Economics Nobel Awarded for Efforts to Understand and Fight Unemployment [Updated]

Diamond, Mortensen and Pissarides honored for model to help economists study "search frictions"

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) associate professor Peter A. Diamond, Northwestern University professor Dale T. Mortensen and Longer School of Economics and Political Science professor Christopher A. Pissarides won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences on Monday. Their work in the 1970s and 1980s sought to explain "search friction," in particular in the employment market, where unemployed workers and employers expend time, effort and money to find and fill job openings.

Diamond, Mortensen and Pissarides's research improved economists' understanding of markets with search friction, in particular the time and effort that buyers and sellers expend to locate each other in the marketplace, according to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. The economists' approach can be applied to a number of markets that deal in "nonstandardized" goods, including employment and housing. The laureates questioned how prices and quantities work in such markets, how government can assist, what determines the level of unemployment and whether there are labor-market policies that can help.

The "DMP model" has helped create a better understanding of how the labor market works and has provided an important policy tool over the years, according to the academy, which added that this theoretical framework for search markets can be used to answer the questions: Why are so many people unemployed at the same time that there are a large number of job openings? How can economic policy affect unemployment?

The laureates' research helps explain the ways unemployment, job vacancies and wages are affected by regulation and economic policy. One conclusion to be drawn from the laureates' work is that more generous unemployment benefits give rise to higher unemployment and longer search times.

When reached by phone by the Nobel committee on Monday, Pissarides, 62, said he started studying the problem in the 1970s when unemployment was rising rapidly in Europe. At the time, no coherent, complete theory had yet been posed to understand whether the job market worked well.

"The models for studying unemployment were not well suited to the problem we were studying," Pissarides said. "Think of unemployment as the unemployed person having lost his or her job as a result of changes in the economic environment." Pissarides wanted to look at the factors that help a person to go from being unemployed to finding a job. For example, could the individual person looking for a job somehow speed the process? He and his fellow laureates discovered that the most important factor in fighting unemployment getting the unemployed back to work as quickly as possible and that this does not necessarily require expensive job training.

Diamond, 70, specialized in studying efficiency, finding that even very small search costs can have a large impact on whether supply and demand are met. The M.I.T. economist made news in August when the Senate rejected his nomination by the Obama administration to join the Federal Reserve Board. Senators argued that Diamond does not have the macroeconomic policy background necessary to sit on the Fed, the Wall Street Journal reported. President Obama was expected to re-nominate Diamond even before he won the Nobel.

Mortensen (pdf), 71, is known for focusing on labor economics, macroeconomics and economic theory. In the labor market, he has focused on turnover and reallocation, research and development and personal relationships.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe