|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
Cuba is stuck in the 1950s primarily due to its internal policies not external constraints.
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Strongly Agree||2||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
Of course, lost tourism opportnties, etc. might also be important. Parsing it out an empirical question.
Sanctions are not perfectly binding, and other countries subject to U.S.sanctions have continued to grow.
|David Cutler||Harvard||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
Seems likely, but I know nothing concrete about the Cuban economy.
The embargo is also likely to have been an important factor, and may be partly responsible for sustaining Cuba's internal economic policies.
Trade certainly matters for growth. Many countries though would trade with Cuba, so probably its own policies were more important.
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Agree||1||Bio/Vote History|
Cuba's economic policies were flawed, but cutting off a small country from the rest of the world has detrimental effects on its growth.
|Claudia Goldin||Harvard||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Strongly Agree||10||
communist dictatorship not exactly a growth strategy. I bet that stated growth rate even overstates reality
|Michael Greenstone||Chicago||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
That is, with free-market policies and honest competent government, a Caribbean country could prosper without US trade or tourists.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Caroline Hoxby||Stanford||Strongly Agree||9||
If Cuba allocated labor & capital to the most productive uses, growth would be higher. The US is too small as % of world trade to prevent it
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Anil Kashyap||Chicago||Strongly Agree||7||
Gravity model suggests adverse effects from the embargo, but destroying the price system and using command and control instead hurts more.
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Strongly Agree||8||
The embargo was mitigated by Cuban trade with other countries (trade diversion).
-see background information here
See Jamaica v. Barbados and other Caribb. nations that are not embargoed. Their growth depends on local policy. Other evidence as well.
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||Uncertain||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Maurice Obstfeld||Berkeley||Agree||4||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||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Hyun Song Shin||Princeton||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|James Stock||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Nancy Stokey||Chicago||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
Seems right but I cannot think of any good reason to maintain this boycot. Hurts US biz interests and Cuban people.
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Luigi Zingales||Chicago||Strongly Agree||7||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.