|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Agree||9||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||5||Bio/Vote History|
Fortunately, we haven't had much productivity growth in manufacturing -- so not much wage pressure. :-}
|Katherine Baicker||Chicago||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Abhijit Banerjee||MIT||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
It depends what type of productivity improvement whether it is labor saving or increases labor demand in this sector.
|Raj Chetty||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Judith Chevalier||Yale||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
This is true for sectors without technological change. Health care has a lot of tech change.
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Darrell Duffie||Stanford||Uncertain||2||Bio/Vote History|
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||8||
True, by and large with some caveats.
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Liran Einav||Stanford||Agree||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Amy Finkelstein||MIT||Uncertain||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Pinelopi Goldberg||Yale||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
We will miss Bill Baumol
|Michael Greenstone||Chicago||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Robert Hall||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
I expect the cost of education to rise relative to i-phones .Technology does make superstar teachers widely available, which offsets this.
Spillover may be getting weak.
Baumol's theory is obvious:1st principles of econ. But economists GREATLY overstate its importance in explaining cost growth in education!!
|Hilary Hoynes||Berkeley||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Strongly Agree||8||
This is a serious problem in education. If you are good at math, why would you want to be a high school teacher?
|Steven Kaplan||Chicago||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Anil Kashyap||Chicago||Strongly Agree||10||
An example of something that is probably not obvious to non-economists but has been demonstrated to be true
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Strongly Agree||10||
Productivity and price trends are inversely related across industries. It jumps out at you when looking at the data.
-see background information here
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
Could go either way depending upon labor demand. Unfortunately misconception.
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Larry Samuelson||Yale||Strongly Agree||8||
One sees clear evidence in a variety of labor-intensive services -- education, health care, professional orchestras, and so on.
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Carl Shapiro||Berkeley||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Robert Shimer||Chicago||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Thaler||Chicago||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Christopher Udry||Yale||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.