The Nobel economics prize was created to manufacture science-like prestige, not to honor it

Evidence

Our protagonist gets close to the deep structure of the politics of the prize, but cannot state the obvious. Few people in 1968 would have conceded that economics, as it was then constituted, enjoyed an intellectual stature commensurate with medicine, physics, or chemistry. However, the purpose of the prize was not to ‘recognize’ that fact, but rather, to conjure the appearance of similar stature by fronting a prize that closely mimicked existing prizes that did enjoy that esteem in the mind of the public. The purpose of the prize was to elevate the stature of the economics profession, not to acknowledge its already hallowed status. Economics was supposed to look like a science to spectators, and the prize was just one means for the makeover. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 475

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to how prestige is manufactured via institutional mimicry — parallels the reader’s work on institutions and reputation (Milgrom, diamond bourse arbitration). — connects to: The economics Nobel transformed economic capital into symbolic capital inflating the discipline’s public power — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 459; Nobel laureates did not constitute a uniquely best population in science — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 457; The Economics Nobel originated as a central bank’s improvised prestige play. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 465 (+10 more)
• SEED: Angle: the Nobel economics prize as a case study in prestige-manufacture through institutional mimesis — how mimicry of a hallowed form confers borrowed authority.

Broader Connections

• The ersatz Nobel Prize steered economics toward one ideological species while denying that intent #expands (0.90) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 478
• Nobel Prizes reflect disciplinary politics and local context, not pure scientific merit #qualifies (0.85) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 480
• Economics’ scientific maturity was asserted by prize’s backers despite 1968 doubts #corroborates (0.80) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 474
• Nobel economics prizes after 2008 openly celebrated the very orthodoxy that failed #exemplifies (0.80) — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 438
• Economists’ appeals to science deflected attention from their own failure #expands (0.75) — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 483
• Finance scholarship rose from business-school marginality to Nobel-level prominence by the 1990s #corroborates (0.70)