|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Strongly Agree||7||
Broad macro conditions and macro policy matter most, but targetted policies have a role.
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Harvard||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Judith Chevalier||Yale||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Janet Currie||Princeton||Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
Sometimes sectoral policies turn out to be very large -- as with the auto industry and the health care industry.
A politically unfettered federal government could do a lot, so there are presumably implicit side conditions here?
|Darrell Duffie||Stanford||Agree||2||Bio/Vote History|
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
"Viewed as rough guesses" is a very polite and understated way of putting it, guys.
|Ray Fair||Yale||Strongly Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
What does "macroeconomic" mean? The "macro" economy is an aggregation of micro untis. Of course the effects of any policy are uncertain.
|Claudia Goldin||Harvard||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Strongly Agree||10||
only question is whether 'rough guesses' is too generous
|Michael Greenstone||Chicago||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Robert Hall||Stanford||Strongly Agree||10||
No doubt about this whatsoever!
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Caroline Hoxby||Stanford||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Anil Kashyap||Chicago||Strongly Agree||7||
POTUS macro choices matter somewhat but most sexy attempts to pander to get votes are inconsequental & shocks they can't control are big.
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Edward Lazear||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
"Rough guesses" misses the point. I would say "large overestimates" as they are usually not effective ways of increasing either AD or AS.
|Maurice Obstfeld||Berkeley||Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Hyun Song Shin||Princeton||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Nancy Stokey||Chicago||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
Agree. More generally too much weight is given to the jobs numbers. How about if we evaluate a president by the return on the stock market
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Strongly Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Luigi Zingales||Chicago||Agree||3||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.