This is an accepted version of this page
Daron Acemoglu | |
|---|---|
.png) Acemoglu in 2016 | |
| Born | Kamer Daron Acemoğlu (1967-09-03)September 3, 1967 (age 58) |
| Citizenship | Turkey United States |
| Spouse | Asu Ozdaglar |
| Academic background | |
| Education | University of York (BA) London School of Economics (MSc,PhD) |
| Thesis | Essays in Microfoundations of Macroeconomics: Contracts and Macroeconomic Performance (1992) |
| Doctoral advisor | Kevin W. S. Roberts |
| Influences | |
| Academic work | |
| Discipline | Political economy Economic growth Development economics Labour economics |
| School or tradition | New institutional economics |
| Institutions |
|
| Doctoral students | |
| Awards | |
| Website | |
Kamer Daron Acemoğlu[a] (born September 3, 1967) is aTurkish-American economist ofArmenian descent who has taught at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology since 1993, where he is currently theElizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics, and was named anInstitute Professor at MIT in 2019.[2] His primary research fields include political economy, development economics, and labor economics. He received theJohn Bates Clark Medal in 2005, and theNobel Prize in Economics in 2024.[2][3]
Acemoglu ranked third, behindPaul Krugman andGreg Mankiw, in the list of "Favorite Living Economists Under Age 60" in a 2011 survey among American economists. In 2015, he was named the most cited economist of the past 10 years perResearch Papers in Economics (RePEc) data. According to theOpen Syllabus Project, Acemoglu is the third most frequently cited author on collegesyllabi for economics courses after Mankiw and Krugman.[4]
In 2024, Acemoglu,James A. Robinson, andSimon Johnson were awarded theNobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for theircomparative studies in prosperity between states and empires.[5] He is regarded as a centrist with a focus on institutions, poverty and econometrics.
Kamer Daron Acemoğlu[6][7][b] was born inIstanbul toArmenian parents on September 3, 1967.[10][11][12] His father, Kevork Acemoglu (1938–1988), was a commercial lawyer and lecturer atIstanbul University. His mother, Irma Acemoglu (d. 1991), was a poet and the principal ofAramyan Uncuyan [tr;hy], an Armenian elementary school inKadıköy,[13][14][15] which he attended, before graduating fromGalatasaray High School in 1986.[16][17][18] He became interested in politics and economics as a teenager.[15]
He was educated at theUniversity of York, where he received aBA in economics in 1989, and at theLondon School of Economics (LSE), where he received anMSc in econometrics and mathematical economics in 1990, and aPhD in economics in 1992.[19] His doctoral thesis was titledEssays in Microfoundations of Macroeconomics: Contracts and Economic Performance.[10][7] Hisdoctoral advisor wasKevin W. S. Roberts.[20]James Malcomson, one of his doctoral examiners at the LSE, said that even the weakest three of the seven chapters of his thesis were "more than sufficient for the award of a PhD."[21]Arnold Kling called him awunderkind due to the fact that he received his PhD by the time he was 25.[22]
Acemoglu is anaturalized US citizen.[23] He is fluent in English andTurkish,[24] and speaks someArmenian.[25] He is married toAsuman "Asu" Ozdağlar, a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT,[15][26] who is the daughter ofİsmail Özdağlar, a former Turkish government minister. Together, they have authored several articles.[27][28] As of 2015[update], they live inNewton, Massachusetts, with their two sons, Arda and Aras.[29]
Acemoglu was alecturer in economics at the London School of Economics from 1992 to 1993.[2] He was appointed anassistant professor at MIT in 1993, where he became thePentti Kouri Associate Professor of Economics in 1997, and wastenured in 1998.[2][30] He became afull professor at MIT in 2000, and served as theCharles P. Kindleberger Professor of Applied Economics there from 2004 to 2010.[2][31] In 2010, Acemoglu was appointed theElizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics at MIT.[10] In July 2019, he was named anInstitute Professor, the highest faculty honor at MIT.[32]
As of 2019[update], he has mentored over 60 PhD students.[32] Among his doctoral students areUfuk Akçiġit,Robert Shimer,Mark Aguiar,Pol Antràs, andGabriel Carroll.[20] In 2014, he made $841,380, making him one of the top earners at MIT.[33]
Acemoglu is a research associate at theNational Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), and was elected aFellow of theEconometric Society in 2005.[19][2][34] He was elected to theAmerican Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2006, and to theNational Academy of Sciences in 2014.[35][36] He is also a Senior Fellow at theCanadian Institute for Advanced Research, and a member of several other learned societies.[19][37][38] He editedEconometrica, an academic journal published by theEconometric Society, from 2011 to 2015.[39]
Acemoglu has authored hundreds of academic papers.[40] He noted that most of his research has been "motivated by trying to understand the sources of poverty."[23] His research includes a wide range of topics, includingpolitical economy,human capital theory,growth theory,economic development, innovation,labor economics,[19][41] income and wage inequality, andnetwork economics, among others.[42] He noted in 2011 that most his research of the past 15 years concerned with what can be broadly called political economy.[43] He has made contribution to the labor economics field.[23]
Acemoglu has extensively collaborated withJames A. Robinson, a British political scientist and his peer at theLondon School of Economics.[30] Acemoglu has described it as a "very productive relationship." They have worked together on many articles and books, most of which are on the subject of growth and economic development.[23] The two have also extensively collaborated with economistSimon Johnson.[44]
Acemoglu is considered a follower ofnew institutional economics.[45][46][47] His influences includeJoel Mokyr,Kenneth Sokoloff,[48]Douglass North,[49]Seymour Martin Lipset,[50] andBarrington Moore.[50]
Published byCambridge University Press in 2006,Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy by Acemoglu andRobinson analyzes the creation and consolidation of democratic societies. They argue that "democracy consolidates when elites do not have a strong incentive to overthrow it. These processes depend on (1) the strength of civil society, (2) the structure of political institutions, (3) the nature of political and economic crises, (4) the level of economic inequality, (5) the structure of the economy, and (6) the form and extent of globalization."[51] The book's title is derived fromSocial Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, a 1966 book byBarrington Moore Jr.[52]
Romain Wacziarg praised the book and argued that its substantive contribution is the theoretical fusion of the Marxistdialectical materialism ("institutional change results from distributional struggles between two distinct social groups, a rich ruling class and a poor majority, each of whose interests are shaped primarily by economic forces") and the ideas ofBarry Weingast andDouglass North, who argued that "institutional reform can be a way for the elite to credibly commit to future policies by delegating their enactment to interests that will not wish to reverse them."[53]William Easterly called it "one of the most important contributions to the literature on the economics of democracy in a long time."Edward Glaeser described it as "enormously significant" work and a "great contribution to the field."[54]
In their 2012 book,Why Nations Fail, Acemoglu and Robinson argue that economic growth at the forefront of technology requires political stability, which theMayan civilization (to name only one) did not have,[55] andcreative destruction. The latter cannot occur without institutional restraints on the granting of monopoly and oligopoly rights. They say that theIndustrial Revolution began inGreat Britain, because the EnglishBill of Rights 1689 created such restraints.
Acemoglu and Robinson insist that "development differences across countries are exclusively due to differences in political and economic institutions, and reject other theories that attribute some of the differences to culture, weather, geography or lack of knowledge about the best policies and practices."[56] For example, "Soviet Russia generated rapid growth as it caught up rapidly with some of the advanced technologies in the world [but] was running out of steam by the 1970s" because of a lack of creative destruction.[57]
The book was written for the general audience.[56] It was widely discussed by political analysts and commentators.[58][59][60][61] Warren Bass wrote of it inThe Washington Post: "bracing, garrulous, wildly ambitious and ultimately hopeful. It may, in fact, be a bit of a masterpiece."[62]
Clive Crook wrote inBloomberg News that the book deserves most of the "lavish praise" it received.[63] In his review inForeign AffairsJeffrey Sachs criticized Acemoglu and Robinson for systematically ignoring factors such as domestic politics, geopolitics, technological discoveries, and natural resources. He also argued that the book's appeal was based on readers' desire to hear that "Western democracy pays off not only politically but also economically."[64]Bill Gates called the book a "major disappointment" and characterized the authors' analysis as "vague and simplistic."[65] Ryan Avent, an editor atThe Economist, responded that "Acemoglu and Robinson might not be entirely right about why nations succeed or fail. But at least they're engaged with the right problem."[66]
InThe Narrow Corridor. States, Societies, and the Fate of Liberty (2019), Acemoglu and Robinson argue that a free society is attained when the power of the state and of society evolved in rough balance.[67]. The book introduces the concept of the "red queen effect," which suggests that liberty is maintained only when both the state and society continually evolve to keep each other in check.
Published in 2023,Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity is a book by Acemoglu andSimon Johnson on the historical development of technology and the social and political consequences of technology.[68] The book addresses three questions, on the relationship between new machines and production techniques and wages, on the way in which technology could be harnessed for social goods, and on the reason for the enthusiasm around artificial intelligence.
Power and Progress argues that technologies do not automatically yield social goods, their benefits going to a narrow elite. It offers a rather critical view ofartificial intelligence (AI), stressing its largely negative impact on jobs and wages and on democracy.
Acemoglu and Johnson also provide a vision of how new technologies could be harnessed for social good. They see theProgressive Era as offering a model. They also discuss a list of policy proposals for the redirection of technology that includes: (1) market incentives, (2) the break up ofbig tech, (3)tax reform, (4) investing in workers, (5) privacy protection and data ownership, and (6) a digital advertising tax.[69]
In a 2001 article, Acemoglu argued that theminimum wage andunemployment benefits "shift the composition of employment toward high-wage jobs. Because the composition of jobs in thelaissez-faire equilibrium is inefficiently biased toward low-wage jobs, these labor market regulations increase average labor productivity and may improve welfare."[70] Furthermore, he has argued that "minimum wages can increase training of affected workers, by inducing firms to train their unskilled employees."[71]
Acemogluet al. found that "democracy has a significant and robust positive effect on GDP" and suggested that "democratizations increase GDP per capita by about 20% in the long run."[72] In another paper, Acemogluet al. found that "there is a significant and robust effect of democracy on tax revenues as a fraction of GDP, but no robust impact on inequality."[73]. The authors argue that democratic institutions contribute to economic growth by expanding education, improving public capacity, and encouraging investment.
Acemoglu andPhilippe Aghion argued in 2001 that although deunionization in the US and UK since the 1980s is not the "underlying cause of the increase in inequality", it "amplifies the direct effect of skill-biased technical change by removing the wage compression imposed by unions."[74]
According to Acemoglu and Robinson, unions historically had a significant role in creating democracy, especially in western Europe, and in maintaining a balance of political power between established business interests and political elites.[75]
In a 2012 paper titled "Can't We All Be More Like Scandinavians?", co-written with Robinson and Verdier, he suggests that "it may be precisely the more 'cutthroat' American society that makes possible the more 'cuddly' Scandinavian societies based on a comprehensive social safety net, the welfare state and more limited inequality." They concluded that "all countries may want to be like the 'Scandinavians' with a more extensive safety net and a more egalitarian structure," however, if the United States shifted from being a "cutthroat [capitalism] leader", the economic growth of the entire world would be reduced.[76] He argued against the US adopting the Nordic model in a 2015 op-ed forThe New York Times. He again argued: "If the US increased taxation to Denmark levels, it would reduce rewards for entrepreneurship, with negative consequences for growth and prosperity." He praised the Scandinavian experience inpoverty reduction, creation of alevel playing field for its citizens, and highersocial mobility.[77] This was critiqued byLane Kenworthy, who argues that, empirically, the US's economic growth preceded the divergence in 'cutthroat' and 'cuddly' policies, and there is no relationship between inequality and innovation for developed countries.[78]
"The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development", co-written by Acemoglu, Robinson, andSimon Johnson in 2001, is by far his most cited work.[40] Graham Mallard described it as an "excellent example of his work: an influential paper that has led to much debate."[31] They argue that Europeans set up extractive institutions in colonies where they did not settle, unlike in places where they did settle and that these institutions have persisted. They estimated that "differences in institutions explain approximately three-quarters of theincome per capita differences across former colonies."[79][80] Historical experience dominated by extractive institutions in these countries has created avicious circle, which was exacerbated by the European colonization.[81]
Daron Acemoglu andJames A. Robinson, in their article "Income and Democracy" (2008) show that even though there is a strong cross-country correlation between income and democracy, once one controls for country fixed effects and removes the association between income per capita and various measures of democracy, there is "no causal effect of income on democracy."[82] In "Non-Modernization" (2022), they further argue thatmodernization theory cannot account for various paths of political development "because it posits a link between economics and politics that is not conditional on institutions and culture and that presumes a definite endpoint—for example, an 'end of history'."[83]
Beginning in the late 2010s, Acemoglu expanded his research to focus on the economic effects of automation and artificial intelligence on labor markets. In collaboration with Pascual Restrepo, he examined how industrial robots affected employment and wages in the United States. Their study “Robots and Jobs: Evidence from U.S. Labor Markets” (2020) found that regions with greater exposure to industrial robots experienced larger declines in employment and modest reductions in wages, suggesting that the economic benefits of automation were not evenly distributed.[84] Acemoglu and Restrepo extended this analysis in “Tasks, Automation, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality” (2022), arguing that automation has contributed to rising wage inequality in the United States by replacing many middle-skill tasks while increasing demand for higher-skill labor.[85] This body of research has influenced broader discussions on the future of work, emphasizing that technological change does not automatically benefit workers and can lead to unequal outcomes if incentives favor labor-replacing technologies. Acemoglu has argued that policy and institutional frameworks play an important role in determining whether new technologies complement human labor or substitute for it.
Journalists and economists have described Acemoglu as acentrist.[c]Why Nations Fail was well received by both liberal and conservative economists.[89] Acemoglu's and Robinson's long-time collaborator Simon Johnson suggests that their "point is not just about how things may become awful when the government goes off track (a right-leaning point). They are also more deeply concerned about how powerful people fight to grab control of the state and otherwise compete to exert influence over the rest of society (a left-leaning perspective)."[44]
Acemoglu has praised the successes of theProgressive Era, and argued in favor of its replication.[90] He argues that themarket economy is the only system that creates prosperity, and believes in finding an appropriate balance between "incentivizing creativity, hard work and risk-taking and creating the essentialpublic services,social safety nets andequality of opportunity."[91] For Acemoglu, markets work only with regulations andpredictable laws and that allmarkets are regulated to some extent; it is only a matter of degree.[30] He suggests that free markets are not unregulated markets.[92]
In September 2008, Acemoglu signed a petition condemning theBush administration's bailout plan for the US financial system.[93] As the main cause of the2008 financial crisis, he stated that policy makers were "lured by ideological notions derived fromAyn Rand's novels rather than economic theory" and opined: "In hindsight, we should not be surprised that unregulated profit-seeking individuals have taken risks from which they benefit and others lose."[92] In an early analysis of theGreat Recession, Acemoglu wrote: "When channeled intoprofit-maximizing, competitive, and innovative behavior under the auspices of sound laws and regulations, greed can act as the engine of innovation and economic growth. But when unchecked by the appropriate institutions and regulations, it will degenerate intorent-seeking, corruption, and crime."[30] He argues that the heavy overrepresentation from the financial sector in the top 1% "has been an outcome of the political processes that have removed all of the regulations in finance, and so created the platform for 40 percent of U.S. corporate profits to be in the financial sector."[43] He argues that a platform, particularly in Wall Street, has been created "where the ambition and greed of people, often men, has been channeled in a very anti-social, selfish and socially destructive direction."[94]
Acemoglu has voiced concerns regarding the increasing inequality in the US, which in his view turns into political inequality, in turn undermining the inclusiveness of US institutions.[59] In 2012 he identified societal polarization, caused by economic inequality, as the biggest problem for the US.[95] He argues that "democracy ceases to function because some people have so much money they command greater power."[88] He states that he is comfortable with economic inequality which comes through different social contributions as it is a "price that we pay for providing incentives for people to contribute to prosperity." However, high levels of inequality create problems as the rich who control significant portions of the societal resources use them to create an "unequal distribution of political power."[94] He sees the solution in increasingsocial mobility by "providing an opportunity for the bottom to become rich, not forcing the rich to become poor."[88]
Acemoglu has praised the American tradition of vibrant protest movements dating back to thePopulists and theProgressives.[96] He has also praisedOccupy Wall Street for "putting the question of inequality on the agenda, but also for actually standing up for political equality."[97] He notes that Occupy Wall Street brought the 1% to the attention of the wider public, and to the attention of academia byTony Atkinson,Thomas Piketty, andEmmanuel Saez.[94]
Acemoglu is in favor of raising and indexing theminimum wage.[98]
Acemoglu believes thatuniversal basic income is "expensive and not generous enough" and that a "more efficient and generous social safety net is needed."[99] He further called it a "flawed idea" and a "poorly designed policy." He instead advocates for a "guaranteed-income program [that] would offer transfers only to individuals whose monthly income is below $1,000, thereby coming in at a mere fraction of a UBI's cost." He calls for "universal health care, more generous unemployment benefits, better-designed retraining programs, and an expandedearned income tax credit (EITC)."[100] Acemoglu supports anegative income tax, calling it a "more sensible" alternative to UBI.[101]
Acemoglu believes thatnation-building by the West is no longer possible around the world because the West now lacks the resources and commitment that were present inpost-World War II Germany andJapan, and because countries where progress is needed today, such as in the Muslim- and Arab-majority world, do not trust the West.[102]
He views the USwar on drugs as a "total and very costly failure",[103] and supported the 2013 ballot referendumColorado Amendment 64, a successful popular initiative that legalized the sale of recreational marijuana.[104]
In a 2016 interview withNational Public Radio, he opined that the USinfrastructure is in a "pitiful state, with negative consequences for US economic growth."[105]
Acemoglu argues thatsocialist states have not been successful in creating prosperity.[91] He wrote that socialist regimes "from Cuba to the eastern bloc have been disastrous both for economic prosperity and individual freedom."[106]
In a review written withJames A. Robinson, he argues thatThomas Piketty andKarl Marx are "led astray" due to their disregard for "the key forces shaping how an economy functions: the endogenous evolution of technology and of the institutions and the political equilibrium that influence not only technology but also how markets function and how the gains from different economic arrangements are distributed."[107]
In 2019, Acemoglu argued in favor ofsocial democracy. He stated: "[Social democracy, when practiced by competent governments] is a phenomenal success. Everywhere in the west is to some degree social democratic, but the extent of this varies. We owe our prosperity and freedom to social democracy." However, he qualified this statement by arguing that social democracy "did not achieve these things by taxing and redistributing a lot. It achieved them by having labor institutions protecting workers, encouraging job creation and encouraging high wages."[106] Following from this, Acemoglu opined that the economists of US presidential candidateBernie Sanders, who is an advocate of democratic socialism along the lines of theNordic model, "don't understand basic economics. They are not just dangerous, they are clueless."[106]
Acemoglu argued that a "tradition of strong labor movement or social democratic party, by constraining the actions of the social planner, can act as a commitment device to egalitarianism, inducing an equilibrium in which the country in question becomes the beneficiary from the asymmetric world equilibrium."[76]
In an op-ed inForeign Policy, Acemoglu claimed that PresidentDonald Trump shared political goals and strategies ofHugo Chávez,Vladimir Putin, andRecep Tayyip Erdoğan, such as "little respect for the rule of law or the independence of state institutions, ... a blurred vision of national and personal interests, ... little patience with criticism and a long-established strategy of rewarding loyalty, which can be seen in his high-level appointments to date. This is all topped by an unwavering belief in his abilities."[96] In a 2019 interview withDer Spiegel, Acemoglu stated that he sees similarities between Trump and theRepublican Party and the Nazis: "Surely, Trump and the Republicans are no Nazis. But they are exploiting the same political sentiment." He argues that Trump "poses a great risk to U.S. democracy" because he is "looking for a new order with elements of anti-liberalism, misinformation and a lax attitude to corruption. If he is re-elected next year, it will be the beginning of the end of American democracy."[108]
According to Acemoglu, the three obstacles for economic growth under authoritarian regimes are the tendency of authoritarian regimes to become more authoritarian, their tendency to use power to halt "Schumpeteriancreative destruction, which is key to sustaining growth" and the instability and uncertainty caused by internal conflicts.[30] He believes that Saudi Arabia would be like a poor African country without the oil, while the "only thing that is keeping [Russia] going is a big boom in natural resources and a clever handling of the media."[109]
He believes that China has managed to achieve significant economic growth because it "sort of picked up the low hanging fruit from the world technology frontier, but that sort of growth is not going to last until China goes to the next step, which is harnessing innovation," which he argues will be impossible "unless economic institutions become even more open and the extractive political institutions in China will be a barrier to that."[95] He and Robinson wrote for theHuffPost that the "limited rights [China] affords its citizens places major restrictions on the country's longer-term possibilities for prosperity."[110]
Acemoglu opined that the Republic of Turkey, formed in 1923 byAtatürk, "is very continuous with the Ottoman Empire." Although the shift from empire to republic brought some positive changes, he argues, the model was largely maintained by the reformers who took power, citing a persistent concentration of power and economic activity.[111] He suggests that the Republican period has been characterized by an unwillingness to accept ethnic minorities.[112] In 2014, Acemoglu condemned the widespreadanti-Armenian rhetoric in Turkish textbooks, and demanded that the books be pulled from circulation.[14]
Acemoglu has criticizedRecep Tayyip Erdoğan and his government for its authoritarian rule.[113] In a 2013 op-ed inThe New York Times, following the crackdown ofGezi Park protests, Acemoglu wrote that "Even before the brutal suppression of the demonstrations, the belief that Turkey was on its way to becoming a mature democracy — a role model for the rest of the Middle East — had already become untenable."[114] In a May 2014 op-ed inForeign Affairs, Acemoglu wrote that the drift from democracy by Erdogan is lamentable, but an "almost predictable, stage of Turkey's democratic transition."[115] In the late 2010s, Acemoglu often criticized Turkey's economic policies and consequently became popular with the opposition.[116]
In a 2015 interview with the Armenian service ofVoice of America, Acemoglu stated that he has always been interested in economic, political, and social developments in Armenia.[17] Talking via video, Acemoglu partook in theArmenian Economic Association's annual conference in October 2013 held at theYerevan State University, during which he argued that Armenia's problem is political, and not geographic, cultural, or geopolitical. He called for the Armenian government to be "more responsive to the wishes of its citizens so that through that political process Armenia ceases to be an oligarchy."[117]
In a September 2016 conference in Toronto, Acemoglu criticized theArmenian diaspora for legitimizing the successive governments in Armenia, especially when the rights of its citizens are violated, and a wrong economic and political line is being followed in the country.[118] In an April 2017 conference held by theUSC Institute of Armenian Studies, Acemoglu stated that while "Armenia could have looked much more like the Czech Republic or Estonia and what we got instead is a country that looks much more like Azerbaijan or Uzbekistan, which is a real shame." He suggested that in the immediate post-Soviet years Armenia was "stronger and it's been getting worse and worse." He criticized the level of corruption of the government, which has systematically closed the political system.[119]
In an op-ed forThe Globe and Mail following the2014 Ukrainian revolution, Acemoglu advocated Ukraine "to break with its past as quickly as possible. It needs to move away from Russia, politically and economically, even if that means an end to the natural-gas subsidies Russia has used to keep it in the position of a client state. Even more important is for Ukraine's leaders to spread political power and economic benefits to the maximum number of its people, including Russian speakers."[120]
Acemoglu argued that theGreek government-debt crisis was caused by the "terrible state of Greek institutions, and theclientelistic nature of its politics",[121] and stated that the country's problems are "political not just macroeconomic."[122] He identified lack of political integration within the EU as Greece's problem, and said that "the only way forward for Europe is to have greater fiscal and banking integration or to abandon monetary integration."[121]
In March 2011, Turkish Foreign MinisterAhmet Davutoğlu offered to appoint Acemoglu as Turkey's permanent representative to theOECD in Paris, a post he turned down in order to continue his academic career.[123][124][125][126]
Acemoglu met withKemal Kılıçdaroğlu, leader of the oppositionRepublican People's Party (CHP) in October 2022.[127][128] In December 2022 Kılıçdaroğlu appointed Acemoglu, among others, as his economic adviser.[129] Pro-Erdogan circles criticized the move. One pro-government columnist said: "The Armenian Daron Acemoğlu, praised byFETÖ, prepared Kılıçdaroğlu's vision program (resembling his own roots)." In response, finance professorÖzgür Demirtaş defended Acemoglu. "This tweet is both racist and presumptuous. The influence of Daron Acemoğlu on world's economy-finance professors is greater than the number of cells in your body. It's terrible that you talk like this about a professor who made us proud and is going for the Nobel prize."[130]Yeni Şafak, a pro-government newspaper, ran the headline: "Daron Acemoğlu, one of the new economic advisors of the CHP, could not solve the economic crisis of Armenia."[131]
Following the2018 Armenian revolution, opposition leader-turned-Prime MinisterNikol Pashinyan wrote on his Facebook page that Acemoglu told him that he is ready to help Armenia to "restore and develop" its economy.[132][133] Pashinyan and Acemoglu talked via the internet in June 2018.[134] Acemoglu met with Deputy Prime MinisterTigran Avinyan in Boston in July 2019.[135][136] In 2020, Acemoglu publicly emphasized the importance of institutional reforms for Armenia’s long-term economic development during interviews related to the country’s post-revolution economic strategy.[137]
According to data collected byResearch Papers in Economics (RePEc), Acemoglu was the most cited economist of the decade leading to 2015.[138][12][14] According toGoogle Scholar, his works (including co-authored works) have been cited nearly 250,000 times as of November 2024[update].[40] In a 2011 survey of 299 economics professors in the US, Acemoglu ranked third, behindPaul Krugman andGreg Mankiw, in the list of "Favorite Living Economists Under Age 60".[139]
He was listed 88th inForeign Policy's 2010 list of Top 100 Global Thinkers "for showing that freedom is about more than markets."[140] Acemoglu was voted by the readers ofProspect Magazine as the world's top thinker for 2024.[141]. He was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2006.[142]
Francis Fukuyama has described Acemoglu and his long-time collaborator James A. Robinson as "two of the world's leading experts on development."[143] Clement Douglas wrote in theFederal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis publication that the "scope, depth and sheer volume of [his] scholarship are nothing short of breathtaking, verging on implausible."[43]Angus Deaton called him a "young superstar" and noted that Acemoglu is "a very good example of the way things ought to be going, which is you do history but you know enough mathematics to be able to model it too."[144]
Acemoglu has been awardedhonorary degrees from the following universities:Utrecht University (2008),[43]Boğaziçi University (2011), theUniversity of Athens (2014),[19]Bilkent University (2015),[155]University of Bath (2017),[156]ENS Paris-Saclay (2017),London Business School (2018), and theUniversity of Glasgow (2024).[157]
Acemoglu was long considered a prospective Nobel laureate.[159][160][161][162][163] In 2024, Acemoglu, jointly withJames A. Robinson andSimon Johnson, were awarded theNobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for their comparative studies in prosperity among nations.[164] The trio was recognized for their studies on how political and economic institutions impact a nation's development, highlighting the distinction between inclusive institutions, which promote widespread economic participation and growth, and extractive institutions, which concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few.[165] Acemoglu became thesecond ethnic Armenian (afterArdem Patapoutian)[166] and third Turkish national (afterOrhan Pamuk andAziz Sancar) to become a Nobel laureate.[167]
...Kevork ve İrma Acemoğulları...Kamer Daron Acemoğlu...
...Daron Acemoğlu, an Armenian from Turkey...
İlköğrenimini İstanbul Kadıköy'deki Aramyan Uncuyan Ermeni İlkokulu'nda tamamladıktan...
«Ծնվել ու մեծացել եմ հայկական ընտանիքում, ավարտել Ստամբուլի հայկական տարրական դպրոցը, և, իհարկե, ինձ միշտ հետաքրքրել են տնտեսական, քաղաքական և սոցիալական զարգացումները Հայաստանում», – ասաց պրոֆեսորը։
...Ozdaglar and her husband, the MIT economist Daron Acemoglu...
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link)Douglass North and his followers, such as Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson...
...Seymour Martin Lipset and Barrington Moore, for example, have clearly influenced Acemoglu and Robinson and other contributors to the literature on redistribution...
This quote is from a subsequent abstract, appearing before page 1, to their article but NOT in the abstract to their original article.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)11:40 "The overall, sort of, unwillingness to come to grips with this, sort of, multiethnicity has, of course, characterized much of the Republican period."
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link){{cite news}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)2007 Daron Acemoglu (MIT)
(1) Daron Acemoglu (MIT) and James Robinson (University of Chicago) for their research on the role of institutions in economic development.
Some other economists who have been touted as possible Nobel winners include William Baumol, William Nordhaus, Esther Duflo and Daron Acemoglu.
Other economists followed this line of thinking (Robert Barro, Daron Acemoglu, Philippe Aghion – all prize candidates for a few years now)...
No. 5. Daron Acemoglu
Economics: Daron Acemoglu [...] For far-reaching analysis of the role of political and economic institutions in shaping national development
He joins Ardem Patapoutian of Scrips (Nobel in Physiology/Medicine) as a second recent awardee of Armenian descent
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Academics | |
| Artists | |
| People | |
| Other | |
