The Marginal Revolution Podcast: The Nobel Prize

We interrupt our regularly scheduled series of podcasts on the 1970s–first one here on inflation and monetary policy–to bring you a new podcast in honor of next week’s Nobel Prize in economics. Who will win? Who should win? Who should have won but didn’t? Who won but shouldn’t have?

Here’s one bit:

COWEN: I would give it to Robert Barro.

TABARROK: Okay. Tell me why you would give it to Robert Barro.

COWEN: “Are government bonds net wealth?” as a fundamental way of thinking about fiscal policy remains central. Also, he did early work on political business cycle theory. The status of cross-country growth regressions has fallen greatly. People once thought he might get it for that. That may now even be hurting his chances, but I think overall, what he’s created and done is enough for a Nobel Prize. He’s had five or six key articles in major macro fields.

TABARROK: Yes, I agree with you. I think you’re right about the cross-country regressions have fallen in favor over time, but still hugely important and really pushed the profession in that direction for a long time. Just because it’s not fashionable today doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a major contribution.

COWEN: It does mean fewer people will nominate him for fear of looking a bit low status, like, “Oh, you still think cross-country growth progressions are the thing.” I think it matters how many people nominate you in the early rounds.

TABARROK: Yes. I think it’s Barro’s birthday this week. He’s 80, I think.

I’d be pleased if Barro won, not for the least reason that he will be here at GMU next week which would be extra exciting if we can also celebrate a Nobel.

Here is the MR Podcast home page. Subscribe now to take a small step toward a much better world: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube.