by Damozel | Yay! The New York Times reports:
Paul Krugman, a professor at Princeton University and an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times, was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences on Monday....Mr. Krugman received the award for his work on international trade and economic geography. In particular, the prize committee lauded his work for “having shown the effects of economies of scale on trade patterns and on the location of economic activity.” (NYT)
The Nobel announcement, detailing his contributions, is here. Bill Kavanagh commented on his win here.
Many of us at Buck Naked Politics, and at our sister blog, I Don't Like You Either, are devoted readers of Krugman's columns and of his blog, The Conscience of a Liberal.
Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism, another economics blog we admire, writes:
Note that the Princeton economist has also won the John Bates Clark medal in 1991, awarded every other year to the best economist under 40, which is considered an even more exclusive prize than the Nobel.
So noted!
The Wall Street Journal concedes:
Krugman is a prolific writer, who not only publishes a column for the New York Times, but maintains the Conscience of a Liberal blog, which helps shape debate on the major economic issues of the day.
His latest column appears today, and takes a positive look at the U.K.’s move to inject capital into banks, while criticizing the U.S. response.
The award is formally called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.
How much of a role did Krugman's punditry play? Daniel at Crooked Timber says:
I can’t help thinking that this is actually Krugman’s reward for being the public voice of mainstream sensible Keynesianism for the last fifteen years.... In which case, well done the Nobel....committee – Krugman’s NYT column has been more use to the public standing of economists than more or less anything published in the journals.
And brings the tasty schadenfreude:
And, of course, congratulations to Prof. Krugman himself, who might very well have believed that he’d done his professional status irreparable harm by taking such an aggressive line against the government of the day; he now gets the double pleasure of receiving the highest reward in economics, just as all of his detractors see their repuations ruined. There is probably some pithy epithet from Keynes or JK Galbraith to be inserted here on the general subject of honesty being the best politics, but I can’t think of it just at this instant.
But was the award political, as so many right wingers have said or implied. Justin Fox raises the issue: did Krugman's political punditry factor in?
I imagine there will be lots of speculation that the Nobel committee is trying to reward Krugman for his critiques of the Bush administration, his reasonably prescient writing on the current financial crisis, or just the fact that he's such a great blogger...I make no claim to know what mischieviousness lurks in the minds of Swedes, so maybe all those really were factors. But it's also true that Krugman has been considered a likely eventual winner of this prize for a long time.
And via Justin Fox, Tyler Cowen remarks:
I have to say I did not expect him to win until Bush left office, as I thought the Swedes wanted the resulting discussion to focus on Paul's academic work rather than on issues of politics. So I am surprised by the timing but not by the choice.
Congratulations are offered by Cogitamus, Tristero at Digby's, Kos, and Firedoglake.
Justin Wolfer at Freakonomics congratulates Krugman, saying:
Before Krugman, it was hard to believe that there was a lot more to be learned about trade theory, and the profession had moved on to what many believed were more fertile fields.
Krugman’s insights helped bring trade theory into closer connection with data on how trade flows actually work. The same insights he brought to understanding patterns of international trade have also breathed new life into urban economics, which focuses on understanding the pattern of economic activity across space.
More than any other recent Nobelist, Krugman is no stranger to the general public. I’m sure that his other role as a New York Times columnist and an outspoken critic of the Bush administration will be the lede in discussions of this prize. But the prize is given for scientific research, and economists of all political stripes agree that Krugman’s economic writings are Nobel-worthy....
Whether you like his Times columns or not, you have to admire Krugman’s tenacity. He personifies the true public intellectual, and even when he writes a column that irritates you, at least you know it involves careful thought and a true dedication to the public debate.
Arnold Kling says of Krugman's work in economics:
It is a classic contribution. In retrospect, it seems sensible and obvious. But until Krugman developed the argument, the rest of the economics profession was on a completely different wavelength.
The less impassioned sort of conservatives return temperate commentary. James Joyner praises him Krugman fairly, albeit with faint damns.
While this may shock critics of his column, which is frequently less than brilliant, Krugman is held in enormously high esteem in the academy. He was the winner of the 1991 John Bates Clark Model, awarded to “that American economist under the age of forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic thought and knowledge,” frequently a pre-sager of a Nobel. (Outside the Beltway)
Jonathan Adler at the conservative The Volokh Conspiracy temperately says:
He is clearly among the most important economists of his generation...That said, I will confess some dread at the prospect of hearing "according to Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman . . . " every time someone quotes one of his NYT columns on political issues.
As will be seen, he ain't the only one. I must remember to start ALL my posts that way.
But speaking of Schadenfreude, the more, um, impassioned sort of conservative isn't taking it well at all.
Fester at Newshoggers offers congratulations and adds:
And speaking as a purely partisan blogger, I'm waiting with great schradenfreude for the right wing cognitive dissonance implosion from the Krugman stalkers... I'm cruel, I know....
The implosion didn't take long. Glenn Reynolds starts off with FIRST AL GORE, NOW THIS, but I think my favourite has to be this from Jules Crittenden:
I’m afraid I have zip to offer on that, except to say if the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences likes it and it isn’t about DNA, it must either support terrorism, hate America or be completely absurd. Extra credit for Bush-bashing
No, there is definitely no joy in Mudville over another liberal winning international recognition for, um, being right. Facts are stubborn things, etc. Turning out to be wrong about everything would turn anyone sour.
Instapundit now has a poll up: "On a scale of insufferability, how much more insufferable will the Nobel make Paul Krugman?"
Huh. One of the answers is not: "Almost as insufferable as Glenn Reynolds."
Sister Toldjah considers this mark of international recognition "worthless"---because, presumably, they never give it to people who agree with Sister Toldjah. It appears that Sister Toldjah draws a different conclusion from this than you or I would.
But liberal bloggers everywhere are turning out to offer their congrats. Zuzu at Shakesville expresses the exact reason why I---the epitome of the ignorant layperson struggling to understand the economy---regularly read his column. There's the educational aspect, and then there's the political one.
[H]e does a better job than just about anyone else at explaining economics for a lay audience. Not to mention, he had Bush's number early on, and he's been dead right about the damage that his administration, and the whole ideology that drives it, has done to the economy.
RECENT BN-POLITICS POSTINGS
European Agreement Leads Markets Higher
The McCain Campaign on the Economy: "Whereof One Cannot Speak, Thereof One Must be Silent"
Market Musings, 3rd Quarter 2008: How We Got Here
On the Campaign Trail: First You Laugh, Then You Gag
Comments