Paul Krugman Wins Nobel Prize
Professor at Princeton University and an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times, Paul Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences on Monday.
“It’s been an extremely weird day, but weird in a positive way,” commented after hearing of his victory.
He received the prize for his work on international trade and economic geography. In particular, the prize committee lauded his work for “having shown the effects of economies of scale on trade patterns and on the location of economic activity,” the NYT reported at its blog.
‘Traditional trade theory assumes that countries are different and will exchange different kinds of goods with each other; Mr. Krugman’s theories have explained why worldwide trade is dominated by a few countries that are similar to each other, and why some countries might import the same kinds of goods that it exports.’
“There was something very beautiful about the old existing trade theory, and its ability to capture the world in a surprisingly simple conceptual framework,” Krugman explained. “And then I realized that some of the new insights coming through in industrial organization could be applied to international trade.”
Although an important moment for Krugman himself and his employer(s), some conservatives argued that the award was given to Krugman for political reasons. Many observers have noted in recent years that many Nobel Prizes seem to go to progressive thinkers, activists and politicians.
It is fairly certain, however, that this was not the case. Krugman is a well respected economist. He is a controversial and partisan columnist, but he is a man with two faces. He, rightfully, received this prize for his other, economist, face, not for his columns. He is truly an expert on the economy. That does not mean one always has to agree with his columns, but it also does not mean that his columns mean his academic work is also partisan.
The unavoidable problem is that the Nobel award legitamizes any other work. A good historical example was Linus Pauling and his advocacy of Vit. C for a variety of ailments, from the common cold up to cancer. It did lead IMHO to the common practice of using Vit. C for colds. Now we know there is no beneficial effect. (from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews ”The presumption of the millions of people who are taking vast amounts of vitamin C that they’re preventing a cold has no foundation,” says Robert Douglas, lead author of the study and former president of the Public Health Association of Australia.)