Thomson Reuters Nobel Predictions for 2014

|Peter Boettke|

For the past several years, the scientific intelligence company Thomson Reuters releases their prediction for the current years Nobel Prizes based on citation data.  The predictions have tended to be solid in the natural sciences, less so in the field of economics.  Nevertheless, once the predictions are made, the conversations over coffeee among economists begin in earnest.  This year the prediction is one that is very much welcomed by the contributors and readers of Coordination Problem.

ECONOMIC SCIENCES
Philippe M. Aghion
Robert C. Waggoner Professor of Economics, Harvard University
Cambridge, MA USA

-and-

Peter W. Howitt
Lyn Crost Professor Emeritus of Social Sciences and Professor Emeritus of Economics, Brown University
Providence, RI USA

For contributions to Schumpeterian growth theory

William J. Baumol
Professor of Economics and Harold Price Professor of Entrepreneurship, New York University
New York, NY USA

-and-

Israel M. Kirzner
Emeritus Professor of Economics, New York University
New York, NY USA

For their advancement of the study of entrepreneurism

Mark S. Granovetter
Joan Butler Ford Professor and Chair of Sociology, and Joan Butler Ford Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford University
Stanford, CA USA

For his pioneering research in economic sociology

 

We have been arguing for Kirzner to win the award --- and even this particular pairing --- for as long as the blog has existed. See, e.g., this post from 2005.  

In 2006, Kirzner was awarded a different prize from Swedish academics for his pioneering work on entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial market process, and we speculated that we had hoped it foreshadowed another recognition from Sweden.  Also in 2006, Kirzner received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Society for the Development of Austrian Economics.  And then again in 2013, Israel Kirzner received the Fund for the Study of Spontaneous Order Award for his outstanding contributions to economic science.

The September 2014 issue of the Review of Austrian Economics is comprised of the papers given in Kirzner's honors at the FSSO conference, plus his remarks upon receiving this recognition.

 

Fred Sautet and I are the editors of The Collected Works of Israel M. Kirzner (published by Liberty Fund), so we are no doubt biased, but we have (together and separately) on many occasions to explain to different audiences the fundamental importance of Kirzner's contributions in the history, methodology, analytics, and application of the Mises-Hayek-Kirzner theory of price and the competitive market process.  One of these papers is entitled "The Genius of Mises and the Brilliance of Kirzner."  On another occasion, I tried to explain "The Function of Market Agitation" that Kirzner's work explores.  And still yet on another occasion, I have attempted to articulate why from a purely economic theory point of view Kirzner deserves the highest recognition that the discipline has to offer due to his solving of a foundational issue in price theory.

It is my sincere hope that Thomson Reuters prediction is correct and that the economics profession will have the occasion to reflect on the fundamental contributions that Israel Kirzner made throughout his career to the scholarship and science of economics.  But even if the prediction proves to be incorrect, I hope that the fact that his name has been so widely circulated as a consequence, that an appreciation for his fundamental work in providing the disequilibrium foundations of equilibrium economics will be recognized and a new appreciation for the subtle and profound theoretical system of Mises, Hayek and Kirzner spreads and their work ignites an intellectual curiosity in our profession at the deepest level of fundamental theory and our methods of analysis.

Comments

[Daniel Klein]

I hope so, too. Fingers crossed!

On a different not, I thought I'd reproduce a thought I also left at MR:

Wasn’t there some inside-information story about certain people having access to information about the stock trades made by key industry or government players, and using that to guide their own trades?

A passing thought: Might Thomson Reuters have info about certain computers in Sweden accessing citation information about Baumol, Kirzner, Granovetter, etc.?

The current Prize Committee consists of the following individuals:

Committee 2014 Members: Tore Ellingsen (Chairman), Mats Persson, Tomas Sjöström, Per Strömberg, Peter Gärdenfors, Torsten Persson (Secretary)

Associate Members: John Hassler, Eva Mörk, Peter Englund, Jakob Svensson

Is it possible for Thomson Reuters to trace citation searches on their system to the institutions of those individuals?

The Thomson Reuters press release says: “After a thorough review of citations, along with various qualitative measures, Thomson Reuters analysts identify the highest-impact researchers to be included among its Citation Laureates, who are likely winners of the Nobel Prize now or in the future.”

Could tracing the citation searches of certain Swedish users be among “the various qualitative measures”? I don’t see any further elaboration of their method.

I don’t see how, simply by looking at citations, Thomson Reuters could possibly come up with guesses like those they make for Econ.

Or is there another way to explain how they come up with their guesses?

[Mario Rizzo]

If I were on the Nobel committee I would do whatever I wanted and find the rationalization later. However, I do think that the fact that Kirzner has not published in the major journals (except for an invited JEL article and some 1962 JPE pieces) will count against him. I cannot imagine what could be said about how he has *influenced* economists (beyond us). Of course, they might take the tack that his work is important and deserves to have an influence. How often do they do that? Well, no need to speculate. We shall know in due course.

[Jerry O'Drsicoll]

Dan raises an interesting issue. I would ask what does Thompson Reuters get out of being in the prediction game? If Dan is correct, Thompson Reuters is expending significant resources to collect data. What is the nature of the business modeL?

[Peter Boettke]

Jerry,

This is there business --- they are the producer of the Citation Indexes, each year around Nobel time, they generate a buzz around their business of science data collection. Their services of measuring scientific impact have a huge impact throughout the world.

I think folks are getting hung up on the Kirzner pick and their "impression" of his citation impact in economics proper. First, Aghion and Howett are clearly very influential in the current practice of economics. Second, Granovetter is the leading figure in the field of economic sociology. So these picks are not at all out of the ordinary --- no more so than a pick in the pass such as Elinor Ostrom, or even I would say James Buchanan. Finally, Baumol has long been rumored to be on the short list, and not just for his work on entrepreneurship, but for his work in general, including his fundamental contribution to cultural economics with the cost disease. So Kirzner is the issue that is tripping folks up. But this should NOT be the case. (1) He has for a long time been coupled with Baumol professionally as the man who reintroduced the entrepreneur into modern economics. This is why he had the JEL survey, but also why he already won the award from the Swedish government on fundamental contributions to entrepreneurship. (2) He is a very influential figure --- though he would deny this --- in the field of strategic management and entrepreneurship. This has been true for years, as major figures in that field (teaching in business schools and public policy departments and publishing in specialized journals) have been citing him and his idea of alertness, etc. for years. I personally have been on dissertations in several countries, including right here at GMU in public policy, where Kirzner receives his mandatory citations without any intervention on my part.

Besides citation measures --- which IS the business of Thomson Reuters --- they do mention qualitative measures. There method could be simply the leaders (gain through doing an qualitative survey of representative thinkers) in various fields. There is an interesting thread connecting all 3 areas --- Schumpeterian growth, entrepreneurship, and economic sociology --- they could all be interpreted to be a recognition of Schumpeter's legacy in the social sciences and thus some notion of evolutionary economics. That is pure speculation on my part, but in different parts of Europe, this idea of an evolutionary economics is very big and thus perhaps they are picking up on a more general trend in citations, and then breaking that down into sub-trends.

I don't know, but I find the opportunity that Thomson-Reuters "prediction" provides for us to talk about Kirzner's contributions to economic science to be just fascinating. If it turns out that their prediction comes true, then my fascination will turn to sheer joy as a man of great integrity and humility will have been justly awarded the highest honor our profession has to offer, and what a role model that would be to the young scholars hoping to follow in his footsteps. Sheer joy.

[Jerry O'Drsicoll]

Pete,

With respect, you have not described a business for Thompson Reuters. Where do the profits come from? "Buzz" is not profits

Jerry

[Peter Boettke]

Selling Social Science Citation Index and other citation measures to libraries, I think.

[Jule R. Herbert Jr.]

For what it's worth, they own the highly profitable West Publishing Company, which is the dominant player in reporting case law decisions and giving editorial analysis of same for the legal "community." Thompson was a large publishing and internet company prior to acquiring Reuters.

[Dallas Wood]

Pete,

Thanks for posting these very interesting links on Kirzner's work. It has made for some fun reading.

However, I wonder if you overstate the case a little when you say that mainstream econ doesn't have an account of how market equilibrium is attained without Kirzner.

Aren't there plenty of oligopoly models in IO where we depart from standard price taker assumptions (the simplest of which are static Cournot and Betrand oligopoly models)? Couldn't one argue that these models give an idea for how equilibrium is attained, but that for large markets with many participants it is just simply easier to ignore these complications and use perfect competition?

Thanks and I look forward to your feedback.

[Mathieu Bédard]

Thomson-Reuters sells information processing solutions to other high tech powerhouses. On the scholar market they sell their ScholarOne Manuscripts backoffice to publishers, which is a sort of replacement for Aries System's Editorial Manager. Their strategy is to have a full ecosystem, from their ResearcherID, to EndNotes, to impact factors, to their publisher suite, etc. I think the Nobel in Economics prediction is just a showcase of what they can do with all this.

[The Ultimate Philosopher]

no mention of tirole, hmmm

[The Ultimate Philosopher]

tirole mentioned here though
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/10/10/whos-going-to-win-the-2014-nobel-prize-in-economics/