Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Nobel Prize in Economics Goes to A Woman for the First Time

Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville at 10:30 AM on October 13, 2009.


Elinor Ostrom, a political science professor at Indiana University, shared the award with Oliver Williamson, who teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Melissa McEwan in your
mailbox!

 

And she's from my home state, too! Woot!

The prize committee cited Elinor Ostrom, 76, at Indiana University, and Oliver E. Williamson, 77, at the University of California, Berkeley, for work done over long careers. Ms. Ostrom is the first woman to receive the economics prize in the 41-year history of the award. She is a political scientist, not an economist, and in honoring her, the judges seemed to suggest that economics should be thought of as an interdisciplinary field rather than a pure science governed by mathematics.

"This award is part of the merging of the social sciences," said Robert Shiller, a Yale University economist. "Economics has been too isolated and too stuck on the view that markets are efficient and self-regulating. It has derailed our thinking."

...Ms. Ostrom's work deals in the concept of "commons" shared by a number of people who earn their living from a common resource and have a stake, therefore, in preserving it. Her most recent research has focused on relatively small forests in undeveloped countries. Groups of people share the right to harvest lumber from a particular forest, and so they have a stake in making sure the forest survives.

"When local users of a forest have a long-term perspective, they are more likely to monitor each other's use of the land, developing rules for behavior," Ms. Ostrom said in an interview. "It is an area that standard market theory does not touch."

...Ms. Ostrom concluded in her research that the "tragedy of the commons" was an inaccurate concept. Particularly in 17th- and 18th-century England and Scotland, the concept described villagers' overgrazing of their herds on the village commons, thereby destroying it as pasture.

The solution often invoked was to convert the commons to private property, on the ground that self-interested owners would protect their pasture land.

"Conservatives used the tragedy of the commons to argue for property rights, and efficiency was achieved as people were thrown off the commons," said Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia University, a Nobel laureate in economics himself. "But the effects of throwing a lot of people out of their livelihood were enormous. What Ostrom has demonstrated is the existence of social control mechanisms that regulate the use of commons without having to resort to property rights."

Paul Krugman has more on the work being done my Dr. Ostrom and Dr. Williamson here.

By the way, kudos to the Times for including this important piece of information on Dr. Ostrom: "Often working with her husband, Vincent, 90, who is a professor emeritus at Indiana..." No word on what role Dr. Williamson's wife has played in his research, if any.

Digg!

Melissa McEwan writes and edits the blog Shakespeare's Sister.


Enough Crowing Over Carrie Prejean's Sex Tape "Hypocrisy"
Prejean was wrong about same-sex marriage. She's not any more wrong if she's a moral scold with an expressed sexuality of her own.
November 16, 2009.
Catholic Church Threatens to Stop Taking DC's Money if Officials Don't Bow to its Demands on Same-Sex Marriage
Quite the threat.
November 12, 2009.
President Obama Has Refused to Stand Up for Women, Plain and Simple
The president's "toe the line" approach is not acceptable this time.
November 10, 2009.
Anti-Rape Activist Gabrielle Union Speaks Out About Her Own Rape and the Richmond, CA Gang Rape
"After googling the gang rape story in Richmond and reading comments on blogs, it just leaves me sickened and really sad."
November 5, 2009.
Rahm Emanuel on Public Option: "It's Not the Defining Piece of Health Care"
In multiple TV appearances on Sunday, the White House Chief of Staff reiterated that the public option is not mandatory.
October 19, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wonderful.
Posted by: zola77 on Oct 13, 2009 6:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this is the first article I have read describing the core of this woman's work. This is really inspiring and useful.

I came across a neocon recently who used the argument about the "tragedy of the commons" and this work would have been useful to bring up in that argument - wish I had it in my back pocket then.

This is great.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LOOK AT WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE. ITS NOT BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN. ITS
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Oct 14, 2009 9:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because of what she said. It has been because of what she has demonstrated. Economics has been blinkered. It has been too narrow.

Narrowness has not been an accident. Narrowness has been the direct result of the power and influence by the wealthy and the powerful over private colleges and universities. Private schools kow tow to their donors. It is no accident that Stanford is more conservative than U. C. Berkeley. Leland Stanford wanted a school that would reflect his own views. After all he already knew everthing that was worth knowing.

She was/is studying political economy. When you seek to sever these two words you have destroyed the idea. She knows and demonstrates that one inevitably influences the other. Your views on economics will create a politic. Your views on politics will create an economic explanation. They are inseperable. Hooray for this fine lady.

I remember that Henry Kissinger was once asked for a view on economics. His answer was that economics bored him. I dismissed him on the spot. Time has taught us that he not only wasn't and isn't a thinker. He was and is a toady to wealth and power.

The same is true for the Chicago school of idiots who pretend laissez faire is the hub of all wheels. Their narrow blinkered view of life has produced the depths of our current recession-depression. This same view brought us and the world the 1929 depression. They helped Augusto Pinochet consolidate his power. Tyranny and laissez faire seem to fit together too often.

The belief that anarchy is superior to active disciplined human thought has to be one of the dumber ideas that humans have been presented. The only sillier thing is to fall for it. The really stupid thing about it all is that the wealthy and the powerful do worse under these false beliefs also. It doesn't hurt just the poor. It hurts all.

Thanks again fine lady. Thanks again Nobel committee. It, afterall, is your job to point mankind at a finer tomorrow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]