Nobel Prize picks

The WSJ offers up some predictions, although not for economics.

For this year (NB: I've never been right in the past) I am predicting a joint prize for Oliver Williamson and Jean Tirole.  Williamson is by some accounts the most cited living economist, Tirole is European, the pick would not look "political," and yet agency problems have proven to be pretty important as of late.  The selection would look relevant.  I used to pick Fama each year but the time is no longer right for him, whether that is fair or not (I would say not).

My dark horse pick is a joint prize to environmental economists, including William Nordhaus for the concept of "green accounting."

I thank Akshay for the pointer.  What do you all predict?


Why not joint with Holmstrom and Hart? Sounds more likely.

I would suggest that the Nobel Committee give serious consideration to Glenn Loury. What research has been more influential than his "Intergenerational Transfers and the Distribution of Earnings,†. Econometrica, Vol. 49, No.4, July: 843-67.? In my view, Loury is most deserving.

Daron Acemoglu or Andrei Shleifer or Nouriel Roubini

I believe, in order to simply make the heads of a lot of people explode, that a second prize will be award to Paul Krugman.

Is Tullock/Krueger for rent-seeking still possible? Or, is that just wishful thinking?

Damnit!! Brian J. beat me to it!

Contra Brian J., I predict that the award will go to Fama, just to watch Krugman explode.

I agree with Kruger /Tullock would be the right decision
but since Lafitte cant win it must go to Tirole/Williamson.
Baumol ,long overdue
Roubini for his prediction of the crisis

It's really hard to imagine an award for Fama this year, but how long can they put this off? It's going to be like Borges and the Lit prize.
I still say .25 chance Fama, and he remains the MLE, but it's not a good bet. It's hard to imagine any Macro guys winning (Barro et al.). Tirole is probably the next best but, but the fashion of the times may suggest Nordhaus or Thaler are more likely.

You can take my name off the list; I emailed the Nobel committee not to consider me this year.

But, I would support Jean Tirole for no reason other than to create a contrast in US industrial organization economics (micro and antitrust economics with game theory) with the decaying Chicago School approach. I find it refreshing to read the Europeans who can throw as much math at a subject as any American. But, even when they don't throw math at it, some of them are pretty good empiricists and could teach us all to be better at analyzing and collecting data. What probably separates us from them is that in the US many industrial organization academics are always thinking about what expert consulting gig they could lose out on if they took a particular position, whereas in Europe they don't have private treble damage actions and they are less likely to be worried about losing a consulting job.

Three likely prizes:
1. Hart, Holmstrom, and Williamson for theory of the firm and contracts.
2. Lars Hansen (perhaps with Sims and Sargent?) for GMM and related work. Metrics is overdue for a prize at this point, and it would be totally non-controversial given the financial crisis.
3. Romer et. al. for New Growth

I nominate John Maynard Keynes for the first Nobel Prize in economics to be awarded posthumously.

The General Theory† is a work of profound, deep analysis — analysis that persuaded the best young economists of the day. Keynesian economics remains the best framework we have for making sense of recessions and depressions!

I know the rules are against it, but at times like these bold men must break the rules.

"I find it refreshing to read the Europeans who can throw as much math at a subject as any American. But, even when they don't throw math at it, some of them are pretty good empiricists and could teach us all to be better at analyzing and collecting data."

Nonsensical. Plenty of Americans could teach "us all" to be better at analyzing and collecting data.

I still hope against hope for Janos Kornai. Hirschman also clearly deserves it. So does Elinor Ostrom. If they give the award for environmental economics, I would expect Weitzman and Nordhaus to share it, perhaps along with Dasgupta.

Roger Garrison's has laid out the economics of the Fed
induced time and value distortion of the pruduction process and it's relation to consumption like no one else -- this economics IS the economics exlpaining the ultimate
cause of the current artificial boom and inevitable bust cycle.

If we go by who has provide us with the deepest and best causal understanding of the most significant causal puzzle of our time, the Nobel belongs to Garrison.

Perhaps Sargent & Neil Wallace for their work on rational expectations.

I have a feeling whatever is recognized will be of a more technical nature.

North got his noble for transaction costs, too.

North got his Nobel for econ history (co with Fogel), Williamson's field is organization and governance. There's a bunch of possible combinations (Alchian & Demsetz), but if the committee wants to set a signal they might give it to Williamson and Hirschman for showing that econ is not just a (minor) branch of mathematics.

Paul Samuelson for a second.


My pick is Robert Shiller and Richard Thaler - behavioural economics/finance

I would love to see bhagwati and dixit share the prize... problem is that krugman won it last year for trade. I don't know whether they will award again for trade.

I think the stocks of the likes of Barro, Feldstein, and Fama have gone down. They may still win it sometime in the future, but probably not this year.

Daron Acemoglu will win it... but not just yet. As will Schleifer. He could get it this year. who knows. This year's prize is wide open and very hard to predict.

I probably should not say this, but what the heck.

Another reason that if it does go to environmental Uzawa
might share in it is that the Nobel committee has been
criticized quite a bit for not including Japan's
Masahisa Fujita last year with Krugman, and not just
by me, but from what I hear, within Sweden itself.
Nobody from Japan has gotten one, and Uzawa is viewed
within Japan as sort of their grand old man economist
who is now a wise old man environmentalist and most
deserving candidate for the econ Nobel.

Try these:

William White -- BIS chief economists who warned Greenspan and the world of the coming economic bust

George Selgin -- who explain the relation of productivity & inflation to William White.

.. or give it to Krugman & Cochrane for showing the world what an embarrassment to science the "elite" of the profession have become ..

I'd say Roubini.

I think the Nobel committee follows specific giudelines in awarding prizes.
They usually give the prize to people who theoretically and/or empirically explain WHY an economic phenomenon occurs. By this token, I dont think Fama is likely to get the prize. His 3-factor model is purely empirical with no economic theory to back it up.

The prize is also awarded for theories that have passed the test of time. So I would not expect any awards for research related to the crisis.

This is the year of Fama

Janos Kornai?

Comments for this post are closed