Keun Lee


I have been attending EAEPE conference since the 2013 Krakow Meeting, and am now a permanent member. I feel great and honored that I have finally got this prestigious Prize. Whereas there are many researches measuring national innovation system (NIS) which is a key theoretical concept in Schumpeterian economics, they often use too many variables from heterogenous sources, which make the measurement very demanding, less comparable and less coherent. My prize article (national innovation system, economic complexity and economic growth, Journal of Evolutionary Economics 2019) developed a new, coherent and less-demanding way of measuring NIS of nations around the world, using 5 variables all made up from patent citation data which show the way how knowledge are created, diffused and used in each nation. Each of the 5 variables represent different aspect of innovations in each country, such as concentration, diversification, localization, originality of innovations as well as cycle time of innovations. These 5 variables are also combined into one composite NIS index, so that we may compare and rank countries around world using this index at a time and also investigate their change over time. Further I compare the impact of such measured NIS index and Hidalgo’s measure of economic complexity on economic growth, to find that the NIS is a more robust factor. Given the increasing importance of both innovation and complexity as economic variables, sorting out their relative significance is important academically, and also justifies policy effort by the government to put priority on improve the NIS of nations. These five aspects of NIS also help each country to show its weakness areas to improve upon first.

Jonho Lee

I am very pleased that this award has been internationally recognized for our value in terms of evolutionary economics. In particular, winning this award has helped me to focus more on further research. This paper is a study supporting the existing research of Lee (2013) and reveals that there is a difference in economic growth according to the type of national innovation systems. In particular, it is  a study that explains how innovation affects economic growth by quantifying the national innovation system index, using U.S. patents which are representative indicators of technological innovation.

Yun Kim, Gilberto Tadeu Lima and Mark Setterfield

Mark Setterfield : I was honoured to be a co-recipient (along with my co-authors Yun K. Kim and Gilberto Tadeu Lima) of the 2019 EAEPE Kapp Prize for “Political aspects of household finance: debt, wage bargaining, and macroeconomic (in)stability" (Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 42, 1, 16-38, 2019). The award marked the culmination of a research project with two colleagues whose intellects and friendship I value highly, making the award itself all the more special. The paper for which we received the Kapp Prize served to warn macroeconomists that just as household indebtedness is affected by increased inequality that can be traced to the diminished bargaining power of workers, so indebtedness itself can adversely affect worker bargaining power and hence inequality. The result, in keeping with the best analytical traditions of evolutionary political economy, is a vicious circle dynamic that, as recent experience attests, can have grave social as well as economic consequences.

Steffen Murau

My article, “Shadow money and the public money supply: the impact of the 2007–2009 financial crisis on the monetary system”, was published by the Review of International Political Economy in May 2017 and earned the 2018 EAEPE-Kapp Prize. The paper focuses on shadow banking and shadow money, which are ways of investing that fall outside the scope of financial regulation. I was particularly interested in the impact of the political response to the crisis by the Federal Reserve and the US treasury. I argue that as its root cause, the crisis was connected to new types of credit money that had been developed through financial innovation in the 1970s and 1980s. The crisis was an implosion of these new money forms. To rescue the monetary and financial system, the US authorities had to establish historically unprecedented guarantees for them. In the article, I systematically carve out how the political interventions during the crisis and the regulations after the crisis have changed the US monetary system, and connect this to a broader theory of change in the monetary system.  I found that an intervention by US authorities to calm down a run on shadow money during the financial crisis has “profoundly changed” the structure of the US monetary system. Public protection for some types of shadow money has been introduced, and although it officially was just a temporary measure, it is likely there to stay. The crisis has redefined the role of the state in the US monetary system as a guarantor of shadow money. It’s not very common to think about shadow banking as a monetary phenomenon, but a handful of economists, political economists and lawyers interpret it that way. I used these groups’ analytical perspective to systematically describe the changes that happened with shadow money and to develop a theory about the role of politics in that process. A former employee of the US Treasury said that finding a way of politically dealing with shadow money is one of the key challenges of our time. So I hope that my research on the political economy of the shadow money phenomenon can be a small contribution to this. In the financial crisis there was an “implosion” of this shadow money scheme. The collapses of the investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were inherently connected to those parts of their businesses, which were involved in shadow money creation. For those who had invested billions and billions of US dollars into those instruments, this meant that they were about to lose a lot of their wealth. First investors thought that their shadow money was protected, but then the private guarantees turned out much weaker than everybody thought or even as fraud. This was where US authorities stepped in. To tame the run on shadow money, US authorities effectively expanded the public protection for bank deposits to some shadow money forms, in particular money market fund shares and repurchase agreements. They were first very hesitant, so the crisis worsened. Only when they gave a full guarantee after the Lehman bankruptcy, the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury managed to stop the run.

Franklin Obeng-Odoom

Winning the Kapp Prize has deepened my interest in the work of KW Kapp. Not only have I studied more of his work, I have also encouraged others to study him. I am currently supervising postgraduate research on social costs. These studies engage Kapp, but they also try to extend his work. My award-winning paper was on the commons, so I was encouraged that EAEPE supports this attempt to expand and further develop Kapp's magnificent work. I have since substantially built on that work into a forthcoming book: The Commons in an Age of Uncertainty: Decolonizing Economy, Society, and Environment (University of Toronto Press, 2021) For me, the award also strongly suggests that, perhaps, EAEPE is also welcoming new ways of challenging orthodoxy and offering alternatives.

Toru Yamamori

I feel tremendously honoured to have been awarded the 2017 EAEPE Kapp prize for my paper ‘The concept of need in Adam Smith’ (Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41 (2)). Much in the spirit of the values embodied in clause 3.7 of the EAEPE Constitution, my paper sought to unravel the ways in which we construe real needs, identify and evaluate them. Starting with a delineation of the limits and possibilities of need in Adam Smith, I went on to outline the relevance of the Smithian ontology and epistemology of need for contemporary heterodox theory.

The paper was a first attempt in a much broader investigation of the concept of need in economics. Major guideposts for this project have been the works of Karl William Kapp, titular of the prize. Moreover, Tony Lawson, whose work was recognised with the samprize in 1993, as well as Len Doyal and Ian Gough, whose work, in turn, obtained another one of EAEPE’s accolades, the Myrdal prize, have all been my mentors on this journey.

To have had my work recognised with the EAEPE Kapp prize has instilled in me renewed confidence about the value of this research and given me the impetus to publish three further papers, all of which (including one on Kapp) found their germination in the concluding paragraphs of the Smith paper. Both professionally and intellectually the prize has provided invaluable encouragement. I am now working on a book that will unite all four papers in a single volume.


Agnès Labrousse

My contribution compares the research strategy and social philosophy of the two female “Nobel” Prizes winners: Elinor Ostrom and Esther Duflo (at the time “just” a Clark medal). It looks beyond the persuasive claim of scientificity and neutrality of the randomistas such as Duflo to show how their trendy use of randomized controlled trials is often arbitrary and unreliable in practice and how it can prevent us from grasping complex social processes. Duflo’s relative indifference to theory, history and context contrasts with the way Ostrom theorizes the diversity and historical specificity of institutions, social actors and biophysical environments. My paper shows how Ostrom’s methodological pluralism and adaptive complex systems analysis is a relevant antidote to Duflo’s methodological monism and piecemeal analysis. It also compares Ostrom’s interdisciplinarity with Duflo’s new economic imperialism, which involves applying the RCT technical grammar and mainstream preconceptions to other domains in social sciences. Pluralism, interdisciplinarity, institutions, complexity: all this is at the very heart of EAEPE!


Being awarded the Kapp Prize was a wonderful surprise. It lifted my poor self-confidence as both a female and a heterodox economist. Such an international recognition is crucial for political economists: it legitimates doing economics from the margins. I only regret that at the time, the prize was merely announced in the happy hubbub of the gala dinner, without effective publicity. This might explain why my article – despite being also awarded the Ostrom prize by WINIR in a similar manner – is incredibly less cited than my articles on associated topics in French! It is a huge improvement that EAEPE has initiated in 2018 a special session where EAEPE prize winners present their work, and so is this webpage!

Alessandro Caiani, Antoine Godin, Stefano Lucarelli

Stefano Lucarelli: Receiving the EAEPE Kapp prize was a great satisfaction of which I am very proud. I also think it has greatly strengthened my CV and helped me and my co-authors to put the attention of other colleagues on our research about innovation and finance. The paper that received the award represents for me the culmination of a long research whose goal was to present for the first time a stock consistent macroeconomic model describing the consequences of innovative dynamics on real and financial variables. Above all, the essential role of finance in fostering innovation and its interaction with the real economy is underlined. The economic policy consequences of these analyses are very important indeed, and work on this should be done to refocus attention on the role of the financial system in contributing to structural economic dynamics, stressing the importance of coordinating expansionary monetary policies and real industrial policies. 

Aneglo Fusari and Aneglo Reati

The 2014 EAEPE-Kapp Prize was awarded to Peter Ho for his 2013 paper,  "In Defense of endogenous, spontaneously ordered development: Institutional functionalism and Chinese property rights", The Journal of Peasant Studies Vol. 40 (6): 1087–1118.

The 2013 the EAEPE-Kapp Prize was awarded to Jakob KapellerBernhard Schütz and Stefan Steinerberger for their 2013 article, 'The Impossibility of Rational Consumer Choice: A Problem and Its Solution', Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 23(1): 39-60.

In 2012 the EAEPE-Kapp Prize was awarded to Guglielmo Forges Davanzati for his 2011 article, 'Income Distribution and Crisis in a Marxian Schema of the Monetary Circuit', International Journal of Political Economy, 40(3): 33-49.

In 2011 the EAEPE Prize was awarded to Philip O'Hara for his 2009 article, 'The Political Economy of Climate Change, Ecological Distribution and Uneven Development', Ecological Economics, 69(2): 223-234.

In 2010 the Kapp Prize was awared to George Liagouras for his 2009 article, 'Socio-Economic Evolution and Darwinism in Thorstein Veblen: A Critical Appraisal', Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(6): 1047-1064.

In 2009 the Kapp Prize winner was Edward Nik-Khah for his 2008 article, 'A Tale of Two Auctions', Journal of Institutional Economics, 4(1): 73-97.

In 2008 the Kapp Prize was awarded to Xosé H. Vázquez for his 2006 article, 'Eclectic Explanation of Shopfloor Control Using Efficiency and Power Theories', Organization Studies, 27(10): 1421-1446.

In 2007 the Kapp Prize was awarded to Eyüp Özveren for his 2007 article, 'Where Disciplinary Boundaries Blur: The Environmental Dimension of Institutional Economics', in Stravos Ioannides and Klaus Nielsen (eds), Economics and the Social Sciences: Boundaries, Interaction and Integration, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

In 2006 the Kapp Prize was awarded jointly to Otto Steiger for his 2006 article, 'Property Economics versus New Institutional Economics: Alternative Foundations of How to Trigger Economic Development', Journal of Economic Issues, 40(1): 183-208, and to Guido Buenstorf and Johann Peter Murmann for their 2005 article, 'Ernst Abbe’s Scientific Management Theoretical Insights from Ninetieth-Century Dynamics Capabilities Approach', Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(4): 543-578.

In 2005 the Kapp Prize was not awarded.

In 2004 the Kapp Prize was not awarded.

In 2003 the Kapp Prize was awarded to Yval Millo and Donald MacKenzie for their 2003 article, 'Constructing a Market, Performing Theory: The Historical Sociology of a Financial Derivatives Exchange', American Journal of Sociology, 109(1): 107-145.

In 2002 the Kapp Prize was awarded Yadira Gonzalez de Lara for her 2002 article, 'Institutions for Contract Enforcement and Risk Sharing: From Debt to Equity in Late Medieval Venice', European Review of Economic History, 6(2): 257-262.

In 2001 the Kapp Prize was awarded jointly to Matthias Klaes for his 2000 article, 'The Birth of the Concept of Transaction Costs: Issues and Controversies', Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(4): 567-593, and to John Finch and Robert McMaster for their article, 'On Categorical Variables and Non-Parametric Statistical Inference in the Pursuit of Causal Explanations', later published in Cambridge Journal of Economics, 26(6): 753-772.

In 2000 the Kapp Prize was Stephen Dunn for his 2000 article, 'Wither Post Keynesianism?', Journal of Post Keynesian Economics,22(3): 343-364.

In 1999 the Kapp Prize was not awarded. 

In 1998 the Kapp Prize was not awarded.

In 1997 the Kapp Prize was awarded jointly to Elias L. Khalil for his 1997 article, 'Buridan's Ass, Risk, Uncertainty and Self-Competition: A Theory of Enrepreneurship', Kyklos, 50(2): 147-163, and to Ugo Pagano for his article, 'Transition and the Speciation of the Japanese Model', later published in Oliver Fabel, Francesco Farina and Lionnello F. Punzo (2000) (eds), European Economies in Transition: A Search of a New Growth Path, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

In 1996 the Kapp Prize was awarded to Bart Nooteboom for his article, 'Towards a Cognitive Theory of the Firm: Issues and a Logic of Change'.

In 1995 the Kapp Prize was not awarded.

In 1994 the Kapp Prize was awarded to Giovanni Dosi, Luigi Marengo and Marco Valente for their article, 'Norms as Emergent Properties of Adaptive Learning', later published in 1999 as 'Norms as Emergent Properties of Adaptive Learning: The Case of Economic Routines', Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9(1): 5-26.

In 1993 the Kapp Prize was awarded to Tony Lawson for his article, 'A Realist Perspective on Contemporary "Economic Theory"', later published in 1995, Journal of Economic Issues, 29(1): 1-32.

In 1992 the inaugural Kapp Prize was awarded to Ulrich Witt for his article, 'Innovation, Externalities and the Indeterminateness of Progress', later published in 1996 as 'Innovation, Externalities and the Problem of Economic Progress', Public Choice, 89(1-2):113-130.

Please note that the submission rules for the Kapp Prize have changed over time.