The grip enjoyed by men on the Nobel Prize for Economics was broken at last when in October 2009, Elinor Ostrom, a professor at the University of Indiana, became the first woman to be honoured with the award. However, more noteworthy perhaps is the fact that both Prof Ostrom and her fellow American academic, Professor Oliver Williamson of the University of California, Berkeley, with whom she shares the award, are regarded more as Social Scientists in the academic world than as economists. Both professors specialise in economic governance and the deployment of authority to resolve conflict -phenomenon that in the present circumstances couldnt be more crucial to any other part of the world than here in Pakistan. While there may be no controversy about a woman winning the prize, a storm seems to be brewing amongst the traditionalists that both this years winners cannot be described as economists in the strict sense of this science. This may apply to Professor Ostroms work in particular who herself admits to being more interested in social well being of the world population at large than coming up with mere economic theories. She has written notably about how common resources like forests and fisheries are best exploited if the rules and regulations are set by their actual users rather than by the government. In this context, it may give heart to environmentalist in particular and citizens of Lahore in general, that apparently the Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan is also closely following and appreciating the work of Professor Ostrom. Chief Justices granting of a stay and agreeing to view closely the pleas of the Lahorites against cutting of centuries old trees on the Canal Bank seems just in line with what the newly crowned Nobel Laureate stands for, more importantly as she argues in her thesis that environment-related decisions are the prerogative of the users (people) and not the government Her research points to a fresh approach towards helping poverty alleviation in underdeveloped countries. That is by uplifting economic governance through focusing on properties and infrastructure in common use, and especially on the facilities that have direct correlation to the basic and day-to-day quality of life of common citizens. She challenges the conventional wisdom that common property will tend to be poorly managed unless it is either regulated by central authorities or else if it is simply privatised. In defence of her argument she investigated and highlighted the negative impact of efforts in Nepal to replace a network of traditional, locally built agricultural irrigation dams with modern dams from concrete that are run by a government agency. Again something that even our successive government should take note of in their endeavour to manage development, since they cannot seem to think beyond either selling things off or give it in the hands of incompetent state controlled management instead of relying on the common users to optimally manage their own home. The message from the selection of winners of this award is very loud and clear, that the real nobility is in the tangible social uplift of the common citizen and not merely in a macro economic uplift, a notion ironically totally amiss in the policies of our present-day economic managers