In the early hours of Columbus Day, the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson for their exploration of how institutions shape economic prosperity. Their work connects to historical insights by Adam Smith, who contrasted the economic processes of North America and Latin America. The piece also reflects on the absence of critiques directed at Acemoglu’s recent advocacy in Brazil.
Once again, the early morning hours drew me from sleep, much like an insistent alarm clock, this time heralding Columbus Day or Indigenous People’s Day, depending on one’s perspective. With a cup of steaming coffee in hand, I eagerly waited to unveil this year’s Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences recipients. As the clock struck 3:00 a.m. PDT, I delved into the world of economics with anticipation, ready to pen my insights for the Wall Street Journal. This year, the Nobel laurels danced upon the brows of three distinguished economists—Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson from MIT, alongside James A. Robinson from the University of Chicago, each honored for their profound investigations into the formation and influence of institutions on prosperity. Their studies echoed the ideas of Adam Smith, who had previously noted the discrepancy in natural resources between Canada, the U.S., and Latin America. The prevailing economic structures set by colonial powers played a pivotal role in shaping market dynamics and property rights, with the British fostering a more conducive environment than the Spanish. Yet, in their commendable work, it seemed a miss to overlook Smith’s insights, which could have readily enriched their narrative. Also absent from their acknowledgments was Mancur Olson’s seminal book, “The Rise and Decline of Nations,” which prophecy-like presaged many of the laureates’ conclusions. Reflecting on my past thoughts, I couldn’t help but wish I had come across a critique by my fellow economist, Pierre Lemieux, that meticulously dissected Acemoglu and Johnson’s work in “Power and Progress” before crafting my own piece for the journal. A complex tapestry of critiques and commendations weaves through the world of economic thought, and I found myself drawn into that intricate web, where intellect and ideology clash and converge. But it was in the final stirrings of my article that I took a bold stand against Acemoglu’s support for the Brazilian government’s silencing of free speech, a denouncement echoing beyond the confines of economics into the realm of fundamental human rights.
The Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences garners global attention each year, casting a spotlight on groundbreaking contributions to the field. This year, the award recognized the collective work of three economists whose explorations shed light on the critical relationship between institutions and economic prosperity. Their findings resonate with long-standing economic theories, yet their omission of foundational thinkers like Adam Smith raises questions about the evolution of economic thought today.
The awarding of this year’s Nobel Prize to Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson underscores the importance of institutional frameworks in fostering economic growth. However, while their work acts as a beacon illuminating our understanding of prosperity’s foundations, it reveals gaps, such as the neglect of earlier economists’ insights. The discourse surrounding their contributions, including critiques of their positions on free speech, highlights an ongoing debate in economics that marries ideology with practical governance. The Nobel Prize not only celebrates achievements but also invites scrutiny, broadening the conversation about the principles that govern our economies.
Original Source: www.econlib.org
