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.

Oil Prices

The recent decline in oil prices will promote higher real GDP in the US over the next couple of years.

Responses

Source: Clark Center Economic Experts Panel
Methodology

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

January 13, 2015

Economists and Conventions

A US city hosting a big convention will enjoy a higher boost to incremental spending — holding the number of visitors and their average incomes fixed — if those visitors are auto dealers rather than economists.

Responses

Source: Clark Center Economic Experts Panel
Methodology

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

December 23, 2014

Trade Balances

This week’s IGM Economic Experts Panel statement:

A typical country can increase its citizens’ welfare by enacting policies that would increase its trade surplus (or decrease its trade deficit).

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

December 9, 2014

Repatriated Profits

This week’s IGM Economic Experts Panel statements:

A) Lowering the effective marginal tax rate on US corporations’ repatriated profits for a year would boost US capital investment significantly.

B) Permanently lowering the effective marginal tax rate on US corporations’ repatriated profits, such as by moving to a territorial-based tax system, would boost US capital investment significantly.

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

November 25, 2014

Fast-Track Authority

This week’s IGM Economic Experts Panel statements:

A) By lowering bargaining costs, fast-track negotiating authority for the president makes it more likely that the U.S. can conclude major trade deals.

B) Past major trade deals have benefited most Americans.

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

November 11, 2014

Amazon and Market Power

This week’s IGM Economic Experts Panel statements:

A: Amazon has monopsony power in the market for books that is significantly reducing the supply of books.

B: Amazon has sufficient monopsony power that regulatory intervention is likely to make consumers of books better off, taking into account implementation costs and the effect of intervention on incentives.

Business, Management, & Corporate Performance

October 28, 2014

Piketty on Inequality

This week’s IGM Economic Experts Panel statement:

The most powerful force pushing towards greater wealth inequality in the US since the 1970s is the gap between the after-tax return on capital and the economic growth rate.

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

October 14, 2014

Taxi Competition

This week’s IGM Economic Experts Panel statement:

Letting car services such as Uber or Lyft compete with taxi firms on equal footing regarding genuine safety and insurance requirements, but without restrictions on prices or routes, raises consumer welfare.

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

September 29, 2014

Scottish Independence

This week’s IGM Economic Experts Panel statement:

Although there are many issues for Scotland’s voters to consider, one consequence of separating from the rest of the UK would be greater macroeconomic instability for Scotland for many years.

Business Cycles, Recessions, & Crises

September 15, 2014

Infrastructure (revisited)

This week’s IGM Economic Experts Panel statements:

A: Because the US has underspent on new projects, maintenance, or both, the federal government has an opportunity to increase average incomes by spending more on roads, railways, bridges and airports. (The experts panel previously voted on this question on May 23, 2013. Those earlier results can be found here.)

B: Past experience of public spending and political economy suggests that if the government spent more on roads, railways, bridges and airports, many of the projects would have low or negative returns. (The experts panel previously voted on this question on May 23, 2013. Those earlier results can be found here.)

Clark Center Economic Experts Panel

September 9, 2014