[huitzitziltzin]

Economist here…

An unexpected (to me!) prize but definitely a good one.

What’s notable is that mokyr’s research is very, very accessible to a layman. You can read his books and understand them nearly perfectly without needing substantial technical background. (Of course there’s a huge existing literature in economics and history he’s engaging with which you won’t know, but I’m not an economic historian either so a lot of it is unfamiliar to me too.). Try it! Hopefully you learn something.

Also the committee always releases a good non-technical summary of the laureates work and an even better “more technical” summary. You can start there for an overview.

As for the point which will be raised endlessly here that this is “not a real Nobel” - whatever. No one in the economics profession cares. Alfred Nobel doesn’t have a monopoly on prizes or priority to decide which fields are worth recognizing. It’s our highest prestige prize. Call it what you want.

[littlestymaar]

I'm not familiar with the two others but Aghion really isn't a surprise given the track record the Nobel committee for the econ prize has of following hype rather than anything else.

(I've been very critical of Aghion's work for the past few years since I've been exposed to his work over that period, but it always appeared to me as a potential laureate given the resonance of his work)

[snowAbstraction]

Maybe I will try Mokyr. I saw his "A Culture of Growth" is available as an audio book. What do you think about that book? Thanks

[dkural]

Agreed! I am a big fan of Robert Allen's books on the industrial revolution as a counterpoint to Mokyr. (The two are of course are friends with each other as well).

[currymj]

if you run into anyone who is serious about the "fake Nobel" complaint, just ask them why they have such a high opinion of taking money from an arms dealer, and such a low opinion of taking money from a public institution in one of the Nordic welfare states.

[laborcontract]

Are there any good papers floating out there?

[huitzitziltzin]

Sure…

Mokyr’s northwestern website has links to a lot of his papers.

An extremely crude selection rule:

Anything published in the American economic review, quarterly journal of economics, journal of political economy has the profession’s “highest stamp of approval”. It’s really hard to publish anything there. (There are two journals im not listing in that “top” category but he has no papers there on his website.). On aghion or howitts websites, look for the above journals but also econometrica and the review of economic studies. Those are the “top five” in the field.

There are surely papers in good history and Econ history journals on mokyr’s website but I don’t know the journals!

Standards for any chapter in a “handbook of X economics” or “handbook of the economics of X” are high - those should be good surveys.

Similarly a paper in the “annual review of economics”

Also mokyr has a bunch of work on Amazon. “The lever of riches” is a classic. “A culture of growth” is well regarded.

Finally he has a forthcoming book called “two paths to prosperity” with two other distinguished guys - one Econ historian (greif) and one political economy guy (tabellini). It’s coming out in about three weeks. Good timing, Princeton U Press!

Aghion and howitt have a growth textbook at the advanced undergrad level called “the economics of growth.”

They have a much more advanced work called “endogenous growth theory” which is for specialists (or at least anyone with first year PhD macro)

Aghion has a book called “the power of creative destruction.”

[nibles_and_bits]

No one in the economics profession cares.

Another contradiction by a member of the economics profession. It seems to me they care very much. By linking the prize to Alfred Nobel’s name (and to the Nobel institutions), the Riksbank ensured the prize would immediately carry great symbolic prestige. The Nobel brand was already well established internationally, so adopting the name helped the economics prize gain recognition, gravitas, and legitimacy.

[caycep]

I think OP meant that economists do consider the prize highly despite the distinction between its particular situation vs. the "core Nobels"

[huitzitziltzin]

I stand by my statement.

I’d love an estimate from you (or anyone) about the marginal effect on the profession’s “legitimacy” (which is what? and how’s it measured?) from having the prize include Nobel’s name vs. not including it.

Really we don’t care.

[bawolff]

I mean, i hear people call the Turing prize the "nobel" of computer science, and the fields medal the nobel of math. Sports that arent in the olympics usually have some competition people refer to as the "olympics" of that sport.

Who really cares, its the top prize in the field, that is all that matters.

[JumpCrisscross]

> It seems to me they care very much

I’d actually argue that the only people who love this piece of trivia are economists, financiers and a particular vein of Reddit.

[dkga]

What the other poster meant was that economists don’t care that it is not an original Nobel prize.

Source: also an economist