The curtain has fallen in Oslo and Stockholm. The Nobel Prize laureates have been announced. The award ceremony has taken place; however, it has invariably generated less excitement than the pre-announcement committee meeting.
No more days of expectations and hope stretching into sleepless nights of anxiety for all those who were nominated in the various categories. A few of them would have certainly taken it for granted that the Nobel Committee owed them. Many will be bitter, some for a long time, though commentators of all ilks have never tired of reminding their audience that it’s always possible that a person’s achievement, including Nobel nominees’, could be under-evaluated by just one influential voice in a committee of several members.
We are informed every year of the predicaments of Nobel contenders, soon or later after the names of the awardees become public. Secrets of dashed hopes for the nominee–or their supporters–and their tolls on nominees circulate within exclusive circles, and exceptionally in the public space. Occasional stories of injustice and tales of retribution are sometimes fed to media consumers to explain a nominee’s rejection. People have thus widely speculated about the non-consecration of Nigeria’s towering literary figure, Chinua Achebe, by the Nobel Prize Committee. I remember sharing a table at a restaurant in Cambridge, MA, with luminaries of African/Black literature and critics from Harvard University and other prestigious American higher learning institutions that discussed this topic. Why did Achebe not get the Nobel Prize whereas Wole Soyinka did?
In this particular case it’s usual to cast Achebe and Soyinka as rival prominent writers–even though there is no evidence of animosity between the two. The luminaries mostly eschewed this. One averred, nevertheless, that Soyinka excelled in each genre he wrote in–novels, poetry, plays, and essays–while Achebe failed to do so in poetry. A layman in that area, I left the restaurant persuaded that I finally understood why the Nobel Prize Committee for Literature overlooked the author of the timeless chef d’oeuvre, Things Fall Apart, the gateway to modern African literature for every African high-school adolescent. But recently, I read Ugochukwu Ejinkeonye’s article in Business Day, a Nigerian newspaper, and no longer subscribe to that explanation. The article is laden with empirical facts that have allegedly contributed to Achebe’s missing the Nobel Prize for Literature.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
It reports that on 11-17 April 1986, a roster of African writers congregated in Stockholm, at the request of the Swedish Academy, to discuss the state of African literature. Household names such as Wole Soyinka and Chinweizu Ibewke, the political scientist and journalist, author of the 1975 damning book The West and the Rest of Us: White Predators, Black Slavers, and the African Elite, were among the participants. One notable absence, however, was recorded, that could have shadowed the whole conference: Chinua Achebe’s. In response to the invitation letter from the Swedish Academy, the author of There Was a Country wrote: “I regret I cannot accept your generous invitation for the simple reason that I do not consider it appropriate for African writers to assemble in European capitals in 1986 to discuss the future of their literature. In my humble opinion it smacks too much of those constitutional conferences arranged in London and Paris for our pre-independence political leaders.”
The tone is certainly well balanced, but the message seems earnest and programmatic: the evaluation of African literature should be left to Africans primarily, and undertaken on African soil.
Reflecting on this epistolary exchange, the Nigerian writer and the Nobel Committee, Ejinkeonye hypothesizes that the rejection of Achebe that same year that the Swedish Committee averred that it was Africa’s turn to receive the Nobel Prize for Literature, and consequently Wole Soyinka received the prize, could be explained by the content of the forementioned letter. Did the Swedish Committee punish a frontrunner for acting like an “uppity African?” Moreover, Achebe’s widely-read 1975 essay, “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness”, was an attack on the Western literary giant, Joseph Conrad. This might have already ruffled the feathers of some European literary gatekeepers in Stockholm and Oslo.
In the discussions about Africans and Nobel Prize, too much focus seems to be accorded to the individual’s worth and chances. In so doing, we lose sight of the bigger picture; we fail to ask questions about a structural issue. A major question should be: to what extent is the Nobel Prize a reflection of the current world order and how does Africa feature in this order?
To answer this, I peruse the long history of the Nobel Prize and assess how African countries have fared in the attribution of the globally renowned and coveted prizes.
Geographical distribution of prizes
The Nobel Prize awards were introduced in 1901 and are funded with the huge fortune of Alfred Nobel, an engineer and industrial tycoon known mostly for his great inventions in the domain of armaments. Except for a few years where the Nobel Committee did not deem any individual or collective worthy of the award, the Prize is given yearly to one person or more in recognition of their contribution to the advancement of knowledge and/or acts that are of “greatest benefit to humankind.” The Nobel was originally designed to distinguish individuals in five specific fields: Chemistry, Literature, Medicine, Peace, and Physics. In 1969, Economics was added to the list, awarded by the Swedish Riksbank (Central Bank) in memory of Alfred Nobel, under the administration of the Nobel Foundation.
The following tables summarize the Nobel Prize awards distributed since 1960 in three categories: Economics, Literature, and Peace. 1960 is chosen as a date of departure, for it represents the year most African countries formally recovered their political sovereignty. As regards Economics, Literature, and Peace, this choice was motivated by a simple reason that of all the domains of human activities singled out by the Nobel Committee, these three are the most inclusive and democratic. Compared to Medicine and Chemistry, exceptional achievements in Economics, Literature, and Peace require less financial investment from the individual.
One could use the sport analogy to make a point. A gifted 400-metre runner might only need a good pair of running shoes to reach their best performance, whereas a gifted hurdle horse racer would need a good helmet, a good horse, and an appropriate terrain for training, all of which cost much more money than a pair of shoes. Economics,
Literature, and Peace rarely require the installation of costly research laboratories for they are, theoretically, not experimental studies. In light of Africa’s numerous material challenges, the chances that its countries fare better in the domains of Literature, Economics, and Peace surpass their chances to do so in the other domains. Besides, Africa’s grappling with a long history of sociopolitical unrest and violence compels it to inspire scores of its citizens weary of such living conditions to invest in peace-building initiatives. Furthermore, the rich oral culture of Africa, which a growing educated population has been translating into written literary form, has resulted in highly original work, a fact ostensibly undervalued by the Nobel Literature Committee.
Table 1: Top countries awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics (1969-2025)
Recipient countriesAwards
Total awardsRankPercentage (%)
USA401st50.63
UK62nd7.59
Canada43rd5.06
Israel34th3.79
India/Scotland/Russia/Norway/Sweden/Netherland
25th2.53
All Africa0N/A0%
[Note: Several times nationals of more than one country received the Prize, and the Committee distinguished two persons from the same country. When the award was extended the same year to two or more persons from the same country (example: Lars Peter Hansen, Robert J. Shiller, and Eugene Fama, in 2013), I counted only one award for this country. The total number of recipients amounts therefore to 79.]
Table 2: Top countries awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature (1960-2025)
Recipient countriesAwards
Total awardsRankPercentage (%)
France61st8.95
Hungary/UK/USA42nd5.97
Poland/Japan/Germany/Russia33rd4.47
Austria/Sweden/Canada/China/South Africa/Italy/Ireland/Spain27th2.98
All Africa5N/A7.46
[Note: In 1966, the award was extended to nationals of two different countries: Hungary and Germany. For this reason, the total of awards distributed between 1960 and 2025 amount to 67 instead of 66.]
Table 3: Top countries awarded the Nobel Prize in Peace (1960-2025)
Recipient countriesAwards
Number awardsRankPercentage (%)
USA141st18.18
South Africa42nd5.19
France/Switzerland/Egypt33rd3.89
Japan/Iran/Russia/Northern Ireland/Poland/Israel/ Sweden26th2.5
All Africa14N/A18.18
[Note: Several times, nationals of more than one country received the Prize, and the Committee distinguished two persons from the same country (example: Nelson Mandela and Frederik W. De Klerk in 1993). When the award was extended the same year to two persons from the same country, I counted only one award for this country. In total, 77 awards were distributed.]
Making sense of the statistics
In none of the five domains of recognition does an African country claim the premier place. In none does the entire African continent rise to first place. However, some subjects or areas seem more inclusive of Africa’s contribution than others.
No spot for Africa in Economics
Overwhelmingly dominated by the USA, the Nobel Prize in Economics is the most exclusive one as far as Africa is concerned. Besides, among the three awards, the Nobel Prize in Economics has distinguished the least number of individuals originating from a Global South country. Three countries constitute the exception. India received it twice, Turkey and Saint Lucia once. Africa’s nil performance could be interpreted as a reflection of the global economic ranking. As Table 2 shows, the USA claims the highest number of recipients of this prize, 40: that is over 50% of the total number of awards. The USA’s superiority is reflective of its dominance in the field of economic studies and in economic development. As the QS World University Ranking by subject shows, in Economics and Econometrics US universities claimed the top seven spots in 2025. Three British Universities (LSE, Oxford, and Cambridge) respectively took the following three spots; other US universities won the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th spots. No African university is listed in the QS World University top 100 higher education institutions with the best training programmes and the highest research outputs in Economics and Econometrics. Per the 2024 World Bank indicators, the USA has the world’s highest GDP, $29 trillion, far ahead of China, the second in the rankings, with close to $19 trillion GDP the same year. The African country with the highest GDP score is South Africa with about $400 billion.
Africa’s performance in Literature
The Literature and Peace Prizes offer a different portrait. African countries’ performance in those areas is relatively remarkable compared to its result in Economics, though Western countries, including France (the top contender with six awards, with a population 14 times smaller than Africa’s), claim the lion’s share. Four African countries have been distinguished at least once. Nigeria, the first African country to be distinguished, claimed the prize once. Egypt and Tanzania also received it once, and South Africa twice. Africa’s performance could be qualified as noteworthy, for South Africa ranks fourth ex-aequo with several Western countries and China, and behind eight countries, all Western, with the exception of Japan and Russia. Africa’s relatively strong performance in Literature certainly does not result from one single factor. However, one should be cognizant of the history of Africa so as to understand this performance.
Three elements of Africa’s history need to be recalled. The first is the emphasis on assimilation by most colonial regimes in Africa. In the Belgian, British, French, and Portuguese empires, the elevation of the native to the status of exceptional subject and hence qualified for citizenship was premised on the native’s mastery of the colonizer’s language. The second element is the strong connection between colonization and language. As soon as the sound of the canons and bayonets used to break the natives’ resistance stopped, the colonial regimes resorted to language to dominate and administer the natives. The depiction of the natives’ cultures as backward and savage and as legitimation for their exploitation and subordination was all conceived of in books: literary oeuvres and legal tomes.
The colonial-era writer Cheikh Hamidou Kane deftly captures this reality in his 1961 novel Ambiguous Adventure through a short exchange between two of his characters: Pierre Louis, the French West Indian lawyer; and Samba Diallo, the main character of the book and youngster coming to study in France from his Diallobe kingdom. To Samba Diallo’s statement that he is a student of philosophy, Pierre Louis excitedly tells him that this is a wonderful choice, because the colonized subjects can only peer into the world of the colonizers through the latter’s language. Their secret is couched in the language of their law and philosophy; therefore, it is crucial to learn both subjects, the lawyer asserted.
The third element is the professional identity of those who led the anticolonial movement and eventually their respective countries. Many highly educated African heads of states were trained in the humanities and law. Among them: Senghor, in Senegal, received postgraduate training in literature and linguistics; Nkrumah, in Ghana, enrolled in a doctoral programme in philosophy; Nyerere, in Tanzania, enrolled in a Master’s degree in Arts at the University of Edinburgh, and completed courses in English literature, anthropology, constitutional law, and history. To the colonizers’ promotion of their own culture within the colonies, the African elite responded by studying this culture–but for the hidden and subversive purpose of identifying the secrets of European victory and ending Africa’s subordination to Europe, suggests Cheikh Hamidou Kane through his main female character, The Most Royal Lady.
The Peace Prize and the syndrome of the Western saviour
Of all the three prizes, the Nobel Peace Prize is the one whose distribution is the most likely to trigger questions. Indeed, as shown in Table 3, the country with the highest number of awards is the USA, with a total of 14. Four countries share second spot. Among them two (Egypt and South Africa) are African; each has thus far claimed three awards. Africa in its entirety received as many Nobel Peace Prizes as the USA, a country with a population three times smaller than Africa’s. If this distribution seems discomfiting it is mostly because of the geographical division of violent conflicts and social problems around the world. Post-1960s USA could hardly qualify as the most violent conflict-torn society on earth.
The Civil Rights Movement certainly caused a serious sociopolitical disruption that needed to be addressed peacefully; and the Vietnam war was a well of horrors to drain by means of diplomatic negotiations. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars are two other violent occurrences instigated by the US government and needed a peaceful intervention of members of the American citizenry. Martin Luther King was distinguished in 1964 for contributing to bridging the racial divide in America–the cause of the Civil Rights movement.
As Ken Hughes notes in a 2023 article entitled “Kissinger’s Foreign Policy Legacy Tainted by Vietnam War,” Henry Kissinger, the architect of the peace plan to end the atrocities in Vietnam, was rewarded by the Nobel Peace Committee for advising President Richard Nixon to pull out of Vietnam in 1972, to facilitate Nixon’s reelection the same year–even though Kissinger had advised the US President, in 1969, to bomb North Korea, to use nuclear bombs and mines against North Vietnam, and had opposed Nixon’s decision to pull US troops out of South Vietnam, which prolonged the war. As for Barack Obama, his coronation by the Nobel Peace Committee was mostly the result of his 2008 presidential campaign’s promise to foster more cooperation between nations, free the world from nuclear power, and withdraw American troops from Iraq.
The African continent, compared to the USA, has arguably been the theatre of the highest number of conflicts and social problems. According to the Peace Research Institute Oslo, for the decade 2013-23, Africa was the region suffering most from state-based conflicts. First, during this period, the number of conflicts increased from 15 to 28. Second, by 2023, the number of state-based conflicts was much lower in other regions of the world: 17 in Asia, 10 in the Middle East, three in Europe, and one in the Americas. On the other hand, until 2022, it was in Africa that the highest number of non-state-based conflicts in the world has been recorded, according to Siri Aas Rustad. In a previous paper, Rustad points out that, during that period, “Africa has by far the highest number of non-state-based conflicts compared to other continents”.
Assuming that agency translates into an individual’s or a group’s ability to identify the cause of their own predicament and strategize to address it, one could expect Africans to play the primary role in understanding and attempting to solve the conflicts in their own continent. And considering that, for the past three decades at least, Africa is the region with the highest number of state-based and non-state-based conflicts, it could have received more Nobel Peace Prizes than any continent.
Yet, the USA in particular and the West in general have mostly been the recipients of this award. Africa’s under-representation in this category raises questions. The distribution of this award reveals firstly the lingering association of African countries with powerlessness. Countries that always “need saving” (to borrow from the title of Lila Abu Lughod’s book Do Muslim Women Need Saving?) Secondly, and in connection with the first point, the disproportionate distribution of this award reinforces the representation of the West at large, and the USA more specifically as the Saviour for the “Wretched of the Earth” (to invoke the title of Fanon’s book).
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Western countries (through their citizens) are rewarded for contributing to ending the violence and social plights they have inflicted on other countries and the ones they have created within their own borders. On the other hand, African nations are only rewarded for the role of their own citizens in peace-building initiatives within Africa. More importantly, the disproportionate distribution of the Nobel Peace Prizes indicates that the Peace Committee has often overlooked Africa’s conflicts and social problems and their attempted solutions by Africans. An example: from July 1967 to January 1970, the Biafra War unfolded and eventually claimed over a million lives.
The Peace Committee did not extend any award in 1967, but did in the next four years, distinguishing a national of France, René Cassin “for his struggle to ensure the rights of man,” a UN organization, the ILO for “creating international legislation insuring certain norms for working conditions,” a national of the USA, Norman E. Borlaug, for promoting “the Green Revolution,” and a citizen of West Germany, Willy Brandt for “paving the way for meaningful dialogue between East and West.” All these efforts are commendable and deserve mention.
But are they worthier of mention than parallel efforts of figures such as Colonel Ojukwu, a Biafran leader, General Gowon, the head of state of Nigeria during the Biafra secession, and the Organisation of the African Union to reach a diplomatic solution to the Biafra war and limit the bloodshed? Despite the bitter feelings of their respective peoples, Ojukwu and Gowon expressed their willingness to a ceasefire and a peacekeeping force manned by foreign militaries. As the former considered giving up the idea of Biafran sovereignty as a pre-condition for negotiation, the latter no longer made the preservation of the Nigerian union a pre-condition for negotiation and even suggested that Nigeria could opt for a confederation model.
Africa is the epicentre of most of the conflicts and sociopolitical crisis recorded in the past three decades at least. However, those who are hailed as conflict and crisis solvers are mostly from Western countries. This is an asymmetrical two-sided vision of the world, which the Nobel Peace Committee seems to subscribe to. Not much ground needs to be covered to eventually find a striking resemblance between this re-actualization of a certain world order by the Nobel Peace Committee and Marlow’s portrayal of Africa in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness as the continent of hopelessness, lawlessness and passivity, barely able to address its own predicament.
Conclusion
Globally hailed as the major instrument of evaluation of individual excellence in a few areas of human activities, the Nobel Prize reveals a striking alignment with the world order. Beyond the individuals it distinguishes, it offers a reenactment of the distribution of the world’s prestige to largely benefit the Global North. It exhibits the prejudices the so-called developed countries have held against “developing nations.” As Robert K. Merton wrote in a 1968 article entitled “The Matthew Effect in Science,” about the distribution of scholarly prestige, the Nobel Committee, just like the academic system, rewards those who have too much at the expense of those have much less.
The countries of the Global North have claimed the largest proportion of distinction in the three categories analysed here. African countries in particular have underperformed in most areas, even where they might have been expected to be dominant. The Nobel Peace Prize, for example, considering the number of (civil or military) war-torn countries in the continent in the past six decades.
The domination of the USA in this category elicits questions: Does it result from the over-evaluation of the Western players’ performance to the detriment of Global South players? Is it intended to incentivise peace? The recent noise about rewarding Donald Trump with the Nobel Peace Prize for his late engagement in the Russia/Ukraine war, the Palestine/Israel war, and the Rwanda/Democratic Republic of Congo conflict, when scores of little and invisible individuals in each of these areas were trying to bridge the divide between the warring nations, is an example to think about. The under-representation of African countries in the Nobel Peace Prize warrants further investigation.
Abdoulaye Gueye is a professor of sociology at the University of Ottawa. His research covers black identity formation, African Brain Gain, and knowledge production.