Two thinks makes Sen stand out among Nobel Laureates and major economists:
his excruciating and incredibly revealing subtlety, breadth of and intensity of thought and grammar; no one comes close — save maybe Oliver Williamson, a follower, and in a different field Steven Pinker, the linguist. I believe he attributes that to his sanskrit-based training as a young brahmane; ‘cases’, one of the most expressive form of sanskrit syntax certainly permeate through his English.
Most major economist (rightfully) try to go for the simplest model: Ronald Coase comes to mind. He manages to marry that simplicity of intuition form the best with an attention to detail worthy of a gothic cathedral.his interest for politics and real life consequences of his theories (as pointed by Sylvia Nasar); he cares beyond anything you could expect from someone sitting so high in the Ivory tower; his ability to connect nuances with dramatic humane consequences makes anyone trained for years to adress such fine points cry.
As much as I love macroeconomists (I don’t) they tend to have fairly scary euphemisms; say, “quantitative easing” is far from “easy” on lower-class pensioners.