Two American economists won the Nobel Prize in economics Monday for their research into how to match different actors in given markets, such as job seekers with employers and patients with donated kidneys. David Wessel has details on Lunch Break. Photo: AP. 
 
 Two Americans won the Nobel Prize in economics Monday for research that has improved the way people are matched with limited resources, such as patients with donated organs or students with their preferred high schools. 
 
 Enlarge Image Close Reuters Lloyd Shapley, above, and Alvin Roth won the prize in economics for separate bodies of work that have helped kidney patients and high-school applicants. 
 
 Alvin Roth, a Harvard University professor who is moving to Stanford University, and Lloyd Shapley of the University of California Los Angeles were honored "for the theory of stable allocations and the practice of market design," the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said. 
 
 Their research focuses on how to fairly and efficiently match people with things—be they employers, schools or donated kidneys—when pricing isn't involved. Their work led to systems used by school districts in New York City, Boston and other cities to place students in high schools; by hospitals to match donated kidneys with patients; and by a program that assigns recent medical-school graduates to hospitals for residency programs. 
 
 Messrs. Shapley and Roth worked independently, rather than together. 
 
 The academy pointed to Mr. Shapley's research, starting in the 1950s, that was highly theoretical—he initially examined how spouses select one other—and later was used by Mr. Roth to address real-life situations. 
 
 Real Time Economics Alvin Roth and Lloyd Shapley were lauded for their research on how to match different agents in markets, such as job seekers with employers. Find out more about their work in this Real Time Econ post. 
 
 "Now we are able to see the fruits of this 50-year quest, if you wish, and these techniques—initially very much mathematical—are now directly affecting peoples' lives," said Tayfun Sonmez, a Boston College economist. Mr. Sonmez, who also has done research on matching kidney donors and patients, said the systems developed by Messrs. Shapley and Roth have made it easier for families to find others for kidney exchanges. "We can use some of these insights to optimally organize these exchanges so that we can save as many lives as possible," he said. 
 
 Two American economists have won the Nobel Prize in economics for their work in researching market design and putting practical applications in use. Harvard's Alvin Roth and Lloyd Shapley of UCLA were honored. Video: Associated Press. 
 
 The academy said the pair's combined work "has generated a flourishing field of research and improved the performance of many markets." The award, officially called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, carries a $1.2 million prize. 
 
 Mr. Shapley, 89 years old and a professor emeritus at UCLA, was honored for 1960s-era research, conducted with the late David Gale, that theorized how men and women could be matched for marriage. A "stable" match occurred when each side's preferences were met. The academy said Mr. Shapley's algorithm ensured "stable matching" and served to "limit agents' motives for manipulating the matching process." 
 
 Winners & Their Work Read more about the 2012 laureates. View Graphics Nobel Prize Winners See which academic institutions and countries have had the most winners. View Graphics 
 
 Mr. Roth, 60, later used that theoretical research to address real-world problems. Starting in the 1980s, he first examined the residency system used to assign medical-school graduates to hospitals and determined that the system led to "stable matches." But not for all. The system couldn't accommodate doctor couples who wanted to be placed in the same region. Mr. Roth redesigned the system to take into account such requests when placing residents. 
 
 Mr. Roth helped redesign New York City's process for assigning students to high schools in 2004. Under the old system, students would list their top five preferred schools. Schools, in turn, were more likely to admit students who ranked them as their first choice. After three rounds of selections, remaining students were assigned through an administrative process, the Academy said. Some 30,000 students a year were assigned to schools for which they had expressed no preference, the academy said in a description of Mr. Roth's work. Mr. Roth designed a new system, based on Mr. Shapley's and Mr. Gale's initial algorithm, that addressed those issues. In the first year, the number of students assigned to schools they hadn't requested dropped by 90%. 
 
 Getty Images Alvin Roth 
 
 In a phone interview broadcast during a news conference in Sweden, Mr. Roth joked, "When I go to class this morning, my students will pay more attention." 
 
 He said in a separate interview that one outcome of his research is that schools are responsive to families' preferences. "School places are scarce resources. What's a good place for one child may differ from child to child," Mr. Roth said. The algorithms developed by Mr. Roth and his colleagues let schools use the information provided by parents on which schools would best suit their children. "It would be a shame not to use that information well," he said. 
 
 In a statement released by UCLA, Mr. Shapley's sons, Peter and Christopher Shapley, said, "We know he is tremendously thankful that his life's work is being recognized with such a prestigious award and grateful for the many congratulations expressed by colleagues and friends." 
 
 Write to Josh Mitchell at joshua.mitchell@dowjones.com ||||| Mo Ibrahim prize for African leadership: No winner 
 
 Mo Ibrahim said only exceptional leaders will get the prize 
 
 Continue reading the main story Related Stories 
 
 There is no winner this year for the world's most valuable individual prize - the Mo Ibrahim prize for good governance in Africa. 
 
 The $5m (£3.2m) prize is supposed to be awarded each year to a democratically elected leader who governed well, raised living standards and then voluntarily left office. 
 
 The panel said no candidate had met all of the criteria - as in 2009 and 2010. 
 
 Last year, Cape Verde President Pedro Verona Pires won the prize. 
 
 He led the fight against Portuguese colonialism, introduced multi-party politics and was praised for raising living standards. 
 
 The $5m prize is spread over 10 years and is followed by $200,000 a year for life. 
 
 'No compromise' 
 
 Announcing the decision, Mr Ibrahim said: "You make your bed, you have to lie on it. If we said we're going to have a prize for exceptional leadership, we have to stick to that. We are not going to compromise." 
 
 "We are not just in the business of positive messages - we would lose our credibility," the AFP news agency quotes him as saying. 
 
 "The prize committee reviewed a number of candidates but none met all of the criteria needed to win the prize," said committee member Salim Ahmed Salim. 
 
 The two other winners in the six years since the prize was launched were Botswana's President Festus Mogae and Mozambique's Joaquim Chissano. 
 
 Earlier this month, Mr Ibrahim's foundation announced a special $1m award to Archbishop Desmond Tutu for "speaking truth to power". 
 
 The London-based body called the cleric "one of Africa's great voices for justice, freedom, democracy and responsible, responsive government". 
 
 Sudan-born telecoms entrepreneur Mr Ibrahim says the good governance prize is needed because many leaders of sub-Saharan African countries come from poor backgrounds and are tempted to hang on to power for fear that poverty awaits them when they leave office. ||||| The Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership is the world's most generous prizes. It is also proving to be one of its most elusive, after the prize committee announced on Monday that there was no African leader who met the criteria for the 2013 award. 
 
 This is the second year in a row that no suitable candidate has been found. Since its inception in 2007, the prize has only been awarded three times. 
 
 Dr Mo Ibrahim, a Sudanese-British telecoms tycoon and philanthropist, established the London-based Mo Ibrahim Foundation to help inspire good governance and exceptional leaders. By finding so few candidates that meet its standards, critics of the award argue it reinforces negative stereotypes about African leaders. 
 
 Al Jazeera's Yasmine Ryan spoke with Dr Ibrahim about why the foundation is finding it so hard to find awardees, the relationship between rising inequality and worsening rule of law, and the controversy surrounding the International Criminal Court's (ICC) focus on African leaders. 
 
 Al Jazeera: Were there any leaders who might have qualified who were under consideration for the Mo Ibrahim Prize this year? 
 
 Mo Ibrahim: Yes of course, I'm not a member of the prize committee, but according to the rules, the committee looks at the people that left office in the last three years, peacefully. It is up to the prize committee to decide whether people meet the standard. We set a very high standard, of course. And we are proud of our prize committee for being credible and tough. It's a prize for excellence, it's not a pension. 
 
 The Mo Ibrahim Prize A $5-million award followed by $200,000 a year for life Winners include Botswana's Festus Mogae, Mozambique's Joaquim Chissano.and Cape Verde's Pedro Verona Pires Eligible leaders must have been democratically elected and have left office peacefully within the last three years In 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013 no award was given 
 
 AJ: Do you think it's time to expand the prize, perhaps to include the many non-heads of state who are playing a positive transformative role? 
 
 MI: We created a brand, a prize, for a specific reason. We should not tinker with that. If there is a need to offer prizes to wonderful parliamentarians, to great newsmen or women, to footballers, or whoever, that's fine. But we should not just mix up things together and destroy the brand we have just because one or two years we don't have a winner. 
 
 What is the objective of this? It's focusing on presidents as tools to change their countries, given the power they have. We have not cornered the market on prizes and we invite everybody else to offer prizes for civil society, for the best NGO, for whatever. 
 
 Ourselves, we offered a different kind of prize for the Archbishop Desmond Tutu. This was a prize for a brave man who spoke truth to power. 
 
 AJ: The Nobel Peace Prize committee is, interestingly, often criticised for the opposite reason; for not being selective enough. Do you think the Nobel Peace Prize committee could learn something from the Mo Ibrahim Foundation? 
 
 MI: I will not start by criticising the Nobel Peace Prize committee, because on my committee we have three Nobel Prize winners, and I'm afraid to upset them! [Laughs] So I pass, no comment. 
 
 AJ: The Ibrahim Index of African Governance ranking countries according to their performance was also released today. You have said that the information collated in the index is an important empowering tool for citizens in the countries surveyed. In what ways can citizens use this information? 
 
 From the 2013 Ibrahim Index of African Governance 
 
 MI: This is a scorecard. It shows exactly what has been achieved over the last 13 years. We've been publishing very detailed data over 13 years. We have 133 parameters we measure. It gives people full details: How effective is the police force? How effective is the judiciary? Women's social and economic rights… 
 
 This is a wealth of information, for people to see what is strong, to keep doing it, and what needs to be fixed. It also gives an opportunity to compare your performance with that of your neighbour, to enable conversations, peer review. We can pick up the phone and say "What are you doing here"? 
 
 Every time I meet an African president, they open up the index. They love it, because it can help them improve their performance. 
 
 AJ: The index shows that the gap between the best and worst countries is widening. Do you think this growing inequality is a uniquely African issue, or you think it is part of a global trend? 
 
 MI: There are two areas of inequality. One issue is that we see that eight countries have been in the top ten since the beginning of our data collection. It seems the guys who got it right, they build their institutions and it keeps them on the right path. 
 
 At the bottom, actually there have been a lot of changes. The best improvement, actually, has been from some of the countries at the bottom, that managed to get out of poverty and did not fall back into the vicious cycle of poverty. 
 
 The second part [of the issue of inequality] is that the fruits of the economic progress, somehow appear to be limited to the top one percent of the population. That is producing a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor. That produces tension. This phenomenon is not just an African phenomenon, it's happening in the US, it's happening in the UK, it's happening everywhere. 
 
 This is dangerous. You are building tension inside society. You will reach a point where social cohesion is destroyed. 
 
 AJ: The index also showed a trend of worsening levels of personal safety and the rule of law. What are the factors driving these trends? 
 
 MI: I just told you. 
 
 AJ: That it's due to the inequality? 
 
 MI: Exactly. Most of the violence before was happening because of tensions and hostilities across borders. Now it is happening because of conflict within the country. We need to look [at] why are we are lacking social cohesion. 
 
 From the 2013 Ibrahim Index of African Governance 
 
 AJ: You've spoken in the past about how Africa's youthful population gives it the possibility of becoming the next "factory of the world". Which countries do you think are best place to do this? 
 
 MI: I wouldn't like to pick one country. I think the country that's going to do this is the country that's going to produce a better education for its young people, better training for young people. We need people who are able to serve the new economy. We need people who are versed in the new software, people who are good with their hands, smart kids. 
 
 AJ: Kenya's President Uhuru Kenyatta has called the International Criminal Court "imperialist and racist", and there are many African leaders who agree with him. Do you think there is any truth to their assertion that the ICC has targeted African leaders unfairly? If so, what's the alternative? 
 
 MI: I think there's a need for a serious conversation between the African Union and the ICC. On one hand, the allegation that the ICC has only tried or prosecuted African leaders is correct. Do atrocities only happen in Africa? What is happening in Myanmar, what is happening in Baghdad? Where is the ICC? That's a valid question. 
 
 On the other hand, Africa has no alternative to the ICC. We don’t have an African criminal court that is capable of really trying crimes against humanity. So when we have victims in Africa – and we do have victims in many cases – who can give them justice? 
 
 Instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, we need to find a way to reconcile the two. We need to find a way to the ICC so that it doesn't become just a political tool, as it is perceived by some African leaders. 
 
 Global governance is in crisis. Do we say "let us withdraw from the United Nations"? We love the United Nations, we need the United Nations, what we need to do it to try and reform it, because we need it. 
 
 That is the same approach we need to take with the ICC and some of these other global governing bodies. Let’s be cool-headed, and find a way to move forward. 
 
 You can follow Yasmine Ryan on Twitter: @YasmineRyan
– Americans Alvin Roth and Peter Shapley have won the Nobel prize for economics on the strength of their work matching players in a wide range of markets, the Wall Street Journal reports. "For example, students have to be matched with schools, and donors of human organs with patients in need of a transplant. How can such matching be accomplished as efficiently as possible?" asks the Swedish Academy in charge of the awards. "The prize rewards two scholars who have answered these questions on a journey from abstract theory on stable allocations to practical design of market institutions." The prize is the last of the 2012 Nobels to be awarded, the AP notes. In other major prize news, this year's winner of the Mo Ibrahim prize for good governance in Africa is... nobody. Just as in 2009 and 2010, no candidate qualified for the world's biggest individual prize, at $5 million. The prize is intended for a leader who's elected democratically, boosts living standards, and leaves office voluntarily, the BBC notes. "You make your bed, you have to lie on it. If we said we're going to have a prize for exceptional leadership, we have to stick to that. We are not going to compromise," said Ibrahim.