Politics of an Economic Nobel

Princeton’s own Paul Krugman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Science this morning, a fact that should make us all proud, and which made my microeconomics lecture this morning considerably more fun. Professor Krugman received the prize for his “work on international trade and economic geography”(1). In particular, his theories of “intra-industry trade” and “new economic geography” deserved merit. This first theory explains why countries import and export the same type of goods, an assertion Krugman made in the 1970s, when the standard model of international trade was based solely on comparative advantage. The latter idea deals with how economic incentives literally shape our landscapes, describing why core urban areas inevitably spring up, the implications of such a heterogeneous landscape, and what this means for trade at a small (intra-country) level.
While there is no doubt that Krugman is a brilliant economist, and deserving of recognition, there have been some negative whispers in the press. Krugman, a Democrat and liberal, has gained popular appeal as a Op-Ed columnst for the New York Times, a forum in which he has strongly and consistently opposed the Bush administration. Considering the current (Bush induced?) global market crisis, perhaps the Nobel Committee also made their decision with a some bias, wanting to thumb their noses at someone? Indeed, none of the major “Nobel betting pools” listed Krugman as a favorite for the honor.(2)
I’d like to think that the Nobel Committee does not avidly read the Times, or stoop to political maneuvering, and that Professor Krugman’s recognition is wholly justified. But I think the topic should be open for debate.



(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/business/economy/14econ.html?hp
(2)http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/10/13/nobel.economics.prize.ap/index.html?eref=rss_latest