|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Joseph Altonji||Yale||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Uncertain||5||Bio/Vote History|
I'm not aware of any evidence that says that immigration has long-run domestic costs -- though it may impose short-term adjustment costs.
|Katherine Baicker||Chicago||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Abhijit Banerjee||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
Initially, costs > economic benefits. Employment rate shockingly low. Long-run economic implications are uncertain.
|Raj Chetty||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
I base my response on the but-for immigration demographics in Germany, but there are many variables.
|David Cutler||Harvard||Agree||1||Bio/Vote History|
Maybe by the end of the decade. The more there are, the longer it will take. All conditional on no political catastrophe in the meantime.
|Darrell Duffie||Stanford||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
In the long run, benefits (larger labor force and more entrepreneurship) will exceed costs. In the next ten years? Assimilation takes time
|Liran Einav||Stanford||Uncertain||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Amy Finkelstein||MIT||Uncertain||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Pinelopi Goldberg||Yale||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
These decisions involve much more than economics
The proposition is ambiguous whether it refers to the pre-immigration citizens, who may be indifferent, or the immigrants, who gain a lot.
Refugees may provide labor that Germans can benefit from. But welfare transfers from Germans may be required. The net effect is ambiguous.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
|Caroline Hoxby||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Hilary Hoynes||Berkeley||Uncertain||9||Bio/Vote History|
The generous German welfare state will be burdened by the costs of absorbing these immigrants. E.g., they do not speak German.
|Steven Kaplan||Chicago||Uncertain||7||Bio/Vote History|
low skills and lack of language will make assimilation challenging, but by the end of the decade they will probably be net contributors
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Uncertain||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Jonathan Levin||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
Impacts probably small, it sign unclear on pre-arrival residents.
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
Europe is aging, and so an influx of young people is potentially valuable, but much depends on how effectively they are integrated.
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Disagree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Carl Shapiro||Berkeley||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
There are good arguments for admitting refugees, but I haven't seen evidence for this one in this case
Seems most likely outcome.
|Christopher Udry||Yale||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.