Entirely possible and very hard to predict but... I am not that convinced a lot of the work is impactful in the broader profession? Even within theory is this still a hot topic? I feel like this is something everyone was excited about around 2010++. [Not my subfield so you can tell me the answer is yes if you are an expert.]
And ... is networks worth a solo prize? If not, I am not sure who else he would share it with? Or how they would shoehorn this into a "Networks and..." prize. [If you are a micro theorist please feel free to correct me.]
I think it is still struggling to develop the necessary impact, although the work certainly is of that quality.
And I say that as an admirer and student of Matt, having also worked on these topics within that circle.
What would be a single theoretical result to highlight? No doubt, many beautiful results exist, say, existence of pairwise stable networks, equality of Nash equilibria and centrality, impact of complementarity or substitutability on multiple equilibria, information transmission etc. for an economist or mathematician that's exciting stuff.
But to get a Nobel you need either empirical impact and you need a soundbite (I think). A single idea - or a few of them - that encompass what it is about.
Network results rely on structure. That's what it is about. Everything else can be modeled by more parsimonious game theoretic models (and has been).
But what does structure offer that has not been explored by physics and sociology? Structural holes? Complexity? Phase transitions? That all predates econ.
To be fair, Matt Jackson has probably done as much as is possible in achieving so many outcomes - and in so many areas.
Like showing that canonical network models do not fit all empirical facts - e.g. preferential attachment leads to fat tails but never to positive assortativity and so real life networks also need second order discovery.
Or showing stuff about dominant groups in information cascades etc. etc.
It's just so much... but there's just no one thing. And it is all beautifully theoretical.
My prediction: The Nobel will come via empirical applications. Here, network structure matters a ton. Multiple equilibria, networked externalities and the associated identification issues are omnipresent and a part of life.
At some point, we will learn so much with these techniques they will give a Nobel, and then they also have to give it to Matthew.
Good questions and good points... something that bothers me is that networks are treated into micro when they actually relate to meso... connecting micro and macro.
Impossible to discern who would share the prize. Also, his network science is childish compared to nowadays econophysics multiplex approaches, but this was never a deterrent for the comittee.
huitzitziltzin|3 years ago
And ... is networks worth a solo prize? If not, I am not sure who else he would share it with? Or how they would shoehorn this into a "Networks and..." prize. [If you are a micro theorist please feel free to correct me.]
zwaps|3 years ago
And I say that as an admirer and student of Matt, having also worked on these topics within that circle.
What would be a single theoretical result to highlight? No doubt, many beautiful results exist, say, existence of pairwise stable networks, equality of Nash equilibria and centrality, impact of complementarity or substitutability on multiple equilibria, information transmission etc. for an economist or mathematician that's exciting stuff.
But to get a Nobel you need either empirical impact and you need a soundbite (I think). A single idea - or a few of them - that encompass what it is about.
Network results rely on structure. That's what it is about. Everything else can be modeled by more parsimonious game theoretic models (and has been).
But what does structure offer that has not been explored by physics and sociology? Structural holes? Complexity? Phase transitions? That all predates econ.
To be fair, Matt Jackson has probably done as much as is possible in achieving so many outcomes - and in so many areas. Like showing that canonical network models do not fit all empirical facts - e.g. preferential attachment leads to fat tails but never to positive assortativity and so real life networks also need second order discovery. Or showing stuff about dominant groups in information cascades etc. etc.
It's just so much... but there's just no one thing. And it is all beautifully theoretical.
My prediction: The Nobel will come via empirical applications. Here, network structure matters a ton. Multiple equilibria, networked externalities and the associated identification issues are omnipresent and a part of life.
At some point, we will learn so much with these techniques they will give a Nobel, and then they also have to give it to Matthew.
ispo|3 years ago
Impossible to discern who would share the prize. Also, his network science is childish compared to nowadays econophysics multiplex approaches, but this was never a deterrent for the comittee.