|Daron Acemoglu||MIT||Uncertain||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Did Not Answer||1||Bio/Vote History|
Tangible economic benefits are not large. Consumer satisfaction from having a local team is harder to quantify.
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
Hmm, Is this the most pressing economic issue of the moment? I wouldn't have thought so...
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Abhijit Banerjee||MIT||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Uncertain||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Markus Brunnermeier||Princeton||Strongly Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Judith Chevalier||Yale||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|David Cutler||Harvard||Strongly Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||Agree||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Darrell Duffie||Stanford||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Barry Eichengreen||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Liran Einav||Stanford||Uncertain||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Amy Finkelstein||MIT||Did Not Answer||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Pinelopi Goldberg||Yale||Did Not Answer||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Austan Goolsbee||Chicago||Agree||1||Bio/Vote History|
Sports teams generate value that they cannot capture thru tixs/tv----Chicagoans benefited from Cubs winning WS. Subsidies are compensation
|Robert Hall||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
The evidence suggests that expenditure by tourists is small and that locals who spend more on this sport spend less on other activities.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Uncertain||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Caroline Hoxby||Stanford||Strongly Agree||10||
The empirical research on this topic is fairly unambiguous.
-see background information here
|Hilary Hoynes||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Steven Kaplan||Chicago||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
Full public financing of stadiums is mostly a transfer to the owners
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Agree||5||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|
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Agree||4||Bio/Vote History|
Common estimates of the benefits are often wildly inflated, and fail to distinguish total economic activity form net gains in activities.
See e.g. Zimbalist and Noll "Sports, Jobs, & Taxes: Are New Stadiums Worth the Cost?"
-see background information here
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Strongly Agree||7||
While there may be exceptions, this is a easy call -- particularly for football stadiums.
|Carl Shapiro||Berkeley||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
Some local economic benefits are easy to quantify and those are small. But agglomeration effects are harder to measure.
|Richard Thaler||Chicago||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Strongly Agree||10||
Almost always true, if "economic" is narrowly construed as "fiscal". This is true for museums and concert halls as well.
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.