vote good if she did.
Did economists move more in her direction since then?
3 years later, did Ostrom deserve the nobel?
-
-
Clearly not. I have no idea why she won. Really, how many economists could name her work before she won? How many could now?
The answer to both of those questions is "basically none of them".
-
how about williamson?
-
how about krugman?
-
Dude, Krugman of course deserves it.
-
Not even close. I specialize in environmental & resource economics. If you had told me the day before Ostrom won that the Nobel would go to an environmental & resource economist and asked me to predict who the winner would be, Ostrom would not have been in my top 100. If you had also told me the winner would be a woman, she still wouldn't have been in my top 25. Even if you told me it would be a female resource economist of Scandinavian ancestry, Ostrom still wouldn't have made my top 5. It's ridiculous that she won.
-
^Or you have no clue about the field
-
seriously!? did williamson?????????
-
I suppose all of you can describe to me why James Meade, Jan Tinbergen and Richard Stone won the Nobel Prize. Alternatively, there is sufficient specialization in economics that people can't necessarily appreciate the contributions of those in other fields. Believe it or not, there's more to a Nobel Prize than counting top-5 publications.
-
Like internal politics... which should have no place in awards for actual achievements.
-
I suppose all of you can describe to me why James Meade, Jan Tinbergen and Richard Stone won the Nobel Prize. Alternatively, there is sufficient specialization in economics that people can't necessarily appreciate the contributions of those in other fields. Believe it or not, there's more to a Nobel Prize than counting top-5 publications.
Even the people in Ostrom's field don't think she deserved the Nobel Prize. The post from efcc above is an accurate representation of what most people in her field think.
-
Oh gag, yet another bash Ostrom thread on ejmr. Bashing her and Ollie getting the prize was what probably put this site into more ill repute than anything else ever put here. You guys are a bunch of ignorant clowns, when you are not just dripping and oozing your usual sexism and narrow econ uber alles shit.
Governing the Commons has been far more frequently cited all by itself than the entire output of about half the previous econ Nobel Prize winners. Anyone claiming to be in environmental econ who did not know of this work is simply exhibiting that they are utterly incompetent. In fact, her work has had serious real world policy influence far beyond the vast majority of what econ Nobels have been awarded for.
So, go pee in your sandboxes, you childish sexist clowns.
-
63f7=Ostrom
-
63f7=Ostrom
Definitely not. Ostrom didn't deserve the Nobel, but she's not an idiot or an asshole, which means she's definitely not 63f7.
-
Touche
She always does come off as a very nice and likable woman, just a nice and likable woman that really didn't deserve a nobel prize...
-
Touche
She always does come off as a very nice and likable woman, just a nice and likable woman that really didn't deserve a nobel prize...And smart, too. Just not Nobel-Prize smart.
-
While one of her fields is environmental, her main field is institutional economics, which is why she won with Williamson. Ask people in institutional economics if they think she deserved it.
I suppose all of you can describe to me why James Meade, Jan Tinbergen and Richard Stone won the Nobel Prize. Alternatively, there is sufficient specialization in economics that people can't necessarily appreciate the contributions of those in other fields. Believe it or not, there's more to a Nobel Prize than counting top-5 publications.
Even the people in Ostrom's field don't think she deserved the Nobel Prize. The post from efcc above is an accurate representation of what most people in her field think. -
Per Google Scholar, Governing the Commons has 13,000 citations. Her other 2 books, APSR paper, two Science articles, J Econ Perspectives article each have over 1000.
For some comparisons, Kahnenman and Tversky (1979) has 21,000. Kydland and Prescott (1979) has nearly 6,000. They're both 10 years older, however. To control for publication date somewhat, North (1990) has 25,000 and Becker (1991) has 10,000.
I guess if she were on RePec she might be better regarded, but clearly somebody somewhere thinks damn highly of her work.
-
I wonder how many of you f**ers actualy know her work.
If not - shut up.
If yes - give CONCRETE reasons why she shuldn't have won. -
That nobody knows her work is the reason she should't won. Get it?