Stockholm honoured Robert E. Hall and Michael Woodford for rebuilding macroeconomics on the decisions of real households and firms — the theory that now guides interest rates, inflation targets and crisis responses worldwide.
Published 12 October 2026 · 18:00 GMT
STOCKHOLM — The 2026 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences goes to Robert E. Hall of Stanford University and Michael Woodford of Columbia University, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced on Monday, honouring the two Americans 'for microeconomic foundations of macroeconomic stabilisation'. The citation recognises a decades-long project: rebuilding macroeconomics from the decisions of real households and firms, whose forward-looking expectations now sit at the centre of the models used by central banks and governments around the world. The laureates will share 12 million Swedish kronor, about $1.2 million. Their work, the jury said, gave policymakers the theoretical foundation to time fiscal and monetary measures against recessions, energy crises and inflationary shocks — and proved its worth during the pandemic.
STOCKHOLM — The final prize of the 2026 Nobel season went, fittingly, to two men who spent their careers answering one of the hardest questions in public life: how to stop a bad economy from getting worse. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced on Monday that the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel — the economics Nobel — goes to Robert E. Hall of Stanford University and Michael Woodford of Columbia University. Their shared citation reads: 'for microeconomic foundations of macroeconomic stabilisation'. The two will divide 12 million Swedish kronor.
It is, on the surface, a prize about plumbing rather than poetry: the unglamorous machinery by which central banks set interest rates and governments time their budgets. But the prize committee argued that this machinery decides whether a recession is a dip or a disaster. John Hassler, chair of the prize committee, said the laureates' work provides 'a stable theoretical foundation for the models that are now used by central banks and governments around the world', leaving policymakers better equipped to deal with shocks in the economy, such as energy crises or sudden changes in how much households consume.
"It's a tremendous honour. It's a surprise." — Michael Woodford, by phone from New York to the Stockholm press conference, minutes after the announcement.
The core insight is disarmingly simple. Instead of modelling the economy as a machine of giant aggregates — inflation, output, consumption — Hall and Woodford rebuilt it from the bottom up, from the decisions of individual households and businesses. Those decisions, crucially, look forward: families spend and save based on what they expect tomorrow to bring, not just on today's paycheque. Firms set prices and wages with an eye on what they believe is coming.
Once expectations sit at the centre of the model, policy communication becomes policy itself. When a central bank credibly announces where interest rates are heading, or a government sets out its fiscal path, it can shift what millions of people expect — and thereby what they do today. The jury's summary was direct: well-timed fiscal and monetary measures, grounded in these models, can reduce the economy's peaks and troughs. In plain terms: talk, credibly backed, moves money.
That is the intellectual machinery behind what practitioners now take for granted — explicit inflation targets, published interest-rate paths, the carefully choreographed press conference after every rate decision. The laureates did not invent central banking. They gave it a theory that explained why it works, and a toolkit for when the old rules fail. Both men are American economists whose models are now the working standard in treasuries and central banks worldwide.
To understand the prize, you have to go back to the 1970s. For decades after John Maynard Keynes formulated his theories during the Depression, governments had a workable recipe: when the economy slumped, cut taxes and raise spending; when it overheated, do the reverse. It worked well — until it didn't. As one member of the Nobel economics committee, Timo Boppart, put it, the Keynesian recipe ran aground when the oil shocks of the 1970s delivered something the old models could not process: high inflation and stagnant growth at the same time.
Stagflation broke the statistical machinery. The standard models of the day were built on observed correlations between aggregates — inflation here, output there — but those correlations dissolved the moment policymakers tried to exploit them. Hall and Woodford began, separately, to build a different kind of model: one in which households and firms behave the way people actually do, forming expectations and adjusting, so that policy analysis could survive contact with a changing world.
The result was the intellectual backbone of what economists call the New Keynesian approach — the framework in which a central bank's promise about future interest rates can be as powerful as the rate itself. It restored policymakers' confidence that stabilisation was possible at all, after a decade in which it had seemed like guesswork. The jury's verdict on the payoff is blunt: the laureates' research proved hugely beneficial during the pandemic and the energy crises of recent years.
Robert E. Hall, 83, is a professor at Stanford University and a senior fellow at its Hoover Institution. Born in Palo Alto in 1943, he earned his doctorate at MIT and went on to lead the American Economic Association as its president in 2010. He is an applied economist in the deepest sense — the kind who tests grand theories against what families actually do with their money, and follows the evidence wherever it leads.
His signature contribution came in a 1978 paper that changed how economists think about consumption. Hall showed that if households are rational and forward-looking, their spending should change only when genuinely unexpected news arrives — a pay rise announced in advance should move spending when the news lands, not when the bigger paycheque does. It was a small, precise idea with large consequences: it forced macroeconomics to take household expectations seriously, and it gave later generations a way to test theory against data rather than argue from assumption.
Hall also drilled into the labour market, identifying how job search, wage-setting and the rigidity of wages — the difficulty of adjusting pay downward — amplify recessions and unemployment. It is the mechanism by which a downturn turns into a jobs crisis. Along the way he co-authored, with Alvin Rabushka, a celebrated 1980s proposal for a flat-rate tax system — a reminder that his influence has ranged well beyond the seminar room.
Michael Woodford, born in Chicopee, Massachusetts, in 1955, is the John Bates Clark Professor of Political Economy at Columbia University, after earning his doctorate at MIT and a law degree at Yale. If Hall mapped how households decide, Woodford built the cathedral of modern monetary theory. His 2003 book, Interest and Prices: Foundations of a Theory of Monetary Policy, is treated in central banks as something close to scripture — a complete, micro-founded model of how interest rates, inflation and expectations interact.
Woodford's central argument was that a central bank influences the real economy not just by moving today's short-term rate, but by shaping what markets, firms and households believe about tomorrow. That insight became the blueprint for forward guidance — the deliberate signalling of future policy — and for explicit inflation targeting. In his framework, credibility is not a public-relations virtue; it is a policy instrument. A bank that is believed can move the economy with words; one that is not must move it with force.
He has since pushed further, into the limits of human decision-making itself, asking how bounded rationality and cognitive psychology should reshape economic models. The Nobel committee, though, honoured the edifice he built first: the New Keynesian models that gave governments and central banks a workable theory of stabilisation. Reached by phone in New York, Woodford told the Stockholm press conference he was tremendously honoured and surprised — and feeling very good about it.
The committee's claim that these models are 'now used by central banks and governments around the world' is not decoration. The pandemic stimulus packages and the rapid rate cycles of the past five years were designed inside frameworks descended from Hall and Woodford. When the European Central Bank raised its three key rates by a quarter point on June 11 — its first increase since September 2023, after the Middle East war pushed energy costs up and euro-area inflation above 3 per cent — Christine Lagarde framed the move as a signal to stop the energy shock spreading into wider prices. That is Woodford's logic, executed in Europe's most powerful institution: communication as containment.
The same logic runs through the debates that filled the IMF and World Bank meetings in Bangkok this week, where finance ministers wrestled with how to wind down emergency-era spending without tipping fragile recoveries. The models say the timing of the exit matters as much as its size — and that what ministers say about tomorrow shapes what households spend today. The prize lands, then, not as a museum piece but as the theory behind this week's headlines.
Even the near-miss predictions tell a story. The citation service Clarivate had flagged monetary-policy researchers as plausible winners this year — a reminder that the field has been converging on this verdict for some time. Last year's laureates, Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt, were honoured for work on innovation and growth; this year the academy turned from the long run to the short, violent swings that test every government.
There is a harder question the Stockholm applause does not answer. The models Hall and Woodford built assume something close to the American or European financial system: deep markets, credible institutions, households with bank accounts and mortgages whose expectations respond to a press conference. In much of the world — from Pakistan's import-bill crises to the informal economies of sub-Saharan Africa — the transmission belt is frayed. When most workers earn outside the formal sector and the currency moves on rumour, a central bank's carefully worded statement lands differently.
And yet the diffusion has been real. Dozens of emerging-market central banks adopted explicit inflation targets and forward-looking frameworks over the past two decades, and several navigated the post-pandemic price surge with tools that would have been unavailable in the 1970s. The critique is not that the models are wrong but that they are incomplete: they stabilise best where institutions are strongest, which is also where stabilisation was easiest to begin with. The next frontier — the one the laureates' successors are already working on — is making expectations machinery work in economies where expectations are formed in markets, streets and messaging apps rather than trading floors.
For the Global South, then, the prize is both a vindication and a challenge. The vindication: sound, expectation-aware policy is not a luxury of rich countries. The challenge: building the credibility and the data on which such policy depends — independent central banks, honest statistics, fiscal discipline — is political work, not mathematical work. No model, however elegant, substitutes for the institutions that make its promises believable.
Stockholm's message this year is that stabilisation is a science again — or at least that it has a scientific foundation worthy of the discipline's highest honour. Hall and Woodford rebuilt macroeconomics on the one assumption that never fails: that people think about tomorrow before they act today. Whether the world's central banks can keep deserving that theory — through the next energy shock, the next pandemic, the next war — is the experiment now running in real time.
I
n
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
s
t
h
e
p
r
i
z
e
r
e
a
d
s
a
s
v
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
A
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
b
r
u
i
s
i
n
g
i
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
y
2
0
2
0
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
a
t
e
w
a
r
s
t
h
a
t
f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d
,
S
t
o
c
k
h
o
l
m
h
a
s
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
t
h
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
o
f
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
b
a
n
k
i
n
g
:
c
r
e
d
i
b
l
e
,
t
r
a
n
s
p
a
r
e
n
t
,
e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
m
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
E
C
B
'
s
J
u
n
e
r
a
t
e
r
i
s
e
—
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
a
s
a
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
o
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
a
n
e
n
e
r
g
y
s
h
o
c
k
—
i
s
n
o
w
N
o
b
e
l
-
b
l
e
s
s
e
d
d
o
c
t
r
i
n
e
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
F
e
d
'
s
c
a
r
e
f
u
l
l
y
s
t
a
g
e
d
p
r
e
s
s
c
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
l
o
o
k
l
e
s
s
l
i
k
e
t
h
e
a
t
r
e
a
n
d
m
o
r
e
l
i
k
e
i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
s
.
F
o
r
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
p
o
l
i
c
y
m
a
k
e
r
s
t
h
e
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
i
s
t
o
d
o
u
b
l
e
d
o
w
n
o
n
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
w
o
r
k
s
,
c
r
e
d
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
s
t
h
a
t
s
u
r
v
i
v
e
d
t
h
e
p
a
n
d
e
m
i
c
a
r
e
t
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
s
t
o
k
e
e
p
.
T
h
e
s
u
b
t
e
x
t
i
s
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
i
d
e
—
t
h
e
W
e
s
t
'
s
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
b
a
n
k
s
,
b
r
u
i
s
e
d
b
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
,
g
e
t
t
h
e
i
r
t
h
e
o
r
y
c
r
o
w
n
e
d
.
C
r
i
t
i
c
s
i
n
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
t
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
e
t
h
e
i
r
o
n
y
:
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
s
t
h
a
t
t
a
m
e
d
i
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
o
a
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d
a
s
s
e
t
b
u
b
b
l
e
s
,
a
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
t
h
e
c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
o
l
i
t
e
l
y
i
g
n
o
r
e
s
.
F
r
o
m
B
e
i
j
i
n
g
,
S
e
o
u
l
a
n
d
T
o
k
y
o
,
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
a
u
s
e
c
o
m
e
s
w
i
t
h
a
r
a
i
s
e
d
e
y
e
b
r
o
w
.
T
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
s
S
t
o
c
k
h
o
l
m
c
r
o
w
n
e
d
w
e
r
e
b
u
i
l
t
f
o
r
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
-
s
t
y
l
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
e
s
—
d
e
e
p
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
m
a
r
k
e
t
s
,
c
r
e
d
i
b
l
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
,
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
w
h
o
s
e
m
o
r
t
g
a
g
e
s
t
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
e
v
e
r
y
r
a
t
e
m
o
v
e
.
C
h
i
n
a
'
s
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
b
a
n
k
s
t
i
l
l
s
t
e
e
r
s
l
a
r
g
e
l
y
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
t
o
o
l
s
,
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
r
a
t
i
o
s
a
n
d
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
c
r
e
d
i
t
,
a
w
o
r
l
d
w
h
e
r
e
W
o
o
d
f
o
r
d
'
s
e
l
e
g
a
n
t
e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
i
s
o
n
l
y
o
n
e
l
e
v
e
r
a
m
o
n
g
m
a
n
y
.
T
h
e
p
r
i
z
e
t
h
u
s
r
e
a
d
s
i
n
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
p
a
r
t
l
y
a
s
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
e
l
f
-
c
e
l
e
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
a
t
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
h
o
w
t
h
e
F
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
E
C
B
w
o
r
k
,
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
a
s
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
.
Y
e
t
t
h
e
d
i
f
f
u
s
i
o
n
i
s
r
e
a
l
—
A
s
i
a
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
b
a
n
k
s
r
u
n
i
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
-
t
a
r
g
e
t
i
n
g
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
s
t
o
o
—
a
n
d
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
'
s
q
u
i
e
t
e
r
v
e
r
d
i
c
t
i
s
p
r
a
g
m
a
t
i
c
:
t
a
k
e
t
h
e
t
o
o
l
s
,
k
e
e
p
t
h
e
s
c
e
p
t
i
c
i
s
m
,
a
n
d
b
u
i
l
d
m
o
d
e
l
s
t
h
a
t
f
i
t
h
o
w
o
u
r
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
e
s
a
c
t
u
a
l
l
y
t
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
p
o
l
i
c
y
.
F
o
r
t
h
e
G
l
o
b
a
l
S
o
u
t
h
,
t
h
e
p
r
i
z
e
i
s
a
m
i
r
r
o
r
h
e
l
d
a
t
a
n
a
n
g
l
e
.
O
n
o
n
e
f
a
c
e
,
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
s
o
u
n
d
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
p
o
l
i
c
y
i
s
n
o
t
a
r
i
c
h
-
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
l
u
x
u
r
y
:
d
o
z
e
n
s
o
f
e
m
e
r
g
i
n
g
-
m
a
r
k
e
t
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
b
a
n
k
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
i
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
a
r
g
e
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
a
w
a
r
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
s
,
a
n
d
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
e
d
t
h
e
p
o
s
t
-
p
a
n
d
e
m
i
c
p
r
i
c
e
s
u
r
g
e
b
e
t
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
1
9
7
0
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
u
l
d
h
a
v
e
d
r
e
a
m
e
d
.
O
n
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
,
a
h
a
r
d
l
i
m
i
t
.
W
h
e
r
e
m
o
s
t
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
e
a
r
n
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
l
y
,
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
i
e
s
s
w
i
n
g
o
n
r
u
m
o
u
r
a
n
d
f
i
s
c
a
l
d
o
m
i
n
a
n
c
e
l
o
o
m
s
,
a
p
r
e
s
s
c
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
m
o
v
e
s
l
i
t
t
l
e
.
T
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
s
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
s
e
b
e
s
t
w
h
e
r
e
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
s
t
r
o
n
g
e
s
t
—
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
w
h
e
r
e
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
s
e
a
s
i
e
s
t
.
T
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
'
s
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
t
o
S
t
o
c
k
h
o
l
m
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
t
h
e
s
h
a
r
p
e
s
t
o
n
e
:
e
l
e
g
a
n
t
t
h
e
o
r
y
i
s
w
e
l
c
o
m
e
,
b
u
t
w
h
o
b
u
i
l
d
s
t
h
e
c
r
e
d
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
t
h
e
d
a
t
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
o
n
w
h
i
c
h
i
t
a
l
l
d
e
p
e
n
d
s
?
Robert E. Hall, 83, a professor at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Michael Woodford, a Columbia University professor born in 1955. Both earned their doctorates at MIT. They share the 12 million kronor prize — about $1.2 million — awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences on Oct 12 for rebuilding macroeconomic stabilisation on microeconomic foundations.
It is the business of smoothing the economy's booms and busts: central banks adjust interest rates and governments adjust taxes and spending to keep inflation low, employment high and recessions short. Hall and Woodford's contribution was to ground that business in how real people behave — modelling households and firms as forward-looking decision-makers rather than as statistical aggregates.
In a landmark 1978 paper, Hall showed that forward-looking households change their spending only when genuinely unexpected news arrives — a pay rise announced in advance moves spending at the announcement, not at the payday. He later showed how wage rigidity and labour-market frictions amplify recessions into unemployment crises. He also co-authored a celebrated 1980s flat-tax proposal with Alvin Rabushka.
Published in 2003, the book built a complete micro-founded model of monetary policy: a central bank moves the real economy not only by setting today's rate but by shaping expectations about tomorrow's. That logic became the blueprint for forward guidance and explicit inflation targeting — the reason modern central banks now choreograph their words as carefully as their rate decisions.
