A Nobel Prize for governance and institutions : Oliver Williamson and Elinor Ostrom

This paper reviews the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics jointly awarded to Oliver Williamson for his work on governance in organizations and the boundaries of the firm, and to Elinor Ostrom for her work on the governance of common pool resources. We review the careers and the research contributions of Williamson and Ostrom to the theory and analysis of economic institutions of governance. Both winners of this Prize for 'economic governance' are thoroughly deserved, yet like the Hayek- Myrdal Prize of 1974 their respective approaches, methods and findings are almost diametrically opposed. Williamson offers a top-down contracts-based solution to the incentive problems of opportunism in corporate governance, whereas Ostrom offers a bottom-up communication-based solution to the governance opportunities of community resources. We offer some critical comments on Williamson's analytic work and discussion of the potential for further application of Ostrom's case-study based experimental methodology. We conclude with a suggested third nominee to make better sense of how these two great scholars' works fit together, namely George Richardson'

Awards before and after the Nobel Prize : a Matthew effect and/or a ticket to one's own funeral?

The primary aim of this descriptive exploration of scientists’ life cycle award patterns is to evaluate whether awards breed further awards and identify researcher experiences after reception of the Nobel Prize. To achieve this goal, we collected data on the number of awards received each year for 50 years before and after Nobel Prize reception by all 1901–2000 Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, and medicine or physiology. Our results indicate an increasing rate of awards before Nobel reception, reaching the summit precisely in the year of the Nobel Prize. After this pinnacle year, awards drop sharply. This result is confirmed by separate analyses of three different disciplines and by a random-effects negative binomial regression model. Such an effect, however, does not emerge for more recent Nobel laureates (1971–2000). In addition, Nobelists in medicine or physiology generate more awards shortly before and after prize reception, whereas laureates in chemistry attract more awards as time progresses.

Do Nobel laureates change their patterns of collaboration following prize reception?

We investigate whether Nobel laureates’ collaborative activities undergo a negative change following prize reception by using publication records of 198 Nobel laureates and analyzing their coauthorship patterns before and after the Nobel Prize. The results overall indicate less collaboration with new coauthors post award than pre award. Nobel laureates are more loyal to collaborations that started before the Prize: looking at coauthorship drop-out rates, we find that these differ significantly between coauthorships that started before the Prize and coauthorships after the Prize. We also find that the greater the intensity of pre-award cooperation and the longer the period of pre-award collaboration, the higher the probability of staying in the coauthor network after the award, implying a higher loyalty to the Nobel laureate.

Prize essays on a Congress of nations, for the adjustment of international disputes, and for the promotion of universal peace without resort to arms.

Mode of access: Internet.

Econometric fellows and Nobel Laureates in economics

An academic award is method by which peers offer recognition of intellectual efforts. In this paper we take a purely descriptive look at the relationship between becoming a Fellow of the Econometric Society and receiving the Nobel Prize in economics. We discover some interesting aspects: of all 69 Nobel Prize Laureates between 1969 and 2011, only 9 of them were not also Fellows. Moreover, the proportion of future novel winners among the Fellows has been quite high throughout time and a large share of researchers who became Fellows between the 1930s and 1950s became Nobel Laureates at a later stage. On average, researchers became Fellows relatively early in their career (14.9 years after their PhD) and those who were subsequently made Nobel Laureates became Fellows earlier than other researchers. Interestingly, Harvard and MIT have been the dominant PhD granting institutions to generate Fellows and Nobel Laureates in the past.