I have never heard of these people, so I cannot really comment. But from the looks of it they seem to be better than Krugman. Is that correct?
Eric:But from the looks of it they seem to be better than Krugman. Is that correct?
Yeah, it's just fickle treatment of the Nobel. When Obama or Krugman win one, it is next to worthless. When we talk about Hayek, it is a big deal.
What is impressive is DiLorenzo's statement. Unlike many academic Austrians, he doesn't pull any punches when it comes to calling someone out.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
tacoface: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/39366.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/39366.html
Noble Prize? What is so noble about it?
krazy kaju:I guess Peter Klein and Tom DiLorenzo must be trolls then. After all, this is what they had to say.
GilesStratton:Justinx0r, I agree. I mean, Ostrom's famous book Governing the Commons contained empirical work on how people have voluntary governed the commons. Somehow this is the same as Krugman to BAWAA. Why? Because I'm guessing BAWAA hasn't heard of either Ostrom or Williamson until today.
Why? Because I'm guessing BAWAA hasn't heard of either Ostrom or Williamson until today.
http://mises.org/story/3784
Oliver Williamson's Nobel Prize, shared with Elinor Ostrom, is great news for Austrians. Williamson's pathbreaking analysis of how alternative organizational forms — markets, hierarchies, and hybrids, as he calls them — emerge, perform, and adapt has defined the modern field of organizational economics. Williamson is no Austrian, but he is sympathetic to Austrian themes (particularly the Hayekian understanding of tacit knowledge and market competition). His concept of asset specificity enhances and extends the Austrian theory of capital and his theory of firm boundaries has almost single-handedly displaced the benchmark model of perfect competition from important parts of industrial organization and antitrust economics. He is also a pragmatic, careful, and practical economist who is concerned, first and foremost, with real-world economic phenomena, choosing clarity and relevance over formal mathematical elegance. For these and many other reasons, his work deserves careful study by Austrians.
Oliver Williamson's Nobel Prize, shared with Elinor Ostrom, is great news for Austrians. Williamson's pathbreaking analysis of how alternative organizational forms — markets, hierarchies, and hybrids, as he calls them — emerge, perform, and adapt has defined the modern field of organizational economics.
Williamson is no Austrian, but he is sympathetic to Austrian themes (particularly the Hayekian understanding of tacit knowledge and market competition). His concept of asset specificity enhances and extends the Austrian theory of capital and his theory of firm boundaries has almost single-handedly displaced the benchmark model of perfect competition from important parts of industrial organization and antitrust economics.
He is also a pragmatic, careful, and practical economist who is concerned, first and foremost, with real-world economic phenomena, choosing clarity and relevance over formal mathematical elegance. For these and many other reasons, his work deserves careful study by Austrians.
Of course, but as I said, BAWAA hadn't even heard of these two economists before a few days ago.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
As I said: lovely projection.
Sukrit Sabhlok: Does anyone know how the Nobel Prize nomination process works? I hope that someone nominates Hans Hoppe or Israel Kirzner each year.
Does anyone know how the Nobel Prize nomination process works? I hope that someone nominates Hans Hoppe or Israel Kirzner each year.
I think there is pretty much no chance of this happening, but I think Nassim Taleb has a decent shot. Taleb has some very Hayekian elements to his research.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Solid_Choke:I think there is pretty much no chance of this happening, but I think Nassim Taleb has a decent shot. Taleb has some very Hayekian elements to his research.
Taleb is too critical and dismissive of meritless elites. Awards like this are either given to the obscure, or intellectually compromised.
More on Ostrom and reactions at my post here.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
-- Richard Feynman
liberty student:Taleb is too critical and dismissive of meritless elites. Awards like this are either given to the obscure, or intellectually compromised.
I don't think you know what you're talking about, Williamson certainly isn't obscure (most cited economist) and neither is Ostrom (heavily cited, Horwitz has more detailed information somewhere, but whilst Ostrom is below Krugman, Samuelson etc. she's not obscure). Which leaves the "intellectual compromised" option.
Are Ostrom and Williamson intellectually comprimised? (to be honest, I'm wondering if there's any substance to that soundbyte, but there we go...)
I too think Ostrom is being judged unfairly and in a knee-jerk reaction for her use of the word "commons."
It looks to me, from the description on Amazon, that she is defending common property against the state. Which is true: common property is only a "tragedy" because generally the state creates that tragedy and then takes it upon themselves to solve it.
from the Nobel prize website:
"A third solution – previously discarded by most economists – is to retain the resource as common property and let the users create their own system of governance. In her book Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (1990), Elinor Ostrom objects to the presumption that common property governance necessarily implies a “tragedy”. After summarizing much of the available evidence on the management of common pools, she finds that users themselves envisage rules and enforcement mechanisms that enable them to sustain tolerable outcomes. By contrast, governmentally imposed restrictions are often counterproductive because central authorities lack knowledge about local conditions and have insufficient legitimacy. Indeed, Ostrom points out many cases in which central government intervention has created more chaos than order."
I'd be interested to read Governing the Commons. I went to ASU, but never saw her there as a professor, unfortunately.
John Ess, you hit the nail on the head, although, I'd add that it's more of a knee jerk reaction to the word "governing". I'm reading Governing the Commons and it's a really great piece of work. (some here may object to the use, albeit sparse, of game theory, they shouldn't).
The thing is, the people from whom these reactions are coming having even heard of Ostrom (or Williamson). The book opens with a discussion of the dangers of government intervention in which Ostrom uses the phrases "information of time-and-place" numerous times to discuss the dangers of government intervention. The rest of the book is empirical research (which theoretical insights drawn from such work) on the institutions that have evolved from the voluntary actions of individuals to deal with "commons" (there is research done on both successful and unsuccessful institutions).
Tokyo Tom, great post.
Knight_of_BAWAA:As I said: lovely projection
OK, there's an easy way to solve this, have you read their work? I have.
GilesStratton:I don't think you know what you're talking about
Otay.
By obscure, I mean almost no one outside the economics profession knows of them or their work.
People like Hayek, and to a lesser degree Mises and Rothbard were known outside the economics profession.
Nobel winners like Paul Krugman, Milton Friedman and Joseph Stiglitz are not obscure.
Ones work is generally obscure and unique, or intellectually compromised and well known.
That is my impression of all of the Nobels, not just economics.
And for that reason, because Taleb is both well known, and radical, he stands little chance of winning the award.
Being known to the lay public is important, I think that was one of the gifts Friedman had. But it isn't everything, being well known within the impression is important when it comes to making any sort of lasting impact.
Out of interest, how many Nobels are you basing this on? 4?
John Ess: I'd be interested to read Governing the Commons. I went to ASU, but never saw her there as a professor, unfortunately.
I went to ASU and never heard anything about her or her work. This is so frustrating.
GilesStratton:Being known to the lay public is important, I think that was one of the gifts Friedman had.
On the contrary, I would argue that having a market based interest in your work is important. If an economist does work that is important to my life, the way the Austrians in particular have, then their notoriety grows. Certainly their ideas become more pervasive, and opportunities for private sector funding increases.
GilesStratton:But it isn't everything, being well known within the impression is important when it comes to making any sort of lasting impact.
Of course, because it is a closed society, a feedback loop of peers. If you watched the Myth of Public Goods video, you'd see an excellent explanation of this phenomena. Economists echo economic science among one another.
While this debate of trivia is fascinating, if you're not going to challenge my premise, then I think we're done. N'est pas?
Looking through the library, I see that Professor Ostrom also has some work regarding knowledge as a commons.
Giles, be sure to scan her book into pdf and upload it onto scribd.
I'm still waiting for Hernando de Soto to be nominated.
Economic Thought (Latest Post): Don't Be Fooled by GDP
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap