Yes, in most contexts. It is valid JSON syntax representing a JSON value.
The confusion around this comes from Douglas Crockford's RFC 4627, which originally defined the application/json internet media type in 2006. It said that:
A JSON text is a serialized object or array.
However, as Crockford explained in a post in 2013 (unfortunately deleted with rest of Google+, but archived here):
JSON is just a grammar, and the grammar includes numbers and strings. Uses of JSON must necessarily be more restrictive. RFC-4627 is one possible use, and was never intended to be the standard for JSON itself.
The example string is a valid JSON value, but it would have been incorrect to use it as the full "JSON text" body of an application/json HTTP response. However, that's no longer true: RFC-4627 was obsoleted in 2014 with the publication of RFC 7159, which lets you use any JSON value:
A JSON text is a serialized value. Note that certain previous specifications of JSON constrained a JSON text to be an object or an array.
A "standard for JSON itself" was also published in 2013, as ECMA-404, and JSON was also defined in edition 5.1 of the ECMAScript (JavaScript) specification ECMA-262. These specifications and most parsers allow any JSON value as a complete JSON text, even if it's just a simple string.
At the time this question was written, this would not have been a valid JSON text. It would have been a valid string that could appear as part of a JSON text.
As of 2014, RFC 7159 obsoletes the older JSON RFCs, and declares that any JSON value is valid JSON text and valid application/json content - including strings. However, it also points out the incompatibility issue with older JSON implementations:
Note that certain previous specifications of JSON constrained a
JSON text to be an object or an array. Implementations that
generate only objects or arrays where a JSON text is called for
will be interoperable in the sense that all implementations will
accept these as conforming JSON texts.