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.

Science, Technology and Immigration

Question A:

Allowing US-based employers to hire many more immigrants with advanced degrees in science or engineering would lower (at least temporarily) the premium earned by current American workers with similar degrees.

Responses

Source: Clark Center Economic Experts Panel
Methodology

Question B:

Allowing US-based employers to hire many more immigrants with advanced degrees in science or engineering would raise per capita income in the US over time.

Responses

Source: Clark Center Economic Experts Panel
Methodology

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

September 20, 2016

Brexit II

Question A:

Because of the Brexit vote's outcome, the UK's real per-capita income level is likely to be lower a decade from now.

Responses

Source: Clark Center Economic Experts Panel
Methodology

Question B:

Because of the Brexit vote's outcome, the rest of the EU's real per-capita income level is likely to be lower a decade from now.

Responses

Source: Clark Center Economic Experts Panel
Methodology

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

July 12, 2016

Universal Basic Income

This week's IGM Economic Experts Panel statement:

Granting every American citizen over 21-years old a universal basic income of $13,000 a year — financed by eliminating all transfer programs (including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing subsidies, household welfare payments, and farm and corporate subsidies) — would be a better policy than the status quo.

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

June 28, 2016

Inequality and Monetary Policy

This week's IGM Economic Experts Panel statement:

The ratio of the 90th to the 10th percentile of the US income distribution has been unaffected by the Federal Reserve’s unconventional monetary policies since the financial crisis.

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

June 7, 2016

Cadillac Tax

This week's IGM Economic Experts Panel statement:

The “Cadillac tax” on expensive employer-provided health insurance plans will reduce costly distortions in US health care if it is allowed to take effect as scheduled in 2018.

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

May 17, 2016

Breaking Up Banks

This week's IGM Economic Experts Panel statements:

The four largest domestic US banks currently have around 40% of the industry’s domestic assets (an average of 10% each). In early 1998, before Glass-Steagall ended and before Citicorp merged with Travelers, they held 13.2% (an average of 3.3% each). Thirty years ago, before interstate branching was fully permitted, that combined share was around 8% (an average of 2% each).

A) Capping US banks’ size so that no single bank could be larger than 4% of the sector's domestic assets would lower systemic risk in the US.

B) The US financial system would contribute more to the average American’s welfare if the size of US banks were capped so that none could be larger than 4% of the sector's domestic assets.

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

May 3, 2016

Bureau of Labor Statistics

This week's IGM Economic Experts Panel statements:

A) By providing important measures of US economic performance — including employment, consumer prices, wages, job openings, time allocation in households, and productivity — the Bureau of Labor Statistics creates social benefits that exceed its annual cost of roughly $610 million.

B) Cuts in BLS spending would likely involve net social costs because potential declines in the quality of data, and thus their usefulness to researchers and decision makers, would exceed any budget savings.

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

April 12, 2016

Trade and Toughness

This week's IGM Economic Experts Panel statement:

An important reason why many workers in Michigan and Ohio have lost jobs in recent years is because US presidential administrations over the past 30 years have not been tough enough in trade negotiations.

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

March 22, 2016

Primary Voting

This week's IGM Economic Experts Panel statements:

A) There is no perfect voting system. That is, no voting system can ensure that the winner will be the person who best represents voters’ wishes, including how intensely they favor or disfavor each candidate.

B) One clear defect of a winner-take-all election with 3 or more candidates, and with each voter choosing only one candidate, is that a candidate who is strongly disliked by a majority, but strongly liked by a minority, can beat a candidate who is liked by a majority and disliked by relatively few.

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

March 7, 2016

Oil Price Speculation

This week's IGM Economic Experts Panel statement:

Large movements in monthly oil prices, either up or down, are driven primarily by speculators, as opposed to changes in the current (and planned) supply or demand for oil.

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

February 16, 2016