Future innovations worldwide will not be transformational enough to promote sustained per-capita economic growth rates in the U.S. and western Europe over the next century as high as those over the past 150 years.
Responses
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
| Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The right answer is "uncertain". But "disagree" emphasizes that the view that we are running out of ideas, which has little basis.
|
||||
 Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Technical innovation will continue to be rapid, but resource and environmental constraints in a crowded world will hinder per capita growth.
|
||||
 Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
That's a ridiculously high bar to cross, since no other period in human history has ever seen anything like the last 150 years!
|
||||
 Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Abhijit Banerjee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The average per capita growth rate over the last 150 years only 1.7-1.8% which would not need to transformative innovations to happen.
|
||||
 Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Markus Brunnermeier |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
genomics, robotic, communication.... Emerging economies will increasingly contribute to global R&D spending with positive spillover effects.
|
||||
 Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The answer is certainly uncertain
|
||||
 Janet Currie |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The long term declining is very worrying. But it also might be that we are not measuring quality or new goods well.
|
||||
 Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Liran Einav |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Hard to predict 100 years ahead.
|
||||
 Amy Finkelstein |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
i'm unaware of any serious evidence that would help one formulate a reliable opinion.
|
||||
 Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The cone of dispersion for productivity forecasts is so wide that no such statement has any support. Che sera, sera.
|
||||
 Oliver Hart |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Economists are bad at predicting the far future. Technological advances have been amazing in the last few years and anything is possible.
|
||||
 Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I am certain that anyone sensible should be uncertain. If one can predict innovation well, one should not be an economist but an inventor.
|
||||
 Hilary Hoynes |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Innovation need not slow. The vast changes in what we consume and how we work make "income" a poor measure of wellbeing over a century.
|
||||
 Steven Kaplan |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Last 150 years have seen huge increases in living standards. Similar future increases an even bet given IT revolution and human ingenuity.
|
||||
 Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
We would have never forecast most the past breakthroughs, no reason to think we are any better at doing so now. No way this is knowable.
|
||||
 Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
 Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Wow - tough question. Maybe if the answer is a clear no, we can reconvene the panel in 150 years to discuss.
|
||||
 Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Who knows?
|
||||
 William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Uncertaint = unpredicatable. The unpredictability of fundamental invention is amply demonstrated from theory and history.
|
||||
 Maurice Obstfeld |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Larry Samuelson |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Unimagined innovations have revolutionized life in the past, and I suspect they will continue to do so.
|
||||
 José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The surprises of the last 150 years should make clear the folly of trying to forecast the next 150.
|
||||
 Carl Shapiro |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
History suggests optimism, but 150 years is a mighty long time.
|
||||
 Robert Shimer |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Very hard to predict this far in the future.
|
||||
 Nancy Stokey |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Views on this are pure speculation. There is no economic theory or empirical evidence to inform the issue.
|
||||
 Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I don't know how anyone could have any confidence in this sort of prediction. Good that no one can be proven wrong.
|
||||
 Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Billions of people escaping poverty unleashes billions of minds for innovation. Hence my optimism. But tempered with much uncertainty.
|
||||
