an Austrian response, do you know of one?

Posted by: mike van winkle at Oct 13, 2008 7:46:51 AM

I am myself a big fan of Krugman's, but I can't help wondering: given the situation in the world economy, the upcoming presidential election, Krugman's vocal endorsement of Obama and given the Swedes' intense preference for a president Obama, you do the math...

I am sorry about saying this out loud. I share these preferences, and I remember thinking last week: "wouldn't it be awesome if Krugman won, it could boost the Obama campaign even further." And now this... It is just too good to be true.

Posted by: Tiedemies at Oct 13, 2008 7:48:41 AM

Nick, thanks. I have given it a skim, but I had got that impression - it was Tyler's use of "has" I was objecting to, given his food critic sideline. Maybe it was the excitement of the prize news...

Posted by: Andrew at Oct 13, 2008 7:51:00 AM

First, there are two Andrews, one (this one) is not an economist) and has no idea about who deserves a Nobel prize. Personally, I'd give it to a guy who predicted the mess we are in before it happened.

However, I'm not sure why we'd listen to someone's opinion on a subject he considers:
"a theory that I regard as being about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire."

And says about it:

"Here's the problem: As a matter of simple arithmetic, total spending in the economy is necessarily equal to total income (every sale is also a purchase, and vice versa). So if people decide to spend less on investment goods, doesn't that mean that they must be deciding to spend more on consumption goods—implying that an investment slump should always be accompanied by a corresponding consumption boom? And if so why should there be a rise in unemployment?"

Where he misses the whole point of the theory, that credit creation exactly decouples price from value.

Posted by: Andrew at Oct 13, 2008 7:52:35 AM

Krugman was on the shortlist well before Bush got elected. No reason for politizing this. And Krugman himself made clear that the Nobel memorial prize gets awarded for research not a person in its entirety.

Posted by: Michael Greinecker at Oct 13, 2008 7:53:08 AM

Is the value of winning the Nobel Prize in Economics going up or down? There can be no question that, at the current moment, economics is lumped in with finance (especially international) and that is definitely giving it a bad name (at least among the masses).

The Nobel Prize is the one academic prize that people know about. If the movies have Oscars, and TV has the Emmies, it's as if the academy has its Nobel Prizes. (Try to find someone random and ask them about the Clark Medal or the Booker Prize and you'll most likely meet with blank stares.) It's my impression that the number of prizes--like most everything else in the information world--is proliferating. Therefore the heritage/legacy of the Nobel Prize is extremely valuable as (I hope I am using this right) a sort of mental Schelling Point around which (semi-)intelligent laymen can coordinate their knowledge of economics.

But is the value of a Nobel Prize in Economics going up or down? I think that in the past, the Nobel in Economics might have been thought of a little bit more like the ones in Chemistry, Physics, or Medicine: Perhaps there's some politics there; but achievement is what really matters. Now I'm afraid it's more like a Nobel in Literature or Peace--I'm sorry to have to draw such a stark hard/soft distinction--where it's more like a straight popularity contest.

Still, congratulations to PK! He is both a scientist and a Public Intellectual. In many ways--but not all--he is the true heir to Milton Friedman.

Posted by: ck at Oct 13, 2008 7:54:41 AM

For anyone who listened to the Nobel press conference, it's clear that Krugman is a solo winner because he made pathbreaking contributions to two distinct fields of international trade and economic geography, and to some extent unified them. This diversity of contributions is what makes Krugman unique. There is no evidence whatsoever that Krugman's politics and popular writings over the last couple decades played any role in today's result. This is all about the trade work he did in 1979-80 and the geography work from 1991.

Posted by: DRDR at Oct 13, 2008 8:00:27 AM

DRDR -- glad to see you have such a high regard for what is said in press conferences of Swedish award prize committees. The US election and the financial crisis are not things these committees think and talk about or would like to influence in any way, being the disinterested scientists that they are, assessing the works of other disinterested scientists like Krugman.

Posted by: Tie-wearing Ph.D Economist at Oct 13, 2008 8:10:45 AM

I'd like to steer the discussion back towards what Krugman actually won the prize for. These slides from Pol Antras sum up nicely some of pros and cons of the "New Trade Theory" and where the field of trade is headed today. The main flaws: in Krugman's model, all firms are the same size, and every firm exports everywhere in the world, while in the real world, firms that export are larger and more productive and rarer. Melitz (2003) and Eaton & Kortum (2002), which address these issues, are the most important trade papers of this decade.

Posted by: DRDR at Oct 13, 2008 8:13:51 AM

Yea of course, Krugman would have got the prize even if he didn't have a hate site at the NYTimes extolling the vices of Republican land. What a total joke. Then again the Swedes gave Algore the peace prize for not promoting peace and also handed one over to a real live terrorist, so why shouldn't the Swedes perform another act on intellectual vandalism?

Posted by: timcat at Oct 13, 2008 8:19:36 AM

Tie-wearer -- while you think my comments sound completely naive, I feel there is strong incentive for the Nobel committee not the politicize the award. They have a brand to protect. While Krugman is certainly now a partisan figure, he wasn't so much back in 1991 when we won the AEA Bates Clark Medal. It's difficult to argue that he is undeserving. Krugman, upon winning the award, was careful to respect the award. He was asked by the press about the financial crisis, and he respectfully avoided taking any partisan shots.

Posted by: DRDR at Oct 13, 2008 8:23:54 AM

It's difficult to argue that he is undeserving. Krugman, upon winning the award, was careful to respect the award. He was asked by the press about the financial crisis, and he respectfully avoided taking any partisan shots.

Yea, you mean he couldn't bring himself to criticize Barney Frank et al for screwing it up big time or he wasn't mentally agile this time to make up a lie about the GOP causing the crash?

This is Krugman we're talking about here: the guy who runs a hate site and gets paid to do it :-)

Posted by: timcat at Oct 13, 2008 8:36:37 AM

"I have my own favorite pieces by Krugman. This include his short critique of Austrian trade cycle theory... "
___________

You can´t be serious! That is one of the worst articles on ABCT ("hangover theory") I have ever read. He doesn´thave a clue.

A few "austrian" responses:

John P. Cochran
http://mises.org/story/630

Roger W. Garrison: Contra Krugman
http://mises.org/story/103
David Gordon:
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=53

Posted by: Matěj Šuster at Oct 13, 2008 8:37:01 AM

Krugman deserved it more than anybody else. The set of losers comprises Dixit, Norman, Helpman, Gene Grossman and Bhagwati. Next Nobel prize for trade goes to Marc Melitz in ten years or so.

Posted by: Cosimo at Oct 13, 2008 8:38:14 AM

Very sad to see all the bad losers in here. As was pointed out before, he's an obvious choice. He did unusually original fundamental work. He expanded on these insights year on year...coming to politics reasonably late for an economist. But he's got a pretty good bead on how the world actually works so more power to him for taking a political stand.

Hat tip to the Swedes for getting the fundamentals right in everything these days.

Posted by: Ben at Oct 13, 2008 8:42:44 AM

Krugman says in his essay on how he works that "one of the joys of policy research is the opportunity to shock the bourgeoisie, to point out the hollowness or silliness of official positions."

Is he really that far removed from reality that he is unaware that his position IS the bourgeois official position. The "expert" economist preaching from the pages of he NYTimes, that's about as bourgeois as it gets. His positions are the official positions of the mainstream media, the coastal city-dwellers, the civil servants, all of Washington, the UN and EU elites and nearly everyone who went through the Western university system after the 1960s.
This award at this moment to the most actively left-wing of all eligible economists under the guise of scientific achievement is the Orwellian cherry on the officially hollow, bourgeois Nobel Prize-winner's cake .

Posted by: sad pro-obama new york times editor at Oct 13, 2008 8:45:16 AM

They should have given the Nobel to Stan J. Liebowitz of UT-Dallas for trying to raise a stink for at least the last decade that the government's policy of relaxing lending standards for mortgages to increase minority and low income homeownership was a fraud and a trainwreck waiting to happen.

Here's Liebowitz's latest:

Anatomy of a Train Wreck: Causes of the Mortgage Meltdown
October 3, 2008
by Stan J. Liebowitz

Why did the mortgage market melt down so badly? Why were there so many defaults when the economy was not particularly weak? Why were the securities based upon these mortgages not considered anywhere as risky as they actually turned out to be?

This report concludes that, in an attempt to increase home ownership, particularly by minorities and the less affluent, virtually every branch of the government undertook an attack on underwriting standards starting in the early 1990s. Regulators, academic specialists, GSEs, and housing activists universally praised the decline in mortgage-underwriting standards as an “innovation” in mortgage lending. This weakening of underwriting standards succeeded in increasing home ownership and also the price of housing, helping to lead to a housing price bubble. The price bubble, along with relaxed lending standards, allowed speculators to purchase homes without putting their own money at risk.

The recent rise in foreclosures is not related empirically to the distinction between subprime and prime loans since both sustained the same percentage increase of foreclosures and at the same time. Nor is it consistent with the “nasty subprime lender” hypothesis currently considered to be the cause of the mortgage meltdown. Instead, the important factor is the distinction between adjustable-rate and fixed-rate mortgages. This evidence is consistent with speculators turning and running when housing prices stopped rising.

Anatomy of a Train Wreck is included in the forthcoming Independent Institute book, Housing America: Building Out of a Crisis, edited by Randall G. Holcombe and Benjamin Powell.
Stan J. Liebowitz is Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, Ashbel Smith Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for the Analysis of Property Rights and Innovation at the University of Texas at Dallas, and co-author with Stephen Margolis of Winners, Losers, and Microsoft: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology, published by the Independent Institute.

http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=30

Posted by: Steve Sailer at Oct 13, 2008 8:51:26 AM

Tyler,

Thanks for the great synopsis.

Posted by: Gabriel at Oct 13, 2008 8:51:28 AM

Post a comment