Start the conversation
Comment on This Story
Or to contact Money Morning Customer Service, click here.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
American economists Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson today (Monday) were awarded the Nobel Prize in economics. Both have gained widespread acclaim for their respective studies in economic governance.
Ostrom, 76, is the first woman to ever win the prize. To earn her share of the $1.4 million (10 million kronar) prize she debunked the long-held view that resources that are vital to the common good must be regulated, or privatized.
Whereas traditional wisdom says that groups of people are incapable of sharing a finite resource without destroying it, Ostrom's work set out to prove just the opposite – that common property can often be more effectively managed by user associations, or local organizations, than with government supervision.
"Bureaucrats sometimes do not have the correct information, while citizens and users of resources do," Ostrom said by phone at the news conference announcing the prize.
Ostrom, who teaches at Indiana University, described winning the award as "an immense surprise."
Williamson, a 77 year-old retired professor at the University of California-Berkley, has also focused on economic governance, except his work focuses on corporations. Williamson used his experience of working in the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division in the 1960s to analyze why some economic decisions are better left to the market, while others are better left to individual firms.
"Competitive markets work relatively well because buyers and sellers can turn to other trading partners in case of dissent," the Nobel judges said. "But when market competition is limited, firms are better suited for conflict resolution than markets."
Williamson's theories show that large private corporations exist because they are efficient, and that while they may sometimes abuse their power, it is better to regulate such behavior directly, as opposed to limiting their size.
In 1985, Williamson published a book entitled "The Economic Institutions of Capitalism."
"The way economists used to think of the firm was as a black box that transfer inputs into outputs, and they didn't look inside," said Williamson. "We opened up the black box."
The work of both Ostrom and Williamson was made particularly relevant, as much of the developed world is working to reform its regulatory oversight of businesses and markets. For its relevance and originality, the award's announcement was widely praised.
"Economics has been too isolated and these awards today are a sign of the greater enlightenment going around," Robert Shiller, professor of economics, Yale University told The New York Times. "We were too stuck on efficient markets and it was derailing our thinking."
News & Related Story Links:
- The New York Times:
Reactions to the Nobel in Economic Science
RE:
Ostrom, Williamson Take Nobel Prize in Economics
By Jason Simpkins
Managing Editor
Money Morning
————–
LETTER TO PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
Laval, Canada, January 20, 2009
MISTER PRESIDENT:
We must feel strong, because You did a great job, PRESIDENT OBAMA !
AS GOD BLESS YOU and BLESS THE WHOLE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !
WHILE THE WHOLE WORLD HAS IT EYES ON YOU. ON YOUR PEOPLE AND YOUR FAMILY !
Everyone congratulates You to have been democratically elected – as Your grandmother Madelyn Dunham wished – and see that something happen in America.
Because: 'It is in adversity', I was going to say in 'darkness', that one recognizes true friends.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age." (FROM The Text of President Obama's inaugural address)
Energy of the Sixties tested, confronted by Today's Energy crisis, what does Science hold for us in this field at the crossroad of the third millennium?
Each of us should express solidarity, according to his means.
My contribution, apparently futuristic, refers, Mister President, to an inexhaustible source of energy, which one should tame now.
In a book with limited publication, translated in English for the needs of the cause, entitled 'BILL A RI And There Was Light', addressed during his last American election campaign to President Bill Clinton who acknowledged having received it, I dared to tackle this subject.
It's like to say to you, President Obama, that in the exceptional circumstances in which we live today – in the point of view of energy – no exploration in the mid or long term, by the American expertise, of an additional source of energy, at the same time safe and profitable, should not be ruled out.
There is no witchcraft at all involved in all that, Mister President. In spite of my Haitian ascent and my carefully phrased remarks. It is undoubtedly so when a taboo should be broken through. A taboo of magnitude, Sir, I admit it. A 'scientific' taboo, seldom encountered.
'The taboo arises as a negative categorical imperative,' affirms Roger Caillois.
It is not saying little. Especially when it is a question of adequately correcting the theory of Newton on light and colors.
However, at the dawn of the twenty first century, to denounce this taboo, to reverse it, should I say what an asset! Moreover, at the same time the multiple taboos grow blurred which surround another phenomenon of the highest scientific range, the well known phenomenon under the abusive name of 'Black Holes', synthesis of light and colors. Indeed Newton, in good faith undoubtedly in his time, really reversed the interpretation of the phenomenon of light. He took the part for the whole! So much and so well that today like yesterday, the visible appears so much more tempting.
Physicists say it: 'ninety to ninety nine percent of the matter of the universe (Grosso Modo – said here roughly by Lucien BONNET – for more precisions see "LINKS" or "GOOGLE") is made up of a dark matter, invisible, which generates, propels and surrounds the visible, like the sea surrounds the continents'. Scientists such as Stephen Hawking affirm it. The Hubble Telescope confirms it. But theoretical Optics is stagnant.
My intervention, here, President Obama, would mean that. It is possible to use another form of energy. By decoding the Black Matter. Without a play on words. Theoretically initially. While 'returning the elevator to Newton' – without a play on words. By the Act which consists in making an AMENDMENT TO THE LAW OF NEWTON ON LIGHT AND COLORS.
Presently, why should we take the result instead of the cause?
– Objectively and in a pragmatic way, how not focusing on the new synthesis?
Consequently, what a liberation!
At the threshold of the third millennium, let light live, invisible by synthesis, visible by analysis!
'Synthesis and analysis are two wings of the same bird, the rhythm of the universe's heartbeat, tamed inside the infinitely small having mass. Successively contracted and deployed. In the benefit of humanity.'
One small step for Man, one giant leap for Mankind – I also said myself – in 'BILL A RI and there was light! '
Unfortunate, yes, but how much a convenient Energy crisis if I dare say which invites us to explore other avenues, other concepts and, therefore, other resources so far neglected.
Invitation to go from the invisible to the visible and vice versa. Taking advantage of the sequence of colorless and colored luminous speeds. In order to better understand the Universe. Where Law and Order prevail. Just like in Democracy!
Energetic formula with a unique character!
In the name of Science and Technology, vapor is being reverse!
A winning formula!
In The United States of America.
By The United States of America.
For The United States Of America and abroad!
With you today, President Obama, I repeat this sentence – since 1972 and 1978 – that is to say forty years old, but always, in my opinion, carrying the same message that I wish more and more positive for the years to come, in the third millennium, as I said since 1972 and on April 10, 1978, in a Letter to Doctor Carl Sagan:
'On the cosmic scale as on the terrestrial scale, darkness or blackness forms an integral, sine qua non part, of color and light process'.
Is it still broad daylight?
In the shadow of the black sun?
Lucien BONNET
http://www.contact-canadahaiti.ca
PLEASE SEE: (The CERN Large Hadron Collider)