Lives of the Laureates by William Breit and Barry Hirsch (2009), and Roads to Wisdom, Conversations with Ten Nobel Laureates in Economics by Karen Horn (2009), have a common objective of bringing the Nobel laureates to popular audience. They provide a representative sample of laureates—Breit and Hirsch through the laureates’ own biographical work, and Horn through personal interviews with them. These depictions stand in contrast to traditional explorations of the laureates in which “sociologists of science study how the Nobel award affects a scholar. Do the laureates go into an era of depressed fertility? Do they write fewer or more joint papers and more often list their names first or list them last? Does citing of them accelerate? What is the propensity to change fields?” (Samuelson Reference Samuelson and Crowley1986, 5, p. 808). The interviews portray how the laureates approach their lives day to day, which stands objectively for what they believe in and what shapes their motivations. The reader discovers that the laureates’ convictions concerning the study of economics are foundational to their lives as a whole. This resoluteness shapes their economic work, from methodology, vision, and model building to forecasting, experimenting, welfare, and development.
The first question that comes to mind regarding the validity of a sample is its representativeness. Should we consider whether the sample represents mainstream, heterodox, reactionaries, and gender? Should addressing these issues be an obligation of the Nobel committee? Our concern is whether the sample of the works under review cover the subdisciplines of economics in a representative manner. When analyzing the short list of recipients who received the prize since its inception in 1969, we find good respresentation for the subdisciplines of development (Lewis), econometrics (Klein, Lucas, Granger, and Prescott), mathematics (Samuelson and Arrow), money (Friedman), microeconomics and industrial organization (Stigler, Becker, Heckman, and Akerlof), macroeconomics (Tobin, Modigliani, and Phelps), public choice theory (Buchanan and Coase), growth theory (Solow), game theory (Senten, Harsanyi, and Schelling), institution (North), finance (Sharpe and Sholes), and experiment (Smith). This list is not exclusive. For instance, international trade is not mentioned but Samuelson is a champion of trade theory. Similarly, history of economic thought is not denoted but is well represented by J. Stigler. The sample is almost a census, covering approximately all the sub-areas of economics.
Economics was the main point of attraction for these laureates. Both Paul Samuelson and Lawrence Klein turned to economics as a result of their concern over the impact of the Great Depression. Kenneth Arrow explains that he had an interest in the history of economic thought from a cause-and-effect point of view, which correlated to his predominant interest in mathematics and logics since high school. George Stigler developed an interest in economics from applied business courses he took in college at Northwestern, and eventually would be influenced by Frank Knight, Henry Simons, and Jacob Viner at Chicago. James Tobin was interested in journalism and law, but a scholarship led him to Harvard, where he was influenced by Leontief and Samuelson. Franco Modigliani studied law before he fled Hitler’s and Mussolini’s regime. He received a scholarship to study economics at the New School, where he was influenced by Jacob Marschak (Breit and Hirsch, p. 118). W. Arthur Lewis chose economics over engineering out of possible job-prospect considerations. Sometimes, a laureate does not choose economic study premeditatedly. For example, from his early years in high school, Friedman developed a liking for mathematics. He did not pass all his actuarial exams in his college years, and so he shifted to economics under the influence of Arthur F. Burns and Homer Jones. Upon graduation from college, he had a choice between going to Brown University to study applied mathematics or the University of Chicago to pursue economics. On a whim, Friedman fortuitously decided to enroll in the University of Chicago.
Breit and Hirsch (p. ix) made a not-so-innocent statement when they wrote, “All the Nobel economists express themselves in the technical vocabulary of their discipline.” In a similar vein, we find Karen Horn listing an open set of standard vocabulary items in economics: the Arrow-paradox, the Solow model, the Modigliani–Miller theorem, and the Stopler–Samuelson theorem (Horn, p. 18). Some closure can be brought to that list by adding Friedman’s positive economics, Stigler’s survival principle, Becker’s discrimination coefficient, Akerlof’s lemon problem, Tobin’s q, Coase’s transaction cost, the Black–Sholes option pricing model, Lucas’ rational expectation, and Granger’s causality.
The mark of a unique achievement is not only that it solves a problem, but also that it has a novel prediction. In this regard, Karen Horn underscores Hayek’s reference to his discovery of the spontaneous actions in the economy as a “marvel” (p. 5). Horn states that the aim in her collection of essays is to “shed more light on the miraculous process of the generation of excellence and progress in science” (p. 7). Her approach can be characterized as a “genesis and rise of new ideas, paradigms, approaches or methods … [such] as ‘history’, ‘theory’, and ‘personality’” (p. 8).
Readers who embrace these two works will gain a better understanding of the complex economic environment. Karen Horn cites Michael Szenberg from his introduction to Eminent Economists: “We are boundlessly curious about their accomplishment, their motives, and the resources they bring to their tasks. Our interest is the how and the why, which can lead us to discover the wellspring of creative impulse” (Horn, p. 14). Paul Samuelson states that analyzing the laureates “makes us understand just how desperate the profession was for new ways of thinking” (Horn, p. 15). We should not forget their great achievements, such as Modigliani’s building the first Federal Reserve Board econometrics model, the FRB-MIT-Penn-SSRC Model, 1969–1995. This model released economics from the vice of Hume’s test of a scientific discipline. As Hume questioned, “Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion" (Hume Reference Hume and Selby-Bigge.1777, p. 165).
Breit and Hirsch’s work is in its fifth edition, a measure of its success. It contains an afterward describing common themes and disparate voices. The excerpt from some of the authors’ own words about their thinking is a pleasing dessert after taking in the full meal of the text itself. We are heartened to read that both Friedman and Becker gave credit to luck and chance, as this makes them humanly relatable. The Afterword details how Ronald Coase built his theory gradually, block by block; how Douglas North went after economic performance as a “Holy Grail” of sorts; how Franco Modigliani challenged the self-evident orthodoxies; and how James Tobin chose his topics by looking for gaps in the literature.
Karen Horn presents some extensive background material on economic methodology and the Nobel Prize itself. We learn that “economists at U.S. universities continued to receive the Nobel Prize” (Horn, p. ix). Horn cites a drawback, pointed out by Samuelson, that “providing rewards to one elite would exclude from tribute a larger group of worthies whose body of research achievement is, if anything, only slightly different in quality and quantity” (Horn, p. 23). We are left with the thought-provoking notion that perhaps the economic Nobel Prize is as bad for professors as tenure.
Approaching the most festive times of the year, before Thanksgiving and the Christmas holiday, economists look forward to the announcement of the next Nobel laureate. At that point, they strive to recognize the significance of the problem the Nobels have dedicated their life to solving. Government and businesses seek the laureates’ advice on the economic problems of the day. Public may gather to hear them talk at conferences or even through YouTube. Students follow the general teaching of these laureates. Works such as those of Breit, Hirsch, and Horn play a significant role in giving us the essence, substance, and substratum of the Nobel discoveries and innovation in the laureates’ own words. The Nobels, therefore, have a permanent place in our ordinary business of life—which is one way to define economics.
