Wednesday, November 16th, 2016 3:17 pm

100-Day Plan

Question A: If all of the “Seven actions to protect American workers” in President-elect Trump’s 100-day plan (see link) are enacted, it will more likely than not improve the economic prospects of middle-class Americans over the next decade.

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

Question B: If all of the “Seven actions to protect American workers” in President-elect Trump’s 100-day plan are enacted, it will more likely than not improve the economic prospects of low-skilled Americans over the next decade.

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

Question A Participant Responses

Participant University Vote Confidence Comment Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu Daron Acemoglu MIT Disagree 5
Even if we no longer import from and offshore to China and Mexico, manufacturing jobs won't come back. If they did, they would before robots
Bio/Vote History
         
Alesina Alberto Alesina Harvard Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Altonji Joseph Altonji Yale Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Auerbach Alan Auerbach Berkeley Disagree 4
Bio/Vote History
         
Autor David Autor MIT Disagree 6
Many of these actions will make the average American poorer over the long run. Whether the long run arrives within 10 years is uncertain.
Bio/Vote History
         
Baicker Katherine Baicker Harvard Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Banerjee Abhijit Banerjee MIT Disagree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Bertrand Marianne Bertrand Chicago Disagree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Brunnermeier Markus Brunnermeier Princeton Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Chetty Raj Chetty Harvard Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Chevalier Judith Chevalier Yale Strongly Disagree 9
Where do I start?
Bio/Vote History
         
Cutler David Cutler Harvard Strongly Disagree 4
Bio/Vote History
         
Deaton Angus Deaton Princeton Disagree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Duffie Darrell Duffie Stanford Disagree 2
Bio/Vote History
         
Edlin Aaron Edlin Berkeley Disagree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Eichengreen Barry Eichengreen Berkeley Disagree 8
Short term fiscal stimulus will be a + for the MC but then the negatives (investor uncertainty, inequality, geopolitical risk) will dominate
Bio/Vote History
         
Einav Liran Einav Stanford Strongly Disagree 5
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 Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Goolsbee Austan Goolsbee Chicago Strongly Disagree 10
not even funny anymore
Bio/Vote History
         
Greenstone Michael Greenstone Chicago Strongly Disagree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Hall Robert Hall Stanford Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Hart Oliver Hart Harvard Disagree 6
Many forces are responsible for middle-class people feeling left behind. These policies may make things worse by raising prices of imports.
Bio/Vote History
         
Holmström Bengt Holmström MIT No Opinion
Too many dramatic changes and conflicting forces to have more than a hunch.
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoxby Caroline Hoxby Stanford Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoynes Hilary Hoynes Berkeley Strongly Disagree 9
Bio/Vote History
         
Judd Kenneth Judd Stanford Strongly Disagree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Kaplan Steven Kaplan Chicago Uncertain 8
Trade proposals negative; energy proposals positive. Net effect uncertain. Regulatory relief also positive, but not among 7 actions.
Bio/Vote History
         
Kashyap Anil Kashyap Chicago Uncertain 5
shutting down trade will be bad for most people, the jobs are not coming back, the infrastructure gains might be good
Bio/Vote History
         
Klenow Pete Klenow Stanford Strongly Disagree 6 Bio/Vote History
         
Levin Jonathan Levin Stanford Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Maskin Eric Maskin Harvard Disagree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Nordhaus William Nordhaus Yale Disagree 3
Plan is basically to raise trade barriers. Will scramble markets and raise prices. Hard to see any benefits but cloudy cristal ball here.
Bio/Vote History
         
Saez Emmanuel Saez Berkeley Disagree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Samuelson Larry Samuelson Yale Disagree 6
The proposals are too vague to assess with any confidence, but the seeming isolationist theme is not encouraging.
Bio/Vote History
         
Scheinkman José Scheinkman Princeton Strongly Disagree 8
Though negative impact on climate change may take longer to show up, trade proposals should have negative effects in shorter time-frame.
Bio/Vote History
         
Schmalensee Richard Schmalensee MIT Disagree 4
Bio/Vote History
         
Shapiro Carl Shapiro Berkeley Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Shimer Robert Shimer Chicago Strongly Disagree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Thaler Richard Thaler Chicago Strongly Disagree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Udry Christopher Udry Yale Strongly Disagree 9
These 7 actions are symbolism (5, 6), actions with trivial immediate but disastrous long run consequences (7) or threats of trade war (1-4)
Bio/Vote History
         

Question B Participant Responses

Participant University Vote Confidence Comment Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu Daron Acemoglu MIT Disagree 5
Increased infrastructure spending could help construction, but the overall plan won't help workers & will likely reduce medium term growth.
Bio/Vote History
         
Alesina Alberto Alesina Harvard Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Altonji Joseph Altonji Yale Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Auerbach Alan Auerbach Berkeley Disagree 4
Bio/Vote History
         
Autor David Autor MIT Agree 7
Policies that raise import prices, deregulate dirty industries, and launch big infrastructure projects will boost non-college wages and jobs
Bio/Vote History
         
Baicker Katherine Baicker Harvard Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Banerjee Abhijit Banerjee MIT Disagree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Bertrand Marianne Bertrand Chicago Disagree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Brunnermeier Markus Brunnermeier Princeton Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Chetty Raj Chetty Harvard Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Chevalier Judith Chevalier Yale Strongly Disagree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Cutler David Cutler Harvard Strongly Disagree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Deaton Angus Deaton Princeton Disagree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Duffie Darrell Duffie Stanford Uncertain 2
Bio/Vote History
         
Edlin Aaron Edlin Berkeley Disagree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Eichengreen Barry Eichengreen Berkeley Strongly Disagree 10
Previous answer squared...
Bio/Vote History
         
Einav Liran Einav Stanford Disagree 5
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 Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Goolsbee Austan Goolsbee Chicago Strongly Disagree 10
oh, please
Bio/Vote History
         
Greenstone Michael Greenstone Chicago Strongly Disagree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Hall Robert Hall Stanford Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Hart Oliver Hart Harvard Disagree 6
Many forces are responsible for working-class people being left behind, including automation. It is hard to turn the clock back.
Bio/Vote History
         
Holmström Bengt Holmström MIT No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoxby Caroline Hoxby Stanford Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoynes Hilary Hoynes Berkeley Strongly Disagree 9
Bio/Vote History
         
Judd Kenneth Judd Stanford Strongly Disagree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Kaplan Steven Kaplan Chicago Uncertain 8
Trade proposals negative; energy proposals positive. Net effect uncertain. Regulatory relief also positive, but not among 7 actions.
Bio/Vote History
         
Kashyap Anil Kashyap Chicago Uncertain 3
if lower quality imports are restricted probably hurts the poor more, but as with the first question there are offsetting effects
Bio/Vote History
         
Klenow Pete Klenow Stanford Strongly Disagree 6 Bio/Vote History
         
Levin Jonathan Levin Stanford Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Maskin Eric Maskin Harvard Disagree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Nordhaus William Nordhaus Yale Disagree 3
Will raise cost of living with few offsets.
Bio/Vote History
         
Saez Emmanuel Saez Berkeley Uncertain 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Samuelson Larry Samuelson Yale Disagree 6
As before, the proposals are too vague to assess with confidence, but have an apparent isolationist theme that is not encouraging.
Bio/Vote History
         
Scheinkman José Scheinkman Princeton Strongly Disagree 8
Most low skilled workers would be hurt by higher cost of imports, disruption of global supply chains caused by tariffs and retaliations.
Bio/Vote History
         
Schmalensee Richard Schmalensee MIT Disagree 4
These are not the most important of his proposals, of course.
Bio/Vote History
         
Shapiro Carl Shapiro Berkeley Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Shimer Robert Shimer Chicago Strongly Disagree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Thaler Richard Thaler Chicago Strongly Disagree 1
Bio/Vote History
         
Udry Christopher Udry Yale Strongly Disagree 9
The protectionism of pts 1-4 will benefit some workers, but will hurt most. Even worse if it devolves into trade war.
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