Skip to main content

Nobel Prize in Economics

Picture of Jean Tirole

The Nobel in Economics this year went to the dapper Frenchman pictured here, Jean Tirole, a member of the Toulouse School of Economics, and with the Institut d'Economie Industrielle (IDEI). In fact, he chairs the board of directors of IDEI.

Nonetheless, if you are an Anglophone, even if you are reasonably well informed about contemporary academic economics, the odds are good you've never heard of him.

Which is just as well. The selection of a more widely-known figure, Krugman, Kahneman, Mundell, to take recent examples, doesn't really teach us anything. The selection of Tirole naturally leads some of us to wonder why, and so to teach ourselves something. In that teaching-moment respect, the choice is akin to that of Elinor Ostrom a few years back.

Tyler Cowen got the goods, collecting a lot of material about Tirole quickly and effectively on his blog on the morning of the announcement.

About a third of third of the way down Cowen's blog piece, this caught my eye, "He has written some key papers on financial intermediation, collateral, and the agency problems associated with lending." As you might gather from that, he is an analytic numbers-crunching kind of economist, not one of the ideological warriors in the field.

Cowen also links us to a paper Tirole co-authored back in 1997 on financial intermediation. The short version: they worked out a model of intermediation that makes predictions about the consequences of collateral squeezes, a credit crunch, or a savings squeeze.

Through the website that the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences devotes to these awards you can get a detailed 54-page discussion of the bases for honoring Tirole. You get to those financial intermediaries at the bottom of page 36. By page 39 the authors are describing the "Holmstrom-Tirole model" outlined in that '97 paper as "a workhorse for analyzing issues in financial intermediation as well as corporate finance."

Operating firms, the "real economy" widget manufacturers of the world, can ensure their liquidity in the event of a future crisis by hoarding lots of funds. But, as Holmstrom and Tirole understood, there are inefficiencies inherent in such hoarding. It is much more efficient to have a credit line with a bank. Thus, the buffering role of intermediation.  Yet there must be enough liquidity in the intermediates. Thus, H&T argue, there is a positive role for the public sector, for government Treasuries and central banks.

Tirole has also written about asset-price bubbles: about when they are impossible and under what circumstances they are not only possible but rational and socially useful.

Further (again quoting to document from the Swedish Academy, he has "combined his early work on bubbles with his more recent work on financial regulation...."




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…