The WSJ op-ed page no less! Oh, for the days when not everyone in the media was completely retarded…
Viewpoint: How to Succeed in Academia by Really Trying
j000000020011119diau00tmg
By Michael Kinsley
1104 Words
30 October 1986
The Wall Street Journal
English
(Copyright (c) 1986, Dow Jones & Co., Inc.)
I had no idea it was so easy to win a Nobel Prize. Prof. James Buchanan of Virginia's George Mason University, this year's Nobel laureate in economics, is said to have discovered the principle that politicians find it easier to spend money than to raise taxes, and government deficits are the result. Is it really possible that this point was never observed by Tocqueville or Lord Bryce or one of those guys? Maybe so. But in that case I feel like quite a chump, not to mention a failed profit maximizer, for failing to point it out myself. Big bags of kronor and a free trip to Sweden were just sitting there for the asking, and someone else grabbed them.
Or does this do Prof. Buchanan an injustice? The newspapers, in their attempt to simplify for the layman, often make important scientific breakthroughs sound trivial, a matter of peering into the microscope and discovering "a new kind of particle that is vital to our understanding of how waffles are formed," or some such. Prof. Buchanan, it seems, actually founded an entire economic discipline called, "Public Choice."
According to the New York Times, "Some of Dr. Buchanan's early insights, once regarded skeptically, have now become widely accepted. For example, policy theory previously held that government authorities strove to achieve certain social and economic goals for the general welfare. . . . Yet Dr. Buchanan and others in the public choice school, according to the Nobel selection committee, did not accept this simplified view; instead, they sought explanations for the political behavior of officials and voters that was \sic\ more in the self-seeking mold. . . . For example, politicians may ignore the general welfare and take actions more likely to secure positions or power, while special interest groups seek to receive large budget allocations."
Hobart Rowen of the Washington Post quotes another economist, identified only as a well-known member of a rival school, as saying of Mr. Buchanan's prize, "I'm amazed. The choice just baffles me." This man is clearly a Keynesian, mired in old-fashioned modes of analysis. The Nobel committee's decision to confer this honor on an obscure right-wing eccentric becomes less baffling if we apply the insights of the burgeoning "Prize Choice" school of Nobel scholarship.
The theory of the Nobel Prizes previously held that Nobel selection committees strove to select scholars of maximum distinction who have made the most important intellectual breakthroughs and done the most to improve the condition of mankind. Yet Dr. Sven Smorgasbord and others of the "Prize Choice" school, according to experts, do not accept this simplified view. Instead, they seek explanations for the selection committees' sometimes bizarre choices that are more in the self-seeking mold. For example, the selectors may choose to ignore true scholarly distinction and make choices more in keeping with the fashions that sweep world politics, while the Swedish Central Bank, which chooses the selectors, may prefer selectors who will award prizes that earn plaudits from the international financial community and in places like The Wall Street Journal editorial page. It's only a theory, of course.
"The Supreme Court may or may not follow the election returns," observes Dr. Smorgasbord (in his introduction to the recent volume, "Prize Choice: Essays in Honor of Vanna White"), "but the Nobel Prize committee certainly does." These insights, once regarded skeptically, are now becoming widely accepted.
How did Prof. Buchanan come by his theories about the nefarious role of government...See full post