On not embarrassing the Scandinavians

Unlike the peace prize, which is pretty silly, the Nobel prize in economics, funded by the Swedish central bank, has done a good job of not embarrassing itself. I ran down the list of recipients, and I cannot find a recipient whose career has not included important contributions. The main charge against the prize is omission, and I can think of only two egregious ones: the neglect of Joan Robinson, and a prize to James Buchanan that ignored Gordon Tullock. There were omissions that should not have been made, such as Aaron Director, but his practice of working in an oral tradition and rarely publishing surely did not help him.

This year is no exception. I have not followed Ostrom’s work closely, but it is highly regarded by the economists who do. I have read most of Williamson’s stuff, like every other economist who studies industry problems. You cannot work in the field without being familiar with his stuff, and it quite correctly is part of every serious study of how firms work. A tiny point: before the Berkeley crowd gets too snobbish, it worth remembering that his really important work was done at the University of Pennsylvania and Yale. And a reminder to Brad DeLong: Hoover still has more Nobel prize winners than your department has.