The Nobel Prize committee seems to have gone out of its way exclusively to cite Paul Krugman’s “analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity,” contributions which students have appreciated and also criticized (Mark Brandly wrote this short piece in 1996). Only at the tail end of the press release does the committee mention the other Krugman we know so well: “In wider circles, he is better known as a lively blogger and spirited columnist in the New York Times.” Is this the first time that blogging has been mentioned in the Nobel release?
Of course, the prize confers a broader invitation to take all his other ideas seriously, among which his criticism of Austrian trade cycle theory, a criticism to which Tyler Cowen points with admiration.
Here is Shawn Ritenour’s excellent review of some of Krugman’s work in this area. He argues that Krugman is not a neo-Keynesian or a proto-Keynesian or any other variety; he is just a plain old-fashioned paleo-Keynesian. Here also are Roger Garrison and John Cochran responding to Krugman.
You can comment on the forum, where a thread is developing.