There isn't a Nobel prize in Economics though, even if that is what the article says. It is the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences as Alfred Nobel did not set it up.
Yes, it's technically correct, though I get tired of hearing this brought up all the time, as if it's some sort of weird conspiracy theory to make it sound like there's a "Nobel Prize" when there isn't one.
Look -- the Nobel Prizes are awarded by the Nobel Foundation. They use the same administrative mechanisms and process for choosing the economics prize, the same academic body (the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) makes the selections as most other prizes, they give the same award money, and they give the award at the same ceremony.
The difference is that the other prizes were created by Nobel himself, while the economics prize was later endowed by contributions to the Nobel Foundation, who agreed to administer the prize under the same criteria.
So yes, while Nobel himself didn't set it up, the fact is that the only body that matters NOW is who awards the prize, that that foundation (which actually OWNS and administers things called "Nobel Prizes") has decided to award a prize in economics too, which it basically treats in every way EXACTLY THE SAME as the other prizes.
This strikes me like someone claiming that the Harvard Medical School or the Harvard Business School aren't REALLY "Harvard" schools, because John Harvard didn't explicitly will money to create schools of medicine or business or whatever back in the 1630s... he just wanted to create a college, and it was mostly a kind of seminary in the early days. So, you may think you are a Harvard Medical School grad -- but it's not REALLY "Harvard."
There IS a bit of a difference here because the Nobel Foundation itself tries to keep a subtle distinction in the naming of the prizes, probably due to legal constraints about how the will was worded exactly. But acting like there's some big difference and it's not "really a Nobel Prize" is ridiculous -- it's just a historical and semantic distinction, not one that actually means anything in terms of how the prize is administered, selected, or awarded. And that's probably why the media usually makes little distinction, because in all ways that ACTUALLY MATTER, there isn't one.
(And by the way, usually this argument tends to come up from people who want to claim economics isn't a "real science" or something. I won't get into that argument, but well, neither is "peace" or "literature.")