Nobel Prize for Democracy and Economic Freedom

The 2024 Nobel laureates in economics have been announced, and the prize was awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson for their joint research. In my opinion, these names are symbolic. In reality, this prize was given to an idea that successfully proves and interprets the positive connection between democracy and economic development, economic freedom, prosperity, institutions, and economic growth. This is because only ideas formed around the concepts of democracy and freedom can save the modern world. All three economists have comprehensively explained the positive correlation between the formation of institutions and their impact on prosperity. They have accurately identified the reasons and boundaries of why some countries succeed while others fail, thanks to economic institutions.

The Nobel Committee of the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences, while announcing this decision in Stockholm, stated that the three economists "demonstrated the importance of public institutions for a nation's prosperity. Societies with weak rule of law and exploitative institutions do not change toward growth or improvement. The laureates' research helps us understand why."

The Scientific Rationale and Motivation for the Prize

When students often ask me which economists they should read, I recommend both classic and modern economists. I particularly highlight four books by Daron Acemoglu: Why Nations Fail, The Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, The Narrow Corridor, and Power and Progress. I believe these books help understand the megatrends of the modern era and provide a deeper insight into the future.

The emphasis on economic freedoms alongside democracy as a condition for economic development has become one of the main pillars of the modern world. From The Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (2006) to Why Nations Fail (2018), everything is based on the legitimacy of "the will of the majority." These researchers, as brilliant explorers of this paradigm, have convincingly interpreted it through successful arguments. Those who read these books in depth can grasp these successful synergetic connections. At the same time, the new Nobel laureates have skillfully demonstrated the link between economic institutions and prosperity. By dividing economic institutions into inclusive and extractive, the authors have highlighted the social welfare, development, and technological opportunities that can arise from this. They have proven that societies where the law reigns supreme, not rulers, benefit from the superior opportunities brought by economic development.

Through their books, which are each around 500-600 pages long, they take readers far back in history. By drawing historical parallels, the authors offer a retrospective perspective, fundamentally revealing the secrets of the economic cause-and-effect relationship. The reader feels as though they are reading a textbook on the history of economic thought, yet in reality, they are reading texts about the future of technological pressure and the digital economy.

American Economists, Brain Drain, and Democracy

There is a notable dominance of the United States as a country and Jews as a people among the Nobel laureates in economics. Since the Nobel Prize in Economics was first awarded in 1969, 79 people have received the prize up until 2017. Of these, 55 were American economists, and 10 were British. The remaining laureates represent other countries. If we examine the last seven years, we see that this figure has not changed much. Fifty-five of these American economists are still alive and working in various educational and research centers. Nobel laureates in economics make up 43 percent of those working in the field of science in the United States. In 2019, this figure was 41 percent. The reason for this is not that the United States pressures or bribes Stockholm for the prize, which would be a ridiculous claim. The U.S. has simply built a high-quality education and science system and provides comprehensive support for prepared scientists. Additionally, they attract the brightest minds and scientific potential from around the world like a magnet.

A Broad Perspective and a Shrinking Scale

A few years ago, I wrote a post on social media about the fundamental impact of Daron Acemoglu's books. Several people commented, focusing on the fact that "Daron Acemoglu is of Armenian descent, born in Istanbul, and so on." The implication was that we shouldn't read or benefit from his work because of his ethnicity. This is akin to refusing to drive a car invented by an atheist or not using Israeli-made drones in wartime because they are the products of "the sons of Israel."

Daron Acemoglu attended Galatasaray High School in Turkey before pursuing higher education in the UK and the U.S. After completing his university education in London, Acemoglu began his academic career at MIT in 1993. If we disregard the scientific research and academic identity of a world-class economist and instead focus on his ethnicity, will this open the path for our scientists to win a Nobel Prize? Armenians have remained a diminished and unsuccessful nation because they have been unable to break free from their ideological constraints. They have lost touch with reality due to their political biases and misplaced pride. If they deny that Lotfi Zadeh, the creator of fuzzy logic, was Azerbaijani, or if they claim our music as their own, the world will not change, and neither will we be deprived of our music. But this denial won't place them on the list of nations producing intellectual and cultural contributions to the world.

Should we, as Azerbaijanis, think like them? Should we cling to this denialist mindset? Or should we rejoice in every success for Turkey, knowing that we share a close cultural and historical bond?

At the end of the day, the Nobel Prizes awarded to Orhan Pamuk in literature, Aziz Sancar in chemistry, and Daron Acemoglu in economics are significant achievements. Daron Acemoglu's Nobel Prize is a testament to Turkey producing three Nobel laureates, and this should mean something to us.