|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Strongly Agree||2||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Strongly Agree||10||
Papers by Goolsbee, Ellison and Ellison, and Einav and Levin show that this is unambiguously correct.
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||Agree||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Agree||2||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Judith Chevalier||Yale||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Janet Currie||Princeton||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|David Cutler||Harvard||Strongly Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
I don't know whether some states have been consciously "pro on line." I don't follow this policy area.
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Strongly Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Pinelopi Goldberg||Yale||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Claudia Goldin||Harvard||Strongly Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Michael Greenstone||Chicago||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Robert Hall||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Caroline Hoxby||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
Leveling the playing field & raising money is good policy; rationalizing the many jurisdictions & various tax rates would be good too.
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Edward Lazear||Stanford||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Maurice Obstfeld||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Strongly Agree||8||
Pretty hard to disagree with the question as phrased.
|Hyun Song Shin||Princeton||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|James Stock||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Nancy Stokey||Chicago||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
Seems right to level the playing field.
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Strongly Agree||8||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.