US 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.
US

Income Support in the COVID-19 Crisis

Question A:

The balance of federal and local government support to address the economic impact of the crisis has thus far been tilted too much towards supporting firms rather than individuals.

Question B:

Government provision of financial support to firms to keep workers on payroll for the duration of the lockdown will make the recovery faster than if the only recourse for workers to replace income were unemployment insurance.

 
US

Inequality and the COVID-19 Crisis

Question A:

With the economy in lockdown, low-income workers who are above the poverty line will suffer a relatively bigger hit to their incomes than those further up the distribution (even accounting for all government support schemes).

Question B:

With the economy in lockdown, existing gaps in access to quality education between high- and low-income households will be exacerbated.

Question C:

The mortality impact of Covid-19 is likely to fall disproportionately on disadvantaged socio-economic groups.

 
US

Testing for Coronavirus Infections and Antibodies

This week’s IGM Economic Experts Panel statements:

A) Even if tests for Covid-19 are being rationed, there is an urgent need for some random testing to establish baseline levels of the virus to inform any decisions about ending lockdowns.

B) Required elements for an economic ‘restart’ after lockdowns include a massive increase in testing capacity (for infections and antibodies) along with a coherent strategy for preventing new outbreaks and reintroducing low-risk/no-risk individuals into public activities. 
US

Policy for the COVID-19 Crisis

This week’s IGM Economic Experts Panel statements:

A) A comprehensive policy response to the coronavirus will involve tolerating a very large contraction in economic activity until the spread of infections has dropped significantly.

B) Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk.

C) Optimally, the government would invest more than it is currently doing in expanding treatment capacity through steps such as building temporary hospitals, accelerating testing, making more masks and ventilators, and providing financial incentives for the production of a successful vaccine. 
US

Coronavirus

This week’s IGM Economic Experts Panel statements:

A) Even if the mortality of COVID-19 proves to be limited (similar to the number of flu deaths in a regular season), it is likely to cause a major recession.

B) The economic effects of COVID-19 coming from reduced spending will be larger than those coming from disruptions to supply chains and illness-related workforce reductions. 
US

Mandatory Medicare II

This week’s IGM Economic Experts Panel statements:

A) Replacing the current US health insurance system (including employer-based health insurance, ACA exchange policies, and Medicaid) with universal ‘Medicare for All’ (mandatory enrollment in a modified version of the existing traditional Medicare program with drug coverage and no cost-sharing of any form, and current Medicare reimbursement rates) funded by federal taxes would lead to lower aggregate medical debt among patients.

B) Replacing the current US health insurance system as outlined in a) would lead to lower aggregate innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.

C) Replacing the current US health insurance system as outlined in a) would improve health outcomes for the majority of the population. 
US

Mandatory Medicare I

This week’s IGM Economic Experts Panel statements:

a) Replacing the current US health insurance system (including employer-based health insurance, ACA exchange policies, and Medicaid) with universal ‘Medicare for All’ (mandatory enrollment in a modified version of the existing traditional Medicare program with drug coverage and no cost-sharing of any form, and current Medicare reimbursement rates) funded by federal taxes would lead to improved access to healthcare for a meaningful subset of the population.

b) Replacing the current US health insurance system as outlined in a) would lead to longer waiting times for healthcare for a meaningful subset of the population. 
US

Brexit, the UK Economy and US-UK Trade

This week’s IGM Economic Experts Panel statements:

A) Following the UK election result, the certainty that the country is going to leave the European Union will provide a substantial short-term boost to the UK economy.

B) The near certainty that the UK will leave the European Union's customs union and single market in 2020 offers a sizeable export market opportunity for American business. 
US

Central Banking and Climate Change

This week’s IGM Economic Experts Panel statements:

A) Under current policies on climate change, the associated physical risks (such as those arising from total seasonal rainfall and sea level changes, and increased frequency, severity, and correlation of extreme weather events) will be at most a very small factor in monetary policy decisions over the next decade.

B) The physical risks associated with climate change under current policies are likely to threaten financial stability over the next decade.