|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Agree||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Strongly Agree||8||
The question contains its own answer.
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Agree||2||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Harvard||Uncertain||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Judith Chevalier||Yale||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Janet Currie||Princeton||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|David Cutler||Harvard||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Strongly Agree||8||
It does indeed provide some brake on long-term spending, but there has to be a better way.
This is a second chance to gridlock. A budget passed by Congress already authorizes the necessary funding.
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||8||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|
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Strongly Agree||10||
|Michael Greenstone||MIT||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Robert Hall||Stanford||No Opinion||
This is a question about the behavior of members of Congress. I don't see how an economist could have any expertise on this.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Caroline Hoxby||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
In the past, it was not acceptable for legislators to create the disruption from blocking a debt increase. Even RR disapproved.
|Anil Kashyap||Chicago||Strongly Agree||7||
Deciding whether or not to pay the debts incurred to fund the previously approved tax and spending is nuts.
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
Might not have given the same answer two years ago, but at this point, seems hard to disagree.
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Maurice Obstfeld||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Strongly Agree||9||
Just read the paper.
|Hyun Song Shin||Princeton||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Nancy Stokey||Chicago||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Thaler||Chicago||Strongly Agree||10||
The debt ceiling is a dumb idea with no benefits and potentially catestrophic costs if ever used.
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
It can also lead to potential better outcomes
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.