The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2025

Status and Naming of the Prize

• Repeated debate over the “not a real Nobel” issue:
  • Prize was created by Sweden’s central bank in 1968, not by Alfred Nobel’s will.
  • Some see this as deliberate brand piggybacking to confer legitimacy and promote a specific economic orthodoxy.
  • Others argue that in practice it’s simply the top prestige award in the field, no different from the Turing Award or Fields Medal, and that practitioners don’t care about the origin story.
  • Cited history that Nobel’s family originally insisted on the long formal name and on keeping it separate from the original prizes, a condition many feel has effectively been violated in public discourse.

Is Economics a Science?

• Strong disagreement over whether economics meets Popper’s falsifiability criterion:
  • Critics: can’t run controlled experiments on whole economies; theories are “unfalsifiable” and adjusted post hoc; neoclassical models allegedly have poor predictive power (especially highlighted after 2008).
  • Defenders: many subfields (micro, auctions, game theory, behavioral, econometrics) do run experiments or quasi‑experiments; macro is likened to astronomy—observational but still model‑driven and testable.
  • Distinction drawn between reproducibility/replication of studies vs validation of overarching theory.
  • Accusations of “physics envy” and over-mathematization versus counter‑claims that critics misunderstand what modern economics actually does.

Neoclassical Economics, Ideology, and Power

• One side portrays neoclassical economics as:
  • A politicized social science with simplistic “optimizing actor” models and weak real‑world prediction.
  • Heavily bankrolled by interests that benefit from its conclusions (wealthy actors, banks), reinforcing its dominance (including via this prize).
• Others argue:
  • There is strong consensus on many issues (e.g., tariffs generally harming consumers).
  • Heterodox schools are often more ideological with weaker empirical grounding.
• Broader point: all social sciences are inherently political; pretending otherwise risks replicating older pseudo‑scientific abuses.

Technological Progress, “Sustained Growth,” and Limits

• Core Nobel summary that technological change underpins “sustained growth” sparked debate:
  • Some see “sustained growth” as near‑tautological: by definition, ongoing technological progress that raises productivity yields ongoing growth.
  • Others stress physical/ecological limits: nothing grows forever; innovation may reduce resource intensity per unit of GDP but total resource use can still rise.
• Distinctions drawn:
  • Growth drivers: population vs productivity; productivity gains also come from capital, education, health, not just technology.
  • Metrics like energy intensity of GDP show efficiency improvements, but whether they outpace GDP growth (and thus reduce total impact) is unclear.
• Ecological economists and energy-focused views were mentioned as under‑represented in mainstream growth theory.

Colonialism, Industrialization, and Sources of Wealth

• One thread argues Western growth is inseparable from centuries of violent resource extraction, slavery, and land grabs; GDP accounting hides where value was really created.
• Counter‑argument:
  • Claim that industrialization at home, not colonies, is the primary source of Western wealth; some suggest colonial empires may even have been net national costs, though profitable for specific elites.
  • Examples of rich non‑colonial or formerly colonized countries versus resource‑rich but poor states used to argue that natural resources and colonialism aren’t sufficient explanations.
• Disagreement remains unresolved; participants cite differing literatures and historians.

Creative Destruction and Local Quality of Life

• Discussion of “creative destruction” grounded in a neighborhood example: pubs/cafés closing and being replaced by apartments or spas.
• Tension between:
  • Higher measured economic output and tax revenue from redevelopment.
  • Loss of local amenities, social spaces, and neighborhood character—value not easily captured in GDP.
• Parks vs revenue-generating uses: some note parks can indirectly raise nearby land values, but commenters lament 2025’s bias toward “crude profit” over non‑monetary benefits, using gentrifying “brunch places” as an example.

Views on the 2025 Laureates and How to Learn More

• Several economists in the thread praise the selection as strong and thematically aligned with recent focus on growth, institutions, and innovation.
• Mokyr’s work is highlighted as unusually accessible to lay readers, with specific book and paper recommendations; Aghion/Howitt’s growth texts also recommended.
• Note that undergrad macro textbooks (e.g., standard survey texts) are suggested as an entry point, but the gap to current research-level macro is described as very large.

Miscellaneous

• Clarification of Nobel prize splitting rules: up to three recipients; splits can be 1/3–1/3–1/3 or 1/2–1/4–1/4, so 1/4 is the smallest share.
• Minor side discussions on whether adding “Economic Sciences” to the name is pretentious, and on the persistent confusion between economics and business.