Thomson Reuters predicts the 2013 Nobel Laureate in economics

Their leading candidates are:

Joshua D. Angrist, David E. Card, Alan B. Krueger, Sir David F. Hendry, M. Hashem Pesaran, Peter C.B. Phillips, Sam Peltzman, and Richard A. Posner, all very good possible picks in my view.

My personal prediction (which never once has been correct, at least not in the proper year) is for an early “shock” prize to Banerjee, Duflo, and Kremer, in part to show (try to show?) that economics really is an actual science.

In any case the above link offers Reuters picks for the science prizes as well.  Here are some other speculations for the science prizes as well.

For the pointer I thank Michelle Dawson.

Comments

It is vital that people agree that economics is a Science. Otherwise, how foolish would all of us look!

He's referring to the Counterfeit Nobel Prize for a counterfeit science.

Fama? Bhagwati?

Ditto. Fama even though he'll never see it with the current domination of macro-mancer Keynesians.

I hope Peltzman, Posner, Phillips or Krueger wins it.

OTOH, I hope not Banerjee-Duflo.

Fortunately, since JPAL's RCTs are so expensive to conduct no one tries to replicate them. On the rare occasion that they do (in other contexts, with different NGO partners) the treatment effects vary a lot, which is a nice way of saying the experiments aren't replicable.

But biology is a real science and half of their published papers can't be replicated. Medicine is a real science but doctors can't even agree on how to treat the second most devastating disease (in DALYs, depression) despite using RCTs.

So I guess RCTs do show we are real scientists.

John List should get it with Duflo if Duflo gets it.

"show that economics really is an actual science."

Friedrich Hayek was already given the prize for work which shows economics is a science -- a science with an order without a designer problem like Darwin's -- and, like Darwin, with a bottom-up, causally open-ended causal explanatory mechanism, ie property/moral rule-following & learning/changes in judgment in the context of changing local condition and changing relative prices.

That's a science, gents.

And it's a done deal.

Wake up and smell the science.

And, hey, pseudo-scientific 'economists' -- give up on your false pictures of 'science' you have inherited from philosophers, with their false pictures of 'knowledge'. This also is a done deal -- read some Kuhn, Wittgenstein, Hayek and Bartley and *stop* imposing a false and ancient picture of "science" on human phenomena.

What about an ironic pairing: William Nordhaus and Martin Weitzman?

When we look at the 'real' Nobles, for other sciences, it strikes the eye that these are generally awarded for a discovery based upon new measurements or for inventing something which enables new measurements. Not so in economics. So, probably no price for Banerjee, Duflo and Kremer.

Acemoglu. He defined the field of institional and political economy and linked this to growth. Follow up on Douglas North.

Oh, boy ...

I hope for Acemoglu as well.

Note that when Darwin showed how biology was a massively powerful explanatory science and when Hayek showed how economics is a massively powerful explanatory science, both of them explicitly stated and explained how their explanatory problem and causal explanatory mechanism FAILED TO FIT the stipulated definition of "science" decreed by the philosophers and spouted in the "official" dogmas (but not actual practices) of other scientists.

Unfortunately, most Economathematicians are like drunks seeking the car keys of "science" or moths looking for the light of 'science" at a pseudo-scientific lamppost erected by ancient dead philosophers.

But a pseudo-Nobel for a pseudo-scientific effort to show how 'economics' is a 'real science'? *Perfect".

I think it's silly to talk about different fields being sciences or not. Science is a method, and the method can be applied with greater (physics) or lesser (economics) success depending on the field of inquiry.

Complex recursive systems are less amenable to the methods of science.

I get the Hayek/Darwin analogy, but...

Can we use Darwinism to predict, for example, the population of wolves in Yellowstone Park over the next 10 years? Yeah, maybe sorta.

The sorts of questions we want answers to in economics are like this.

Economics emerges as a characteristic human behavior; so that's the only scientific framework I could insert economics into. Other than that, it's just like the weather. Too complex to model and to predict.

Brian, you are giving me a stipulated -- and false -- criterion of 'science' and then you are telling me Darwinian biology fails the criterion.

Hayek forced Popper to concede that the problem was with this criterion, not with biology.

It has been many years since anybody mentioned by Thomson Reuters got it, at least in the year they were mentioned.

Some people from previous years who might have a better chance than any they mentioned this year.

Shiller and Thaler, but maybe with List or just MacArthurized Camerer or Fehr or just to pull another Myrdal-Hayek award, Fama.

Tyler's old fave of Tullock and Anne Kreuger for rent seeking, possibly with one of several others with them.

Environmental has never gottenit, and this might be the year, in which case some combo of Nordhau, Weitzman, Dasgupta, or one of several others.

Why not give it to Barack Obama?

What about Romer and Barro, given last year's Nobel symposium was on growth? And they asked Romer to start up proceedings?

I think List has to be a big favorite--he was doing field experiments before duflo, kremer, and others.

Zero it out. The good ones are all gone.

A.B. Atkinson for measurement of inequality and poverty

Atkinson and Deaton

What about Prof. Kaushik Basu of Cornell?

1. Nordhaus-Weitzman-dasgupta-Heal

Or

2. Bullock-Krueger

how about jeff sachs? yifu lin?

Comments for this post are closed