There have been at least 8 separate portrayals of Inspector Maigret, the Parisian detective in an English-speaking Paris. As a young boy in the 1960s I recall seeing Rupert Davies in the role. There were 52 episodes made, a very successful effort for the time. I saw Sir Michael Gambon play the role for 12 episodes in the early 1990s. I loved Rowan Atkinson's Maigret playing the role several times in 2017. By the magic of the internet I have been able to revisit these programs, all stimulated by a 2025 remake where Maigret is translated to modern Paris with smartphones and social media and where his smart number two is female, in contrast to all the other versions set in the 1950s, as Georges Simenon wrote him.

What causes Maigret to be such a popular detective? Several factors. The first is what AI search calls "his profoundly human, empathetic approach to crime-solving". He respects and understands the feelings and circumstances of criminals, victims, and suspects. Along with this, he is personally presented as a man with his own sadnesses. Secondly, he is politically incorrect, willing to turn a blind eye to minor crimes, and willing to disobey if his conscience requires it. Finally, the plots were advanced for their time.

One Maigret has a plot involving murder associated with pursuit of a prototype pistol with "inbuilt silencer". Essentially it is about Intellectual Property, although it is the dead inventor's prototype that is the "valuable" that explains the crime. Maigret had a plan to catch a "Jack-the-Ripper" serial murderer, using psychology, before this became an accepted thing.

The 2025 Nobel Prize in Economics rewards a brilliant piece of detective work; plus it involves an unusual amount of emotion and regard for society, as does Maigret. Nobody doubts that modern prosperity stems from technological advances, but it turns out you need two more things for an invention to have impact. (Economics Explained has an excellent explainer video, by the way.) We must understand the underlying science behind an innovation (think how knowing the Carnot cycle and heat engine theory is required for steam engines to achieve what they did), and it must be possible to clear away whatever businesses and professions stand in the way of an invention (think how hard it is for nuclear/solar/wind energy to displace fossil fuels compared to how easily electronic wristwatches swept away clockwork artisans). This is "creative destruction", remove the old to make way for the new. This knowledge should turn the fostering of innovation on its head.

Like Maigret, there is a stronger personal aspect to this Nobel than one usually expects... it is societal rather than mechanical (many a fictional detective is a plod who goes through a procedure... hence the term "police procedural"). Mokyr spent many years researching inventiveness and prosperity... not an activity you might expect to lead to fame. He concluded that societal change, including things like apprenticeships and college education, was required to connect theory and practice. Aghion and Howitt realised that the societal change of creative destruction had to happen to permit technology to lead to prosperity.

Australia and New Zealand desperately need to learn the lessons from this Nobel work. Their universities and funding mechanisms are not positioned to translate the inventiveness I have noted before into prosperity.

Yet there is another factor that is not noted in the Nobel work, at least in the EE sphere. Invention in the EE space can be extreme in its cost and duration. Consider the magnificent EUV machine that is the enabler of modern ICs and the last decade's extension of Moore's law. It took the better part of 20 years and many billions of dollars to develop. Aus and NZ do not well handle decade-long projects... their timelines are way too short, let alone their budgets.

In my opinion, this 2025 Maigret is brilliant. The writer(s) have truly translated the essence of Simenon's magnificent character and his plots into the 21st century. In contrast, the latest Lynley incarnation feels cheap and flat and politically correct. At least he still drives a Jensen Interceptor.