June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad

« Two New Horwitz Videos on Austrian Economics | Main | Happy Birthday to Chris Coyne »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Great post! Thanks!

The master knows a good book when he sees it.

Stephen, the more I think about it, the more certain I am it is pulery political.From the perspective of recognising contributions to economic sciences, there is no particular value in delaying Krugman by 1-5 years in favour of other fields within economics that have also made important contributions. Krugman's contribution does not make his selection automatic, nor require it immediately. There is, in other words, no cost - fropm the perspective of recognising outstanding contributions to the economic sciences - from re-ordering the awards.If your objective, on the other hand, is to make a political point, then order is everything. The one time to make your point is now, in fact. They took it, knowing full well it would be perceived as a political stunt. What else can we conclude about their intentions?Krugman as a single recipient is conspicuous, both because he has worthy colleagues also deserving (Avinash Dixit by far the most obvious and prolific) some people say are as deserving and because Nobels in economics are unusually jointly awarded these days.Krugman was almost certainly selected because his political views happen to align with those giving the award, and because the comittee giving the award decided to use the award as a vehicle to make a political point.That cheapens - substantially - the award itself, not only for Krugman but all future recipients. The recognition that flows from the award will be forever tainted by the possibility their win was not about the quality of their economics. That, I think, is why economists are not thrilled with the award.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books