|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Agree||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Harvard||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Judith Chevalier||Yale||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Janet Currie||Princeton||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|David Cutler||Harvard||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
Supply and demand for oil are relatively global. US regulation does, however, have an influence on domestic supplies of some products.
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
US domestic policy has only tiny effects on the world price of oil. US foreign policy is probably more relevant than energy policy.
|Claudia Goldin||Harvard||Strongly Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Michael Greenstone||Chicago||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Robert Hall||Stanford||Strongly Agree||8||
Policy has basically permitted free trade in oil and oil products.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
Direct effect (e.g.via oil reserve) of Fed energy policy on short term prices=negligible. Effect on long-run prices could be considerable.
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Anil Kashyap||Chicago||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Strongly Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
Govt policy that affects supply feeds into market prices over the long run. Short run variations are almost completely unrelated to govt.
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Maurice Obstfeld||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Cecilia Rouse||Princeton||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Hyun Song Shin||Princeton||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|James Stock||Harvard||Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
US energy policy (about where drilling is permitted, energy taxes) affects market outcomes, so an either-or question is a little off base.
|Richard Thaler||Chicago||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Luigi Zingales||Chicago||Uncertain||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.