|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Strongly Agree||10||
Taxing negative externalities reduces economic distortions; taxing labor creates them. This is the tax equivalent of a free lunch!
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Harvard||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
Since carbon is a worldwide pollutant, leakage of production to other jurisdictions remains a concern.
|Janet Currie||Princeton||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|David Cutler||Harvard||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Darrell Duffie||Stanford||Strongly Agree||4||
Pollution is a negative externality. It is hard to argue the same for employment! If $150b per year isn't way too much tax, this is obvious.
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Pinelopi Goldberg||Yale||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Claudia Goldin||Harvard||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
but partly b/c statement intentionally doesn't consider distributional or implementation issues with carbon taxes.
|Michael Greenstone||Chicago||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
There's reasonable evidence that carbon emissions raise the temp, but it is less clear that the net effects of warming are negative.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Caroline Hoxby||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Anil Kashyap||Chicago||Agree||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Edward Lazear||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
Agree at a high level, but implementation of such a tax could create many new distortions and loopholes.
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
The likely outcome, though the answer depends on relevant elasticities.
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Hyun Song Shin||Princeton||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Nancy Stokey||Chicago||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
Great on effiency but not on progressivity so you have to get that right elsewhere.
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Strongly Agree||8||
The details matter, and CO2 reduction is a global public good, so this policy is not sufficient. But it's a step forward.
|Luigi Zingales||Chicago||Strongly Agree||7||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.