Having studied and taught economics for just over 40 years I have no doubts as to who in my mind was the most influential and the greatest economist of the twentieth century and that was Paul Samuelson. I learnt this morning that Paul Samuelson has just died at age 94.
A wonderful economics teacher I had at high school introduced me to university-level economics through an early edition of Samuelson’s Economics. I remember my dad borrowing my copy and pointing out to me the elegance of demonstrating the ‘production possibility curve’ parable using a simple graph. Here technological possibilities constrained economically efficient societies to necessarily make tradeoffs – a basic proposition that Samuelson illustrated with a simple graph. I particularly remember Samuelson’s ability to keep deep analysis simple, his wit – he almost at times became a smartie – and his keen awareness of the history of economic thought. I still have an update version of his text on my office shelf and still regard it as by far the best high-level introductory economics text in existence.
When I did my Master’s degree in economics I read Samuelson’s Foundations and it changed my view of economics. This was the award-winning published version of Samuelson’s PhD thesis. It contains the bulk of the important foundational work in economics up to at least the 1960s. All of consumer and producer theory, brilliant work on dynamic models – including almost all the stability and other theorems I have used in my subsequent work over 30 years as an economist. It contains the most useful discussion of economic meta-theory I have ever come across.
As a PhD student Samuelson reveals in his memoirs that he literally dreamed economics which he then wrote down as his thesis. One of his meta-theory insights was the correspondence principle whereby meaningful theorems are derived in economics. Generally theorems were based on qualitative information about a system, the fact that human behaviour could be modelled as maximising or minimising something or the fact that the dynamical systems we observe are dynamically stable. This latter correspondence was an extraordinary and practically useful insight.
Samuelson made major contributions to all areas of economics but his work in trade theory, public economics (his four page article on public goods founded a whole area of economics!) and in now neglected areas of economic growth stand out for me.
I never met Samuelson though when I visited MIT in the 1980s I went and visited his office. It meant a lot to me just to do that.
Samuelson’s economics is not flavour of the month these days partly because he so ably harvested all the ‘low hanging theoretical fruit’ and young economists – to get promoted – must demonstrate newness however inconsequential that newness might be. Despite the superfluity of game theory and incentive theory Samuelson’s work lies at the core of all modern economics. Samuelson was the most important figure in twentieth century economics.
I agree that Samuelson was the most influential, but I reckon that Arrow was greater.
I am loathe to debate this point Uncle Milton since I value Kenneth Arrow’s work so highly. Arrow certainly realised basic points in theory – proving existence of equilibrium in competitive economies and made enormous advances in applied economics – the economics of heath care for example. His notes on control theory which he wrote around 1968 – the basis of his book with Mordecai Kurz – are the best material I ever have seen on this literature. Arrow writes beautifully – with simpliocity and clarity.
Still I’d give Samuelson the ever so slightest edge on the grounds of versatility and/or edge. Some of his material – e.g. the paper on whether privatisation pays for itself in the Eastern Economic Journal – still have the potential to revolutionise economic theory.
I have the collected writings of only two economists – they are those of Kenneth Arrow and Paul Samuelson.
Informative and heartfelt, Harry. Thanks.
Harry, I’m not putting down Samuelson in any way. He certainly gave us the building blocks of modern ecomomics. I just think that Arrow was a little deeper (and don’t forget his founding of welfare economics with his impossibility theorems – essentially his PhD thesis) but this is not something worth arguing over.