Trio Awarded Nobel Prize in Economics for Research on Growth Fueled by Technology

This year’s Nobel Prize in Economics has been awarded to three experts who explore the influence of technology on economic growth.

Joel Mokyr from Northwestern University receives half of the prize, amounting to 11 million Swedish kronor (£867,000), while the remaining portion is shared between Philippe Aghion from the Collège de France, INSEAD Business School, and the London School of Economics, alongside Peter Howitt from Brown University.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced this award during a period marked by rapid advancements in artificial intelligence and ongoing discussions about its societal implications, stating that the trio laid the groundwork for understanding “economic growth through innovation.”


This accolade comes at a time when nations worldwide are striving to rejuvenate economic growth, which has faced stagnation since the 2008 financial crisis, with rising concerns about sluggish productivity, slow improvements in living standards, and heightened political tensions.

Aghion has cautioned that “dark clouds” are forming amid President Donald Trump’s trade war, which heightens trade barriers. He emphasized that fostering innovation in green industries and curbing the rise of major tech monopolies are crucial for sustaining growth in the future.

“We cannot support the wave of protectionism in the United States, as it hinders global growth and innovation,” he noted.

While accepting the award, he pointed out that AI holds “tremendous growth potential” but urged governments to implement stringent competition policies to handle the growth of emerging tech firms. “A few leading companies may end up monopolizing the field, stifling new entrants and innovation. How can we ensure that today’s innovators do not hinder future advancements?”

The awards committee indicated that technological advancements have fueled continuous economic growth for the last two centuries, yet cautioned that further progress cannot be assumed.

Mokyr, a Dutch-born Israeli-American economic historian, was recognized for his research on the prerequisites for sustained growth driven by technological progress. Aghion and Howitt were honored for their examination of how “creative destruction” is pivotal for fostering growth.

Skip past newsletter promotions

“We must safeguard the core mechanisms of creative destruction to prevent sliding back into stagnation,” remarked John Hassler, chairman of the Economics Prize.

Established in the 1960s, the professional National Bank of Sweden awarded the Economics Prize in memory of Alfred Nobel.

Source: www.theguardian.com

What is Required to Rebuild Economics with Nature at its Core?

Shrimp Harvesting on a Farm in Southeastern Vietnam

Quang Ngoc Nguyen/Alamy

About Natural Capital
Parta Dasgupta (Witness Book) (UK, now); Mariner’s Book (USA, January 20, 2026)

How do environmental hazards associated with production influence costs? What implications does that have for the nation’s economy? Can we quantify the significance of a healthy living environment and the biodiversity surrounding us?

In 2021, Partha Dasgupta, emeritus professor of economics at Cambridge University, authored a comprehensive 610-page report addressing these inquiries for the UK government. His latest work, About Natural Capital: The Value of the World Around Us, aims to broaden its accessibility.

Your opinion of Dasgupta’s success may hinge on your interest in an analytical exploration of economic concepts interspersed with engaging narratives. His core thesis asserts that GDP’s utility in measuring economic success is fundamentally inadequate. Historical advancements in living standards have primarily stemmed from human innovations; as Dasgupta notes, “entrepreneurs have prioritized labor and capital-saving devices over natural savings devices.”

This is particularly evident with the latest advancements in artificial intelligence, a hallmark of humanity’s quest for “labor and capital savings.” High-tech billionaires behind AI tout extraordinary productivity gains, yet the substantial water consumption for the cooling of associated data centers is often overlooked.

Dasgupta notes in his original report that from 1992 to 2014, per capita human capital (encompassing our health, education, and skills) rose by about 13% globally, while per capita natural capital plummeted by nearly 40%. To remedy this disparity, he champions the widespread adoption of a metric for “global wealth per person” that incorporates nature.

The narrative can be further expanded by examining shrimp farms in Vietnam and Bangladesh. Dasgupta elucidates how these operations adversely impact the “natural capital” of those nations, effects that remain unaccounted for in the retail price of shrimp. The establishment of shrimp farms typically necessitates the destruction of mangroves and salt marshes, reducing carbon storage capabilities.

Notably, around 30% of the diet for these shrimp consists of soybeans cultivated in plantations that replace tropical forests. Dasgupta references a case study suggesting that if true environmental costs were factored in, shrimp export prices might rise by 15-20%. Essentially, affluent nations purchasing shrimp may be receiving an unfair bargain.

While I do not profess expertise in economics, I am generally apprehensive about pursuing economic gains at the expense of significant environmental degradation. So, what are the actionable steps we can take? In a concise chapter, Dasgupta proposes a method to value nature adequately. This could involve collecting fees from shipping companies navigating global waters, with proceeds allocated towards job creation to alleviate pressures on ecosystems worldwide.

These concepts resonate intuitively for me, but I find myself seeking more detailed explanations. Dasgupta alludes to the challenges of achieving collective agreement and the lack of enthusiasm surrounding global shipping fees. This is an area where I wished he presented a more impassioned argument. While his ideas are captivating, they lack the urgency many readers might desire.

About Natural Capital provokes a reevaluation of economic perspectives, though I yearn for a more emotive approach. Perhaps this expectation is excessive for such a publication, yet I remain concerned that crucial messages may not resonate with a broader audience.

Jason Arun Mruguez is a writer based in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

New Scientist Book Club

Are you an avid reader? Join a warm community of fellow book enthusiasts. Every six weeks, we delve into exciting new titles, offering members exclusive access to excerpts, author articles, and video interviews.

Topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Finds from the Bronze Age indicate that market economics may have originated earlier than previously believed

Bronze Age metal hoard from Weisig, Germany

J. Lipták/Landesamt für Archäologie Sachsen

Bronze Age Europeans earned and spent money in much the same way we do today, indicating that the origins of the “market economy” are much older than expected.

That’s the controversial conclusion of a new study that challenges the view that elites were the dominant force in Bronze Age economies and suggests that human economic behaviour may not have changed much over the past 3,500 years or more.

“We tend to romanticize European prehistory, but the Bronze Age was not just a fantasy world where townsfolk and peasants served their needs as a backdrop for great lords,” he said. Nicola Ialongo “It was a very familiar world, with family, friends, social networks, markets, jobs, and ultimately having to figure out how to make ends meet,” says Professor at Aarhus University in Denmark.

Bronze Age Europeans, from 3300 to 800 BCE, were not meticulous bookkeepers like people in other ancient societies, such as those in Mesopotamia. But Ialongo and Giancarlo Lago Researchers at the University of Bologna in Italy suggest that the treasure trove of metal they left behind may hold important insights into their daily lives and the roots of modern economic behavior.

Lago and Ialongo analyzed more than 20,000 metal objects from Bronze Age burials in Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia and Germany. These metal objects came in many different forms, but around 1500 B.C. they began to be standardized by weight, which is how they were classified. Many experts These are distinguished as a type of pre-monetary currency.

“The discovery of widespread systems of measurement and weight allows us to model things that have been known for centuries in ways that have never been modeled before,” Ialongo says. “This not only gives us new answers to old questions, but it also gives us new questions that no one has asked before.”

The team found that the weight values ​​in their vast sample followed the same statistical distribution as the daily expenses of a modern Western household: small everyday expenses, represented by lighter pieces, dominated the consumption pattern, while larger expenses, represented by heavier pieces, were relatively rare. This pattern is similar to that found in the average modern wallet, with many small bills and very few large bills.

Lago and Ialongo interpret their find as evidence that the Bronze Age economic system was regulated by market forces of supply and demand, with everyone participating in proportion to how much they earned. This hypothesis contrasts with the influential view put forward by anthropologist Karl Polanyi in the 1940s, who characterized the modern economy, based on monetary gain, as a new phenomenon distinct from ancient economies centered on barter, gift exchange, and social status.

Richard Brunton A researcher from Purdue University in Indiana called the study credible: “I think this argument will stimulate debate among archaeologists and economic anthropologists who have been based for decades on erroneous assumptions about the antiquity of market economies,” he said.

“I think this paper adds useful fuel to that criticism,” Brunton says, “and to me it sheds entirely new light on the function of bronze deposits and the potential use of bronze coins as a unit of exchange.”

but, Erica Schonberger Researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland are skeptical of the team’s conclusions. “It’s dangerous to assume that ordinary people in premodern times used money in normal economic activities,” says Schonberger. “For example, medieval English peasants only got money for selling their produce when lords began to demand money in lieu of rents or taxes in kind. They gave most or all of that money directly to the lords. They sold to get money, but they didn’t use it to buy things they needed. We’re still a long way from modern economic behavior.” [in the Middle Ages].”

Lago and Ialongo hope that their work will inspire other experts to carry out similar studies on artefacts from different regions and cultures. They suggest that market economies are a natural development across time and cultures, and that such systems are not something new or unique that has emerged in Western societies over the past few centuries.

“Technically, we haven’t proven that the Bronze Age economy was a market economy,” Ialongo says, “we simply have no evidence that it wasn’t. And we’re just pointing out a contradiction: why is everyone so convinced that there wasn’t a market economy when everything we see can be explained by a market economy model? In other words, if the simplest explanation works well enough, why should we have to imagine a more complex one?”

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com