The US has become not just less open to immigrants, but less open full stop. It's bad news for innovation & for the future of institutions.
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Disagree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Katherine Baicker||Chicago||Agree||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Abhijit Banerjee||MIT||No Opinion||
Very little credible is known about migration and innovation. I tend to believe it, but unlike with most IGM questions, it is just intuition
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Markus Brunnermeier||Princeton||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Stanford||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Judith Chevalier||Yale||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|David Cutler||Harvard||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Darrell Duffie||Stanford||Strongly Agree||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Liran Einav||Stanford||Agree||2||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Amy Finkelstein||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Pinelopi Goldberg||Yale||Uncertain||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Michael Greenstone||Chicago||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
The US remains the most attractive place for innovators. No change in appeal for foreigners. But possibly harder for them to enter.
Immigrants contribute disproportionately to innovation. Racism in the U.S. may well deter immigrants but U.K. less hospitable too.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Caroline Hoxby||Stanford||Uncertain||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Hilary Hoynes||Berkeley||Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
Appeal is still very high. However, ability to attract talented immigrants has declined because of misguided implementation.
certainly we will reduce immigrants and that will reduce all kinds of activity, though magnitudes are hard to know.
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
The rhetoric is awful and the policy environment is toxic, but the US still offers extraordinary opportunity.
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
Long causal chain and probably very small effect.
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
A great asset of the US, though lately diminished, has been the ability to attract the best minds from throughout the world.
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Strongly Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
If the number of immigrants is constant, loss of appeal means fewer who can choose their destination, so perhaps a less innovative mix.
|Carl Shapiro||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Robert Shimer||Chicago||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|James Stock||Harvard||Uncertain||2||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Thaler||Chicago||Agree||5||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.