Yes! I am very happy that Angus Deaton was awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Economics. Finally!

I was delighted when I heard that the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences had decided to award The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel for 2015 to Prof. Angus Deaton - Scottish born, Cambridge University educated, Professor at Princeton Univeristy. They announced that it was "for his analysis of consumption, poverty, and welfare".

Indeed. As the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences pointed out in their citation: "More than anyone else, Angus Deaton has enhanced [our understanding of individual consumption choices]. By linking detailed individual choices and aggregate outcomes, his research has helped transform the fields of microeconomics, macroeconomics, and development economics."

This is very true. His main contributions to economics have been improving the data and the analysis, especially at the microeconomic (household) level, that shape our understanding of poverty and of inequality. But what endears him even more to someone like me is the optimism that he derives from this empiricity. Specially, since so many empiricists derive anything but that. This is best captured and represented in his magisterial tome, The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality (Princeton Univeristy Press, 2013).

The New York Times review of the book by David Leonhardt ('The Cokeyed Optimist,' December 19, 2013) has been much quoted today, especially for describing Angus Deaton's central message as "deeply positive, almost gloriously so." Others seem as moved by that message. Bill Gates, for example, suggests that "if you want to learn about why human welfare overall has gone up so much over time, you should read The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality."

Leonhardt's review of the book deserves to be read again. He starts, as the start should be by quoting Deaton opening sentences:

“The greatest escape in human history is the escape from poverty and death. For thousands of years, those who were lucky enough to escape death in childhood faced years of grinding poverty.” - Angus Deaton

He goes on to point out that "The Great Escape of Deaton’s title refers to the process that began during the Enlightenment and made progress the norm. Scientists, doctors, businessmen and government officials began to seek truth, rather than obediently accept dogma, and they began to experiment. In Immanuel Kant’s definition of the Enlightenment: 'Dare to know! Have the courage to use your own understanding!'"

For Angus Deaton, as Leonhardt points out, "Knowledge — which is to say education — is humanity’s most important engine of improvement." And that "rising education is the most powerful cause of the recent longevity boom in most poor countries, even more powerful than high incomes." The conclusion, and the irony of the conclusion, is explained by Angus Deaton in his summary of the book:

"The world is a better place than it used to be. People are healthier, wealthier, and live longer. Yet the escapes from destitution by so many has left gaping inequalities between people and nations."

But it is the reviewer's conclusion that we should pay heed to as we understand Deaton and his Great Escape: "It is true that many of today’s biggest problems, including economic growth, education and climate, defy easy solutions. But the same was true, and much more so, about escaping centuries of poverty and early death. It was hard, and it involved a lot of failure along the way. The story Deaton tells — the most inspiring human story of all — should give all of us reason for optimism, so long as we are willing to listen to its moral."

Great empiricist that he is - and precisely because he is a great empiricist - he defies the narrowness of those more beholden to their (quantitative) method than to the purpose (and policy implications) of their enquiry. As someone who works on inequity he can tell the story of worsening global inequity with passion and conviction but without denying the story of human progress within which that inequity has grown.

The mind that can keep those ideas together is is a mind that can make other important connections too. For example, the connections that lead him to realize that Foreign Aid has mostly failed to promote even economic growth, let alone development.

The the "central dilemma" is that when the conditions needed for development are present, countries do not need any aid; and when they are not, aid ends up being not very useful, sometimes actually harmful.

The preoccupations of Angus Deaton have been what the preoccupations of microeconomists are. That he has also applied some of these to my country, Pakistan, makes me happy. Though, of course, his conclusions are not exactly endearing.

This, from a 1992 World Bank Paper he co-wrote with Franque Grimard on "Demand Analysis and Tax Reform in Pakistan."

Reportedly, he hopes that "carefulness in measurement" will be his legacy. That is a big wish, but I hope that some of the things that are not central to his "major contribution" to the field will also become part of that legacy. For example, his work on 'happiness' with Daniel Kahneman - psychologist, fellow Princeton professor, and winner of the 2002 Nobel prize in economics.

There is, of course, going to be so much more to the career and contribution of any Nobel laureate than what has been highlighted above. "Real" economists may not even consider what I have highlighted here as great contributions. That may well be so. But, to me, especially from a policy world perspective, this is what I know and respect him for.

If only more scholars could develop the ability to be "careful in measurement" while not losing the ability to think big, think bold.

Adil Najam is the Dean of the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies at Boston University and former Vice Chancellor of the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). He tweets @AdilNajam.