Tuesday, January 13, 2015 9:58am

Oil Prices

The recent decline in oil prices will promote higher real GDP in the US over the next couple of years.

Responses
 

Source: IGM Economic Experts Panel
www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Source: IGM Economic Experts Panel
www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel
Participant University Vote Confidence Comment Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu Daron Acemoglu MIT Agree 4
There will be a negative effect on the now sizable US energy sector, but the positive impact on the rest of the economy should dominate.
Bio/Vote History
         
Alesina Alberto Alesina Harvard Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Altonji Joseph Altonji Yale Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Auerbach Alan Auerbach Berkeley Agree 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Autor David Autor MIT Agree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Baicker Katherine Baicker Harvard Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Banerjee Abhijit Banerjee MIT Agree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Bertrand Marianne Bertrand Chicago Agree 4
Bio/Vote History
         
Brunnermeier Markus Brunnermeier Princeton Strongly Agree 8
A decline in oil prices leads to redistribution of wealth within the US, which favors (sub)sectors with impaired balance sheet constraints.
Bio/Vote History
         
Chetty Raj Chetty Harvard Agree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Chevalier Judith Chevalier Yale Agree 7
Obviously, there are losers as well as winners, but the US economy benefits on net.
Bio/Vote History
         
Currie Janet Currie Princeton Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Cutler David Cutler Harvard Strongly Agree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Deaton Angus Deaton Princeton Agree 9
We are still net importers, right. But there could be second round effects, especially political, that could moderate or even reverse it.
Bio/Vote History
         
Duffie Darrell Duffie Stanford Agree 7
Oil production investment is a negative, but reducing the cost of a raw input nets to positive, unless oil exports heavily dominate imports.
Bio/Vote History
         
Edlin Aaron Edlin Berkeley Agree 8
U.S. is a large net importer. Increased oil prices in the past have slowed GDP growth.
Bio/Vote History
         
Eichengreen Barry Eichengreen Berkeley Agree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Einav Liran Einav Stanford Uncertain 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Fair Ray Fair Yale Agree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Finkelstein Amy Finkelstein MIT Uncertain 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Goldberg Pinelopi Goldberg Yale Uncertain 5
Costs would go down, Fed may keep rates low. But negative effects on oil exploration, production and potential future oil exports.
Bio/Vote History
         
Goolsbee Austan Goolsbee Chicago Strongly Agree 10
but not as much as in the old days because the economy is more energy efficient now and because we have become a significant producer of oil
Bio/Vote History
         
Greenstone Michael Greenstone Chicago Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Hall Robert Hall Stanford Uncertain 5
The 1986 decline had little effect on real GDP. Oil prices don't shift production functions. Real income rises, but not real output.
Bio/Vote History
         
Hart Oliver Hart Harvard Agree 7
There are potentially confounding general equilibrium effects but the US as a net importer of oil should benefit from increased fracking.
Bio/Vote History
         
Holmström Bengt Holmström MIT Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoxby Caroline Hoxby Stanford Strongly Agree 10
The U.S. econom remains strongly anti-cyclical in oil prices. Some industries suffer from lower prices, but they are dominated by winners.
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoynes Hilary Hoynes Berkeley Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Judd Kenneth Judd Stanford Strongly Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Kaplan Steven Kaplan Chicago Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Kashyap Anil Kashyap Chicago Strongly Agree 7
For the average household this will be a like a tax cut, of course oil producing states suffer a bit, but overall this good news for the US
Bio/Vote History
         
Klenow Pete Klenow Stanford Agree 1
Ceteris paribus. And because the U.S is still a net importer.
-see background information here
Bio/Vote History
         
Levin Jonathan Levin Stanford Agree 3 Bio/Vote History
         
Maskin Eric Maskin Harvard Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Nordhaus William Nordhaus Yale Strongly Agree 8
Both because of quasi-fiscal stimulus and lower measured inflation.
Bio/Vote History
         
Saez Emmanuel Saez Berkeley Agree 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Samuelson Larry Samuelson Yale Agree 8
The decline in price is less significant than the technological progress in resource extraction it reflects, which should promote growth.
Bio/Vote History
         
Scheinkman José Scheinkman Princeton Agree 6
But if drop is result of correct forecast of weaker world economic activity, it will be hard to identify the net benefit ex-post.
Bio/Vote History
         
Schmalensee Richard Schmalensee MIT Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Shapiro Carl Shapiro Berkeley Strongly Agree 9
Bio/Vote History
         
Shimer Robert Shimer Chicago Agree 7
The US is still a net energy importer and the shock is largely a supply shock. But this will cause some reallocation away from shale
Bio/Vote History
         
Thaler Richard Thaler Chicago Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Udry Christopher Udry Yale Uncertain 7
We have almost balanced trade in energy; the net effect will be very small (although there will be distributional effects).
Bio/Vote History
         

10 New Economic Experts join the IGM Panel


For the past two years, our expert panelists have been informing the public about the extent to which economists agree or disagree on important public policy issues. This week, we are delighted to announce that we are expanding the IGM Economic Experts Panel to add ten new distinguished economists. Like our other experts, these new panelists have impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters, and their names will be familiar to other economists and the media.

To give the public a broad sense of their views on policy issues, each new expert has responded to a selection of 16 statements that our panel had previously addressed. We chose these 16 statements, which cover a wide range of important policy areas, because the original panelists' responses to them were analyzed in a paper comparing the views of our economic experts with those of the American public. You can find that paper, by Paola Sapienza and Luigi Zingales, here. The paper, along with other analyses of the experts' views, was discussed during the American Economic Association annual meetings, and the video can be found here.

The new panelists' responses to these statements can be seen on their individual voting history pages. Our ten new economic experts are:

Abhijit Banerjee (MIT)
Markus K. Brunnermeier (Princeton)
Liran Einav (Stanford)
Amy Finkelstein (MIT)
Oliver Hart (Harvard)
Hilary Hoynes (Berkeley)
Steven N. Kaplan (Chicago)
Larry Samuelson (Yale)
Carl Shapiro (Berkeley)
Robert Shimer (Chicago)


Please note that, for the 16 previous topics on which these new panelists have voted, we left the charts showing the distribution of responses unchanged. Those charts reflect the responses that our original panelists gave at the time, and we have not altered them to reflect the views of the new experts.

We have also taken this opportunity to ask our original panelists whether they would vote differently on any of the statements we have asked about in the past. Several experts chose to highlight statements to which they would currently respond differently. In such cases, you will see this "revote" below the panelist's original vote. We think you will enjoy seeing examples of statements on which some experts have reconsidered.

As with the 16 previous statements voted on by new panelists, these "revote" responses are not reflected in the chart that we display showing the distribution of views for that topic: all the charts for previous questions reflect the distribution of views that the experts expressed when the statement was originally posed.

About the IGM Economic Experts Panel

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.

chicago booth