注：继科斯COASE（1991）， 诺斯NORTH（1993）之后，2009的诺贝尔奖又授予新制度经济学(New Institutional Economics). 关于公司的理论研究(the theory of the firm)越来越被主流经济学所接受，成为"neoclassical".特别是Oliver Hart 的“Incomplete contracting" 对公司理论产生了深远影响。

Source：http://www.freakonomics.com/2009/10/12/what-this-years-nobel-prize-in-economics-says-about-the-nobel-prize-in-economics/

What This Year's Nobel Prize in Economics Says About the Nobel Prize in Economics

http://www.freakonomics.com/images/authors/steven-d-levitt.jpgby Steven Levitt)" TITLE="Levitt谈制度经济学获诺贝尔奖（英语 by Steven Levitt)" />STEVEN D. LEVITT
10/12/2009 | 10:05 am

Earlier today, Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson were awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for their work on the role of institutions. Congratulations to both of them!

When I was a graduate student at MIT back in the early 1990′s, there was a Nobel Prize betting pool every year. Three years in a row, Oliver Williamson was my choice. At the time, his research was viewed as a hip, iconoclastic contribution to economics — something that was talked about by economists, but that students were not actually trying to emulate (and probably would have been actively discouraged from had they tried to do so). What’s interesting is that in the ensuing 15 years, it seems to me that economists have talked less and less about Williamson’s research, at least in the circles in which I run. I suspect most assistant professors of economics have barely heard of him. Yet I suspect the older generation of economists will applaud this choice.(这一段在transaction cost economics 的手册中被引用）

The reaction of the economics community to Elinor Ostrom’s prize will likely be quite different. The reason? If you had done a poll of academic economists yesterday and asked who Elinor Ostrom was, or what she worked on, I doubt that more than one in five economists could have given you an answer. I personally would have failed the test. I had to look her up on Wikipedia, and even after reading the entry, I have no recollection of ever seeing or hearing her name mentioned by an economist. She is a political scientist, both by training and her career — one of the most decorated political scientists around. So the fact I have never heard of her reflects badly on me, and it also highlights just how substantial the boundaries between social science disciplines remain.

So the short answer is that the economics profession is going to hate the prize going to Ostrom even more than Republicans hated the Peace prize going to Obama.Economists want this to be an economists’prize (after all, economists are self-interested). This award demonstrates, in a way that no previous prize has, that the prize is moving toward a Nobel in Social Science, not a Nobel in economics.

I don’t mean to imply this is necessarily a bad thing — economists certainly do not have a monopoly on talent within the social sciences — just that it will be unpopular among my peers.