Congratulations to Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt, the 2025 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences is (the so-called Nobel Prize for Economics) had been awarded to these three scholars. A very brief outline of their work:
- What they saw as the challenge: achieving sustained economic growth
- Centrally guiding the answer: there are endogenous factors, leading to permanent innovation which at the end means growth, which then translates into wealth.
- “Strategies”:
- protecting intellectual property rights, to foster the competition between enterprises, resulting in ongoing innovation
- Stimulation of research from industrial requirements, including financing of research and teaching by the industry
As Antonio Navas contends that
this year’s prize is also a warning about the consequences of damaging the engines of growth. Scientists collaborating with firms to advance living standards is the ultimate elixir for growth. Undermining science, globalisation and competition might not be the right recipe. (Navas, Antonio, 14.10.2025: How this year’s Nobel winners changed the thinking on economic growth; The Conversation; https://theconversation.com/how-this-years-nobel-winners-changed-the-thinking-on-economic-growth-267455; Friday, 17. October 2025)
So, all this is about — and that means starts from and results in — “teaching institutions” how to perform better in the spirit of growth. There is at the periphery, int eh background some notion of well-being, satisfying the needs of societies and the members but delving into those works reveals quickly that this kind of economic thought is based in the idea that use value is a necessary condition for the economic process, while the aim is the maintenance of functioning of a growth machinery as self-reflective, autopoietic mechanism.
Isn’t more than ever time to teach institutions how to satisfy the needs of the people, start from there? It is sure that the annual update of mobile phone models, cars etc. means growth, namely growth of piles of rubbish, destroying the planet. This is contrary to human rights and the rights of nature. The prize must therefore be seen as an award for misguided economic orientation — seen from the perspective of human rights an injustice award