Trio of professors win Nobel economics prize for work on post-colonial wealth
British-born Simon Johnson and James A Robinson and Turkish-American Daron Acemoğlu share £810,000 prize
Alt title: 3 Old White Men Discover Colonialsm Bad
The economics prize is funded by Sveringes Riksbank but they are not involved in selecting a winner. Neither is the government. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is solely responsible for selecting the winner, and it is not part of government.
Here's the thing about economics: the "dismal science" is often trying to prove - or disprove - what appears to be common sense.
For instance, to some it's common sense that minimum wage increases cause more unemployment. To others, it's common sense that they don't. Eventually economists will reach a consensus, and it will be "not news" to half the population.
Since you've done research in this field, you must be aware that Acemoglu and Robinson have been publishing on this topic for ~20 years. Is there some earlier economist who was not properly given credit for their results?
My dude, generations historians, economists, and social critics from India and across sub-Saharan Africa have discussed these issues at length. There are libraries full of diverse works on the subject. The erasure of all that is on-brand for the Nobel Prize in Economics (which even Hayek said shouldn't exist in his own acceptance speech) and frankly on-brand for the Western academy as a whole.
South America also has a huge body of work on this.
The prize is for research in economics, not history or social science. They may be interested in the same topics, but economists usually take longer to reach a conclusion because their work is usually more data-driven.
Hence their conclusions appear to be "not news" to historians and social scientists who already believed the same things without the benefit of economic data.
If you'll recall I did mention that postcolonial economists have been discussing this issue.
You did. Is there one economist in particular who you think contributed more to this field than the actual winners?
We really need to avoid this thinking--again, one of Hayak's concern about this particular prize--that any of it comes down to "one person" or one set of research.
I don't think any field of any research comes down to one person. Nevertheless, academics recognize that some people make greater contributions than others.
This is baked into academia in the form of citation. At the moment you wrote your first bibliography you distinguished those who made significant contributions to your own work. It would have been unacceptable to write an academic bibliography consisting of a single line: "All those who came before".
And even though research is always a collaborative effort, like soccer and filmmaking, it is natural for humans to recognize those who made the greatest contributions. That's why we award MVPs to athletes, Oscars to actors, and Nobels to economists.
As a quick semi-aside: 20 years isn't that long in academic research, and it's especially not that long when we're talking about colonialism/post-colonialism. It's a tremendous amount of time in the hard sciences I'm told but it's a mistake to apply that lens here.
That's kind of my point. They didn't come up with their ideas yesterday, so you shouldn't expect the results to appear groundbreaking today.
Ah, gotcha. We're talking at cross-purposes a bit I think.
Thank you for being civil through this; I genuinely appreciate that and it's nice to meet someone else who cares about these issues.
Here's the thing: Economics is not a science.
For instance, there's no scientific "answer" to whether minimum wage causes more unemployment because it's not a simplistic, binary question. It depends on a wide variety of social factors that are largely untestable, unfalsifiable, etc. The question itself is based on deep ideological assumptions (eg. it's desirable for people to be even more used/employed).
The issue of living wages is a social issue around basic human needs. Many and maybe most economists are paid precisely to justify the denial of human needs. That's what econ is really about. So there will never be any consensus on this phony "issue".
Is there a scientific "answer" to whether alcohol causes prostate cancer? That too depends on a wide variety of social factors and can be biased by ideological assumptions (eg drinking alcohol is a vice).
Nevertheless biologists develop competing models, use them to form hypotheses, test the hypotheses, subject the results to peer review, and revise their models to arrive at a consensus. Economists do all the same things.
