European Economic Experts Panel

The Clark Center for Global Markets explores economists’ views on vital policy issues via our US and European Economic Experts Panels. We regularly poll over 80 economists on a range of timely and relevant topics. Panelists not only have the opportunity to respond to a poll’s statements, but an opportunity to comment and provide additional resources, if they wish. The Clark Center then shares the results with the public in a straightforward and concise format.

Please note that from September 2022, the language in our polls will use just two modifiers to refer to the size of an effect:

  • ‘Substantial’: when an effect is large enough that it would make a difference that matters for the behavior involved.
  • ‘Measurable’: when the direction of the effect is clear, but perhaps experts would differ as to whether it is substantial.
Europe

Bitcoins

Question A:

Bitcoins are more similar to gold than they are to currency.

Question B:

Bitcoins are more similar to gold than they are to Dutch tulips in the 1630s.

 
Europe

US Healthcare: Prices vs Quantity and Quality

The US spends roughly 17% of GDP on healthcare, according to the OECD; most European countries spend less than 12% of GDP.

Higher quality-adjusted US healthcare prices contribute relatively more to the extra US spending than does the combination of higher quantity and quality of US care (interpreting quantity and quality to reflect both greater American healthcare needs due to underlying population health and the delivery of more or better healthcare services to Americans).

 
Europe

Corporate Tax-Rate Harmonization

This week's IGM European Economic Experts Panel statements:

A)   Holding other policies fixed, the average European would be better off if every European country taxed corporate profits at a rate of 20% (based as closely as possible on a common definition of profits).

B)   If other policies were held fixed and every European country taxed corporate profits at a common rate of 20%, then reducing that common rate substantially below 20% would make the average European better off. 
Europe

Board Quotas for Women

This week's IGM European Experts Panel statements:

A) All else equal, if corporations throughout Europe set quotas for a minimum number of women board members, the shareholder value of European companies would increase.

B) Taking into account the likely effects on investments in human capital by men and women, setting quotas throughout Europe for a minimum number of women board members would generate substantial net benefits for Europeans. 
Europe

Energy Sources

This week's IGM European Economic Experts Panel statements:

A)  Subsidizing renewable energy sources is better than taxing fossil fuels, assuming the subsidy or tax would be set at levels that would reduce carbon emissions by an equivalent amount.

B)  Germany’s solar-energy subsidies to date have produced net social benefits for Germany.

C)  Solar-energy subsidies to date in Germany and other countries have produced net social benefits for the world. 
Europe

Factors Contributing to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis

Please rate the importance (0=none; 5= highest) of each item below (presented to panelists in randomized order) in contributing to the 2008 global financial crisis. © 2017. Initiative on Global Markets. Source: IGM Economic Experts Panels www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel © 2017. Initiative on Global Markets. Source: IGM Economic Experts Panels www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel The following items were presented to […] 
Europe

Robots and Artificial Intelligence

This week's IGM European Economic Experts Panel statements:

A)    Holding labor market institutions and job training fixed, rising use of robots and artificial intelligence is likely to increase substantially the number of workers in advanced countries who are unemployed for long periods.

B)    Rising use of robots and artificial intelligence in advanced countries is likely to create benefits large enough that they could be used to compensate those workers who are substantially negatively affected for their lost wages.