viernes, octubre 09, 2009

Concurso Anual con Premio: ¿Quién se llevará el Premio Nobel en Economía 2009?

Como en años pasados, se inicia hoy la apuesta entre nuestros lectores respecto a quién(es) se llevará(n) el Premio Nobel en Economía este año. Tiene usted la opción de proponer a tres personas, cuyos nombres y apellidos debe anotarlos  y enviarlos al siguiente correo electrónico: (inscriba en 'Asunto': Premio Economía).
El premio que recibirá el que adivine siquiera uno de los ganadores (si son más de uno, que así seguramente será) se llevará un jugoso premio en monedas y billetes, a saber:
En monedas: -3 ecuatorianas de 1 dólar; -1/4 de dólar norteamericano; 10 y 2 dólares de Hong Kong.
En billetes: 5 Euros; 2.000 pesos colombianos; 10 pesos argentinos; 5 Reais brasileiros; 10.000 sucres ecuatorianos.
En caso de empate entre los concursantes, se lo llevará quien envíe primero el correo.
Sólo podrán participar en el concurso quienes me hagan llegar su mail hasta el domingo 11 a las 11 p.m.

Nota: Los 10 millones de coronas suecas a las que asciende cada ganador de un Premio Nobel (a no ser que sean más que uno) equivalen a 900.000 libras esterlinas, 970.000 euros, 1,4 millones de US$ o 4,2 millones de soles. 


Adjunto un interesante artículo relacionado al tema, aparecido en el diario ‘The Guardian’ del día de ayer  (octubre 8): (

The Nobel prize for economics may need its own bailout
Facing a similar crisis of legitimacy, the prize needs to prove it is much more than an award for stockmarket speculators

The economics award is usually the last of the Nobel prizes to be announced. Correctly so, for it was also the last to be created – and strictly speaking is not even a real Nobel prize. The five original awards, first given out in 1901 for literature, peace, medicine/physiology, physics and chemistry, were intended by Alfred Nobel to recognise contributions that enhanced the quality of human life, through scientific advance, literary creativity or efforts at bringing about peace.
The economics prize is not a prize of the Nobel Foundation; rather, it was created in 1968 by the Central Bank of Sweden as a "prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel". However, it now has the same procedure of selection by the Swedish Academy, and the same cash award presented at a similar ceremony as the Nobel prizes.
There have been recurrent doubts about whether it conforms to the basic goals of the prizes as envisaged by the founder. Is economics a science, on the same lines as physics or chemistry? Does it unambiguously contribute to human wellbeing, like peace or literature? In any case, should economics be privileged over other branches of learning?
Peter Nobel, great-grandnephew of the founder and human rights activist, famously argued that Alfred Nobel would not have approved of such a prize, which he termed "a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation ... most often awarded to stockmarket speculators".
Certainly the reputation of economists has needed building up, not only in the wake of the global financial crisis, but even before that. As much of mainstream economics became obsessed with navel-gazing esoteric models or theories designed to justify market liberalism, the public became relatively more alienated from the activities of economists. In such a context, the Nobel prize has been a useful tool not only to proclaim the conceptual advances supposedly made by "the dismal science" but also to encourage certain types of economic analysis and research. So its power extends beyond public recognition, altering the very production of economic knowledge.
The early prizes generally honoured economists whose work was already widely recognised. But even in the first decade, the list of exceptions was probably more impressive than that of the recipients, as greats like Michal Kalecki, Joan Robinson, Richard Kahn, Nicholas Kaldor and Piero Sraffa were overlooked in favour of lesser contributors. In the subsequent period, the award has occasionally gone to economists of relatively minor and sometimes absolutely questionable achievement, whom others in the profession quickly had to look up when the announcement was made.
The political effect of the prize in the profession has been undeniable. There has been overwhelming domination of neoclassical economics, to the exclusion of alternative streams of thought, with only a few nods in the direction of broader and more socially embracing approaches. This has encouraged more conservative approaches in research and teaching.
Monetarist and free market approaches have been disproportionately rewarded, often at crucial times. For example, the 1974 award to Friedrich von Hayek led to a resurgence of interest in the Austrian school and made his book The Road to Serfdom a bestseller. Two years later the prize went to Milton Friedman, making his extreme form of monetarism academically respectable and even leading to a conservative policy revolution. Economic history in the turgid and restricting form of retrospective econometrics was promoted by the 1993 award to Robert Fogel and Douglass North, while rational expectations theory was given a big boost by honouring Robert Lucas in 1995.
The geographical distribution of the award both creates and reflects power hierarchies in the discipline. The economics prize has been awarded 40 times to 62 recipients, 42 of whom have been from the US (o sea 68%), while more than 50 were working in the US at the time of the award. The University of Chicago has 11 laureates, leading to the joke about "the Stockholm-Chicago Express". This does not reflect the actual state of economic knowledge so much as the biases and blindness of the jury. Only two people from developing countries have received it (Arthur Lewis and Amartya Sen) and both worked in the US and Britain. Only three with an interest in the economics of developing countries – which is the economic reality for around three quarters of the world's population – have received the award.
In recent years the prize has been focused on financial market behaviour. In 1997, the award went to two economists – Robert Merton and Myron Scholes – who were supposed to have discovered a method of valuing derivatives that could reduce or eliminate risk in financial investment. When the hedge fund they ran (Long Term Capital Management) went bust within the year and had to be rescued by the US federal reserve, there was some embarrassment. Perhaps to right this wrong, a few years later the prize was given to economists George Akerlof and Joseph Stiglitz, who had pointed to the imperfect functioning of financial markets. The award last year to Paul Krugman may also have indicated some bowing to changing times.
So far, no woman has received the economics Nobel. Apart from obvious exclusions such as Joan Robinson, this also reflects power hierarchies within the subject, because women economists even in the US and UK tend to be concentrated in the lower reaches of the academics profession, as researchers and lecturers rather than professors.
These imbalances will not be rectified easily. But the Nobel prize in economics may now be as much in need of wider legitimacy as the economics profession itself. It will be interesting to see if this is reflected on Monday, when the current year's winner is announced.

Nota: Las negritas y cursivas que figuran en este texto son (irresponsablemente) mías. 
P.D.: LOS RESULTADOS (octubre 12, 2009: 8 a.m.):
El Premio Nobel de este año lo comparten Elinor Ostrom  y Oliver E. Williamson por “sus aportaciones a la teoría económica de la gobernanza”. Acceda a información adicional (cortesía de Juan Carlos Coll):

Es la primera vez en la historia del Nobel de Economía en que es premiada una mujer. 
Vea también un artículo de Ostrom en

Agradezco la acogida que ha tenido este año el Concurso y siento que nadie la haya 'achuntado'. El premio ofrecido se acumula para el 2010.


… Oliver Williamson and Elinor Ostrom share the Swedish Central Bank Prize for Economics in Honor of Alfred Nobel. Alex Tabarrok explains Ostrom’s work and Paul Krugman tells you about Williamson. Osrtom is the first woman to win the prize and is also noteworthy for being a political scientist rather than an economist. Robert Shiller tells The New York Times that this is “part of the merging of the social sciences.”
Meanwhile, I would note that the Sveriges Riksbank itself deserves some kind of prize for ability to get people to call its economics prize “the Nobel Prize.” Real Nobel Prizes are prizes awarded according to the endowment that Alfred Nobel set up. There are, of course, lots of other prizes in the world set up by other people. One such prize is this economics prize that the Swedish Central Bank decided to give out. But only the Swedish Central Bank prize has succeeded in convincing people that it should be referred to as a “Nobel Prize” despite having no connection to Alfred Nobel or his prizes. Impressive work and yet another example of the impressively high-performing public sector institutions that make the Swedish social model work.

Elinor Ostrom and the well-governed commons
Elinor Ostrom may arguable be considered the mother of field work in development economics.  She has worked closely investigating water associations in Los Angeles, police departments in Indiana, and irrigation systems in Nepal.  In each of these cases her work has explored how between the atomized individual and the heavy-hand of government there is a range of voluntary, collective associations that over time can evolve efficient and equitable rules for the use of common resources.  
With her husband, political scientist Vincent Ostrom, she established the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis in 1973 at Indiana University, an extraordinarily productive and evolving association of students and professors which has produced a wealth of theory, empirical studies and experiments in political science and especially collective action.  The Ostrom's work bridges political science and economics.  Both are well known at GMU since both have been past presidents of the Public Choice society and both have been influenced by the Buchanan-Tullock program.  You can also see elements of Hayekian thought about the importance of local knowledge in the work of both Ostroms (here is a good interview).  My colleague, Peter Boettke has just published a book on the Ostrom's and the Bloomington School.
Elinor Ostrom's work culminated in Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action which uses case studies to argue that around the world private associations have often, but not always, managed to avoid the tragedy of the commons and develop efficient uses of resources.  (Ostrom summarizes some of her findings from this research here).  Using game theory she provided theoretical underpinnings for these findings and using experimental methods she put these theories to the test in the lab. 
For Ostrom it's not the tragedy of the commons but the opportunity of the commons.  Not only can a commons be well-governed but the rules which help to provide efficiency in resource use are also those that foster community and engagement.  A formally government protected forest, for example, will fail to protect if the local users do not regard the rules as legitimate.  In Hayekian terms legislation is not the same as law.  Ostrom's work is about understanding how the laws of common resource governance evolve and how we may better conserve resources by making legislation that does not conflict with law.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on October 12, 2009.

October 12, 2009             Paul Krugman
An institutional economics prize
Congratulations to Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson. What a day for them!
The way to think about this prize is that it’s an award for institutional economics, or maybe more specifically New Institutional Economics.
Neoclassical economics basically assumes that the units of economic decision-making are a given, and focuses on how they interact in markets. It’s not much good at explaining the creation of these units — at explaining, in particular, why some activities are carried out by large corporations, while others aren’t. That’s obviously an interesting question, and in many cases an important one. For example, in my own home field of international trade, the basic models don’t assign any particular role to multinational corporations; how do we get them into the story, and what difference do they make?
There was an old tradition of economics that focused on the origins and nature of economic institutions. This tradition was very influential before World War II.
But it proved not at all helpful during the Great Depression. My caricature version is that when the Depression hit, institutional economics, asked for advice about what to do, replied that well, it’s all very complicated, and has deep historical roots, and … Meanwhile, Keynesian economists, using very simple mathematical models, basically said “Push this button — we need more G”.
And this had a somewhat perverse effect. The rise of Keynesian economics also meant the rise of the equations guys (Samuelson in particular), and in the end the equations crowded out institutional economics even as Keynes fell into disfavor.
But the questions didn’t go away. And institutional economics has been making a quiet comeback for the past several decades.
Oliver Williamson’s work underlies a tremendous amount of modern economic thinking; I know it because of the attempts to model multinational corporations, almost all of which rely to some degree on his ideas. I wasn’t familiar with Ostrom’s work, but even a quick scan shows why she shared the prize: if the goal is to understand the creation of economic institutions, it’s crucial to be aware that there is more variety in institutions, a wider range of strategies that work, than simply the binary divide between individuals and firms.
The prize is also, of course, a happy reminder that most of the profession is not caught up in the macro wars!
Add: Don’t tell Senator Coburn, but the NSF Political Science program has supported a lot of Elinor Ostrom’s research.

Two Americans Share Nobel in Economics

Published: October 12, 2009
In a departure from prevailing economic theory, the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science was awarded Monday to two social scientists for their work in demonstrating that business people, including competitors, often develop implicit relationships that supplement and resolve problems that arise from free-market competition.
The prize committee cited Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University “for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons,” and Oliver E. Williamson of the University of California, Berkeley, “for his analysis of economic governance, especially the boundaries of the firm.”

Ms. Ostrom becomes the first woman to win the prize for economics. Her background is in political science, not economics.
“It is part of the merging of the social sciences,” Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale, said of Monday’s awards. “Economics has been too isolated and these awards today are a sign of the greater enlightenment going around. We were too stuck on efficient markets and it was derailing our thinking.”
The prize committee, in making the awards, seemed to be influenced by the credit crisis and the severe recession that in the minds of many mainstream economists has highlighted the shortcomings of a unregulated marketplace, in which “economic actors,” left to their own devices, will act in their own self-interests and in doing so, will enhance everyone’s well-being.
The committee, in effect, said that theory was too simplistic and ignored the unstated relationships and behaviors that develop among companies that are competitors but find ways to resolve common problems. “Both scholars have greatly enhanced our understanding of non-market institutions” other than government, the committee said.
“Basically there is a common understanding that develops even among competitors when they are dealing with each other,” Mr. Shiller said, adding “when people make business contact, even competitors, they can’t anticipate everything, so an element of trust comes in.”
That is what the Nobel committee recognized, he said, in citing Mr. Williamson and Ms. Ostrom.
In its announcement, the committee said Ms. Ostrom “has challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities or privatized. Based on numerous studies of user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins, Ostrom concludes that the outcomes are, more often than not, better than predicted by standard theories.”
Mr. Williamson’s research, the committee said, found that “when market competition is limited, firms are better suited for conflict resolution than markets.”
Ms. Ostrom, 76, was born in Los Angeles, and received her Ph.D. in political science in 1965 from the University of California, Los Angeles. She is the Arthur F. Bentley professor of political science at Indiana University, Bloomington. She is also co-director of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. 
Mr. Williamson, 77, was born in Superior, Wis., and received his Ph.D. in economics in 1963 from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. He is the Edgar F. Kaiser professor emeritus of business, economics and law and a professor at the graduate school of business at the University of California, Berkeley.
The economics prize was created in 1969 by the Swedish central bank in honor of Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite who established the awards for achievements in physics, chemistry, medicine, peace and literature in his will in 1896.
The winners will share 10 million Swedish kronor ($1.4 million), and each receive a gold medal and diploma from the Swedish king on Dec. 10, which is the anniversary of Nobel’s death in 1896.
Last year’s winner was Paul Krugman, a professor at Princeton and an Op-Ed page columnist for The New York Times. Mr. Krugman won the prize for his research that explained patterns of trade among countries, as well as what goods are produced where and why.

2 comentarios:

Otto Rock dijo...

Eugene Fama

LuchinG dijo...

Se lo va a llevar el creador de los High Frequency Trading: tienen un programa que imita las decisiones de brokers conocidos (ver minuto 11)