Source: Bloomberg Brief

 

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic (2012 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences) was awarded to Alvin E. Roth and Lloyd S. Shapley today for their work on matching supply and demand for everything from single men and women to organ donors and their recipients.

Americans have won 68% percent of all Nobel winners for economics, while the U.S. accounts for about 21.6% of global GDP. The U.K. ranks second with 11.8% (3.5% world output). Euro nations have provided 8.8% of Laureates.

Sixty nine people, with an average age of 62, won the 43 prizes between 1969 and 2011.

 

See also:
All previous prizes in Economic Sciences

All Nobel Prizes organized by country

Category: Economy, Philosophy

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

8 Responses to “Nobel Winners in Economics: Geographic Dispersion”

  1. DSS10 says:

    Asia would do better to establish their own “Nobel” type of awards for scientific and social achivement. I still can’t believe that Obama got the peace prize(1) just for getting elected when he has orderded more drone strikes that the past 5 peace prize awardees combined.

    1)FWIW, I rather like Obama.

  2. Chief Tomahawk says:

    Where do I nominate BR for economic commentary??? Then again, I don’t think he’s 62 yet…

  3. swalcott says:

    Hey, do you buy what this Yasha Levine says here? He’s been doing some excellent takedowns of Gladwell, McArdle. I didn’t know the economics prize was set up by a bank and not the Nobel family.

    http://exiledonline.com/the-nobel-prize-in-economics-there-is-no-nobel-prize-in-economics/

  4. b_thunder says:

    “Americans have won 68% percent of all Nobel winners for economics, while the U.S. accounts for about 21.6% of global GDP” – and what do we have to show for it? A 5-year old 2nd Great Depression that Bernanke promised won’t be over at least until 2016? A depression that none of those “superstars” was able to forecast? A Depression for which the only cure “they” could think of was bank bailouts, more bailouts, cheap money, free money, screwing the savers, distorting the markets, extend and pretend with QE(ternity)?

    If US won 68% of Economic Prizes, how did we end up with GREENSPAN??? Summers???? And quite possibly will end up with either Mankiw or that other ideologue from Columbia?

  5. TerryC says:

    @swalcott says:

    “I didn’t know the economics prize was set up by a bank and not the Nobel family”.

    Most people don’t know that there is no such thing as a “Nobel Prize for Economics”. It was set up by the Sveriges Riksbank and is administered by the Nobel committee. They should have all been flogged to death when they accepted responsibility for this monstrosity. It just gives instant respectability to a social science that is little more than a bunch of snake oil salesmen. If you don’t believe me, ask 50 “Nobel Prize” winning economists a straight question, and you will get 50 different answers. Then ask 50 Nobel Prize-winning chemists a straight question, and they will pretty much give you the same answer.

    I’m a geologist, and while there are many significant annual prizes in the earth sciences, there is no Nobel. We would have to do some significant work in chemistry or physics to get one. Well, that’s life. If the Nobel committee wants to do mankind a great service, they should dump this prize (it’s not in Nobel’s original list anyway) and let the Swedish Bank issue it as just another prize in economics. I don’t deny them their internal prizes to each other (after all, the entertainment industry has awards ceremonies practically year-round patting themselves on the back), but maybe people would then pay less attention to the babblings of economists.

  6. S Brennan says:

    From my Saturday Facebook page

    S Brennan shared a link.
    Saturday

    I think it’s become clear to even the most casual observers that Economics as a “Science” is the equivalent of equating Astrology to Astrophysics.

    However, I was surprised to find out TODAY that the “Nobel prize” in economics doesn’t exist
    …that’s right, there is no such thing, what’s more, this con began within my lifetime, it came into existence in 1969 to give creditability to apostates of the New Dealism. Those who opposed programs that had lifted so much of the world from the poverty of the depression, fascism and the tyranny of 19th century economics used a deception to give themselves undeserved creditability.

    People who have claimed to have received this prize, or support such claims are frauds, no different than those who counterfeit war medals…what a disgusting collection of human beings.

    http://www.alternet.org/economy/there-no-nobel-prize-economics?page=0%2C1&paging=off

  7. algernon says:

    Once in a blue moon, an economist actually contributes something useful to his fellowman. But mostly they take simple concepts & render them inscrutable with mathematics.

    The average dentist is more deserving of a prize.

  8. Mike.R says:

    Taleb has been banging the drum on this for 5 or 10 years:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-08/taleb-says-crisis-makes-nobel-panel-liable-for-legitimizing-economists.html

    Hayek talks about the sham in his own Nobel Memorial Prize acceptance speech:

    “It seems to me that this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences – an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error. It is an approach which has come to be described as the “scientistic” attitude – an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, “is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed.”
    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html