I'm not super familiar with their work.

But one thing I'll say about the econ prize is that the way it's talked about in the press is usually somewhat different from why economists laud the winners.

Usually, the winners have made a major methodological contribution which triggered an explosion of follow-on work. Sometimes, this follow-on work will contradict the implications of the original work. So, economists care more about the methodology than the social implications.

However, in the press it's usually about the social implications of the original work, because methodology is boring or too hard to communicate. (This explains why last year's prize winner Chris Sims was reluctant to speak about policy specifics when pressed by an audience member--because he views his contribution as primarily methodological.)

Just wanted to point out that nuance, so that people can understand more the prize, and not put too much weight on the so-called "policy implications" of the prize winners' work.