I wouldn't know. I haven't read enough M&E or Weber.
Ironically, the FT copy (quoted above) is the same published under the Reuters headline, "Bush critic Krugman wins 2008 Nobel for economics", byline Anna Ringstrom and Sven Nordenstam. More to the point of political economy in this particular era of global free trade, Myron Scholes's more affable successor is doubtless the most prolific advocate for the Council on Foreign Relations.
As well as writing for the New York Times, Krugman has published in the respected journal Foreign Affairs and is the author of 20 books and more than 200 papers.
Next year --and the Nobel committee must choose someone, because something is better than nothing-- Setser will be crowned for defining currency characteristics of Web 2.0 wealth creation econometrically, 1985-2020. I've no idea how one could praise Krugman's "pinko" credentials. His work ethic perhaps, but not his politics. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Like Einstein was reading Newton and Maxwell and putting the special relativity algebra into it.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
However, there's more than being first. Barkely Rosser says:
So, given that he is probably reading this, let me first praise Paul Krugman, with whom I have only had one extended one-on-one conversation. He is one of the most brilliant living economists, he has done very innovative work in many areas, he has been absolutely on the money regarding the current crisis (and I suspect that this has been a factor in the award, although it is not supposed to be). ...
Given all this why then did I go out on a limb to say it would not be Krugman? Well, I thought that since what Krugman was most famous for was applying the Dixit-Stiglitz model to both trade and geography, and Stiglitz already got his for asymmetric information, that paper was clearly deserving, and Dixit should get it. Also, and Krugman has recognized this, others beat him to the punch in applying Dixit-Stiglitz in applying it to trade, with some of the other "losers" mentioned by others being here among those. However, Krugman clearly applied it more thoroughly and widely and vigorously.
... and there is something to be said in defense of applying a traditional marginalist model with a handful of non-conventional consequences more thoroughly, widely and vigorously than others, given the pool from which the Prize in Honor of Nobel is selected.
Also The Basics of Dixit-Stiglitz-Lite (pdf), if you want to see the kind of demand system being applied. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Further by Barclay:
But, I must now confess that I wrote a very critical review of the book on this that Tyler praises, Development, Geography, and Economic Theory (1996 in JEBO). I had two complaints. One was that the Dixit-Stiglitz heterogeneous goods model from monopolistic competition is not in fact the main source of agglomeration economies in actual regional economies, although Krugman defended his use of this model in that book by arguing that it was useful for providing a rigorous mathematical model, which it does. He compared himself to the person who provided a map to "darkest Africa" when those who had written of it earlier could only vaguely speak of it in words.
My other criticism, connected to the first, was that there had been a long literature in the 1980s that did mathematically model agglomeration economies (not using Dixit-Stiglitz) that he never cited, in contrast with his citing of the use of Dixit-Stiglitz by others before him in trade theory and by Fujita in urban and regional economics. However, most of this literature was by physicists publishing in regional science or geography journals, such as Peter Allen, who was a student of Ilya Prigogine in Brussels, and Wolfgang Weidlich, who is an associate of Hermann Haken at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Stuttgart. Krugman has never cited these people, and to be very blunt, I publicly called him out on this when he made a presentation at a session on complexity at the AEA meetings in the early 1990s (he was chairing the session and replied "we can discuss citations later, next question" [end of discussion]). Having made this rather snarky remark, I must admit a hard bottom line: it is very possible that Krugman never actually saw or read any of this literature, and certainly none of these people are as deserving of this prize as he is, due to his broader accomplishments (and if he did read it, he may have rejected their approaches as too "ad hoc," even if mathematical). However, at the time I thought it highly likely he was aware of it, which is what motivated the much more critical remarks I made in my book review, which I shall not repeat here, inappropriate as they would be on this day.
However, most of this literature was by physicists publishing in regional science or geography journals, such as Peter Allen, who was a student of Ilya Prigogine in Brussels, and Wolfgang Weidlich, who is an associate of Hermann Haken at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Stuttgart. Krugman has never cited these people, and to be very blunt, I publicly called him out on this when he made a presentation at a session on complexity at the AEA meetings in the early 1990s (he was chairing the session and replied "we can discuss citations later, next question" [end of discussion]).
Personal point of reference: For me the turning point in awe of academie was Bernal, late '80s. His work has nothing to do with 'economics' per se. His work is a survey of published besserwissen by Anglo-American classicists and is devastating in scope but also and particularly in admitting "hard science" --outsider, objective analyses of real, archaeological evidence-- to conventions heretofor unassailable.
Scales fell from my eyes.
I want that everyone should see that beautiful light. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
copy editing economic geographers who had read Marx and Engels and decided to put it into the high arithmetic of calculus.
What I said. (except that you need to show me where (200 papers, diggit) how Krugman re-egineered the global derivatives trade in order to isolate some differential formula to express international capital investment. Amaze me.)
Meanwhile, back at the CFR ranch ...
Congratulations to Dr Krugman | Setser | 14 Oct 2008
Of course, I am more-than-a-little biased. A few weeks ago, I was thrilled to find out that this blog was on the reading list of an upper level Princeton course on international finance. So I am even more thrilled to be able to say that both this blog and an IMF working paper that Mark Allen, Nouriel Roubini, Christoph Rosenberg, Christian Keller and I wrote on the balance sheet effects of currency crises are on the reading list of an upper level international finance course taught by a Nobel Laureate!
A few weeks ago, I was thrilled to find out that this blog was on the reading list of an upper level Princeton course on international finance. So I am even more thrilled to be able to say that both this blog and an IMF working paper that Mark Allen, Nouriel Roubini, Christoph Rosenberg, Christian Keller and I wrote on the balance sheet effects of currency crises are on the reading list of an upper level international finance course taught by a Nobel Laureate!
Setser's whole econoimc life is academia, closed (labor) market, insider-trading. Of course, he's biased! He needs a hook. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
If Krugman was copying Marx and Engels, Einstein was basically copying Newton and Maxwell.
That is not to say that his work is great economics... I do not trust economics... I like the prize becasue he is an eocnomist which is nto on the vicious Friedman side... the other stuff is real science?..don0t kno...and in any cas economist should decide...but Krugman was not copyediting Marx and Engels, that's not true.
That said, I must point out that Krugman's emminence depends entirely on one's awe of the Nobel committee, where awe signifies nothing less than arrogation of one's own critical faculties to a bunch of people.
Most certainly Marx and Engles predicted "urbanization," the a result of mass confiscation of property, means of production actually owned and distributed as goods and services. The UK and US governments have been dedicated for some time to eliminating competition among property owners. Check out Einstein's political standing, in the time fold.
Most certainly Newton expressed gravity in mathematical language. He was also a religionist and alchemist embedded in the UK parliament. Your association of Krugman to that personage doesn't particularly validate Krugman's, shall we say, impariality to determine metrics of government functions.
I've no idea what Maxwell to which you refer. They all look dodgy, too, in terms of democratic and "scientific" rigor.
What I'm suggesting is that the Nobel committe selected Mr Krugman as an exceptional figure, as was the case with Gore, purely based on his media reach, circulation numbers. And that's pathetic. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Arguably the most important advance in physics in all of the 19th century and very probably a prerequisite for the formulation of special and general relativity.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
