Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016 10:13 am

Trade and Toughness

An important reason why many workers in Michigan and Ohio have lost jobs in recent years is because US presidential administrations over the past 30 years have not been tough enough in trade negotiations.

Responses
 

Source: IGM Economic Experts Panel
www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Source: IGM Economic Experts Panel
www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel
Participant University Vote Confidence Comment Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu Daron Acemoglu MIT Uncertain 5
US trade with China caused large emp. declines. But the main mitigating policy should be worker adjustment programs, not trade negotiations.
-see background information here
Bio/Vote History
         
Alesina Alberto Alesina Harvard Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Altonji Joseph Altonji Yale Disagree 7
Trade has hurt blue collar workers in manufacturing in Mich, Ohio and elsewhere. But trade negotiations must balance competing interests.
-see background information here
Bio/Vote History
         
Auerbach Alan Auerbach Berkeley Disagree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Autor David Autor MIT Strongly Disagree 8
Growing competition from China and Mexico has cost many manufacturing jobs in Ohio and Michigan. Weak negotiations are not the cause.
Bio/Vote History
         
Baicker Katherine Baicker Harvard Disagree 1
Bio/Vote History
         
Banerjee Abhijit Banerjee MIT Uncertain 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Bertrand Marianne Bertrand Chicago Disagree 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Brunnermeier Markus Brunnermeier Princeton No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
         
Chetty Raj Chetty Harvard Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Chevalier Judith Chevalier Yale Uncertain 2 Bio/Vote History
         
Cutler David Cutler Harvard Agree 5
The phrasing implies that any reduction in jobs is bad. Some shifts in employment are valuable (e.g., fewer sweatshop jobs in the US).
Bio/Vote History
         
Deaton Angus Deaton Princeton Agree 1
Bio/Vote History
         
Duffie Darrell Duffie Stanford Disagree 1
Bio/Vote History
         
Edlin Aaron Edlin Berkeley Disagree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Eichengreen Barry Eichengreen Berkeley Uncertain 5
"Tough enough" is not meaningful. More restrictive US trade policy toward autos would have benefited autoworkers while hurting consumers.
Bio/Vote History
         
Einav Liran Einav Stanford Disagree 4
Bio/Vote History
         
Fair Ray Fair Yale Disagree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Finkelstein Amy Finkelstein MIT Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Goldberg Pinelopi Goldberg Yale Strongly Disagree 9
Bio/Vote History
         
Goolsbee Austan Goolsbee Chicago Disagree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Greenstone Michael Greenstone Chicago Uncertain 2
V likely that any trade effect is from greater competitiveness of China/India/etc rather than tariffs. & recession is big cause of job loss
Bio/Vote History
         
Hall Robert Hall Stanford Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Hart Oliver Hart Harvard Disagree 8
Job losses occur because of automation, energy prices, tastes, as well as trade. A tougher policy could have been worse not better.
Bio/Vote History
         
Holmström Bengt Holmström MIT No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoxby Caroline Hoxby Stanford No Opinion
This question is a good but complicated one. I would like to be able to answer but a cursory explanation cannot do justice to the issue.
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoynes Hilary Hoynes Berkeley Disagree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Judd Kenneth Judd Stanford Strongly Disagree 9
Many jobs went to the US South. Increases in productivity reduced jobs. New jobs were created due to access to foreign labor.
Bio/Vote History
         
Kaplan Steven Kaplan Chicago Strongly Disagree 9
Technology, globalization, perhaps, unionization are the primary source of lost jobs in Michigan and Ohio. Same is true in Western Europe
Bio/Vote History
         
Kashyap Anil Kashyap Chicago Strongly Disagree 7
Lots of caveats re the benefits of trade, but failure to bargain hard enough is NOT very relevant. We are protectionist in some cases too
Bio/Vote History
         
Klenow Pete Klenow Stanford Disagree 10
"Enough" wrongly implies that policy should have been more protectionist. But freer trade did increase gross job destruction.
-see background information here
Bio/Vote History
         
Levin Jonathan Levin Stanford Disagree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Maskin Eric Maskin Harvard Disagree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Nordhaus William Nordhaus Yale Disagree 8
Big drop in manu jobs in 2000s, but prob not due to trade deals.
Bio/Vote History
         
Saez Emmanuel Saez Berkeley Disagree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Samuelson Larry Samuelson Yale Disagree 6
Toughness in trade negotiations is considerably less important than factors such as skill-biased technical change in manufacturing.
Bio/Vote History
         
Scheinkman José Scheinkman Princeton Strongly Disagree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Schmalensee Richard Schmalensee MIT Disagree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Shapiro Carl Shapiro Berkeley Uncertain 1
Bio/Vote History
         
Shimer Robert Shimer Chicago Strongly Disagree 8
Trade matters for job loss, but toughness in trade negotiations has a small effect on trade.
Bio/Vote History
         
Thaler Richard Thaler Chicago Strongly Disagree 8
There is nothing in economics or psychology that suggests that being "tougher" gets more. See ultimatum game.
Bio/Vote History
         
Udry Christopher Udry Yale Disagree 7
Bio/Vote History
         

10 New Economic Experts join the IGM Panel


For the past two years, our expert panelists have been informing the public about the extent to which economists agree or disagree on important public policy issues. This week, we are delighted to announce that we are expanding the IGM Economic Experts Panel to add ten new distinguished economists. Like our other experts, these new panelists have impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters, and their names will be familiar to other economists and the media.

To give the public a broad sense of their views on policy issues, each new expert has responded to a selection of 16 statements that our panel had previously addressed. We chose these 16 statements, which cover a wide range of important policy areas, because the original panelists' responses to them were analyzed in a paper comparing the views of our economic experts with those of the American public. You can find that paper, by Paola Sapienza and Luigi Zingales, here. The paper, along with other analyses of the experts' views, was discussed during the American Economic Association annual meetings, and the video can be found here.

The new panelists' responses to these statements can be seen on their individual voting history pages. Our ten new economic experts are:

Abhijit Banerjee (MIT)
Markus K. Brunnermeier (Princeton)
Liran Einav (Stanford)
Amy Finkelstein (MIT)
Oliver Hart (Harvard)
Hilary Hoynes (Berkeley)
Steven N. Kaplan (Chicago)
Larry Samuelson (Yale)
Carl Shapiro (Berkeley)
Robert Shimer (Chicago)


Please note that, for the 16 previous topics on which these new panelists have voted, we left the charts showing the distribution of responses unchanged. Those charts reflect the responses that our original panelists gave at the time, and we have not altered them to reflect the views of the new experts.

We have also taken this opportunity to ask our original panelists whether they would vote differently on any of the statements we have asked about in the past. Several experts chose to highlight statements to which they would currently respond differently. In such cases, you will see this "revote" below the panelist's original vote. We think you will enjoy seeing examples of statements on which some experts have reconsidered.

As with the 16 previous statements voted on by new panelists, these "revote" responses are not reflected in the chart that we display showing the distribution of views for that topic: all the charts for previous questions reflect the distribution of views that the experts expressed when the statement was originally posed.

About the IGM Economic Experts Panel

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.

chicago booth