Lista: Prêmio Nobel de Economia

Past Winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science

Compiled: The New York Times, October 12, 2015

The economics prize was established in 1968 in memory of Alfred Nobel, to celebrate the 300th anniversary of Sweden’s central bank, the world’s first. Below is a complete list of winners, according to Nobelprize.org:

2015Angus Deaton
“For his analysis of consumption, poverty and welfare.”

2014Jean Tirole
“For his analysis of market power and regulation.”

2013Eugene F. Fama, Lars Peter Hansen and Robert J. Shiller
“For their empirical analysis of asset prices.”

2012Alvin E. Roth and Lloyd S. Shapley
“For the theory of stable allocations and the practice of market design.”

2011Thomas J. Sargent and Christopher A. Sims
“For their empirical research on cause and effect in the macroeconomy.”

2010
Peter A. Diamond, Dale T. Mortensen and Christopher A. Pissarides
“For their analysis of markets with search frictions.”

2009
Elinor Ostrom
“For her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons.”
Oliver E. Williamson
“For his analysis of economic governance, especially the boundaries of the firm.”

2008
Paul Krugman
“For his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity.”

2007
Leonid Hurwicz, Eric S. Maskin and Roger B. Myerson
“For having laid the foundations of mechanism design theory.”

2006
Edmund S. Phelps
“For his analysis of intertemporal trade-offs in macroeconomic policy.”

2005
Robert J. Aumann and Thomas C. Schelling
“For having enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis.”

2004
Finn E. Kydland and Edward C. Prescott
“For their contributions to dynamic macroeconomics: the time consistency of economic policy and the driving forces behind business cycles.”

2003
Robert F. Engle III
“For methods of analyzing economic time series with time-varying volatility (ARCH).”
Clive W. J. Granger
“For methods of analyzing economic time series with common trends (co-integration).”

2002

Daniel Kahneman
“For having integrated insights from psychological research into economic science, especially concerning human judgment and decision making under uncertainty.”
Vernon L. Smith
“For having established laboratory experiments as a tool in empirical economic analysis, especially in the study of alternative market mechanisms.”

2001
George A. Akerlof, A. Michael Spence and Joseph E. Stiglitz
“For their analyses of markets with asymmetric information.”
2000

James J. Heckman
“For his development of theory and methods For analyzing selective samples.”
Daniel L. McFadden
“For his development of theory and methods for analyzing discrete choice.”

1999
Robert A. Mundell
“For his analysis of monetary and fiscal policy under different exchange-rate regimes and his analysis of optimum currency areas.”

1998
Amartya Sen
“For his contributions to welfare economics.”

1997
Robert C. Merton and Myron S. Scholes
“For a new method to determine the value of derivatives.”

1996
James A. Mirrlees and William Vickrey
“For their fundamental contributions to the economic theory of incentives under asymmetric information.”

1995
Robert E. Lucas Jr.
“For having developed and applied the hypothesis of rational expectations, and thereby having transformed macroeconomic analysis and deepened our understanding of economic policy.”

1994
John C. Harsanyi, John F. Nash Jr. and Reinhard Selten
“For their pioneering analysis of equilibria in the theory of noncooperative games.”

1993
Robert W. Fogel and Douglass C. North
“For having renewed research in economic history by applying economic theory and quantitative methods in order to explain economic and institutional change.”

1992
Gary S. Becker
“For having extended the domain of microeconomic analysis to a wide range of human behavior and interaction, including nonmarket behavior.”

1991
Ronald H. Coase
“For his discovery and clarification of the significance of transaction costs and property rights for the institutional structure and functioning of the economy.”

1990
Harry M. Markowitz, Merton H. Miller and William F. Sharpe
“For their pioneering work in the theory of financial economics.”

1989
Trygve Haavelmo
“For his clarification of the probability theory foundations of econometrics and his analyses of simultaneous economic structures.”

1988
Maurice Allais
“For his pioneering contributions to the theory of markets and efficient utilization of resources.”

1987
Robert M. Solow
“For his contributions to the theory of economic growth.”

1986
James M. Buchanan Jr.
“For his development of the contractual and constitutional bases for the theory of economic and political decision making.”

1985
Franco Modigliani
“For his pioneering analyses of saving and of financial markets.”

1984
Richard Stone
“For having made fundamental contributions to the development of systems of national accounts and hence greatly improved the basis for empirical economic analysis.”

1983
Gérard Debreu
“For having incorporated new analytical methods into economic theory and for his rigorous reformulation of the theory of general equilibrium.”

1982
George J. Stigler
“For his seminal studies of industrial structures, functioning of markets, and causes and effects of public regulation.”

1981
James Tobin
“For his analysis of financial markets and their relations to expenditure decisions, employment, production and prices.”

1980
Lawrence R. Klein
“For the creation of econometric models and the application to the analysis of economic fluctuations and economic policies.”

1979
Theodore W. Schultz and Sir W. Arthur Lewis
“For their pioneering research into economic development research with particular consideration of the problems of developing countries.”

1978
Herbert A. Simon
“For his pioneering research into the decision-making process within economic organizations.”

1977
Bertil Ohlin and James E. Meade
“For their pathbreaking contribution to the theory of international trade and international capital movements.”

1976
Milton Friedman
“For his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.”

1975
Leonid V. Kantorovich and Tjalling C. Koopmans
“For their contributions to the theory of optimum allocation of resources.”

1974
Gunnar Myrdal and Friedrich August von Hayek
“For their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.”

1973
Wassily Leontief
“For the development of the input-output method and for its application to important economic problems.”

1972
John R. Hicks and Kenneth J. Arrow
“For their pioneering contributions to general economic equilibrium theory and welfare theory.”

1971
Simon Kuznets
“For his empirically founded interpretation of economic growth, which has led to new and deepened insight into the economic and social structure and process of development.”

1970
Paul A. Samuelson
“For the scientific work through which he has developed static and dynamic economic theory and actively contributed to raising the level of analysis in economic science.”

1969
Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen
“For having developed and applied dynamic models for the analysis of economic processes.”

Por que Angus Deaton mereceu o Nobel em Economia?

EMPIRICAL FOCUS

Why Angus Deaton Deserved the Economics Nobel Prize

The New York Times, October 12, 2015






The central contribution of Angus Deaton, the latest winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, has been to shift the gaze of his fellow economists beyond measures of income, to broader measures of well-being.

Much of his research has focused on consumption — measures of the food people eat, the condition of their housing, and the services they consume. And he has been a trailblazer in shifting the attention of economists away from the behavior of economywide aggregates such as gross domestic product, and toward the analysis of individual households.

This is also the first Nobel to acknowledge explicitly the increasingly empiricalnature of modern economic research. There are probably more such Nobels to come.

Yet for all the power that modern statistics brings, Mr. Deaton has argued forcefully that it is neither a panacea nor a substitute for economic theory.

He has been an influential counterweight against a popular strand of econometric practice arguing that if you want to know whether something works, you should just test it, preferably with a randomized control trial. In Mr. Deaton’s telling, the observation that a particular government intervention worked is no guarantee that it will work again, or in another context. By this view, theory is a complement to measurement, and generalizable insights arise only when the underlying economic mechanisms are elucidated and tested.

Angus Deaton was greeted by his colleagues at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J., after he was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science.CreditPeter Foley/European Pressphoto Agency

His method of careful analysis of data from household surveys has transformed four large swaths of the dismal science: microeconomics, econometrics, macroeconomics and development economics.

He has brought microeconomics — traditionally a field populated by theorists — into closer connection with the data. Partly because of his influence, modern microeconomists are more likely to spend their days knee-deep in large-scale data sets describing the real-world decisions made by millions of people, and less likely to be mired in Greek-letter abstractions.

Much of the empirical revolution in economics has been enabled by the tools that Mr. Deaton developed. These tools reimagine the role of economic theory, using it to organize and interpret the tidal wave of data coming from the hundreds of household surveys conducted around the world each year.

This focus on empirics has been a boon for the field of econometrics, which is the application of statistical methods to economic problems. Mr. Deaton’s signature achievement in this area has been in forcing empirical researchers to pay closer attention to questions of measurement. For too long, econometric analysis had proceeded as if data were simply handed down from a statistician-loving higher power. The reality is far uglier: Data are imperfect, surveys can be unrepresentative, people misreport, and attempts to recontact survey participants often fail. Mr. Deaton confronts these issues head-on, and he has taught economists how to extract meaning from imperfect data.

For an economist focused on big-picture questions — issues of global poverty — Mr. Deaton remains remarkably grounded in these smaller details. As the Nobel committee put it, Mr. Deaton’s “work covers a wide spectrum, from the deepest implications of theory to the grittiest detail of measurement.”

More than any other economist I know, he understands that to get the big picture right, you’ve got to get all the small details right, too.

This is a lesson that I learned firsthand, as my co-author (and significant other) Betsey Stevenson and I were puzzling over some data that appeared to show that people in certain low-income countries nonetheless reported high levels of life satisfaction. Mr. Deaton, who was equally perplexed, suggested that we dig a little deeper, as he recalled that some of the surveys were not representative samples of the entire population. Sure enough, several weeks of digging through the archives and sifting through the appendices to old codebooks revealed Mr. Deaton to be correct, and those puzzling observations to be simply the result of pollsters surveying only richer (and therefore probably happier) people in those poor countries. These statistical anomalies had partly hidden the strong link between life satisfaction and average incomes.

Mr. Deaton has also made important contributions to macroeconomics, which is the study of the economy as a whole. An earlier generation of macroeconomists had focused on aggregate measures, such as the total levels of consumption or income in the economy. Mr. Deaton turned instead to the behavior of individual households. He was a leader among those rejecting the prevailing fiction that the behavior of the whole economy could be treated as if it were the result of choices made by a single representative consumer.

This distinction between individual and aggregate behavior is particularly important to the study of consumption. While macroeconomists had been satisfied that their theories could explain the relationship between the total level of consumption and total income in the economy, Mr. Deaton showed that those same theories struggled to explain what individual households were doing. This has spawned a large and productive continuing research program trying to understand the spending patterns of actual households.

In 1992, Mr. Deaton argued that further progress on difficult economic questions would be likely “when macroeconomic questions are addressed in a way that uses the increasingly plentiful and informative microeconomic data.” He was right, and newly available “big data” describing the individual saving, spending and investment decisions of thousands and sometimes millions of people are fueling some of the most important work in macroeconomics today.

But perhaps Mr. Deaton’s most important effect has been within the field of development economics, which focuses on the economies of poor countries. This is a research program born of deep personal conviction. As he recently wrote, “Those of us who were lucky enough to be born in the right countries have a moral obligation to reduce poverty and ill health in the world.”

A generation ago, development economics was a field populated by “country doctors” — globe-trotting macroeconomists willing to make house calls to any country willing to provide them with a first-class ticket, so that they could proffer their preferred prescription, be it a more muscular industrial policy, a big push of infrastructure development, increased national savings or a faster shift to a market economy. The countries varied, but the prescriptions rarely did.

Today, development economics is a far more interesting and nuanced field, with practitioners focused on understanding the lives of the poor, and in uncovering the subtle ways in which immature economic institutions hinder their development. Rather than studying a few dozen countries, modern development economists are likely to pore over data describing the economic lives of thousands of families within each country. And much of that data comes from his decades-long collaboration with the World Bank, as his work has inspired much of its recent work on measuring and assessing poverty. The result is a sharper picture of the incidence and causes of global poverty.

More recently, Mr. Deaton has turned his attention to measures of subjective well-being, including happiness. In his 2010 Presidential address to the American Economic Association, Mr. Deaton highlighted the problems in constructing coherent measures of global poverty. Measures of income don’t offer much insight unless they can be thought of in terms of differences in purchasing power. But it is impossible to assess who has more or less purchasing power when people in different countries face different prices and choose to buy different goods. Given this problem, Mr. Deaton makes the radical suggestion that economists just ask people about their well-being instead.

Many of the most important findings on subjective well-being reflect new sources of data that Mr. Deaton — together with the psychologists Ed Diener, Arthur Stone and Daniel Kahneman, a fellow Nobel laureate — have helped create through their role as a senior scientists at Gallup. (Disclosure: I also serve as a senior scientist there.)

The award for Mr. Deaton continues an extraordinary run for Princeton, whose other recent winners include the game theorist John Nash; Mr. Kahneman; the economic theorist Eric Maskin; the trade economist Paul Krugman, who is also a New York Times columnist; and the macroeconomist Chris Sims. Mr. Krugman has since moved to the City University of New York, while Mr. Maskin has returned to Harvard. Even with these departures, Princeton is close to drawing even with the University of Chicago, which still lists five economics laureates on its faculty. There’s a pretty good chance that may happen, as several of Mr. Deaton’s colleagues often feature on Nobel shortlists.

I spent a lovely year at Princeton as a visiting professor in 2012 and can attest that no one commands greater respect among his colleagues than Mr. Deaton. He’s an imposing presence, a man with a giant intellect and an extraordinary breadth of knowledge, who holds all economists to his exacting — indeed, intimidating — standards.

More than that, he’s motivated by the questions that really matter, he is intellectually relentless, he has enormous integrity and he has devoted his life to understanding and improving the lot of the poor. He’s the perfect role model for any young economist.

Justin Wolfers is a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan.

Links

Wal-Mart pagou milhões de dólares em propinas na Índia

Levitt: Usando métodos quantitativos para descobrir cola em sala de aula

Sentado no automóvel afeta a percepção de distância

Petrobrás desiste de debêntures por falta de interesse do investidor

A Ciência ajudando a descobrir Wally (Onde está?)

Concurso

A Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro está promovendo concurso para professor de Contabilidade Governamental e Contabilidade Financeira. O edital do concurso pode ser obtido aqui

Rir é o melhor remédio

Fonte: Aqui

Professor

No último dia 15, comemorou-se o Dia do Professor. Bem, não sei se vale dizer que foi comemorado. Muitas escolas cumprimentaram discretamente seus docentes, via mensagem eletrônica, sem homenageá-los ou presenteá-los. Na verdade, para muitos, um dia como outro qualquer. Diante dessa não valorização da profissão nas escolas e, sobretudo, na sociedade, ano após ano, torna-se mais difícil convencer os jovens a ingressarem na carreira docente.

Um estudo encomendado pela Fundação Victor Civita (FVC) à Fundação Carlos Chagas (FCC) trouxe dados alarmantes: apenas 2% dos estudantes do Ensino Médio têm como primeira opção no vestibular graduações diretamente relacionadas à atuação em sala de aula – Pedagogia ou alguma Licenciatura. Embora reconheçam a importância da profissão, os pesquisados (1.500 alunos de 18 escolas) a percebem como “desvalorizada socialmente, mal remunerada e com rotina desgastante”.

Claro que esse desinteresse dos jovens, via de regra, está relacionado ao Ensino Fundamental e ao Ensino Médio e, por vezes, à Educação Infantil. No entanto, vou me ater aqui ao Ensino Superior, visto que frequentemente me deparo com alunos (de graduação e pós-graduação) que demonstram interesse pela carreira docente nesse nível educacional, tanto os que pensam em ingressar, assim como os que pensam em transição de carreira.

Eu sempre os incentivo, pois me sinto realizado profissionalmente e percebo essa carreira como muito promissora, apesar dos desafios. No entanto, chamo a atenção para que pensem no desenvolvimento de uma carreira que possa se integrar a um projeto de vida.

De acordo com o último Censo do Ensino Superior, divulgado em 2014, existem no Brasil 321.700 professores universitários em atividade, distribuídos entre 2.090 instituições privadas e 301 públicas. A média salarial do professor universitário brasileiro varia bastante em função da região onde atua, dos títulos que possui (aperfeiçoamento, especialização, mestrado, doutorado) e do tipo de instituição onde trabalha (pública municipal, estadual ou federal, privada), porém, de acordo com a empresa Catho, a média salarial nacional para professores universitários é de R$ 3.200,44.

A título de incentivo, a Revista Educação deste mês revela algumas dicas de especialistas em RH para planejar a carreira de professor: identificar a vocação; fixar objetivos claros e metas de curto, médio e longo prazo; desenvolver a inteligência sociorrelacional; estar atualizado; aprimorar competências e qualificações; ter sensibilidade, visão de conjunto e de contexto; manter atitudes construtivas e positivas; qualidade de vida; planejamento financeiro; revisão anual de seu plano.

Marcelo Treff, professor da PUC

Back to the Future II

O filme Back to The Future II se passa em outubro de 2015. Eis o que se passa no filme, segundo verbete da Wikipédia:

Chegando ao centro de Hill Valley, vê a cidade totalmente transformada, ainda com a mesma torre do relógio e com o mesmo peditório a decorrer para que não fosse modificada, mas já com uma pista de aterragem de automóveis e, uma oficina de transformação de carros em carros voadores e, também um espectáculo holográfico para crianças, que simulava uma cena em que o espectador é engolido por uma versão High-Tech holográfica de um suposto "Tubarão 19" (o mesmo do antigo filme de Steven Spielberg), que assustou Marty.

Ao ver o "Café Anos 80", Marty entra e, intrigando-se com os "garçons" holográficos (alternados entre Michael Jackson, Ronald Reagan e Ayatollah Khomeini)

O vídeo a seguir é uma propaganda da Toyota com dois dos atores que fizeram o filme, Michael J Fox (que sofre de Parkinson) e C. Loyd: