|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Disagree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Uncertain||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Uncertain||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Harvard||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Judith Chevalier||Yale||Disagree||2||Bio/Vote History|
|Janet Currie||Princeton||Uncertain||1||Bio/Vote History|
|David Cutler||Harvard||Uncertain||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Disagree||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Darrell Duffie||Stanford||Strongly Disagree||9||
Better to allow to devaluation of the currency, promoting exports and not wasting valuable FX reserves, as defense is not likely to succeed.
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
Whether intervention is wise depends on why capital is flowing out (bad policies or unfounded panic). In the first case it's hopeless.
|Ray Fair||Yale||Disagree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Pinelopi Goldberg||Yale||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Uncertain||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Michael Greenstone||Chicago||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
Really tough question. Outside.my expertise.
Do not know broad evidence. Short time intervention could stem speculation. Long - term wasteful
The right answer depends on the circumstances, especially whether permanent or temporary events account for outflows. Usually: disagree.
Efforts to maintain an overvalued currency will likely exhaust those reserves before they stop the outflows.
Depends on the particulars, but it is usually better to fix the problem that is causing the reversal.
Reserve management has not prevented "Sudden Stops" from being a major source of emerging market business cycles.
-see background information here
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||Uncertain||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||Strongly Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
One should use reserves to defnd the financial system (notably banks with USD liabilities), not the "currency" (exchange rate) per se.
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Disagree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Strongly Disagree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Disagree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Hyun Song Shin||Princeton||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Nancy Stokey||Chicago||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Thaler||Chicago||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Uncertain||4||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.