“The Nobel Prize is celebrated as the pinnacle of global achievement, but a closer look reveals a long history of systemic bias. From geographic exclusion to glaring omissions, this analysis explores how the awards have consistently favored the West, overlooking transformative contributions from the Global South and women”
Compiled by the Newswriters Editorial Team
The Nobel Prize is universally regarded as the pinnacle of human achievement, an accolade that confers near-mythical status upon its recipients. Yet a critical examination reveals that the prize is far from a perfectly objective arbiter of merit. Instead, it is deeply influenced by systemic, institutional, and cultural biases that shape who is recognized, for what work, and from which regions. Over time, these biases have constructed a historical narrative of progress skewed toward a narrow demographic and geopolitical power center.
The recipients are overwhelmingly from North America and Europe, with glaring underrepresentation of the Global South—Africa, Latin America, South Asia, and other regions disproportionately affected by conflict and working actively for peace. Groundbreaking efforts by Global South leaders, especially those confronting colonial legacies, poverty, or cultural divides, are often sidelined due to lack of access or influence within global institutions and committee networks shaped by Western priorities.
Mounting evidence indicates Nobel Peace Prize decisions are susceptible to political motivations and a Western-centric worldview, resulting in chronic under-recognition for the Global South’s pivotal peace contributions. Fundamental changes are essential to ensure more equitable acknowledgment in the future.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee, which selects Peace laureates, is appointed by Norway’s parliament, typically comprising former politicians with biases shaped by their nation’s alliances and interests—especially NATO and the European Union. Decisions can reflect prevailing political winds, strategic intent, or Western narratives about peace and progress instead of objectively rewarding global contributions.
Examples abound: Shimon Peres’s award legitimized controversial military actions, while Barack Obama received the prize for aspirations rather than proven achievements, which the Institute’s own director revealed was meant to “strengthen” his presidency rather than reward concrete peace efforts.
Geographic Bias: A Western-Centric Worldview
The most glaring imbalance lies in the overwhelming dominance of laureates from North America and Western Europe.
The West: Typically includes North America (U.S. and Canada), Europe (especially Western Europe), Australia, and New Zealand. Israel is often included in this group in analyses due to its scientific and economic integration with the West.
The Global South: A socio-political and economic term for countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania (excluding Australia and NZ) that are often described as “developing,” “less developed,” or “low and middle-income.”
The Overall Numbers: A Stark Disparity
As of the 2023 awards, over 95% of all Nobel Prizes have been awarded to individuals from Western countries.
Total Individual Laureates: Approximately 965 individuals have won a Nobel Prize.
Laureates from the Global South: Approximately 40-50 individuals, depending on classification.
This means that the West, with about 15% of the world’s population, has received over 95% of the prizes, while the Global South, with about 85% of the world’s population, has received less than 5%.
Statistical Imbalance: The United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and France account for a disproportionate number of prizes, particularly in the sciences. For instance, the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University alone has produced more Nobel laureates than all of Asia.
Structural Causes: This disparity is not merely a reflection of where “the best science” is done. It stems from:
Network Effects: The nomination process relies heavily on established Western academic institutions and previous laureates, creating an echo chamber that perpetuates existing biases.
Gender Bias: Overlooking Women’s Contributions
The underrepresentation of women among Nobel laureates remains stark and persistent. The Numbers: Only 65 women have won a Nobel Prize out of over 900 individual laureates as of 2024. In scientific fields like Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine, the numbers are vanishingly small.
Interpretive Bias: Narrow Definitions of “Importance”
The Nobel committees operate with specific, often conservative, interpretations of Alfred Nobel’s will, leading to biases in what kind of work is deemed prize-worthy.
The “Benefit to Mankind” Criterion: This phrase is often interpreted narrowly, favoring applied, discoverable science over foundational theoretical work. For example, Albert Einstein won the prize not for his theory of relativity but for the photoelectric effect—a concrete, testable phenomenon.
Major Omissions: Icons Left in the Shadows
The Architect of a Lasting Peace: Mahatma Gandhi
The Nobel Prize’s biases are perhaps most vividly illustrated by its historic omissions—individuals whose contributions were unequivocally deserving of recognition.
Mahatma Gandhi: The archetype of nonviolent resistance, Gandhi was nominated five times but never awarded the Peace Prize. In 1948, the year of his assassination, the committee awarded no prize, stating there was “no suitable living candidate”—a decision widely seen as an admission of failure.
The Case for Recognition: Gandhi was the paragon of 20th-century non-violent resistance. He developed and demonstrated the efficacy of Satyagraha (truth-force) as a political tool, inspiring countless future peace and justice movements globally, including Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.
The Omission and Its Context: He was nominated five times but never won. The reasons are complex and damning:
Political Pressure: As a subject of the British Empire, awarding Gandhi would have been a direct affront to a key Allied power, especially during the World Wars and the fragile post-war period.
The “Instrumental” View of Peace: Some on the committee viewed him as a nationalist leader first and a peace apostle second. They failed to see that his methods were his message of peace.
The Ultimate Irony: Gandhi was assassinated in January 1948. That year, the Nobel Committee awarded no prize, stating there was “no suitable living candidate.” This admission is widely seen as a tacit acknowledgment that Gandhi was the only suitable candidate, and his death had exposed their failure. Many view this as the Peace Prize’s greatest historic failure.
Stephen Hawking: His transformative work on black holes and cosmology remained unrecognized, likely due to the theoretical and difficult-to-verify nature of his predictions.
Vasili Arkhipov: His solo decision to prevent a nuclear launch during the Cuban Missile Crisis averted catastrophe, yet his invisible act of courage went unrewarded. Vasili Arkhipov performed one of history’s most critical yet overlooked acts of peace during the Cuban Missile Crisis when he single-handedly vetoed the launch of a nuclear torpedo from his submerged Soviet submarine, preventing nuclear war. His clandestine courage in that pressurized moment saved countless lives, yet remains absent from Nobel recognition—highlighting how the prize often overlooks invisible, preventative acts of peace in favor of public, political achievements.
Notable Controversies:
Henry Kissinger and Lê Đức Thọ (1973): Awarded for the Paris Peace Accords to resolve the Vietnam War, this prize is often cited as the most controversial. Lê Đức Thọ refused the prize, arguing that peace had not truly been achieved, while Kissinger’s role in U.S. involvement in Cambodian bombings and his support for repressive regimes led to global criticism and resignations within the Nobel Committee itself.
Barack Obama (2009): Just months into his presidency, Obama received the Peace Prize for his promises rather than concrete achievements, prompting criticism from both supporters and detractors for the prize being awarded prematurely.
Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin (1994): These leaders shared the prize for efforts toward the Oslo Accords, but Arafat’s controversial past and subsequent failure of the peace process led to heated debate and committee resignation.
Aung San Suu Kyi (1991): While originally honored for her peaceful resistance to Myanmar’s military regime, Suu Kyi later faced condemnation for her government’s persecution of the Rohingya minority, challenging the committee’s accountability regarding laureates’ future actions.
European Union (2012): Awarded for promoting peace in Europe, critics argued that the selection ignored ongoing crises and complexities within the EU and failed to address its own role in economic and social turmoil.
The case of Shimon Peres, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 alongside Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, is a quintessential example of the controversies and complexities surrounding the award, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Critics argue the prize was awarded for a promise of peace that was never fulfilled, making it, in hindsight, premature.
The award was given for the Oslo Accords, a series of secret negotiations that produced a landmark Declaration of Principles.
Conclusion: Toward a More Equitable Future
The Nobel Prize’s biases are not incidental but embedded in its structure, processes, and history. From geographic and gender disparities to interpretive narrowness and political influences, the prize has often failed to reflect the true breadth of global achievement.
Reforms—such as diversifying nominators, increasing transparency, and rethinking categories to better reflect collaborative and interdisciplinary work—are essential steps toward realigning the prize with its founding ideals. Until then, the Nobel Prize will remain a mirror of global power dynamics rather than a pure measure of human progress.
Sources & Further Readings:
Nature News: “How Nobel Prizes Create Winners and Losers in Science”One of the world’s leading science journals, Nature provides immense credibility. This article offers a high-level critique of the systemic biases, including the problematic “rule of three,” the distortion of scientific priorities, and the exacerbation of geographic and gender disparities.
Link: nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03046-x
The Lancet: “The Nobel Prize’s Posthumous Problem”This source from a premier medical journal provides a specific and powerful lens on gender bias. It explains how the rule against posthumous awards has permanently cemented the exclusion of women like Rosalind Franklin, making their oversight irreversible and highlighting a critical flaw in the prize’s structure.
Link: thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)61384-9/fulltext
The Guardian: “A Nobel Cause: How the Peace Prize Proves the West’s Blind Spots”This article provides a critical analysis of the most politically charged prize. It delves into the Eurocentric focus of the Peace Prize, using the seminal omission of Mahatma Gandhi to illustrate how the committee’s decisions often reflect Western geopolitical interests rather than universal peacemaking.
Link: theguardian.com/news/2016/oct/04/nobel-peace-prize-west-blind-spots
Our World in Data: “Nobel Prizes by Country”This is an essential source for hard data. It provides clear, visual, and interactive charts that irrefutably demonstrate the overwhelming dominance of the United States and Western Europe across all prize categories, offering the statistical backbone for the argument of geographic bias.
Link: ourworldindata.org/grapher/nobel-prizes-by-county
The National Security Archive: “The Submarines of October”This source provides primary documentary evidence for a key omission. Its declassified documents and analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis offer conclusive proof of Vasili Arkhipov’s world-saving actions, grounding the argument about “invisible peacemaking” in verifiable historical record.
Link: nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16174-document-01-national-security-archive
