Case Study 1 — The IGM Forum: How We Know What Economists Actually Think
The Initiative on Global Markets (IGM) at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business runs an ongoing panel of leading economists. Each week (approximately), the panel is asked a question about a contested economic topic. Panelists respond with "strongly agree," "agree," "uncertain," "disagree," "strongly disagree," or "no opinion," and provide a short explanation.
The panel includes Nobel laureates, former government advisors, and leading researchers from across the ideological spectrum. It is the closest thing economics has to a professional consensus measurement device.
Selected results
"A $15 federal minimum wage would substantially lower employment for low-wage workers" (2015): 26% agreed, 24% disagreed, 32% uncertain. No consensus — genuinely contested.
"Trade with China has benefited most Americans through lower prices" (2012): 87% agreed or strongly agreed. Strong consensus on the aggregate benefit — but the same panel acknowledged distributional costs.
"Rent control has had a positive impact on affordable housing in cities that have used it" (2012): 2% agreed; 81% disagreed. Near-universal rejection.
"A carbon tax would be a less expensive way to reduce emissions than cap-and-trade" (2012): 68% agreed; most of the rest were uncertain. Moderate consensus favoring carbon tax over cap-and-trade.
"The 2009 stimulus (ARRA) reduced the unemployment rate" (2014): 82% agreed. Strong consensus that fiscal stimulus worked during the recession.
The lesson
Professional economic consensus exists — it's just more nuanced than "economists agree" or "economists disagree." The IGM Forum gives you data where previously you only had anecdotes.
Discussion questions
- Visit igmchicago.org and look up a poll on a topic from this course. Were you surprised by the result?
- Why do you think the minimum-wage question produced no consensus while the rent-control question produced near-unanimity?
- Should policymakers follow the IGM consensus? What role should expert opinion play vs. democratic choice?