Memorability of Nobel Prize laureates in economics

ABSTRACT

In this article, a measure for the Relative Memorability of Nobel Prize winners is proposed, based on an exponential forgetting curve. The intention is to provide a measure that captures the fading nature of memories with respect to individual Nobel Prize winners in the cultural collective memory. For fame and achievement of Nobel Prize laureates, measurement methods are already developed. However, from a cultural viewpoint, the question is how well these persons are remembered. Applying the concept of memorability, as defined in this article, to Nobel laureates in Economics, Milton Friedman, Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz turn out to be the top-three economists in the collective memory. Moreover, the ranking of economists according the collective memory, their fame and their achievement produce quite different results.

KEYWORDS:

• Nobel Prize in Economics
• memorability
• achievement
• fame

JEL CLASSIFICATION:

• A10
• B31

I. Introduction

Winning a Nobel Prize is considered as the single most prestigious award for an outstanding accomplishment. It also means fame, not only in the own field of research and activity, but also with the general public. Recently, a method to estimate a Nobel Prize laureate’s achievement via her or his fame has been proposed by Simkin and Roychowdhury (2006, 2011, 2013, 2015). In this approach, fame is measured by the number of Google hits. Since according to Simkin and Roychowdhury (2013) fame grows exponentially on average (that this not always must be true in general is demonstrated by Bagrow et al. 2004), a lower-bound for achievement of a Nobel Prize laureate can be determined by (Claes and De Ceuster 2013, 885, equation 4):

(1)

with A_j as the achievement of laureate j, A_max as the maximum achievement of a laureate in her or his field, F_j as the fame of laureate j (represented by the number of Google hits) and F_Min (F_Max) as the minimum (maximum) fame in the respective field.

However, the measurement of achievement as defined in Equation (1) does not account for the time that passed between gaining a Nobel Prize and the time of measuring achievement. Implicitly, it is assumed that time and, hence, forgetting does not play a role. In this article, fame, as measured by the number of Google hits at a certain time t, is supposed to be fading with time. The importance of a Nobel Prize laureate seems to be the higher, the more she or he is remembered years after receiving the Prize. To capture this quantitatively, a memorability measure is suggested here that is based on the so-called forgetting curve (Averell and Heathcote, 2011).

II. Measurement approach

The memory of a Nobel Prize laureate i, R_i, is expected to fade away with an exponential rate as in the famous retention or forgetting curve (Atesmen 2011, 172; see also; Averell and Heathcote, 2011, 26; the curve was described first by the German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus, 1885[1974]):

(2)

with:

R_i,t: the retention probability of a Nobel laureate’s i fame,

R_i,0: the starting probability of being known as a Nobel Prize winner,

Δt_i: the time between winning the Nobel Prize and time t for laureate i,

M_i: the strength of memory.

In the following, the starting probability is assumed to be equal to unity, R_i,0 = 1 . This means that almost everybody notes that a certain person i is awarded the Nobel Prize. Moreover, the retention probability at time t, R_i,t, is calculated as the number of Google hits, H_i,t, a former Nobel laureate i gets at time t (called ‘fame’ by Simkin and Roychowdhury 2006; Claes and De Ceuster 2013), divided by a fictitious constant number of Google hits, . The value of is assumed to be equal for all Nobel laureates in the same field. It represents the fictitious hits at the time of winning the Nobel Prize. This approach reflects the assumption that memories are fading with the progress of time. Furthermore, it is assumed that this starting number is the same for all Nobel laureates of a discipline, i.e., having received the Nobel Prize, the laureates of a field are treated as if they were equally known in the Nobel Prize winning year.

The retention probability is defined as

(3)

with 0 < R_i,t ≤ 1.

The strength of memory variable M_i is suggested here as a quantitative measure for the memorability of laureate i at time t. Solving Equation (2) for M_i by applying Equation (3) yields¹

(4)

The final step is to calculate the index of relative memorability to normalize the memorability values as follows:

(5)

with M_max as the maximal memorability value of the respective Nobel laureate.

III. Empirical results

In the following, the approach of the previous section is applied to data of Nobel laureates in economics for the year t = 2012, as presented by Claes and De Ceuster (2013). These data are employed to compare the results of the Relative Memorability measure introduced here with Claes and De Ceuster’s Relative Achievement measure.

Before presenting the empirical result, the fictitious number of hits in the year of being awarded the Nobel Prize is to be defined. In the present article, this number is set equal to one million hits. First of all, this value is chosen to guarantee that is higher than the highest number of hits in year t for Nobel Prize laureates in economics, . The main reason to fix this value is that the sign for memorability in Equation (4) is negative. Since the natural logarithm is smaller than zero for values between zero and unity, guarantees that memorability is always larger than zero. Second, it is assumed that all Nobel laureates in a discipline have a retention probability of unity in their Nobel year. Hence, the number of fictitious hits should be the same, too. However, any number of fictitious hits larger than could be chosen.

For the number of , the results for Relative Memorability, in comparison to Fame and Relative Achievement, are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Fame, achievement and memorability of Nobel laureates in economics.

Name	Year of the Nobel Prize	Fame	Relative Achievement	Relative Memorability	Achievement Rank	Memorability Rank
Paul Krugman	2008	1,0000	1	0,6677	1	2
Joseph Stiglitz	2001	0,7279	0,93	0,5912	2	3
Milton Friedman	1976	0,4698	0,83	1,0000	3	1
Christopher A. Sims	2011	0,2965	0,73	0,0184	4	66
Amartya Sen	1998	0,2895	0,72	0,2535	5	20
John Nash	1994	0,2000	0,64	0,2574	6	19
Paul Samuelson	1970	0,1884	0,63	0,5809	7	4
Peter Diamond	2010	0,1802	0,62	0,0270	8	64
Daniel Kahneman	2002	0,1267	0,54	0,1136	9	44
Thomas Sargent	2011	0,1244	0,53	0,0113	10	69
Robert Merton	1997	0,1174	0,52	0,1647	11	33
Edward Prescott	2004	0,0927	0,47	0,0796	12	54
Elinor Ostrom	2009	0,0876	0,46	0,0292	13	63
Simon Kuznets	1971	0,0836	0,43	0,3921	14	5
Daniel McFadden	2000	0,0766	0,43	0,1111	15	45
Wassily Leontief	1973	0,0765	0,43	0,3608	16	6
Robert Engle	2003	0,0751	0,42	0,0827	17	52
Finn Kydland	2004	0,0743	0,42	0,0732	18	55
Robert Solow	1987	0,0740	0,42	0,2284	19	24
Robert Lucas	1995	0,0734	0,42	0,1549	20	35
Gary Becker	1992	0,0726	0,41	0,1815	21	29
James Buchanan	1986	0,0721	0,41	0,2354	22	23
Christopher Pissarides	2010	0,0659	0,39	0,0175	23	67
Myron Scholes	1997	0,0644	0,39	0,1305	24	39
Herbert Simon	1978	0,0642	0,39	0,2955	25	9
Kenneth Arrow	1972	0,0635	0,38	0,3463	26	7
Vernon Smith	2002	0,0628	0,38	0,0863	27	51
Dale Mortensen	2010	0,0615	0,38	0,0171	28	68
Lawrence Klein	1980	0,0607	0,37	0,2728	29	14
Robert Mundell	1999	0,0581	0,37	0,1093	30	46
Oliver Williamson	2009	0,0577	0,36	0,0251	31	65
George Akerlof	2001	0,0548	0,35	0,0906	32	49
James Meade	1977	0,0548	0,35	0,2884	33	10
Maurice Allais	1988	0,0499	0,33	0,1919	34	26
Harry Markowitz	1990	0,0487	0,33	0,1746	35	31
James Tobin	1981	0,0481	0,32	0,2451	36	22
Ronald Coase	1991	0,0478	0,32	0,1656	37	32
William Arthur Lewis	1979	0,0462	0,31	0,2575	38	18
Robert Aumann	2005	0,0443	0,3	0,0539	39	57
Edmund Phelps	2006	0,0433	0,3	0,0459	40	59
Bertil Ohlin	1977	0,0417	0,29	0,2649	41	16
Leonid Kantorovich	1975	0,0407	0,29	0,2779	42	12
James Heckman	2000	0,0406	0,28	0,0900	43	50
Thomas Schelling	2005	0,0402	0,28	0,0524	44	58
John Hicks	1972	0,0386	0,27	0,2957	45	8
A. Michael Spence	2001	0,0383	0,27	0,0811	46	53
Tjalling Koopmans	1975	0,0376	0,27	0,2714	47	15
Leonid Hurwicz	2007	0,0366	0,26	0,0364	48	60
George Stigler	1982	0,0365	0,26	0,2182	49	25
Franco Modigliani	1985	0,0333	0,24	0,1912	50	27
Douglass North	1993	0,0305	0,22	0,1313	51	38
Eric Maskin	2007	0,0302	0,22	0,0345	52	61
Gunnar Myrdal	1974	0,0292	0,21	0,2596	53	17
Robert Fogel	1993	0,0291	0,21	0,1297	54	40
John Harsanyi	1994	0,0291	0,21	0,1228	55	42
William Vickrey	1996	0,0286	0,21	0,1087	56	47
William Sharpe	1990	0,0281	0,2	0,1488	57	36
Merton Miller	1990	0,0273	0,2	0,1477	58	37
Reinhard Selten	1994	0,0272	0,2	0,1207	59	43
Roger Myerson	2007	0,0269	0,19	0,0334	60	62
Friedrich von Hayek	1974	0,0253	0,18	0,2501	61	21
Ragnar Frisch	1969	0,0244	0,17	0,2802	62	11
James Mirrlees	1996	0,0236	0,16	0,1034	63	48
Jan Tinbergen	1969	0,0221	0,15	0,2731	64	13
Clive Granger	2003	0,0198	0,12	0,0556	65	56
Gerard Debreu	1983	0,0192	0,12	0,1779	66	30
Richard Stone	1984	0,0158	0,07	0,1640	67	34
Theodore Schultz	1979	0,0127	0,03	0,1838	68	28
Trygve Haavelmo	1989	0,0113	–	0,1250	69	41

Source: Claes and De Ceuster (2013), own calculations. Reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd, www.tandfonline.com.

The ordering of Table 1 follows the Relative Achievement of Nobel laureates in economics, as calculated by Claes and De Ceuster (2013), by starting with the economist with the highest value (Paul Krugman). Values of Relative Memorability, calculated via Equations (4) and (5), are presented in the fifth column of Table 1. The rank orders according to achievement are shown in Column 6 of this table, the rank orders according to memorability in Column 7. The change of rank orders due to the memorability measure is substantial. Spearman’s rank correlation between relative achievement and relative memorability is 0.08476; it is statistically insignificant with an error probability of 0.4886. Many older Nobel economists climb to higher ranks (see, for instance, Kenneth Arrow, Herbert Simon and John Hicks), whereas many more recent ones loose ranks (see Christopher A. Sims, Peter A. Diamond and Thomas Sargent). Considering fading (individual and collective) memories stresses the time aspect of achievement which can also be interpreted as ‘achievement stored in the collective cultural memory’.

In Figures 1–3, scatter plots of the relation between Fame and Relative Achievement, Fame and Relative Memorability, as well as Relative Achievement and Relative Memorability are shown.

Figure 1. Fame and relative achievement.

Figure 2. Fame and relative memorability.

Figure 3. Relative achievement and relative memorability.

By definition, the relation between Fame and Relative Achievement follows a determined curve, whereas the relation between Fame and Relative Memorability, as well as Relative Achievement and Relative Memorability is scattered.

A more precise statistical analysis provides empirical evidence for the fact that Fame and Relative Achievement are highly positively correlated with each other (correlation coefficient about 0.84), whereas Fame and Relative Memorability are much less correlated (correlation coefficient about 0.61). Accordingly, Relative Achievement and Relative Memorability are even less correlated (coefficient about 0.49). Hence, Relative Achievement and Relative Memorability are measuring differing aspects of Nobel Prize winning economists.

IV. Conclusion

In this article, a new measure of the memorability of Nobel Prize winners is suggested. In addition to Fame and Relative Achievement, Relative Memorability provides useful information about the level and rank of memories of renowned persons. By taking account of fading memories, the cultural impact of Nobel laureates can be quantified. Relative Memorability is intended to complement Fame and Relative Achievement as a measure of the contemporary relevance of the individual Nobel laureates.

The application of this measure to other Nobel Prize fields and other areas is left for future research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

¹ Note that a higher value for has an effect on memorability , whereas a higher value for H_i,t implies . The relative memorability of two Nobel Prize winners, i and j, is given by .