|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Strongly Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Harvard||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Judith Chevalier||Yale||Strongly Agree||9||
See Mankiw's NY Times column for a good discussion.
|Janet Currie||Princeton||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|David Cutler||Harvard||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Strongly Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Darrell Duffie||Stanford||Strongly Agree||7||
If the supply of high-skilled labor is constrained as now, productivity is harmed and the average person pays more for goods and services.
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Pinelopi Goldberg||Yale||Strongly Agree||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Claudia Goldin||Harvard||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Strongly Agree||10||
|Michael Greenstone||MIT||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
The big issue in immigration is the families of the workers. Almost any worker is a benefit, but the other family members may be costly.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
As a matter of economics,question does not have a simple answer.There are trade-offs.Canada's immigration suggests positive overall effects.
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Anil Kashyap||Chicago||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
Economic growth and fiscal benefits, and wage reductions for comparable domestic workers, all seem hard to measure.
-see background information here
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Maurice Obstfeld||Berkeley||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
Some highly educated natives would likely lose, but I expect there would be net gains overall. Hard to be very confident, though.
|Hyun Song Shin||Princeton||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Nancy Stokey||Chicago||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Thaler||Chicago||Strongly Agree||8||
This is a no brainer. You can't be serious about "job creators" without supporting reform here.
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Strongly Agree||7||
The overall benefits of increased migration of this kind are enormous. The distribution of these benefits is less well-understood.
-see background information here
|Luigi Zingales||Chicago||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
This panel explores the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. To assess such beliefs we assembled this panel of expert economists. Statistics teaches that a sample of (say) 40 opinions will be adequate to reflect a broader population if the sample is representative of that population.
To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters.
Finally, it is important to explain one aspect of our voting process. In some instances a panelist may neither agree nor disagree with a statement, and there can be two very different reasons for this. One case occurs when an economist is an expert on a topic and yet sees the evidence on the exact claim at hand as ambiguous. In such cases our panelists vote "uncertain". A second case relates to statements on topics so far removed from the economist's expertise that he or she feels unqualified to vote. In this case, our panelists vote "no opinion".
The Economic Experts Panel questions are emailed individually to the members of the panel, and each responds electronically at his or her convenience. Panelists may consult whatever resources they like before answering.
Members of the public are free to suggest questions (see link below), and the panelists suggest many themselves. Members of the IGM faculty are responsible for deciding the final version of each week’s question. We usually send a draft of the question to the panel in advance, and invite them to point out problems with the wording if they see any. In response, we typically receive a handful of suggested clarifications from individual experts. This process helps us to spot inconsistencies, and to reduce vagueness or problems of interpretation.
The panel data are copyrighted by the Initiative on Global Markets and are being analyzed for an article to appear in a leading peer-reviewed journal.