THAT the western capitalist world would be hurt at Sen's getting the Nobel Prize was perhaps expected. Over the years, Sen's obsession with the underprivileged has sharply divided the world in a way one of Sen's many inspirations, socio-economist Karl Marx, had. Even The Times, London, which had campaigned for Sen a couple of years ago, gave little indication of its pleasure in a 500-word piece titled
Cambridge economist wins Nobel. The widely-read Economist, the ultimate champion of free markets, said, in rather poor humour: "Mr Sen's work was aimed at making the poor better off. And Mr Sen himself is now $1 million the richer." In the US, the Dow Jones Inc-controlled media was singular in its sharp outbursts of disappointment.
The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial page article titled The Wrong Economist Won by Brussels-based writer Robert L. Pollock regretted: "The Nobel Prize in economics has attained such stature that it may be difficult to find a worthy recipient every year. But it would be nice to see the committee recognise that from time to time by refusing to give an award, rather than default to someone of such debatable merit."
Comparing Sen's choice with the selection of Yasser Arafat for the Peace Prize, and Marxists always for the literature Nobel, Pollock added: "If they were looking for such a figure in the world of development economics (the study of how economies grow), they might have picked Peter Bauer, who for decades stood courageously and nearly alone against the misguided belief that government aid has the primary role to play. Instead, they picked Amartya Sen, who was remarkable (even before winning the Nobel) only for the extent to which his renown outstripped the quality of his work."
In Barron's, Dow Jones investment periodical, the tone was even harsher. Economics editor Gene Epstein wrote: "Based on a review of four books of his that I got (two collections, two full-length studies) I see scant evidence of the brilliance that so impressed the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and far more of the mind-rot that is so characteristic of academic economists."
Asked why he thought Sen was "undeserving", Epstein told Outlook: "He wrote something worthwhile about famines. But on balance, his obtuseness about market processes has led to more obfuscation than clarification in his work." Compare this now with the quote from leftist economist Ashoke Mitra at the beginning of our story.
