Because he knew that a good economist wouldn’t need a prize. An excellent economist is a rich economist.
It was at the beginning of the 20th century when the most prudent people realized that science and innovation is what drives the economy and social evolution. By that time—and it didn’t have change too much—science’s most prestigious branches were chronically underfunded and scientists scarified their money, health, and sometimes even their life for scientific progress. Nobel’s intention was to bolster those devoted people and by that way to support social progress.
The Nobel prize was a great success right from the beginning. The fist prize winners, especially those in nuclear physics, such as Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, Antoine Henri Becquerel, Pierre Curie, Marie Curie, Johannes Diderik van der Waals, Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, and Albert Einstein raised this prize’s reputation. A reputation that by the years attracted growing media attention.
While media attention has been growing the uniqueness of the laureate’s scientific discoveries is not. The Nobel prize became a hype about shallow science. (A tendency that culminated in a Nobel Peace Prize for popular science in 2007.) The Nobel Prize is nothing more but an ideological tool.
When it became a potent ideological lever, the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences was started. It wasn’t Nobels intention, I assume, to create an award for propaganda. As ideology has never been good science, I would think being awarded with a Nobel Prize in Economics is not at all good but foremost bad reputation. Good economists operate a good economy. They are rich anyway.
This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.