Two Americans awarded the Prize in Economic Sciences

Elinor Ostrom delivering a lecture at Indiana University, Bloomington, July 2008. Photo: Courtesy of Indiana University

Elinor Ostrom delivering a lecture at Indiana University, Bloomington, July 2008. Photo: Courtesy of Indiana University.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel for 2009 to Elinor Ostrom, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, U.S., “for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons”, and Oliver E. Williamson, University of California, Berkeley, CA, U.S., “for his analysis of economic governance, especially the boundaries of the firm”.

In total, 11 of the 13 Nobel Prize winners this year are Americans.

The academy writes: Ostrom has demonstrated how common property can be successfully managed by user associations. Oliver Williamson has developed a theory where business firms serve as structures for conflict resolution. Over the last three decades these seminal contributions have advanced economic governance research from the fringe to the forefront of scientific attention.

Oliver Williamson

Ostrom has challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities or privatized. Based on numerous studies of user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins, Ostrom concludes that the outcomes are, more often than not, better than predicted by standard theories. She observes that resource users frequently develop sophisticated mechanisms for decision-making and rule enforcement to handle conflicts of interest, and she characterizes the rules that promote successful outcomes.

Williamson has argued that markets and hierarchical organizations, such as firms, represent alternative governance structures which differ in their approaches to resolving conflicts of interest. The drawback of markets is that they often entail haggling and disagreement. The drawback of firms is that authority, which mitigates contention, can be abused. Competitive markets work relatively well because buyers and sellers can turn to other trading partners in case of dissent. But when market competition is limited, firms are better suited for conflict resolution than markets. A key prediction of Williamson’s theory, which has also been supported empirically, is therefore that the propensity of economic agents to conduct their transactions inside the boundaries of a firm increases along with the relationship-specific features of their assets.

Source: Nobelprize.org

Bookmark and Share

You may also like...