Source: Tencent Finance. By Zhou Ailin. Edited by Liu Peng.
The annual Nobel Prize in Economics is entering its final countdown. The final answer will be revealed on Monday, October 12, initially announced at 11:45 AM Swedish time, which is 5:45 PM Beijing time.
Before the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announces the answer, prediction markets have already given their own "answer." The well-known American prediction market Kalshi currently lists nine potential candidates. Kalshi was also a "star" of prediction markets during the World Cup. Based on market prices, Harvard University economist Ariel Pakes is currently in a clearly leading position with an implied probability of about 22%; Richard Blundell, Luigi Zingales, Robert Barro, and Susan Athey are at around 7% probability, while other candidates include Ernst Fehr, Andreu Mas-Colell, Partha Dasgupta, and Matthew Rabin. Who exactly are these economic heavyweights? Why have they entered the 2026 Nobel Prize in Economics market list? Who will have the last laugh? Tencent Finance will analyze them one by one and exclusively invite Jane Liu (Liu Jin), a tenured associate professor of economics at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, to share her insights. Jane Liu has attended the Berkshire Hathaway shareholders meeting multiple times and hosted sub-forums. In her view, the theoretical and empirical tools developed by these heavyweights have not only advanced their respective disciplines but are also widely used in corporate decision-making and public policy analysis. The Nobel Prize in Economics typically values two things: first, whether the research has had a foundational and enduring impact on the development of economics; second, whether these achievements have profoundly changed the way people understand and solve real-world economic problems. "If I had to choose two from this list, I believe Ariel Pakes and Richard Blundell have relatively higher chances of winning," she said.
Betting probabilities shown by Kalshi.
Ariel Pakes: The "Industrial Organization Master" Most Favored by Prediction Markets
Currently the most closely watched by Kalshi traders is Ariel Pakes, Thomas Professor of Economics at Harvard University. Pakes has long studied industrial organization, the economics of technological change, and econometrics, with particular expertise in combining economic theory with real market data. One of his important contributions is developing empirical research methods that can be used to analyze firm competition, consumer demand, prices, costs, and the impact of policy changes. In other words, if one studies what happens to prices, profits, and productivity after an industry experiences mergers, deregulation, or the entry of new firms, the tools developed by Pakes provide an important methodological foundation. His research has involved the impact of the AT&T breakup on telecommunications equipment productivity, export restrictions in the automobile market, and the impact of product entry and exit on price indices in the personal computer market. Harvard University states that his research methods have been used by government agencies and companies to analyze policy and market changes. Pakes's academic credentials are equally heavyweight: he was formerly a professor at Yale University and joined Harvard in 1999; he received the Econometric Society's Frisch Medal in 1986, was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2017, and received the Erwin Nemmers Prize in Economics and Finance in 2022.
Why might he win? Jane Liu believes that the reason Pakes has a high probability of winning is that, judging from the orientation of recent Nobel Prizes in Economics, the committee places great emphasis on research that "uses rigorous empirical methods to answer important real-world questions." In 2021, David Card, Joshua Angrist, and Guido Imbens won for their empirical contributions to labor economics and methodological contributions to causal analysis, which is a typical example. The research of both Pakes and Blundell fits this direction. Pakes's most outstanding contribution is promoting industrial organization research to shift from a focus on theoretical analysis to using real data to identify and measure firm competition, market power, and policy impacts. The demand estimation method he developed with Steven Berry and James Levinsohn, known as the BLP model, laid an important methodological foundation for modern empirical industrial organization. Today, such structural estimation tools are widely used in antitrust, corporate mergers and acquisitions, market regulation, and competition policy analysis. If the Nobel Committee wishes to recognize empirical industrial organization and structural econometric methods, Pakes is undoubtedly one of the most representative scholars. Jane Liu mentioned that a more critical point is that, from the perspective of rotation in research fields, the 2025 prize just focused on innovation-driven economic growth, so scholars in the field of macroeconomic growth, such as Robert Barro, may have a relatively lower probability of winning immediately the following year. Behavioral economics has also been recognized by the Nobel Prize multiple times. By contrast, empirical industrial organization has not yet been fully recognized as an independent theme—Jean Tirole's 2014 win mainly focused on theoretical analysis of market power and regulation. Therefore, empirical industrial organization, as represented by Pakes, can be said to be a "long-awaited" direction for a prize.
Richard Blundell: Putting Taxes, Employment, and Household Decisions into the Same Model
The second notable figure is British economist Richard Blundell. Blundell is the David Ricardo Professor of Political Economy at University College London and a long-time core scholar at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) in the United Kingdom. His research focuses on labor supply, consumption, savings, taxation, and welfare policy. One of his important contributions is developing microeconometric methods that allow economists to more accurately study questions such as: if the government changes tax rates, will people work less? Will welfare policies change employment willingness? How will changes in household income affect consumption and savings? These questions seem very practical, but identifying causal relationships from real-world data is not easy. Blundell has therefore long been committed to developing dynamic panel data, nonparametric methods, and empirical research on labor supply and consumption behavior. He received the Yrjö Jahnsson Prize in 1995, the Econometric Society's Frisch Medal in 2000, and the Jean-Jacques Laffont Prize in 2008.
Why might he win? Similarly, if recent economics prizes continue along the path of "using rigorous empirical methods to answer real economic questions," Blundell's research is highly compatible. Jane Liu believes that both Blundell and Pakes have equally good chances of winning because Blundell closely combines microeconometric methods with important policy issues such as taxation, labor supply, consumption, savings, and household decisions. His research enables economists to more accurately measure how tax and welfare policies affect the economic behavior of individuals and households, combining methodological innovation with direct policy value. Against the background of continued attention to income distribution, employment, and social security, this research direction has strong practical significance.
Robert Barro: A "Veteran" of Economic Growth Theory
If Pakes represents industrial organization and Blundell represents labor economics, then Robert Barro is a heavyweight in macroeconomics and economic growth. Barro is the Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics at Harvard University, holds a PhD in economics from Harvard University, and previously earned a bachelor's degree in physics from Caltech. He has long studied economic growth, macroeconomics, public debt, budget deficits, and macroeconomic disasters. One of Barro's most influential studies is his empirical work on the determinants of economic growth. His book "Economic Growth," co-authored with Xavier Sala-i-Martin, has long been an important textbook in growth economics. In recent years, he has also studied rare but hugely impactful macroeconomic disasters, such as how wars and financial crises affect asset markets and economic activity.
Why might he win? The biggest logic is that economic growth itself has always been one of the most important themes of the Nobel Prize in Economics. But as Jane Liu mentioned, there is also a background worth observing here—the 2025 Nobel Prize in Economics was just awarded to Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt for their research on innovation-driven economic growth. Therefore, if 2026 continues to reward the field of economic growth, the committee may need to find a different research angle; Barro's long-standing research on growth, macroeconomic policy, and disaster risk恰好 provides another path.
Susan Athey: In the AI Era, Economics and Machine Learning Are Converging
If there is one economist on this year's candidate list who most easily gives ordinary investors a sense of the "AI era," Susan Athey may be one of the most typical choices. Athey is the Economics of Technology Professor at Stanford Graduate School of Business and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Her research spans the digital economy, market design, econometrics, and machine learning. She has studied timber auctions, internet search, online advertising, news media, labor markets, and digital technology, among other areas. She is also one of the first economists to be called a "tech economist" and served as consulting chief economist at Microsoft for six years. More importantly, Athey does not simply study the "internet economy"; she promotes the integration of machine learning with traditional economic causal inference methods. She received the American Economic Association's John Bates Clark Medal in 2007, was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2012, and received the Jean-Jacques Laffont Prize in 2016.
Why might she win? This is a very contemporary candidate direction. AI is changing productivity, labor markets, the platform economy, and corporate decision-making, and Athey has long studied how to use new data and machine learning methods to understand these markets. If the Nobel Committee wishes to reward foundational contributions to the digital economy and modern econometric methods, Athey's academic record is clearly representative.
Luigi Zingales: Studying Why Capitalism "Fails"
Luigi Zingales is the Robert C. McCormack Distinguished Service Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. His research spans corporate governance, financial development, political economy, and culture and economics. He is particularly concerned with one question: why do the same capitalist institutions produce completely different outcomes in different countries and societies? In recent years, his research has further extended to digital platforms, Big Tech regulation, antitrust, and "regulatory capture." For example, he has studied the political economy of declining antitrust enforcement in the United States and the regulation of large technology companies.
Why might he win? Zingales's potential winning logic is to connect finance, corporate governance, and political institutions. In the past, the Nobel Prize in Economics has repeatedly rewarded research on institutions, financial systems, and the mechanisms of market operation. If future prizes further focus on "how corporate power, market competition, and institutions shape capitalism," Zingales's research has a fairly complete academic lineage.
Ernst Fehr: Reunderstanding "Why People Are Willing to Cooperate"
Swiss economist Ernst Fehr comes from a completely different direction—behavioral economics and experimental economics. Fehr has been a professor of microeconomics and experimental economics at the University of Zurich since 1994 and has served as head of the Department of Economics and director of the Institute for Empirical Research in Economics at the University of Zurich. His research has long centered on fairness, reciprocity, social preferences, cooperation, and human economic decision-making behavior. Traditional economic models often assume that people are rational and self-interested; but through a large number of experimental studies, Fehr showed that real people do not always pursue only their own interests. People care about fairness and will punish unfair behavior; even at a cost, they may choose to cooperate.
Why might he win? Fehr represents a path in which behavioral economics further penetrates the core theory of economics. From Daniel Kahneman to Richard Thaler, the Nobel Prize in Economics has repeatedly rewarded behavioral economics. But experimental research on fairness, reciprocity, and cooperation mechanisms still has independent theoretical value.
Andreu Mas-Colell: A Name Written into Almost Every Economics Textbook
Andreu Mas-Colell may be one of the most "academic" economists on the list. Born in 1944, Mas-Colell was formerly a professor of economics at Harvard University and also taught at the University of California, Berkeley. He is currently a professor at Pompeu Fabra University in Spain. His research focuses on general equilibrium theory, financial market structure, and game theory. More importantly, his 1985 book "The Theory of General Economic Equilibrium: A Differentiable Approach," as well as "Microeconomic Theory" co-authored with Whinston and Green, have become classic works in modern graduate microeconomics education.
Why might he win? If the Nobel Committee wishes to reward the most foundational theoretical basis of economics rather than a currently popular policy topic, then Mas-Colell is a very typical choice. His potential winning theme might center on general equilibrium theory and the mathematical foundations of modern microeconomics.
Partha Dasgupta: Putting Natural Resources into the Economic Growth Equation
Partha Dasgupta represents another direction that has attracted increasing attention in recent years—environmental economics, poverty, resources, and intergenerational fairness. Dasgupta is the Frank Ramsey Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Cambridge. He has long studied the relationships among poverty, welfare, population, natural resources, and the environment. In 2021, at the request of the UK Treasury, he chaired and completed the "Dasgupta Review," systematically discussing the economics of biodiversity: if natural capital is continuously depleted, can traditional GDP and wealth indicators still accurately reflect the true development level of an economy? His research pushed a question long neglected by economic models to the center: how exactly should natural resources be incorporated into economics? His academic contributions have also received extensive recognition outside economics, including the Volvo Environment Prize, the Blue Planet Prize, and the Tyler Prize.
Why might he win? Climate change, biodiversity, and natural capital have become important issues in global economic policy. If the Nobel Committee wishes to reward foundational research on the relationship between economic growth and environmental sustainability, Dasgupta's research provides a very clear academic path.
Matthew Rabin: Truly Bringing Psychology into Economic Models
The last candidate is Matthew Rabin, Pershing Square Professor of Behavioral Economics at Harvard University. Rabin's research focuses on how to incorporate assumptions that better match real human psychology into economic models that can be rigorously analyzed. He has studied errors in statistical reasoning, belief formation, reference-dependent preferences, choice environments, and systematic mistakes people make in markets and learning. Rabin received his PhD in economics from MIT in 1989, then taught for a long time at the University of California, Berkeley, and later joined Harvard.
Why might he win? If Kahneman and Thaler represent two peaks of behavioral economics, then one of Rabin's important contributions is further transforming psychological observations into mathematical models that can enter formal economic theory. His research therefore connects psychology, decision theory, and traditional economics.
Nine Candidates, Nine Paths in Economics
If the nine people currently listed by Kalshi are put together, it becomes clear that this is not a candidate list with a single theme. They cover almost all the most important directions of modern economics: from this list, the 2026 Nobel Prize in Economics actually has several completely different potential main lines: one is the market. Pakes studies firm competition and market power, and Zingales studies finance and corporate institutions. One is people. Blundell studies labor and household decisions, while Fehr and Rabin study fairness, cooperation, and behavioral biases. One is technology. Athey studies the digital economy, machine learning, and market design. One is growth and resources. Barro studies long-term economic growth, while Dasgupta incorporates natural capital and biodiversity into the economic framework. There is also the most foundational path—the theoretical foundations of economics itself, represented by theoretical economists such as Mas-Colell. Of course, predicting the Nobel Prize in Economics involves great uncertainty. Jane Liu told Tencent Finance that the 22% implied probability indicated by Kalshi also means that the market believes the probability that Pakes ultimately does not win is still close to 80%. In addition, the Nobel Prize is often shared by two or three scholars, and prediction contracts for individual scholars may not fully reflect different winning combinations. Therefore, prediction markets are more suitable as a reference for observing academic attention and market expectations, and cannot be regarded as the final answer. In 2026, which economic question the Nobel Prize in Economics will spotlight remains an open question.