A More Rational Choice for a Nobel Prize

Mon, 10/12/2009 - 12:34pm

Professional economists may be dismayed, but scholars and students of international politics should be delighted by the decision to award this year's Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences (aka the "Nobel Prize in Economics") to Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University.  She is not only the first woman to win the economics prize, she's also the first political scientist.  She holds a Ph.D. in the subject from UCLA and is a past president of the American Political Science Association.

Ostrom's main research is pretty far from my own concerns, but I did list her book Governing the Commons on one of my "top-ten" lists earlier this year.  She is primarily known for her work on institutional solutions to collective action problems, most notably in the area of resources and environment.  Via a combination of "soft" rational choice theory and careful empirical work, she shows that common resources can be shared and managed through various institutional mechanisms, but also shows that there is nothing inevitable about this outcome, due to familiar dilemmas of collective action (that's why we call them dilemmas!), and the complex interactions of humans, institutions, and larger ecosystems.

Ostrom (and the co-winner, organization theorist Oliver Williamson) join a group of recent winners chosen more for theoretical insight and real-world relevance than for mathematical scholasticism.  Others in this same group would include economic historians Douglass North and Robert Fogel, behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman, game theorist/strategist Thomas Schelling, and economist-philosopher Amartya Sen.  Scholars with an international orientation have been doing pretty well in recent years too: Schelling was awarded for game-theoretic work on international conflict, Paul Krugman for his work on international trade, and Sen's work on poverty and famines has clear international implications.  Kudos to the prize committee for their eclectic approach to the award--if only more economics departments thought this way.

One more thing: need I mention that Ostrom received the award for work she had already done, as opposed to some other Nobel Prize winners I can think of?

Photo: Indiana University via Getty Images



Advertisement

 

SECOND POLITICAL SCIENTIST, DAMMIT

The first was Herbert Simon. His doctorate was in political science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Simon

For God's sake, please read this comment and acknowledge your error.

Thanks
A Former Student

Oops. My Bad

You're absolutely right. What's even worse, Simon's Ph.D is from the University of Chicago, and I now remember discussing this issue when I taught there. His work wandered pretty from traditional poli sci, but that's no excuse. Thanks for spotting the error!

Economists should not be

Economists should not be dismayed:
http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/ostrom-does-what-economists-should-do.html
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2009/10/lin-ostrom-political-economist-wins-2009-nobel.html
But they still might gripe that Tullock, Alchian & Demsetz still haven't won.

thanks

Professor Walt:

No problem - we all make mistakes.

Thanks for the comment and acknowledgment.

:-)

A former student.

Nobel for good intentions

Dear Mr. Walt,

It is very interesting for me to read comments all over the FP

about the nobel peace prize for your resident Obama, While I do understand your logic that the Nobel Should go for actual accomplishments and not good intentions, I also believe that
what president Obama has been able to achive in a short time worldwide is quite impressing.

We do see that with his comments, policies and actions world is now a little bit safer. He has been trying very hard to manage Afghanistan the situation there being inherited and not directly his own doing, I hope he will succeed.

For a great country like yours, a well intended president and good hearted man Nobel peace prize is the least to get.

We do wish him good luck.

Mehri

Nobel for Obama

Your perspective, Mehri, will get short shrift in the US. Our intelligentsia is more interested in a ruckus, as our president might put it. The changing content of Foreign Policy Magazine, competing for readers online, illustrates my point. Today, we can read "Former Bush Advisers on Obama's Nobel."

"One more thing: need I

"One more thing: need I mention that Ostrom received the award for work she had already done, as opposed to some other Nobel Prize winners I can think of?"

I assume you're referring to Wilson's efforts in Europe, or perhaps Kissinger's efforts in Vietnam? Why so negative-- peace eventually broke out in both places.

The Political Economics of the Israel Lobby

Professor Walt,

Maybe if you start addressing the political economics of the Israel Lobby in your research, you could win the economics prize.

Here is What I Said in Washington at the Conference to End Sanctions at Trinity University in Washington.

I was was given the last response at the conference.

Phil Wilayto, who touted putative Jewish ancestry and who seems like basically a good guy but stuck in old leftist thinking, denied the existence of the Israel Lobby and claimed that Israel is simply a tool of rapacious US imperialism.

I objected to that claim. I pointed out that the top 1500-2000 American contributors to the Israel Lobby own or control assets, which can be assigned an effective (Virtual State) GDP of something over $2 trillion approximately equal to that of France or Germany without any of the liabilities associated with running a real country.* Consequently, the Zionist GDP functions as if it is at least an order of magnitude larger than $2 trillion in comparison with the GDP of real states.

The Israel Lobby’s effective GDP of at least $20 trillion is very scary because the real US GDP is only approximately $14 trillion, of which a good chunk really belongs to the Zionist GDP.

Normally taking a bunch of wealthy people and assigning them a virtual GDP would not make sense because usually weapons manufacturers, publishers, real estate developers, retailers, etc. do not collaborate with each other or with their own competitors.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, because of mobilization by Zionist intelligentsia, Zionist political-economic oligarchs committed to the continued existence of the State of Israel have cooperated to create a vastly powerful Zionist imperial system, which has a genuine GDP and in which the USA functions as a dependent and intimidated client state.

As all Americans recently saw, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (COPOMAJO) deals with the USA on a state-to-state (really hegemon-to-client) basis.

Thus, Wilayto was simply wrong when he denied the existence of an Israel Lobby, which in reality represents a clear and present danger to all Americans because mobilized Zionist political economic oligarchs have used their power to poison the American political and economic system and to fabricate a civilizational conflict that should never have arisen and that has created a potential threat worse than the Cuban missile crisis.

I wanted to wrap up by relating this analysis to pre-Revolution NY German American Jewish investments in Cuba and the post-Revolution insanity of US-Cuban embargo-expropriation tit-for-tat that escalated into US-Soviet nuclear confrontation in order to bring the Conference back to the original sanctions topic, with which we started, but I ran out of time and garbled my point.

* Assigning a virtual GDP to the “economy” associated with a set of mobilized political economic oligarchs is a research project for which I am neither funded nor staffed. Looking at the top 2000 American contributors is rather arbitrary, and if I actually could make the effort to develop a theoretical formalism to look at a virtual GDP, I would probably find the number much larger than my current estimate.

I admit that I need to do more research on this topic.

I believe that the Virtual GDP is probably higher than I calculated and that the multiplier may not be a full order of magnitude.

Yet it is inherently scary that hyperwealthy Zionists have the ability to muster an economic clout comparable to that of the US.