It has also underrepresented individuals who subscribe to what economic historians Avner Offer and Gabriel Söderberg described to The Atlantic as the “social democracy” school of thought, which emphasizes making public policy decisions to help governments care for their citizens. This is in contrast to what Offer and Söderberg describe simply as economics, which is highly theoretical and pro-free market.
“The reason that social democracy persists despite the absence of a robust intellectual foundation is that it works, and it is more efficient than markets in this particular domain,” Offer told The Atlantic. “You could say that economics is deeply theorized but dubious in practical terms, and social democracy is exactly the opposite. It is very practical, and perhaps for that reason it is not very well-theorized.”
Indeed, as the authors noted in their interview, only one adherent to the social democratic school of thought has won a Nobel Prize in recent years — Gunnar Myrdal, who was Swedish.
Umm, yeah, maybe not so interesting a theory.
The Nobel Prize for Economics has become less about rewarding innovation and pioneering achievement and more about touting one school of economic thought, involving the promotion of free markets, over others.
We’re going to use a definition of social democracy which doesn’t include Joe Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, James Tobin, John Hicks, Amartya Sen, Arthur Lewis, Paul Samuelson as social democrats?