Re: The Prize by Any Other Name

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

Henry,
      We have already debated about Akerlof
and Stiglitz.  However, I would add that some
of the others on that list have both had good
ideas as well as strong ethical orientations,
although arguably they are in the minority.
Among those in the last ten years I would
note especially Amartya Sen and William
Vickrey.  Some of the earlier ones on the
list would qualify as well, I would contend.
Not quite the total wasteland you depict,
although in many years your description has
been all to apt, I'm afraid.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: The Prize by Any Other Name


> If morality should disqualify economics as a Nobel Prize, the Peace Prize
should
> slao be disqualified.  It seems to me the arguement is not about economics
as a
> discipline, whether its is capable of delivery the greatest good to the
greatest
> number, to human civilization and knowledge, but that the discipline of
economics,
> much like the dispcipline of political sicence, has been co-opted by
capitalism as
> an intellectual  rationalization for market fundamentalism which by
defintion
> limits rather than expands the greatest good to the greatest number.  The
market is
> an invention of capitalism, not a natural human institution any more than
slavery
> is.
>
> There is nothing wrong with competition in morality. What is wrong is when
the
> judges are all member of a particular morality camp.
>
> Lets look at a comprehensive picture of the subject matters honored as
described by
> the Nobel Prize Internet Archive (http://almaz.com/nobel/nobel.html):
>
> 2001  The prize was awarded jointly to:  GEORGE A. ACKERLOF, A. MICHAEL
SPENCE, and
> JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ, for their analyses of markets with asymmetric
information.
>
> 2000  The prize will be shared between:  JAMES J. HECKMAN for his
development of
> theory and methods for analyzing selective samples and  DANIEL L. MCFADDEN
for his
> development of theory and methods for analyzing discrete choice.
>
> 1999  ROBERT A. MUNDELL for his analysis of monetary and fiscal policy
under
> different exchange rate regimes and his analysis of optimum currency
areas.
>
> 1998  AMARTYA SEN for his contributions to welfare economics.
>
> 1997  ROBERT C. MERTON and MYRON S. SCHOLES for a new method to determine
the value
> of derivatives.
>
> 1996 1 JAMES A. MIRRLEES and WILLIAM VICKREY for their fundamental
contributions to
> the economic theory of incentives under asymmetric information.
>
> 1995  ROBERT LUCAS for having developed and applied the hypothesis of
rational
> expectations, and thereby having transformed macroeconomic analysis and
deepened
> our understanding of economic policy.
>
> 1994  The prize was awarded jointly to:  JOHN C. HARSANYI , JOHN F. NASH
and
> REINHARD SELTEN for their pioneering analysis of equilibria in the theory
of
> non-cooperative games.
>
> 1993  The prize was awarded jointly to:  ROBERT W. FOGEL and DOUGLASS C.
NORTH for
> having renewed research in economic history by applying economic theory
and
> quantitative methods in order to explain economic and institutional
change.
>
> 1992  GARY S. BECKER for having extended the domain of microeconomic
analysis to a
> wide range of human behaviour and interaction, including nonmarket
behaviour.
>
> 1991  RONALD H. COASE for his discovery and clarification of the
significance of
> transaction costs and property rights for the institutional structure and
> functioning of the economy.
>
> 1990  The prize was awarded with one third each to:  HARRY M. MARKOWITZ ,
MERTON M.
> MILLER and WILLIAM F. SHARPE for their pioneering work in the theory of
financial
> economics.
>
> 1989  TRYGVE HAAVELMO for his clarification of the probability theory
foundations
> of econometrics and his analyses of simultaneous economic structures.
>
> 1988  MAURICE ALLAIS for his pioneering contributions to the theory of
markets and
> efficient utilization of resources.
>
> 1987  ROBERT M. SOLOW for his contributions to the theory of economic
growth.
>
> 1986  JAMES M. BUCHANAN, JR. for his development of the contractual and
> constitutional bases for the theory of economic and political
decision-making.
>
> 1985  FRANCO MODIGLIANI for his pioneering analyses of saving and of
financial
> markets.
>
> 1984  SIR RICHARD STONE for having made fundamental contributions to the
> development of systems of national accounts and hence greatly improved the
basis
> for empirical economic analysis.
>
> 1983  GERARD DEBREU for having incorporated new analytical methods into
economic
> theory and for his rigorous reformulation of the theory of general
equilibrium.
>
> 1982  GEORGE J. STIGLER for his seminal studies of industrial structures,
> functioning of markets and causes and effects of public regulation.
>
> 1981  JAMES TOBIN for his analysis of financial markets and their
relations to
> expenditure decisions, employment, production and prices.
>
> 1980  LAWRENCE R. KLEIN for the creation of econometric models and the
application
> to the analysis of economic fluctuations and economic policies.
>
> 1979  The prize was divided equally between:  THEODORE W. SCHULTZ and SIR
ARTHUR
> LEWIS for their pioneering research into economic development research
with
> particular consideration of the problems of developing countries.
>
> 1978  HERBERT A. SIMON for his pioneering research into the
decision-making process
> within economic organizations.
>
> 1977  The prize was divided equally between:  BERTIL OHLIN and JAMES E
MEADE for
> their pathbreaking contribution to the theory of international trade and
> international capital movements.
>
> 1976  MILTON FRIEDMAN for his achievements in the fields of consumption
analysis,
> monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of
> stabilization policy.
>
> 1975  The prize was awarded jointly to:  LEONID VITALIYEVICH KANTOROVICH
and
> TJALLING C. KOOPMANS for their contributions to the theory of optimum
allocation of
> resources.
>
> 1974  The prize was divided equally between:  GUNNAR MYRDAL and FRIEDRICH
AUGUST
> VON HAYEK for their pioneering work  in the theory of money and economic
> fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of
economic,
> social and institutional phenomena.
>
> 1973  WASSILY LEONTIEF for the development of the input-output method and
for its
> application to important economic problems.
>
> 1972  The prize was awarded jointly to:  SIR JOHN R. HICKS and KENNETH J.
ARROW for
> their pioneering contributions to general economic equilibrium theory and
welfare
> theory.
>
> 1971  SIMON KUZNETS for his empirically founded interpretation of economic
growth
> which has led to new and deepened insight into the economic and social
structure
> and process of development.
>
> 1970  PAUL A SAMUELSON for the scientific work through which he has
developed
> static and dynamic economic theory and actively contributed to raising the
level of
> analysis in economic science.
>
> 1969  The prize was awarded jointly to:  RAGNAR FRISCH and JAN TINBERGEN
for having
> developed and applied dynamic models for the analysis of economic
processes.
>
> It is not dififcult to see that many economic concepts honored by the
Nobel
> Committee, while usually for work done decades earlier, were concepts much
in vogue
> at the time the prizes were awarded, soon to be followed by real life
disasters
> cause by the unquestioned, widespread applications of these very same
concepts.
> Stiglitz, who only belatedly raised questions about market fundamentalism,
but who
> was very much apart of the economics establishment that promoted the
market as the
> solution for the post Cold War era, is the latest example.
>
> The Nobel Prize seems to serve one unspoken function: that of tomb stones
for the
> graveyard of dangerous, harmful and obsolete economic theories.
>
> Henry C.K. Liu
>
>
> larson@xxxxxx wrote:
>
> > There is a good reason why Alfred Nobel never instituted an economics
prize. It
> > is not the case, as one sometimes hears, that economics was not a
developed
> > science in Scandinavia a good century ago - one need not go farther than
to
> > Wicksell to see how wrong that is. So Nobel was probably well aware of
> > economics. However, our discipline was then, and still is, fundamentally
a
> > moral science, and you can't compete in morale. You can achieve
excellence in
> > ethics - the study of morale - and you can have high moral standards as
an
> > individual. But if competition in morale had been a good idea it would
not have
> > been awarded a Nobel prize; it would have been part of the Olympics.
> >
> > As a principle I object to the Bank of Sweden prize, but if I disregard
that
> > principle for a moment I'd vote for Paul Davidson. But his chance of
winning it
> > is as big as Astrid Lindgren's is to win the Literature prize.
> >
> > Besides, Paul can be happy not having to go to Sweden to recieve the
medal. All
> > the decent folks not doubt left that place last century.
> >
> > E Svecia Nil Nisi Male,
> > /srl
> >
> > Quoting John Gelles <johng@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > >         My sincere thanks to Per Gunnar Bergulund for
> > >         allowing us to share thoughts about Alfred Nobel,
> > >         the Royal Academy of Science's Committee for
> > >         the Bank of Sweden Prize in economics, the
> > >         difference between doing good as a scientist and
> > >         doing your best as an economist, and the current
> > >         feelings of certain heirs of Alfred Nobel.
> > >
> > >         Similar thanks must go to all involved in the Nobel
> > >         prizes, including the heirs above and the actual
> > >         people who have awarded the many prizes over
> > >         the years, as well as those who got the prizes.
> > >
> > >         If we look at all the prizes that get our attention,
> > >         the Nobel's stand up as the best if our measure is
> > >         close to Albert Nobel's expressed intention. No
> > >         doubt the record is less than perfect. But the
> > >         awards are deserving of the good reputation
> > >         most of them enjoy.
> > >
> > >         As to economics?  Can ant good come of it?
> > >         Was the warm feeling many of us had when
> > >         Vickery won the prize totally bogus?  I don't
> > >         think so.
> > >
> > >         We wish God, himself, gave prizes -- and that
> > >         he always consulted each one of us before he
> > >         did. Our wish has been denied. But the Nobel
> > >         prize in economics, if awarded to one of our
> > >         own, makes it a better day.
> > >
> > >         Yes, it has often gone to winners we didn't
> > >         respect. Bus is not the acid test: "Do we prefer
> > >         the prizes, with all their faults, to a different
> > >         world -- where news of the lesser prizes we
> > >         suffer were all we ever heard?'
> > >
> > >         John Gelles
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Sven R Larson
> > PhD; Assistant professor of economics
> > Department of Social Sciences, Bldg. 22.2
> > Roskilde University
> > Pb 260
> > DK-4000 Roskilde
> > Telephone: (+45) 4674 2910
>
>