In 1951, who else was a stronger candidate? No one was perceived as being sufficiently worthy in 1953. 

Friedman's (1948) AER 'A monetary and fiscal framework for economic stability' (with counter-cyclical monetary policy) remains one of his most insightful pieces. Beginning in 1951, he replaced it with the k-percent money growth rule because he was unable to fully engage the profession with a balanced budget proposal (the Keynesian influence?).

With the exception of Boulding, all the early winners (1947-1961) later won Nobel Prizes   

1947 Samuelson  
1949 Boulding 
1951 Friedman 
1953 No Award 
1955 Tobin 
1957 Arrow  
1959 Klein 
1961 Solow 
     

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Forder" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 5:54:15 PM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Kenneth Boulding and the 1949 Clark Medal

I have sometimes wondered about Friedman in that kind of way too (not particularly in relation to the Bates medal). Before ‘A theory of the consumption function’ (1957) I am not sure that his publications alone really support some of the remarks one can read from that time about how clever he was. Isn’t the answer that in those days, assessments based on personal interactions, comments, private correspondence, discussions at conferences and the like had much more weight than now, as compared to publications? As it turned out, Friedman and Tobin produced more than Boulding, but I am not sure they would have seemed cleverer than him to those who knew them in the ‘40s. It is our publications-based view that tells the misleading story, perhaps?

Here’s a suggestion that might raise controversy: Looking at the list at http://www.aeaweb.org/honors_awards/clark_medal.php and ignoring the recent awards (since it is too soon to say), the recipients after the mid-1970s have a higher propensity to become really notable economists than did those before that time. I hypothesise that this is because as time went on the award of the medal was increasingly based on publications rather than other assessments, and those who publish much before they are 40 carry on doing so afterwards.

best wishes

James


James Forder
Fellow and Tutor in Political Economy
Balliol College Oxford




On 26 Jul 2014, at 22:42, David Mitch <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> In 1949, Kenneth Boulding was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal for best economist under the age of 40. He was the second person to get this award, after Paul Samuelson in 1947.  Could anyone explain why Boulding would have been chosen for this award?   It is not evident to me at least that his contributions or potential circa 1949 would have put him in the same league as other early Clark winners including Samuelson, Friedman, and Tobin.  In posing this query, I intend no disrespect for either Boulding, who I think had a quite fascinating and worthwhile career, or the Clark Medal.  I would just like to try to understand why Boulding might have been chosen for this award in 1949.  
> 
> By the way, I have looked at Philippe Fontaine's 2010 article on Boulding in _Science in Context_. I think it is an excellent article. But it doesn't address directly the question of why Boulding might have gotten the Clark Medal. 
> 
> A related query is what were the institutional arrangements for selecting the Clark Medal winner in the late 1940s.  Presumably there was a selection committee.  Who was on this committee? 
> Would John Maurice Clark, JB Clark's son have been involved in the selection process?  Was there some pot of money involved in funding this award?  If so, where did the money come from? 
> 
> David Mitch
> 
> -- 
> David Mitch
> Professor of Economics
> Graduate Program Director
> Economic Policy Analysis
> Affiliate Professor, Asian Studies
> University of Maryland, Baltimore County
> email: [log in to unmask]