The Friedman Prize, Again

Yesterday's blog talked about the upcoming selection of the biennial Milton Friedman prize for advancing liberty. I gave the most obvious choices to win it this year. The write-up got me thinking on something else.

There should be an additional criterion on who gets the prize. Two criteria, in fact. The first one is that the nominees should still be active, in the sense that the prize can help them further pursue their work. On this criterion, the first and second winners (Peter Bauer and Hernando de Soto) have failed. Peter Bauer's untimely death only weeks after he received the Friedman prize made it impossible for him to raise its profile. Hernando de Soto has also done little to advance the cause of economic liberty since 2004. The only winner who fits this criterion to-date is Mart Laar, the 2006 winner.

The other criterion can be that the winner's contribution to advancing liberty have empirical evidence. In other words, has the winner's work borne fruit in practice? On this score, Peter Bauer and Mart Laar do well. De Soto - not so well.

In sum, Laar has been the best choice to-date.

If one accepts these two criteria, as well as the original one - intellectual devotion to advancing liberty - one can revise the list of likely nominees. I would add Kakha Bendukidze, who in the last 4 years has turned Georgia into one of the most liberal countries in the world (also recording the largest jump in the Doing Business rankings in the process). I would also add Mahmoud Mohieldin, the Minister of Investment in Egypt. Dr. Mohieldin has led a remarkable reform drive in his country, which resulted in claiming the top spot on reforms in Doing Business 2008.

Such nominations would also encourage other reformers to be more courageous. Isn't this what Friedman would have liked to see?