|Philippe Aghion||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Franklin Allen||Imperial College London||Strongly Agree||8||
I think this is true in many markets. In financial markets it may be less true because of the money at stake but they matter there too.
Still, models with fully rational agents provide a perfectly good approximation for explaining many market outcomes!
|Timothy J. Besley||LSE||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Olivier Blanchard||Peterson Institute||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Nicholas Bloom||Stanford||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard William Blundell||University College London||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Agnès Bénassy-Quéré||Paris School of Economics||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Elena Carletti||Bocconi||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Jean-Pierre Danthine||Paris School of Economics||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Paul De Grauwe||LSE||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Jan Eeckhout||University College London||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Ernst Fehr||Universität Zurich||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Xavier Freixas||Universitat Pompeu Fabra||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Nicola Fuchs-Schündeln||Goethe-Universität Frankfurt||Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Jordi Galí||Universitat Pompeu Fabra||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Luis Garicano||LSE||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Francesco Giavazzi||Bocconi||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Rachel Griffith||University of Manchester||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Veronica Guerrieri||Chicago Booth||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Luigi Guiso||Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance||Uncertain||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Martin Hellwig||Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods||No Opinion||
Is "fully rational" about optimization or about expectations? Is "market outcomes" about anything in the real world or about markets?
|Patrick Honohan||Trinity College Dublin||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Henrik Kleven||Princeton||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Jan Pieter Krahnen||Goethe University Frankfurt||Uncertain||5||
while I see the impact of nudging on macro outcomes (e.g. pension fund participation), I am uncertain whether this is due to irrationality.
|Per Krusell||Stockholm University||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Botond Kőszegi||Central European University||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Eliana La Ferrara||Bocconi||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Christian Leuz||Chicago Booth||Agree||3||
Tend to agree, but depends on setting & details. Often traditional models can be extended to explain as well. Point is not always to predict
|Costas Meghir||Yale||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Peter Neary||Oxford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Kevin O'Rourke||Oxford||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Marco Pagano||Università di Napoli Federico II||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Lubos Pastor||Chicago Booth||Uncertain||7||
Psychology can be useful but most puzzling phenomena can also be explained by rational models. What you mean by rationality matters.
|Torsten Persson||Stockholm University||Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Christopher Pissarides||LSE||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Portes||London Business School||Strongly Agree||7||
See many Thaler ‘anomalies’ columns over the years.
|Canice Prendergast||Chicago Booth||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Lucrezia Reichlin||London Business School||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
Still, as forcefully argued by Steve Ross, fully-rational economic models can go a long way to explain many of these market outcomes.
|Hélène Rey||London Business School||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Antoinette Schoar||MIT||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|John Van Reenen||MIT||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|John Vickers||Oxford||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Hans-Joachim Voth||University of Zurich||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Beatrice Weder di Mauro||Gutenberg University Mainz and INSEAD||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Karl Whelan||University College Dublin||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Charles Wyplosz||The Graduate Institute Geneva||No Opinion||
I don't know enough
|Fabrizio Zilibotti||Universität Zurich||Uncertain||5||Bio/Vote History|
This panel explores the views of European economists on vital public policy issues. It does this by polling them on important policy questions, by including a way for them to explain their answers briefly if they wish, and by disseminating these responses directly to the public in a simple format.
To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the main areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include older and younger scholars. As with the IGM’s US panel, the experts are all outstanding researchers in their fields. The panel includes recipients of top national and international prizes in economics, fellows of the Econometric society and the European Economic Association, members of distinguished national and international policymaking bodies in Europe, recipients of significant grants for economic research, highly accomplished affiliates and program directors of the Centre for Economic Policy Research and the National Bureau of Economic Research, and past and current editors of leading academic journals in the profession. This approach not only provides 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 in Europe and beyond.
Questions for the European IGM Economic Experts Panel are emailed individually to all members of the panel. They are phrased as statements with which one can agree or disagree. The experts are also asked how confident they are in their knowledge of the issue associated with the question (10 being highest). Each panelist responds electronically at his or her convenience. Panelists may consult whatever resources they like before answering. They may also include brief comments with their responses, or provide links to relevant sources.
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 knows a lot about 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 knowledge that he or she does not feel well placed to judge. In this case, our panelists vote "no opinion".
Panelists suggest many of the questions themselves. Members of the public are also welcome to suggest questions (see link below). Although IGM faculty members are responsible for deciding the final version of each question, we 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. This process helps us to reduce vagueness or problems of interpretation.
The panel data are copyrighted by the Initiative on Global Markets and will be analyzed for an article to appear in a peer-reviewed journal.