Here, at last, they thought was proper recognition for a discipline that was obviously going to play a very important role in the shaping of societies. But, as the years went by, the choice of winners left most observers perplexed.
The idea was to reward pioneering contributions to economics but often, to the layperson, it was not very clear just why the particular contribution was important.
Much of it was arcane theory that did little to further the cause of human happiness. As the years went by, even professional economists became cynical, saying that it was a nice way of consigning their senior colleagues to, as it were, the hall of fame, which is the American euphemism for honourable retirement.
Of course, every now and then, the prize committee selected someone whose contributions were genuinely useful, persons like Robert Stone, John Nash, Ronald Coase and a few others. More often than not, though, this was not the case.
