Evaluating Global Economic Policy Worldwide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
These are the key findings of the EES in Q2, 2025:— Global political assessment reveals regional divides and signals of recovery.– Europe shows deep regional divisions with Eastern Europe reporting political deterioration while Northern/Western Europe remains cautiously optimistic.– Experts are generally more optimistic about political stability than government performance.— Global economic policy assessments show growing concern for future preparedness.– Experts in Northern America express less pessimism than in the previous quarter butthe region still ranks lowest globally, with particularly negative views on future policypreparedness.– All regions of Africa and Asia report positive assessments of economic policy, whileNorth and South America, and Eastern and Southern Europe report negative developments.– Experts are more pessimistic about policies addressing future challenges than currentperformance, especially in Americas and most of Europe.— Special module on tariff expectations– Experts globally expect import tariffs to substantially exceed what they believe wouldbe an economically appropriate level.– Tariff expectations vary greatly across regions, from as low as 7% in Oceania to nearly30% in Middle Africa.– Experts in Europe expect the lowest tariffs (around 10%) and prefer even lower rates(6-8%), showing the strongest commitment to free trade.– Experts overwhelmingly believe that the incidence of tariff costs would be largely borneby domestic consumers, with 54.3% of the total burden attributed to them.— Outlook: Global inflation expectations remain at elevated levels– With a global average of 4.0%, experts’ short-run inflation expectations for 2025 remainstable in comparison to the previous quarter.– Long-term inflation expectations for 2026 and 2028 also expected to stay at elevatedlevels at 3.9% and 3.7%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.015 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".