P. Strack
Nobel prize 2022
-
The last few years we had labor, metrics, theory, development, macro and behavioral. So it is reasonable to expect someone from IO, public, finance, history or political economy.
For public, ES seems the top choice, but he is too young.
For political economy, with the death of AA there is a vacuum at the very top, so I guess that won't be it as well. But they may give it to DA and Rodrik.
For IO, any of the BLP, Whinston, Shapiro or Aghion.
For history, we all know that the nobel committee would love to give it to Piketty. It could be paired with Eichengreen, C Romer, Goldin and even DA.
For finance, we could see Campbell, Shleifer, Stein or even Duffie.I love to see downvotes without counterarguments.
-
Well here is a rough timeline of the last 20 prizes by field(s)
2002 Behavioural / Experimental
2003 Econometrics
2004 Macro
2005 Game Theory
2006 Macro
2007 Game Theory
2008 Trade
2009 Political Economy
2010 Theory
2011 Macro
2012 Game Theory
2013 Finance
2014 IO
2015 Development/Health/Wellbeing
2016 IO/theory
2017 Behavioural
2018 Macro (Climate and Growth)
2019 Development/Experimental
2020 Game Theory
2021 Labour/Experimental/Econometrics
From this I think we can develop trends;
1. Prize most commonly goes to the following in descending order: (A) Theory or IO related (B) Macro (C) Experimental/Behavioural.2. Econometrics and Finance Prizes are relatively rear these days and betting on either in any given year is unlikely. We won't see another Metrics prize for years so no Campbell this year. Shleifer is always a question whether he will be considered but Rogoff and Reinhart have better odds in my mind in no small part because of their Macro contributions.
3. Similar prizes are never given out in consecutive years. This is notable because we can thereby rule out John List, or any prize related to Experimental Methodologies although List is my bet for next year. (I did correctly guess Card and Angrist last year)
4. We are not too overdue for another cleaver theory prize as Wilson and Milgrom in 2019. That said almost all of Tirole's co-authors are winning prizes thus I think somehow Fudenberg will be winning a prize sometime soon. I know it seems odd without a specific super noteworthy contribution but how many people had Holmström and Hart on their radar? Also, I think it's important to remember the prize isn't just about the contribution but also a popularity contest and I think Drew and some of the others i will suggest all have the respect and clout to receive many yearly nominations. Being a prolific Advisor has worked in many a Laureate’s favour in the past. Cough Card, Angrist, Wilson, Banerjee, Duflo, Holmström ect.
5. Macro by Nobel Standards is overdue. History seems really overdue but Growth seems possible too, and inequality seems trendy enough for the Nobel committee rn.
So my major Contenders are
Acemoglu, Johnson and Robbinson with Barro and or Galor for substitutes for Robinson and especially Johnson in a growth/history prize. Acemoglue has everything required for a prize eventually the only real question is who he is sharing it with. MIT institute professor in economics basically = Nobel Prize winnerSome configuration of any 3 or potentially multiple prizes over a few years. C Goldin, L Katz, T Piketty and or E Saez. The first two certainly have the clout the later too are trendy. Market power who correctly guessed 2019 has been guessing Goldin and Piketty every year since. Personally, I find Saez the most impressive and most assured to win Nobel one day but he is also young by Nobel standards and Goldin additional to being deserving is probably the most respected Female economist ever.
My prolific advisor = Equal better Nobel odds rule however leads me to think Acemoglu, Katz and Barro have noteably higher odds than their already sizeable contributions may suggest. So a Acemoglu, Katz, Goldin Prize is not out of the picture.
-
Some combination of Kiyotaki, Gertler, Moore, Bernanke, Woodford should get it.
I hope DA doesn't get it. His contributions in my field, macro, are shallow and oversold. Maybe his contributions to other fields are better, but it would be a disgrace if he gets it for macro-related stuff when much more important macro people have not gotten it.
-
Some combination of Kiyotaki, Gertler, Moore, Bernanke, Woodford should get it.
I hope DA doesn't get it. His contributions in my field, macro, are shallow and oversold. Maybe his contributions to other fields are better, but it would be a disgrace if he gets it for macro-related stuff when much more important macro people have not gotten it.I agree. It would be a great signal for the field if DA doesn't win it (unless he publishes something very foundational) but I think it is inevitable he will win it.