Tyler Cowen has some nominations for the Nobel Prize in Economics:
Harold Demsetz - deserving in my view. He started contestable markets and put empirical teeth into property rights theory, industrial organization, and some law and economics. But I don't expect him to get it, somehow his reputation never became highbrow enough. His works revels in its own simplicity (which I don't mind at all).Israel Kirzner - leader of the Austrian school but very low profile within the economics profession. Hard to see where all the votes would come from.
William Baumol - A very smart guy. No one would object if he got it. But Demsetz (among others) beat him to the key point on contestable markets, and his work on cultural economics doesn't have enough currency. What else should he get it for? I'll bet no.
Kirzner is my own choice -- a deserved one.
A little know fact -- Baumol's mathematical analysis of some models inspired by Hayek's work in the theory of capital and interest played an important role in Hayek's turn away from macroeconomics. Hayek simply had too much on his plate, and no time to go down the road of specialized mathematical analysis. Whether the Baumol's mathematical specialization road has been an intellectually productive one is an open question. Or maybe not. At this point, a respectable argument could be made that as an explanatory endevour the project has been a massive failure.
Few recall this, but Baumol was important perhaps above all for his textbook, which emphasized advanced mathematical technique.
Posted by Greg Ransom