In his obituary of Bertil Ohlin, Paul Samuelson plays the game of “what if” — in this case, “what if the Nobel Prize was established in 1900, then who would have won the prize between 1901 and 1930?”
This is list of names Samuelson thinks would have won the prize:
“One cannot forbear playing the game of might-have-been. Here is the most likely scenario of awards from 1901 on: Bohm-Bawerk, Marshall, J.B. Clark, Walras, and Wicksell; Carl Menger, Pareto, Wicksteed, Irving Fisher, and Edgeworth; Sombart, Mitchell, Pigou, Adolph Wagner, Allyn Young, and Cannan; Davenport, Taussig, Schumpeter, Veblen, and Bortkiewicz; Cassel, J. M. Keynes, Heckscher, J. R. Commons, and J. M. Clark; Hawtrey, von Mises, Robertson, H. L. Moore, and F. H. Knight.”(p. 358, n1)
What do you think of that list? And, what do you think it says about Mises’s stature as an economic thinker if even Samuelson signaled that he would have been honored with the Nobel Prize for his contributions to economic science?
{ 4 comments }
Did you just repost this from 6 months ago?
I realize I have less than rudimentary understanding of economics and of economists, but it surprises me that some of those names are on the same list together…
One is tempted to read the listing as a sarcastic swipe at the selection Committee on Samuelson’s part: The only conclusion to be drawn from multiple prizewinners whose work is mutually incompatible, is that the selection committee understands none of it. At least, this is only explanation I can find for Hayek and Myrdal having shared the (real-life) Memorial prize in 1974.
Regrettably, I would however hesitate to give Samuelson credit for such a subtle nuance, it seems he means it in earnest.
This is very interesting. But the list contains economists having developed very diverse theories and defending very diverse views in some respects. Obviously one can believe an economist deserves the Nobel Prize without agreeing on everything having been said or written by that economist.
Comments on this entry are closed.