Advertisement

De Economist

pp 1–18 | Cite as

Creative Careers: The Life Cycles of Nobel Laureates in Economics

  • Bruce A. WeinbergEmail author
  • David W. Galenson
Article

Abstract

We identify two polar life cycles of scholarly creativity among Nobel laureate economists with Tinbergen falling broadly in the middle. Experimental innovators work inductively, accumulating knowledge from experience. Conceptual innovators work deductively, applying abstract principles. Innovators whose work is more conceptual do their most important work earlier in their careers than those whose work is more experimental. Our estimates imply that the probability that the most conceptual laureate publishes his single best work peaks at age 25 compared to the mid-50 s for the most experimental laureate. Thus, while experience benefits experimental innovators, newness to a field benefits conceptual innovators.

Keywords

Creativity Life cycle Innovation Nobel laureates Economics of science 

JEL Classification

J240 O300 B310 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Jeff Rosen, Alicia Lee, and Gwen Jacobs for excellent research assistance and Andrew Abel, Daron Acemoglu, David Blau, Aya Chacar, Dan Hamermesh, David Hirschliefer, and Howard Marvel and seminar participants at New York University; Ohio State University; the Society of Labor Economists; Maastricht University; Dartmouth College; the University of Connecticut; and the NBER Productivity Lunch for comments. Galenson gratefully acknowledges support from NSF SES 0099105. Weinberg is grateful for support from R24 AG048059, R24 HD058484, UL1 TR000090, the National Institute on Aging and the Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research via P01AG039347 (on which Weinberg and his work were supported directly by the National Bureau of Economic Research and indirectly by Ohio State); NSF SES 0095776, NSF DGE 1760544, 1535399, 1348691, and SciSIP 1064220; and the Ewing Marion Kauffman and Alfred P. Sloan Foundations.

References

  1. Diamond, A. M., Jr. (1986). The life-cycle research productivity of mathematicians and scientists. Journal of Gerontology, 41(4), 520–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fogel, R. W. (1989). Without consent or contract: The rise and fall of american slavery. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  3. Galenson, D. W. (2001). Painting outside the lines. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Galenson, D. W. (2006). Old masters and young geniuses: The two life cycles of artistic creativity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Galenson, D. W., & Pope, C. L. (2013). Experimental and conceptual innovators in the sciences: The cases of Darwin and Einstein. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, 46(2), 102–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galenson, D. W., & Weinberg, B. A. (2000). Age and the quality of work: The case of modern American painters. Journal of Political Economy, 108(4), 761–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Galenson, D. W., & Weinberg, B. A. (2001). Creating modern art: The changing careers of painters in France from impressionism to cubism. American Economic Review, 91(4), 1063–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Golden, D. (2002). Course correction. Wall Street Journal, 11.Google Scholar
  9. Haavelmo, T. (1944). The probability approach in econometrics. Econometrica, 12((Supplement): iii–vi), 1–115.Google Scholar
  10. Hansen, B. (1969). Jan Tinbergen: An appraisal of his contributions to economics. Swedish Journal of Economics, 71(4), 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones, B. F. (2010). Age and great invention. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones, B. F., & Weinberg, B. A. (2011). Age dynamics in scientific creativity. with Ben Jones. In Proceedings of the national academy of the sciences, (November 22), (Vol. 108(18), pp. 910–914).Google Scholar
  13. Klein, L. R. (2004). The contributions of Jan Tinbergen to economic science. De Economist, 152(2), 155–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lehman, Harvey C. (1953). Age and achievement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Levin, S., & Stephan, P. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence from American scientists. American Economic Review, 81(1), 114–132.Google Scholar
  16. Lillard, L. A., & Weiss, Y. (1978). Experience, vintage, and time effects in the growth of earnings: American scientists 1960–1970. Journal of Political Economy, 86, 427–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(5), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oster, S. M., & Hamermesh, D. S. (1998). The research productivity of economists. Review of Economics and Statistics, 53(1), 154–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Samuelson, P. A. (1947). Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Stephan, P., & Levin, S. (1993). Age and the nobel prize revisited. Scientometrics, 28(3), 387–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Dalen, H. P. (1999). The golden age of nobel economists. American Economist, 43(2), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations