How have Nobel Prize monetary amounts changed over time and why did the foundation raise the prize in 2020 and 2023?
Executive summary
The Nobel Prize monetary award has fluctuated since 1901, reflecting the Nobel Foundation’s investment returns, currency value and periodic financial retrenchment; after reductions in 2012 the Foundation incrementally raised the prize to SEK 9 million , SEK 10 million and SEK 11 million [1] [2]. The 2020 and 2023 increases were explained publicly as responses to stronger endowment values and financial viability, with the Foundation linking the 2020 rise to improved investment capital and the 2023 rise to a higher market value of invested assets and currency considerations [3] [4] [5].
1. How the headline numbers have moved since 1901
When the first Nobel Prizes were awarded in 1901 the cash award per category was SEK 150,782, and the face-value Swedish-krona sum has been adjusted repeatedly over the century to reflect the Foundation’s finances: notable recent shifts include a reduction from SEK 10 million to SEK 8 million in 2012 as part of a program to strengthen finances, then increases to SEK 9 million in 2017, SEK 10 million in 2020 and SEK 11 million in 2023 [5] [1] [2].
2. Why the Foundation reduced the prize in 2012 and then raised it again
The 2012 cut from SEK 10 million to SEK 8 million was an explicit fiscal tightening — the Foundation initiated a broad-based program to bolster long‑term finances and protect the endowment [1]; subsequent gradual restorations of the prize level reflect recovery in the Foundation’s investment position and deliberate policy choices to restore the award closer to its historical purchasing power [2] [1].
3. The 2020 increase: investment returns and a stronger endowment balance
The Foundation and financial reporting tie the 2020 SEK 1 million increase — from SEK 9 million to SEK 10 million — to growth in the endowment’s investment capital, which Investopedia reports rose from roughly SEK 3 billion in 2012 to about SEK 4.6 billion by 2020; the Foundation funds prizes from investment income, so improved capital allowed a larger annual award [3].
4. The 2023 increase: market value, exchange rates and an explicit “financially viable” rationale
For the 2023 bump to SEK 11 million the Nobel Foundation again cited financial viability and stronger market value: Phys.org quoted the Foundation saying market value of invested capital reached SEK 5.799 billion at end‑2022, and Reuters and AP reported the Foundation framed the SEK 1 million raise as reflecting that stronger financial position and noting the Swedish krona’s weakness against major currencies [4] [2] [5]. Media coverage emphasized that while the krona rise increases the nominal kronor sum, laureates paid in foreign currency see outcomes shaped by exchange rates, so the real international purchasing power depends on currency moves [2].
5. What the public explanations leave open and alternative perspectives
Public statements and financial reporting uniformly link the increases to improved endowment performance and financial viability [3] [4] [5], but that explanation leaves room for alternative readings: the Foundation’s choice of investment strategy, risk appetite, and policy decisions about how much capital to preserve versus distribute shape prize sizing yet are described only at a high level in the sources [3]. Journalists and analysts also point out that inflation and currency swings matter — a higher krona number does not automatically equal greater real income for laureates abroad, and the Foundation’s periodic cuts and restorations show prize policy balances intergenerational stewardship of Nobel’s bequest against current visibility and prestige [2] [5].
6. Bottom line and limits of available reporting
The simple arc is clear in foundation and press materials: the Nobel endowment recovered from a conservative tightening in 2012 and the Foundation raised the prize to SEK 10 million in 2020 and SEK 11 million in 2023 because investment capital had grown and the organization judged increases financially viable [1] [3] [4]. Sources used here report those reasons directly; they do not provide detailed audited breakdowns of portfolio returns, allocation changes or internal deliberations, so deeper forensic claims about cause-and-effect beyond the Foundation’s stated rationale cannot be substantiated from the supplied reporting [3] [4].