Vladimir Nabokov once wrote that prizes should not be given to
anybody over the age of twelve. In the big picture, prizes
are silly but there is some value in discussing them. Wrt to
the economics prize, the question I rasied was about what
constitutes good economic analysis: the committee that
awards the econ nobel memorial prize, IIRC, has almost always given it to
individuals who are formally trained economists. Unless the
charter for the prize specifies that it should go to individuals
who are Ph.D.'s in economics or who publish in economics journals,
then there is no a priore reason they couldn't give it to
say, an historian who writes on the history of the firm (like alfred
chandler).
Fabio
> Of course, there's no need to wait for the Nobel people to do that. You can
> always just form another award and hand that out on the criteria you feel
> are more relevant.
>
> I believe there are too many awards and too many awards ceremonies. I'm
> more interested in the work then the award or the awards process. I guess
> they are signaling devices, but some of them seem woefully distorted and I
> wonder what they really signal. (The Nobel Prize might be one of the better
> ones, in terms of this, BUT look at who gets the peace prize. In the past
> decade or so, it looks more like a popularity contest than anything else.)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Daniel Ust
> http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
>
