According to the National Science Foundation,
“To date, NSF has funded 43 researchers who earned Nobel Prizes in Economics, all but three Americans to whom the prize was awarded since 1969.”
Which give rise to the Trivia Question: “Which three winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics from America were never awarded grant money from . . . → Read More: Trivia — which 3 American Nobel winners in econonomics were never awarded an NSF grant?
Paul Samuelson + George Stigler + advanced undergraduate mathematics = Nobel Prize
Peter Klein spots a Nobel Prize trend:
It is said that when the Nobel Prize in economics was first established, prizes were given for using economics to teach people things they didn’t already know, e.g., that economic growth might increase inequality, that depressions are caused by central banks, that macroeconomic stabilization policy doesn’t work, etc. . . . → Read More: A pattern emerges in the selections for the Nobel Prize in economics
Details from Tyler Cowen here, here, here, and here. Additional thoughts from Arnold Kling. And here’s the official statement from the Nobel Prize committee explaining their rationale for the award.
There is something of a parallel here with the work of Leonid Hurwicz and Joseph Stiglitz and George Stigler — take an aspect of Hayek’s . . . → Read More: A Nobel Prize for Hayekian recalculation in the labor market
Will Barack Obama win the Nobel Prize in economics?
The news that Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa won the Nobel Prize for literature has gratified me beyond words. The award is a huge boost for liberty in Latin America. Through his literary genius, prolific essays, and ceaseless activism, Vargas Llosa long established himself as perhaps Latin America’s most well-known public intellectual, and certainly . . . → Read More: Mario Vargas Llosa, Friedrich Hayek & the Nobel Prize in Literature
So argues Nassim Taleb.
He has a point. It hard to imagine the current crisis without the central role in the mess of Nobel Prize winning economics.
And there can’t be much argument against the claim that the Nobel Prize in Economics is often as much an embarrassment to science as the Nobel Prize in . . . → Read More: Hold the Swedish Central Bank liable for crashing the world economy?
Gerald O’Driscoll takes a look at Hayek’s “The Pretence of Knowledge”.
Peter Boettke, Lynne Kiesling, Peter Klein, Vernon Smith, David Henderson, Don Boudreaux, and other Hayekian economists are all applauding the award of the Nobel Prize in Economics to Lin Ostrom and Oliver Williamson.
Here’s Boettke on Ostrom:
We can talk in more depth in the comments on Lin’s great range of work from the analysis . . . → Read More: Nobels for Ostrom & Williamson Get at Big Thumbs Up From Hayekian Economists
Only a handful of Nobel Prize winners are as well read in the work of Friedrich Hayek as 2009 winner Oliver Williamson. Note for example the references to Hayek in Williamson’s The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Williamson is particularly fond of quoting this passage from one of Hayek’s essays on the nature of explanation:
“Whenever . . . → Read More: Oliver Williamson & Friedrich Hayek
Christopher Swann in Forbes:
Far from celebrating those who have ‘conferred the greatest benefit on mankind’ as Alfred Nobel intended, the economics prize has done more harm than good.
The prize has fostered a faith in economists that is often misplaced. Friedrich Hayek, who won in 1974, said he would have advised against creating the . . . → Read More: Forbes: Set Dynamite to the Nobel Prize in Economics
Friedrich Hayek seems to have fully anticipated that one day the Nobel Prize in Economics would be awarded to a mountebank like Paul Krugman. Hayek’s speech at the Nobel Banquet, December 10, 1974:
Now that the Nobel Memorial Prize for economic science has been created, one can only be profoundly grateful for having been selected . . . → Read More: There Shouldn’t Be A Nobel Prize in Economics — F. A. Hayek’s Nobel Banquet Speech