The Origins of the Nobel Prize
When Alfred Nobel, the Swedish chemist and inventor of dynamite, died in 1896, his will contained a startling directive. He ordered that the bulk of his fortune be placed in a trust, and that its annual income fund prizes for those who had “conferred the greatest benefit to humankind.” His will legally required five categories — Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace — each entrusted to a Swedish or Norwegian institution. The will left no authority or mechanism for new fields to be added later.
Nobel’s choice of disciplines was deliberate. He made no provision or intention to expand the list, even though other fields — including mathematics, history, and economics — were thriving. The omission was intentional, not accidental. The executors were bound to his text, and for decades the Nobel Foundation operated strictly within that legal and moral framework.
Over time, the Nobel name took on a life of its own. The prizes quickly became synonymous with ultimate intellectual prestige, their laureates elevated to near-mythic status. Within a generation, “Nobel Prize” had become a household phrase, shorthand for the pinnacle of human achievement — a brand of global authority that few institutions could match.
⸻
Where Does That Leave Mathematicians and Computer Scientists?
If Nobel’s will was closed — as it was — the natural question is what became of those left outside its borders. Mathematics, for instance, was a mature, foundational science even in Nobel’s day, yet he deliberately left it out. The reasons don’t matter. What matters is that the omission was deliberate, not accidental.
Mathematicians turned to the Fields Medal (1936) and later the Abel Prize (2003) for recognition.
Computer scientists have followed a similar path. Their field, as transformative as any in the modern era, created its own symbol of excellence — the Turing Award, established in 1966 and often called “the Nobel Prize of Computing.” Yet even it cannot rival the Nobel’s cultural weight.
In time, other disciplines (with some overlap with the Nobel prizes) built their own pantheons: the Lasker Awards in medicine, the Wolf Prizes in science and art, the Pritzker Prize in architecture, the Pulitzer and Booker Prizes in literature, the Templeton Prize for spiritual inquiry, and the Breakthrough Prizes in mathematics, life sciences, and physics.
Each sought to define the highest form of human achievement. Yet none, for all their stature, rival the spell of two words: Nobel laureate.
⸻
And What About Economics?
Economics remained outside Nobel’s five-field framework for more than half a century. That changed in 1968, when Sweden’s central bank, the Sveriges Riksbank, created a new prize “in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.” The bank endowed it through the Nobel Foundation and had it administered by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, ensuring it would be presented alongside the true Nobels.
Formally, it was never part of Nobel’s will and is funded entirely by the central bank. Each year, the Riksbank continues to pay for the privilege of having its prize included in the Nobel ceremonies — effectively renting the Nobel brand to legitimize its own creation. It is a memorial prize, not a true Nobel, but designed to look identical — same ceremony, same medal, same ritual. Over time, the distinction vanished. The media and other interests called it “the Nobel Prize in Economics,” and the public assumed it is a legitimate Nobel Prize.
Critics, including members of Nobel’s own family, have long objected. Peter Nobel, Alfred’s great-great-nephew and a human rights lawyer, has called the economics prize a “PR coup” by economists to improve their reputation. He noted that his ancestor “despised people who cared more about profits than society’s well-being.” Yet the arrangement has endured precisely because it benefits everyone involved — the bank buys prestige, the Foundation gains funding, and economists gain borrowed glory.
⸻
Who Participates in This Big Lie?
1. Universities. Universities eagerly play along. When one of their faculty wins the “Nobel in Economics,” they announce it as a full Nobel triumph. Press releases, fundraising drives, and alumni magazines repeat the shorthand. Precision is sacrificed for prestige; the borrowed glory attracts donors and students alike.
2. Individuals. Laureates themselves seldom object. To be called a “Nobel laureate” transforms a career, opening doors in policy and publishing. The longer, accurate title — “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” — is rarely uttered. Few have reason to correct the record when the misunderstanding flatters and otherwise benefits them.
3. The News Media. Headlines cement the myth. When their interview guest is a “Nobel Laureate” that attracts attention and adds authority. The convenience of the phrase outweighs the truth. Through repetition, the falsehood becomes fact.
4. Book Publishers. Publishers reissue titles overnight with banners proclaiming “By a Nobel Prize-Winning Economist.” The branding boosts sales and prestige.
Everyone profits from it. The result is a shared illusion that turns a sponsored award into something it is not: a Nobel Prize.
⸻
Let’s Respect Alfred Nobel: His Rights and Wishes
Here’s what gets lost in the confusion: Alfred Nobel used his own fortune to make a statement about what fields of achievement he believed mattered most to humanity. He chose five fields, deliberately. Attaching someone else’s prize to his name doesn’t honor him — it dilutes the statement he intended to make.
This is part of a wonderful legacy he left to the world and it’s in his name and so his wishes should be respected.
⸻
Call It What It Is
Every other field has played by the rules. Mathematicians, computer scientists, and architects built their own awards without borrowing the Nobel name. Economics alone crossed that line. This is no secret inside academia or the press. The only people truly deceived are the public — those who read the headlines and believe the myth.
It’s time to stop. Economics deserves recognition, but not under false credentials. The world can honor its economists without rewriting Alfred Nobel’s will. The first step is simple: call it what it is.
Stop calling it a Nobel Prize. It isn’t one. Never was.