|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
LONG run and sustained...
|Janet Currie||Princeton||Uncertain||2||Bio/Vote History|
It depends what the spending is for.
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
Boosting the short run implies a tradeoff, and a distortion in market incentives for long run efficient savings.
lower long run savings is likely to lower long run living standards regardless of source. likely, not certain.
I would give a different answer depending on whether we were talking about Brazil or China.
|Ray Fair||Yale||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Pinelopi Goldberg||Yale||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
Important question with an answer that depends on too many factors for a flippant response on my part.
if we are talking long-run
|Michael Greenstone||Chicago||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
Only an unlikely exotic economy could over come the basic principle that more now means less later.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
Artificial depression of saving, which is the (unintentional) effect of many govt policies, reduces welfare unless itoffsets some distortion
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Anil Kashyap||Chicago||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Strongly Agree||9||
Not everywhere and always, but probably here and now for most such policies.
-see background information here
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||No Opinion||
Poorly worded and loaded question.
|Maurice Obstfeld||Berkeley||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Uncertain||5||Bio/Vote History|
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Hyun Song Shin||Princeton||Uncertain||8||Bio/Vote History|
Unclear what is meant by a "spending policy that boosts consumption."
|Richard Thaler||Chicago||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|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.