|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Agree||2||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Agree||3||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||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Darrell Duffie||Stanford||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
It is unusual to fight hard (and die) to preserve an unprofitable institution.
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
This was clearly Fogel's main thesis, but it is not uncontroversial.
|Claudia Goldin||Harvard||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
We will miss Fogel here at Chicago.
|Michael Greenstone||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Robert Hall||Stanford||Strongly Agree||10||
I would have said "Slavery was abolished because it was morally deeply wrong, not because it was in the owners' interest to free slaves"
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
I read & do not research this topic, but this is my take-away from much reading. I would defer to greater experts, however.
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
Time on a Cross was very convincing -- and so disturbing to my sister-in-law that she decided not to be an econ major after reading it!
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Maurice Obstfeld||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Hyun Song Shin||Princeton||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Nancy Stokey||Chicago||Strongly Agree||8||
Bob Fogel, who was an exemplary scholar, a courteous colleague, and a warm, kind person. He will be greatly missed.
|Richard Thaler||Chicago||Strongly Agree||7||
Fogel and Engerman make a convincing case.
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Did Not Answer||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.