This is a guest post from Leslie Johns, an Assistant Professor of political science at UCLA.
The Public Choice Society—an academic organization of scholars who study the interaction of politics and economics—recently announced that it has created a new award for scholarly research: the Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Prize. The announcement of this prize is provoking an intense reaction because of its name: “The Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Prize”?
Elinor Ostrom was well-known to political scientists, policy analysts, and economists. As a graduate student during the 1960s in the Political Science Department at UCLA, where I work, Ostrom overcame tremendous odds and blatant discrimination to earn her Ph.D. Her reward for this work was being offered a job as a secretary. After decades of climbing the academic ladder and publishing path-breaking scholarship on the regulation of shared resources, it seemed as though Ostrom had finally been recognized for her courage and intellect. Despite the fact that she never received a degree from or a faculty appointment in an economics department, Ostrom was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009. She was the first, and remains the only, woman to win this prize.
When the Nobel Committee announced Ostrom’s award, many economists were surprised. Celebrity economists like Paul Krugman and Steven Levitt publicly acknowledged that they had never heard of Ostrom. A chorus of doubters quickly emerged to question the merit of the award, speculating that Ostromonly won the award because the committee felt pressure to give it to a woman and thus implying quite explicitly that her work was undeserving of the honor.
Ostrom’s research lies at the intersection of politics and economics, so it is not surprising to learn that many economists, like Krugman and Levitt, would not be familiar with her work. But in light of the odds Ostrom overcame to work in our profession and the fact that many people discount her Nobel Prize because of her sex, it is deeply troubling that a prominent scholarly organization like the Public Choice Society chose to “honor” Ostrom by spotlighting her role…as the wife of Vincent Ostrom. Putting her name second — “and Elinor” – makes the cut that much deeper by suggesting that this Nobel Laureate was not a pioneering mind but merely a plus-one.
As the slogan goes, “You’ve come a long way,” maybe. Well, actually, maybe not.
Lin’s work stands on its own and is well-known among social scientists. I agree with Leslie that Lin faced a good deal of bias both at IU and in the profession. However, I do not see how the decision by the Public Choice Society (PCS) dishonors Lin or diminishes her accomplishments. Public Choice (the Journal) in 2010 devoted an issue to Lin’s impact on the social sciences. As a bit of history, both Lin and Vincent were active in the PCS in the early days before it become an organization. They were regarded as founding members along with Gordon Tullock, James Buchanan, Mancur Olson and others. Both were past-Presidents of the PCS and both made important contributions, separately and together. The PCS award in their name acknowledges their joint contribution.
Lin and Vincent were an unusual intellectual couple. They co-taught, they
co-authored, they read and critiqued each other’s work and the co-founded an important intellectual center at IU (and when the Workshop was renamed, at
Lin’s insistence, it became the Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political
Theory and Policy Analysis). Even dinner at their house often felt like an intellectual free-for-all – or in my case as if I was taking graduate comprehensive exams again. Both would press their points, either against one another or against the guest. They were a lively and engaged couple. Both were always happy to acknowledge the debt they owed one another. I suspect this award in their names would tickle them.
Lin did come “a long way.” Her works stands on its own and continues to inspire new research (and in my case, old researchers).
Why is Vincent’s name first? It isn’t alphabetical. It isn’t a function of prestige. Was that the way people know them?
To Leslie’s and Dan’s point, as it is constructed “Vincent and Elinor” looks like a traditional gendered structure whereby the man gets top billing.
Vincent was older by about 15 years. Lin was careful to make certain that Vincent’s contributions were not overlooked. Depended, too, on how you knew them. Students of Vincent always thought of them as Vincent and Lin. She was my dissertation advisor, so I thought of them as Lin and Vincent. Either way, if you had one advising you, you always got the other as well.
Almost certainly it’s because that’s the order of names in the title of the Workshop, which is their shared legacy and to which they bequeathed their entire estate. The Workshop community is enormous, and its influence is far-reaching, so taking on its moniker makes some sense.
This may not quite be much ado about nothing, but it’s some ado about very little.
Does anyone know anything about the process by which this award was established and named? It is interesting and probably relevant that there is not a single woman among the Directors or Executive Committee of the Public Choice Society https://publicchoicesociety.org/about. (Although the new president is a woman, only the second woman to hold that position — Lin was the other.)
Dipping my oar in late, but it is worth mentioning for people who didn’t know Lin and Vincent that were she here, (a) she would have demanded joint billing, (b) she probably would have picked the ordering (or surely been happy with it), and (c) would have violently disagreed with the notion that she took a back seat to Vincent in any regard. Put another way, the naming of the award is probably someone’s attempt to honor (not dishonor) Lin and her wishes.
This article is all kinds of crap. No reason whatsoever is given for why ordering her name after her husband’s suggests lack of respect. Even more ridiculous is the claim that the PCS was honoring Ostrom as a wife, when literally they are naming an award explicitly because of her accomplishments. The claim that “many” discount her Nobel is supported by a link to a site that links to another site where the discussion forums are renowned for being populated by rude idiots. The phrase “implying quite explicitly” is utter nonsense. Calling a research program “at the intersection of” whatever is trite and cliche.
According to traditional etiquette rules, it is also incorrect. One never separates a man from his surname. As such, it we’re going to be parochial, we should at least be consistent: The Elinor and Vincent Ostrom Prize. Apparently no one in the Public Choice Society has ever prepared wedding invitations….