National Economic Panel



ESA National Economic Panel Polls





Got an Idea?

Author's Name: Chris Edmond
Date: Tue 12 Feb 2019

Chris Edmond

Professor Chris Edmond

Chris Edmond is Professor of Economics at the University of Melbourne. His main research interests include the implications of asset market frictions for the conduct of monetary policy and the implications of product market frictions for resource allocation, aggregate productivity, and the gains from international trade. His work has been published in journals such as the American Economic Review, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, the Review of Economic Studies, the Journal of Monetary Economics, and the Journal of Economic Theory. He studied economics at the University of Queensland and received his PhD from UCLA. He has also taught at NYU Stern and at Harvard University. In 2013 he won the Economic Society of Australia’s “Young Economist Award”.

Subject Area Expertise

Macroeconomics; Monetary Economics; International Economics.



Responses (15)

Professional Accreditation of Economists - March 2019

Poll 36

Proposition 1: "Professional accreditation for the economics profession would attract more people to economics as a career."

Proposition 2: "The benefits of professional accreditation for current and prospective economists would exceed any possible costs"


Part 1 - Disagree


Part 2 - Disagree


This is a silly idea.

Royal Banking Commission (II) - February 2019

Poll 35

"There is no way to significantly increase the degree to which Australian retail banks act in the interests of consumers."


Strongly disagree


Congestion pricing - November 2018




Agree, but it really depends which taxes are being cut. To my mind a better policy would be for the revenue raised from such congestion charges to be rebated to households in a progressive manner (since the burden of such congestion charges falls disproportionately on those with low incomes who tend to have fewer margins of adjustment).

Economics teaching - micro before macro - February 2017

Poll 15

"It is more effective to teach an introductory course in micro-economics first before an introductory course in macro-economics."




2016 US Election - November 2016

Poll 13

"Hillary Clinton is likely to be the superior US presidential candidate for the Australian economy and for Australia."


Strongly agree


I believe that Trump would be an unmitigated disaster for the US and the global economy. I can't see any realistic scenario by which Australia would benefit from such a calamity. I truly hope that Trump is resoundingly defeated on Nov 8. That this dangerous, appalling, unstable individual has won the Republican primary and has come so close to winning the presidency fills me with dread.

Part 1: 'Behavioural economics provides new and useful insights into individual behaviour.' Part 2: 'It is unethical for governments to use behavioural economics to

The total benefit of current levels* of migration to Australia will outweigh the total costs to Australia's economy.




Immigration - November 2016

Poll 12

'The total benefit of current levels* of migration to Australia will outweigh the total costs to Australia's economy'.


Strongly agree


Behavioural economics - September 2016

Poll 11

Part 1: 'Behavioural economics provides new and useful insights into individual behaviour.'

Part 2: 'It is unethical for governments to use behavioural economics to "nudge" citizens.'


PART 1 - Disagree


PART 2 - Disagree


RBA economic growth targets - August 2016

Poll 10

"The Reserve Bank of Australia should be tasked with targeting nominal economic growth rather than inflation."




From a theoretical point of view, targeting the path of nominal income makes a lot of sense (for the reasons outlined by prominent monetary economists like Mike Woodford, amongst others). In particular, such a target implies an important degree of "history dependence" (e.g. you can have more expansionary policy going forward to make up for past mistakes, etc). I should note at this point that a nominal income growth target (as stated in the poll question) does not have these theoretical benefits and is a more contentious suggestion. Putting the distinction between level and growth targets aside, my guess is that the magnitude of the gains from moving from a flexible inflation target like we have to a well-functioning nominal income target are likely to be fairly small. From a practical point of view, there are a host of tricky implementation issues that would have to be addressed and that would likely diminish the gains from changing the monetary policy target. For example, for a small open economy like Australia it would be untenable for monetary policy to respond to high-frequency nominal terms of trade movements (which are notoriously volatile). We would end up having to target some notion of "core nominal income" to strip out such volatility. In short, my view is that in practice such a change is unlikely to yield large gains for society. Indeed, many of the concerns with the existing inflation targeting regime (the current proximity to the effective lower bound on nominal interest rates; scepticism about the efficacy of conventional monetary policy, etc) would be of much less concern if fiscal policy was doing its job. That's where the focus should be.

The Brexit - impact on UK citizens - July 2016

Poll 9

"Assuming it is implemented, Brexit will deliver net economic benefits, on average, to UK citizens within its first 5 years."


Strongly disagree


There is no conceivable scenario under which any form of Brexit will deliver net economic benefits to UK citizens at any horizon, let alone within the next 5 years (when the pain of transition is likely to be most pronounced). Brexit negotiations may lead to harm mitigation (from the UK's point of view) but that's about the best that can be hoped for. And all of this is of course putting aside the within-UK political complexities (renewed push for Scottish independence, etc).

Spend on education or business tax cut - June 2016

Poll 8

"Australia will receive a bigger economic growth dividend in the long-run by spending on education than offering an equivalent amount of money on a tax cut to business."


Strongly agree


According to the modelling commissioned by the Commonwealth Treasury for the government's company tax changes, the predicted change in the level of real GDP is about 1.2% over a long horizon. Not only is this a very small effect given the size of the changes in company tax, it's also a "one-off" level effect and so has no long-run growth dividend at all! (as Chris Murphy's modelling for the Treasury makes very clear for anyone who cares to look). By contrast, an equivalent spend on education, by supporting human capital accumulation, has a very real prospect of increasing the growth rate of real GDP over an extended period. Even a small permanent increase in the growth rate of real GDP will dominate the level effect from changing company tax.

Bah Humbug Australia - December 2015

Poll 3

"Giving specific presents as holiday gifts is inefficient, because recipients could satisfy their preferences much better with cash."


Strongly disagree


Penalty Rates Reform - November 2015

Poll 2

"Aligning Sunday penalty rates for hospitality, entertainment and retailing industries with the current levels for Saturday, as proposed in the Productivity Commission's draft report, will lead to more employment and greater availability of services in these industries on Sundays."




I agree with the statement, but want to note that this statement only speaks to potential benefits from such a policy change and does not even mention the various costs. My agreement with the statement should not be taken to imply that I believe such a policy change is socially desirable.