Question A:
The federal government would make the average U.S. citizen better off by using policies that directly focus more on increasing manufacturing employment than employment in other sectors.
Responses
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
10%
0%
15%
51%
18%
5%
0%
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
21%
55%
21%
4%
0%
Question B:
Because firms and inventors do not capture the full returns from research and development, the government would increase the average well-being of Americans (and potentially of others too) by favoring R&D using the tax code.
Responses
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
10%
3%
0%
8%
15%
49%
15%
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
0%
8%
9%
59%
24%
Question A Participant Responses
Participant |
University |
Vote |
Confidence |
Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Holding wages constant, manufacturing jobs appeal more to non-college males, the group whose employment rate is falling most rapidly.
|
||||
 Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The counter argument is knowledge or other spillovers in manufacturing.
|
||||
 Janet Currie |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
A caveat -- the auto bailout was manufacturing specific and more valuable than the equivalent policy spread across the economy as a whole
|
||||
 Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Its not obvious that this policy addresses an important externality and has low unintended consequences.
|
||||
 Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Most workers don't work in manufacturing, so such policies are apt to redistribute from the average person to manufacturing workers.
|
||||
 Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
It would make average Americans better off by focusing on and helping to finance investments in skills and training useful in manufacturing.
|
||||
 Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Claudia Goldin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
depends what policy it is
|
||||
 Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Tremendously complicated. Many US manufactured goods have high profit margins, so correcting the distortion would help us and others
|
||||
 Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The average American benefits from lower prices, not from any preference for manufacturing.
|
||||
 Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Memo to Romney and Obama: there is nothing per se special about manufacturing (except maybe nostalgia).
|
||||
 Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Rents, externalities may be higher than in other sectors (evidence is not clear cut). Higher national saving (needed!) would help U.S. mfg.
-see background information here |
||||
 Edward Lazear |
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Don't see why gov't as a rule should directly subsidize manufacturing, though education, science, trade policy could indirectly benefit.
|
||||
 Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Maurice Obstfeld |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
This is the argument of the Physiocrats in modern dress. Picking winners, even broadly defined, is rarely good policy.
|
||||
 Hyun Song Shin |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Nancy Stokey |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Governments are usually poor at "picking winners."
|
||||
 Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
This or any other "industrial policy" is only as good as the implementation.
|
||||
 Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Manufacturing vs. Others isn't an appropriate classification; instead provide a good overall environment, look for targeted externalities.
|
||||
 Luigi Zingales |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I depends what you mean with average citizen. Lower educated people would probably benefit at the expense of others.
|
||||
Question B Participant Responses
Participant |
University |
Vote |
Confidence |
Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Unclear if R&D credits induce R&D at the margin or mostly reward inframarginal R&D. I prefer govt fund basic research directly (NIH, NSF).
|
||||
|
Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Same argument suggests role for public support of university research.
|
||||
|
Janet Currie |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
If the positive R&D externality seems plausible, it makes sense to subsidize. There are some cases in which this has worked (universities).
|
||||
|
Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
More innovation is almost surely good, and more R&D spending may increase innovation.
|
||||
|
Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Claudia Goldin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
among many ways
|
||||
|
Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Nordhaus has shown how much leakage of ideas occurs into the worldwide public domain. Of course, the US would capture only a quarter of gain
|
||||
|
Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The relatively small cost of R&D subsidies is an effective way to support continued high American productivity.
|
||||
|
Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Not sure of the magnitudes of the distortions once we account for patents and other R&D policies
|
||||
|
Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Caveat is that there are Type I and Type II errors in identifying research activities to receive special tax treatment.
-see background information here |
||||
|
Edward Lazear |
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I'd be inclined toward policies fostering basic science and innovation that commercial applications can build on.
|
||||
|
Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Maurice Obstfeld |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
One would need to be careful to define R&D fairly narrowly. But it is hard to argue that there are no spillovers from comercial R&D.
|
||||
|
Hyun Song Shin |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Nancy Stokey |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Again impossible to say without details. Would prefer lower tax rate and broader tax.
|
||||
|
Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Not just tax code. Other policies like advance market commitments and (of course) a thorough reform of patent policy.
|
||||
|
Luigi Zingales |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
If you tink of fundamental research is probably true. If you think about research in general, even the premise might be wrong
|
||||
