Kind of the most ironic award in history. Invented by the man who invented dynamite, the Nobel prizes have always represented the highest level of academic achievement in anything, ever. Yet lately, we've seemed to have a bit of a shortage in what we give them for.
Take Paul Krugman. A genius. I love a lot of his work. His politics can be wonky, but his economic work is brilliant as far as I'm concerned. But he received the award not in recognition of some new ground-breaking way of handling the economic crisis, like the award's historical reputation would dictate, but for his papers written around 1992 about pricing. A little late, no?
And more importantly, the dispute about the Nobel Peace Prize. Al Gore? Jimmy Carter? All have done a lot in the modern world in talking about peace, but none have acted with the resolve of a Nelson Mandela.
So I ask you all: what does the Nobel Prize mean? What should it recognize? Who deserves what? How should it be decided?
It's a fairly frivolous topic, but the one in economics caught my eye given the recent situation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The nobel prize has become far too political in my opinion. While some years have more ground-breaking events to commerate, many awards are given for past events that have become part of history. I feel that the committee is afraid to reward significant work unless it has been viewed through the lense of history and no longer would pose any controversy. The committee needs to embrace its ideals (not wilting under pressure from the Chinese government would be a good start) and realize that the awards draw attention to important issues and that the most good can be done by drawing attention to current events.
I'm not sure its a bad thing that the committee tends not to recognize "groundbreaking" work immediately. Sometimes it's possible to identify and commend the enormous value of scholarly work upon its release, but oftentimes thats not the case. Research has to be tested, confirmed, criticized, dissected, and aged before we can realize how important something truly is: is it merely an interesting theory, or does it offer a critical lens that can inform practical decisions? Is it relevant only in a specific set of circumstances, or is it broadly applicable? Will it spur debate and shift the overall academic discourse? In the physical sciences, is it even accurate at all? The Nobel prize should take the long view.
Personally, I don't feel the prize for economics should exist, at least in how it is viewed now.
Alfred Nobel didn't have it in his will, it was created and is funded by the Bank of Sweden, in memory of Nobel.
People refer to it as the Nobel Prize in Economics...it really isn't. I don't mind having a prestigious award in economics, but really, by the common conception that it is the "Nobel Prize", a whole different perspective is placed on it.
Just saying.
Post a Comment