The pick of Ostrom is so timely in a world dominated by assholes who believe government no-nothings are the solution to all of our commons problems. Ostrom has shown us the right way, that people do cooperate on their own when outsiders don't fuck everything up and order is allowed to evolve over time. Such a great pleasure to see this result so soon after the abomination of Obama winning the Peace Prize.
Economics Job Market Rumors » The Economics Discipline
All hail emergent order & Ostrom!!
(20 posts)-
Posted 9 months ago #
-
I cannot agree more with this post.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I don't think her contributions are being doubted, it's just that no one has ever heard of them. In that case, given that they have not influenced other economists' work, they can hardly be considered "seminal." Moreover, the interpretation you have in mind is surely not the one the committee was thinking of. Just look at the silly classification under "governance," which neither applies to Ostrom nor Williamson. As far as they're concerned, they gave the Nobel to a woman with a Scandinavian surname and a huge interdisciplinary output.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Who gives a shit about economics citations? They gave a prize to a women who did research that is clearly economics and clearly has important things to say about problems in the world we actually inhabit.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Not in economics journals implies that economists did not think her work was all that important.
Posted 9 months ago # -
No one believes the economics prize was in any way a reaction to the peace prize. I'm sure both selection committees just did their own thing. The point is it's nice to know the economics committee was smart enough to honor a person who actually has a clue about the proper role of institutions and government in society, even when the peace committee doesn't.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Not in economics journals implies that economists did not think her work was all that important.
================
No. it means that clubby insiders thought that her work was not important. she did original work and was not citing the Barros, Glaesars or Shimers of that time, so she didn't publish. Also Indiana University isn't in Cambridge or Chicago or the Bay Area. in addition there is the fact that she wasn't using "formal" methods. I don't want to get into that.
Posted 9 months ago # -
The selection committee is obviously sending a message to the economics profession: "Hey, get your head out of your math models and look at what's happening in the real world." 'Cause we sure did a great job of predicting the financial crisis, didn't we....
The Williamson award is an undisputable great pick! Ostrom is one of the big contributors to the New Institutional Economics. I don't know if she's the most deserving, but if you're going to give an award to an institutional economist, she would be on the short list.
The fact that she has so few citations in what economics considers the only journals that matter probably says more about what's wrong with he profession than it does about her and her work.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Why you guys label her "New Institutional Economics"?
Elinor + Vincent = one separate school (Indiana school) of Public Choice Theory.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Yes, one-two examples always prove a general point. Dismiss all the government and just wait for private citizens to do all the work!
Posted 9 months ago #