With the death of Anthony Atkinson, the economics profession has lost not only one of the finest British economists of his generation, but also a figure of world standing. Someone once asked Paul Samuelson, one of the earliest recipients of the Nobel Memorial prize in Economics, what it took to win a Nobel prize. Samuelson replied: hard work. That description certainly applies to Samuelson. His answer, however, tells only part of the story. Hard work must be allied to a powerful intellect, but hard work is a necessary condition for the highest attainment. Reading through the obituary for Tony Atkinson in the Times newspaper, one cannot help but be struck by the sheer volume of his achievements. There are the numerous journal papers – more than 2 a year throughout his career. Added to this are a dozen books and advisory documents, plus reflections of his thought in publications by pupils and colleagues. Right at the end of his life when he was gravely ill, he completed a study for the World Bank on the measurement of poverty which will surely be hugely influential. All this on top of administration and advising on the international stage. How he found time for recreation, including his much-loved sailing, and travel, and family is hard to comprehend.

One thing that stands out from Tony’s career is focus. He could do anything from high theory to detailed data crunching. He could easily have switched from one field to another, following the latest fashion. But that was not his way. As a young economist, he worked on and taught about poverty and inequality, and so it was until the end of his life. This focus came from a powerful moral concern with poverty. Some people who share that concern are rather self-righteous and condescending to those who disagree with them. That was never Tony’s way. He was sure in his views, as they were well-researched, but he knew that there were other views and he confronted them by arguing his case firmly and respectfully.

Tony was always a committed European and a supporter of the European Union (EU). There was nothing starry-eyed about this position. He travelled widely and absorbed the many different national and sub-national positions on European questions. If he found British Euro-scepticism exasperating it was because of its ignorance not because it was self-interested. It was just this balanced realistic assessment of the EU that the voters rejected in the Referendum of June 2016. The voters voted from the heart not from the head, led in that direction by a shameful national debate prior to the vote. We all have hearts as well as heads. Was Tony’s support for a national dividend (a fixed payment to all citizens followed by high marginal tax rates) a case in point?