I think the distinctions on movement are subjective, and will be justified by Dan in his article. I am more interested in whether there is a glaring person missing of someone who is wrongly classified as moving one way or another. Fine gradations about how much they moved are beyond what I was hoping for.
All the Nobel Prize winners were included--ones who are not listed were deemed as not having moved sufficiently to get a definite trend over their lifetime.
Dave
David Colander
[log in to unmask]
802-443-5302
-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pedro Teixeira
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 11:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] policy view changes of Nobel Prize winners
Dear David,
I wonder if you could be more explicit about the criteria used to classify one scholar as notably or only a little or significantly.
Although I understand that there is an inevitable degree of subjectivity involved in these assessments, I think our reply to your questions is largely conditioned by those criteria.
I also wonder what was the reason to exclude authors such as Gary Becker, Joseph Stiglitz, or Gunnar Myrdal.
Best regards,
Pedro
Pedro Nuno Teixeira
Director - CIPES, Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies - www.cipes.up.pt Associate Professor - Faculty of Economics, University of Porto - www.fep.up.pt
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Colander, David C. <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I playing the role of overseer of a project organized by Dan Klein to consider the intellectual migration of Nobel Prize winning economist's policy views. The project will be published in the journal, Econ Journal Watch, in September. What "overseer" means is that I am a type of referee before publication, and my job is to keep him honest, and see that his analysis is not overly influenced by his political views. His goal with the project, is to see which Nobel Prize winning economists can be classified as having become more or less classical liberal. Classical liberal is, of course, a difficult term to define, but what he means by classical liberal is a presumption in policy judgment away from government involvement and toward letting the market handle it. Given this definition, he has tentatively come up with the following readings for 16 laureates:
Laureates Who Grew
Either More or Less
Classical Liberal
Grew
More Classical Liberal
Quite significantly
James Buchanan
Ronald Coase
Robert Fogel
Friedrich Hayek
Franco Modigliani
Douglass North
Vernon Smith
Notably
Theodore Schultz
Only a little
Kenneth Arrow
Milton Friedman
Eric Maskin
(Edmund Phelps?)
George Stigler
Grew
Less
Classical
Liberal
Quite significantly
Ragnar Frisch
Bertil Ohlin
Notably
Peter Diamond
Only a little
Paul Krugman
Please note that Dan's placements are still tentative. He and I fully recognize that there are many different definitions of classical liberal that one could use, and I am not asking people to comment on those definitions here. (I will comment on it at length in my contribution to his project.) But I would be interested in the list's views about the movements he has found. Specifically, I have two questions:
1. Do any of his classifications stand out as not fitting your expectations?
2. Are there other Nobel Prize winners who you would see as having moved in their policy views that should be included in the list?
Thanks,
Dave
David Colander
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
802-443-5302<tel:802-443-5302>
--
Mario J. Rizzo
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
19 West 4th Street,
Seventh Floor (725)
New York, NY 10012
212-998-8932 (telephone, e-mail preferred)
212-995-4186 (fax)
Personal website: http://works.bepress.com/mario_rizzo
Colloquium: http://econ.as.nyu.edu/object/econ.event.colloquium
Blog: http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com
Book Series: http://www.routledge.com/books/series/Routledge_Foundations_of_the_Market_Economy/
|
