Question 4: Voters did not believe the economic arguments put forward (for example, because they thought the arguments put forward by macroeconomists with dissenting views made more sense or because voters have little faith in economists in general).
Do you agree that this was an important reason for a majority of UK voters going against the near unanimous advice of the economics profession?
Question 2: What do you think is the most likely reason that a majority of UK voters went against the near unanimous advice of the economics profession?
This is primarily a question for political scientists and/or sociologists rather than economists. My reading of the research and analysis published to data is that identity/cultural issues were determinative - certainly in the sense that, had the referendum been solely on the question of "is the EU good for the UK economy", I think Remain would have won reasonably clearly. Of course, these non-economic factors cannot be entirely or cleanly separated from economic ones. See for example the work by Matt Goodwin of the University of Kent: http://www.matthewjgoodwin.org/uploads/6/4/0/2/64026337/political_quarterly_version_1_9.pdf
Question 1:Do you agree that the economics profession needs an institutional change that promotes the ability to communicate more effectively with policy-makers and the public at large and to make clear when economists have a united view; and do you agree that we need to introduce leadership to help achieve this improvement through coordinated efforts?
I am not persuaded institutional change is key here. In fact I think the broad consensus views of the profession were communicated reasonably clearly - for example the joint NIESR/IFS/CEP statement. The issues involved here - what is effective communication, how should messages about economic or statistical issues be framed to as to be effective, etc - are complex, and I would prefer to see further research, evidence and analysis (for instance, commissioned research on the role of "experts" in driving public opinion) before coming to a view on what action the profession should take.
Economists agree that trade, migration and access to large markets are good for economies. EU membership has led to a relatively liberal approach to both and provides full access to the largest single market in the world. If this could be maintained outside the EU and better trade deals negotiated, then the economic impact might indeed be neutral or even a slight positive. But this would require benign political and economic developments in the UK, in the EU, and globally. Moreover, the potential downside risks of a decision to leave, while not susceptible to precise quantification, appear large, and need to be taken into account in assessing the overall costs and benefits. Risks are also attached to remaining in the EU, but appear
easier to manage.
The CFM surveys informs the public about the views held by prominent economists based in Europe on important macroeconomic and public policy questions. Some surveys focus specifically on the UK economy (as the CFM is a UK research centre), but surveys can in principle focus on any macroeconomic question for any region. The surveys shed light on the extent to which there is agreement or disagreement among these experts. An important motivation for the survey is to give a more comprehensive overview of the beliefs held by economists and in particular to include the views of those economists whose opinions are not frequently heard in public debates.
Questions mainly focus on macroeconomic and public policy topics. Although there are some questions that focus specifically on the UK economy, the setup of the survey is much broader and considers questions related to other countries/regions and also considers questions not tied to a specific economy.
The surveys are done in collaboration with the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR).
Are academic economists ‘in touch’ with voters and politicians?
====================================================================
Question 4: Voters did not believe the economic arguments put forward (for example, because they thought the arguments put forward by macroeconomists with dissenting views made more sense or because voters have little faith in economists in general).
Do you agree that this was an important reason for a majority of UK voters going against the near unanimous advice of the economics profession?
====================================================================
====================================================================
Question 2: What do you think is the most likely reason that a majority of UK voters went against the near unanimous advice of the economics profession?
====================================================================
====================================================================
Question 3: Voters chose to leave the EU for non-economic reasons.
Do you agree that this was an important reason for a majority of UK voters going against the near unanimous advice of the economics profession?
====================================================================
====================================================================
Question 1: Do you agree that the economics profession needs an institutional change that promotes the ability to communicate more effectively with policy-makers and the public at large and to make clear when economists have a united view; and do you agree that we need to introduce leadership to help achieve this improvement through coordinated efforts?
====================================================================
Brexit: the potential of a financial catastrophe and long-term consequences for the UK financial sector
====================================================================
Question 3: What do you think will be the overall economic consequences of Brexit for the UK?
====================================================================
Pages