|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Agree||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Did not answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Strongly Agree||8||
No question that this is effective. Whether it's Pareto improving is open to debate.
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Harvard||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
Of course, as stated, if the SOLE goal were increasing saving, then even the opt-outs are contrary to the goal.
|Janet Currie||Princeton||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|David Cutler||Harvard||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Darrell Duffie||Stanford||Strongly Agree||1||
The effort to opt out raises participation. Is that good? Thats a separate issue.
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Pinelopi Goldberg||Yale||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Claudia Goldin||Harvard||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
for lots of ppl, the evidence backs this one up well
Strong evidence that true inside firm savings plan. Less clear abt overall savings. Danish evidence is impt
An age-contingent default might be even better.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Caroline Hoxby||Stanford||Strongly Agree||10||
The research is quite unambiguous on this point. I have not seen any contrary findings (although savvy savers are unaffected by defaults).
This might be effective in the short run but I have doubts about the long run
|Anil Kashyap||Chicago||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Maurice Obstfeld||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Hyun Song Shin||Princeton||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Nancy Stokey||Chicago||Strongly Agree||8||
See Thaler and Sunstein's "Nudge."
|Richard Thaler||Chicago||Strongly Agree||10||
Finally a question which I am qualified to answer.
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Strongly Agree||8||
There is strong evidence that such "nudges" are effective in raising savings. The welfare consequences are less certain.
|Luigi Zingales||Chicago||Did not answer||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.