|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Uncertain||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Abhijit Banerjee||MIT||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Agree||2||Bio/Vote History|
|Markus Brunnermeier||Princeton||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
In the long run. But the long run can be very long...
|David Cutler||Harvard||Uncertain||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
True because it's already happened! Growth is down. Consumption is up.
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||No Opinion||
I'm not a fan of the "s word" (sustainable). The structure of China's economy will have to change over time, no question. But sustainable?
|Liran Einav||Stanford||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Amy Finkelstein||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Pinelopi Goldberg||Yale||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Strongly Agree||10||
must we relearn the same lesson in the same painful way again?
China's TREMENDOUS gains in living standards last 25 yrs is 1 of most impt events in history likely unsustainable but long run comes slowly
"If it can't go on forever, it won't"
As China becomes richer it will resemble other rich countries: growth rates will fall;wages and consumption will rise;investment will fall.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Strongly Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
Of course, it is unsustainable in the very long run, but near-to-mid term sustainability is at least plausible.
|Hilary Hoynes||Berkeley||Uncertain||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Strongly Agree||8||
Like 20th century Japan, Germany, etc., they are catching up with other economies and will slow down as they approach US/EU productivity.
|Steven Kaplan||Chicago||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
They've talked about rotating demand forever, looks like the markets have lost faith and are worried about bridges to nowhere, etc.
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
China's growth numbers have long been suspect; it is remarkable that new evidence of their weakness has so much effect on world markets.
However countries that grow very rapidly eventually hit a wall. Successful ones (e.g. Korea) return to growth after the stop.
Internal politics matters here and it is hard to be confident about future developments.
|Carl Shapiro||Berkeley||Uncertain||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Robert Shimer||Chicago||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Thaler||Chicago||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
In the long run, growth has to slow as the process of structural change approaches completion. Consumption eventually converges near income.
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.