CORONAVIRUS FEARS AND MACROECONOMIC EXPECTATIONSCarola Bin

CORONAVIRUS FEARS AND MACROECONOMIC
EXPECTATIONS
Carola Binder*
Abstract—The Federal Reserve cut interest rates on March 3,
2020, in re-
sponse to COVID-19. On March 5 and 6, I surveyed over 500
consumers
about their concerns about COVID-19, awareness of the Fed’s
announce-
ment, and macroeconomic expectations. Most consumers were
concerned
about effects of COVID-19 on the economy, their health, and
their per-
sonal finances. About 38% were aware that the Fed had cut
interest rates.
Greater concern is associated with higher inflation expectations
and more
pessimistic unemployment expectations. I informed respondents
about the
Fed’s announcement, which led some consumers to become
more optimistic
about unemployment and revise inflation expectations
downward.
I. Introduction
ON March 3, 2020, the Federal Reserve lowered the fed-eral
funds rate target by 50 basis points to a range of 1%
to 1.25%. This was the first rate cut made outside of a regu-
larly scheduled Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC)

meeting since 2008. The FOMC statement noted that “the
fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong. However,
the coronavirus poses evolving risks to economic activity … .
The Committee is closely monitoring developments and their
implications for the economic outlook and will use its tools
and act as appropriate to support the economy.”
In the press conference associated with the rate cut, chair -
man Jerome Powell added that the policy move would “help
boost household and business confidence.” The spread of
COVID-19 (coronavirus) is not neatly classified as either a
demand or a supply shock (Cochrane, 2020), but it may re-
sult in both “practical and psychological” demand shocks,
if consumers are prevented from getting to stores or post-
pone purchases in the face of huge uncertainty (Baldwin &
di Mauro, 2020).
On March 5 and 6, 2020, I conducted an online survey
using Amazon Mechanical Turk, a Web service that allows
requesters to post small tasks in exchange for a posted mon-
etary payment.1 I surveyed US consumers ages 18 and over
about their attention to and concerns about the coronavirus,
the news they heard about the Fed, and their expectations of
inflation and unemployment. I then provided the respondents
with the March 3 FOMC statement and information about
the rate cut and resolicited their expectations of inflation and
unemployment. I also collected information about respon-
dents’ demographics, numeracy, news sources, attention to
the stock market, and confidence in the Fed and the presi -
Received for publication March 13, 2020. Revision accepted for
publica-
tion April 22, 2020. Editor: Olivier Coibion.
∗ Binder: Haverford College.
This research received funding from the Haverford College

faculty re-
search fund.
A supplemental appendix is available online at
http://www.mitpress
journals.org/doi/suppl/10.1162/rest_a_00931.
1Mechanical Turk allows for recruitment of subject pools that
are more
nationally representative than typical convenience samples,
making it a
popular choice for social science experiments (Berinsky, Huber,
& Lenz,
2012; Casler, Bickel, & Hackett, 2013; Levay, Freese, &
Druckman, 2016).
dent. Half of the consumers were provided with very brief
information about coronavirus at the start of the survey. This
treatment slightly increased health-related concerns but had
no discernible effects on other outcomes.
Consumers were generally attentive to and concerned
about the coronavirus; moreover, 28% had cancelled or post-
poned travel, and 40% had purchased food or supplies in re-
sponse to these concerns. Concerns and responses vary with
consumer characteristics. For example, respondents who own
stocks or follow news about the stock market seem to be at-
tentive to coronavirus news, more concerned, and more likely
to have responded, and newspaper readers are also more con-
cerned. However, much of the variation in consumer concern
and response seems idiosyncratic, or not explained by basic
demographic characteristics, numeracy, or even confidence
in the president. Consumer characteristics also help predict
awareness of the Fed’s March 3 rate cut. Around 52% of con-
sumers had heard news about the Fed in the past week, and

38% knew that the Fed had cut rates. Numerate consumers,
stock owners, and print news readers were significantly more
aware of the rate cut.
Note that when I conducted my survey, the effects of
COVID-19 had not yet spread widely in the United States, and
major business and school closures and stay-at-home orders
had not yet happened. Thus, there was room for a good deal
of heterogeneity in awareness of and concern about the virus.
This heterogeneity is useful for allowing me to study the re-
lationship of pessimism, information, and macroeconomic
expectations. Greater concern about coronavirus is associ -
ated with higher inflation expectations and more pessimistic
unemployment expectations. This is consistent with recent
research showing that many consumers equate “bad times”
with “high inflation” (Kamdar, 2019).2 Provision of infor-
mation about the Fed announcement leads some consumers
to become more optimistic about unemployment and revise
inflation expectations downward. Consumers who were not
already aware of the rate cut are more likely to revise their ex-
pectations in response to information about the rate cut. But
overall, information about the announcement did not reduce
disagreement, as consumers reacted heterogeneously to the
information.
Since early March, awareness of and concern about the
virus has grown, as far more people have experienced
health and economic consequences. In late March and early
April, for example, around 6 million new unemployment
claims were filed per week (Coibion, Gorodnichenko, &
Weber, 2020). Meanwhile, a survey-based literature on the
2For example, a recent decline in inflation expectations on the
Michigan
Survey of Consumers reflected improved macroeconomic
conditions and

consumer confidence (Binder, 2020a). Many consumers also
have a “1970s
model” of the economy and interpret rising gas prices as both
inflationary
and a sign of low economic activity (Binder & Makridis, 2020).
The Review of Economics and Statistics, October 2020, 102(4):
721–730
© 2020 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
https://doi.org/10.1162/res t_a_00931
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/suppl/10.1162/rest_a_0093
1
722 THE REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS
COVID-19 outbreak and consumer beliefs, expectations, ex-
periences, and preferences is rapidly emerging. Bu et al.
(2020) conduct a repeated survey of a panel of graduate stu-
dents in Wuhan, China, and find that exposure to strict quar-
antine led to more pessimistic beliefs about the economy,
lower risk tolerance, and lower trust in others. Fetzer et al.
(2020) conduct an online survey of US consumers on March
5 and 16 and find that concern about the virus grew from the
earlier to the later survey date. They elicit respondents’ sub-
jective mental models of infectious disease spread and find
that cognitive limitations (e.g., underestimation of the non-
linear nature of disease spread) affect individuals’ economic
anxieties associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. More re-
cent surveys reveal strong partisan differences in social dis -
tancing and self-quarantining behavior and beliefs about the
virus (Gadarian et al., 2020; Barrios & Hochberg, 2020; All -
cott et al., 2020). Hanspal, Weber, and Wohlfart (2020) survey
in April find that younger and poorer households face larger

income shocks related to the pandemic and that households
exposed to larger income losses are more likely to report plans
to decrease total expenditures. Early April survey evidence
from Coibion, Gorodnichenko, and Weber (2020) indicates
that the COVID-19 crisis may be driving a wave of earlier-
than-planned retirements.
This paper is also related to a broader recent literature that
uses online experiments or surveys to study the formation of
consumer expectations and response to information or Fed
communication (Armantier et al., 2016; Binder & Rodrigue,
2018; Binder, 2020b; Coibion, Gorodnichenko et al., 2020).
For example, Lamla and Vinogradov (2019) conduct a se-
ries of online surveys a few days before and after FOMC
announcements and find that consumers are more likely to
hear news about the Fed following an FOMC announcement,
but the news does not appear to change their inflation and in-
terest rate expectations. The announcement I study was made
outside a regularly scheduled FOMC meeting, and therefore
potentially more newsworthy: 35% of respondents in their
surveys and 52% in mine had heard recent news about the
Fed.
II. Survey Design
I ran the survey in several batches on March 5 and 6,
to reach people in different time zones or with different
work schedules. Following Allcott and Gentzkow (2017)
and Binder and Rodrigue (2018), I allowed respondents to
take the survey only if they answered the following question
affirmatively:
We care about the quality of our data. In or-
der for us to get the most accurate measures
of your knowledge and opinions, it is important
that you thoughtfully provide your best answers

to each question in this survey. Do you com-
mit to thoughtfully provide your best answers
to each question in this survey?
A total of 520 respondents answered affirmatively and went
on to complete the survey. I dropped 18 respondents who
completed the survey in less than 2 minutes, leaving 502
respondents, who took the survey in 7.3 minutes on average.
The survey begins with questions about age, gender, ed-
ucation, household income, and stock market participation.3
Online appendix table A.1 summarizes basic demographic
information of respondents. One-third of the sample is fe-
male, 21% have household income below $30,000 per year,
and 26% have household income above $75,000 per year. I
constructed survey weights to match the gender and income
distribution of the national population, which I use in all of
the analysis.
Next, respondents select their primary source(s) of news
about the economy from social media, print sources or news-
paper, online sources, television, and radio. They are asked,
“On a scale from 1 to 7, how well would you say you under-
stand what ‘inflation’ means?” They are also asked if they
know the Fed’s inflation target and, if so, to provide the
number.
Respondents then answer a series of questions about their
attention to and concerns about the coronavirus and news
about the stock market and the Fed. Half of respondents,
selected randomly, receive the following information about
the coronavirus before answering these questions:
The World Health Organization (WHO) re-
cently upgraded the global risk from the coro-

navirus outbreak to “very high.”
In the United States, cases have been
confirmed in Arizona, California, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hamp-
shire, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington and
Wisconsin, according to researchers at Johns
Hopkins University.
The other half receive no information. Questions and pos-
sible responses are as follows:
• How closely have you been following the news about
the coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak? (Not closely at all,
somewhat closely, very closely)
3Many of the survey questions follow Binder and Rodrigue
(2018) and
Binder (2020b). The household income question asks, “Which
category rep-
resents the total combined pre-tax income of all members of
your household
(including you) during the past 12 months? Please include
money from all
jobs, net income from business, farm or rent, pensions, interest
on sav-
ings or bonds, dividends, social security income, unemployment
benefits,
Food Stamps, workers compensation or disability benefits, child
support,
alimony, scholarships, fellowships, grants, inheritances and
gifts, and any
other money income received by members of your family who
are 15 years
of age or older.” The stock market participation question asks,

“Do you
(or any member of your family living there) have any
investments in the
stock market, including any publicly traded stock that is
directly owned,
stocks in mutual funds, stocks in any of your retirement
accounts, includ-
ing 401(K)s, IRAs, or Keogh accounts?” Wording is from the
Michigan
Survey of Consumers.
EXPECTATIONS 723
• How concerned are you about the effects that the coron-
avirus might have on the US economy? (Not at all con-
cerned, somewhat concerned, very concerned)
avirus might have on your health or the health of members
of your household? (Not at all concerned, somewhat con-
cerned, very concerned)
avirus might have on the financial situation of your house-
hold? (Not at all concerned, somewhat concerned, very
concerned)
• Have you cancelled or postponed any travel plans due to
coronavirus concerns? (Yes, no)
• Have you purchased food or supplies due to coronavirus
concerns? (Yes, no)

• How closely do you follow news about the stock market?
(Not closely at all, somewhat closely, very closely)
• In the past week, have you heard or read any news about
the Federal Reserve? (Yes, no)
• (If “yes” to previous question) What news did you hear
or read about the Federal Reserve? (The Fed raised in-
terest rates, the Fed cut interest rates, other news [please
describe])
• As to the economic policy of the government—I mean
steps taken to fight inflation or unemployment—would
you say the government is doing a good job, only fair, or
a poor job? (Good job, only fair, poor job)4
Next, respondents provide their expectatio ns of unemploy-
ment and inflation in the next twelve months, following the
elicitation procedure of the Michigan Survey of Consumers.
• How about people out of work during the coming twelve
months–do you think that there will be more unemploy-
ment than now, about the same, or less? (More unemploy-
ment, about the same, less)
• During the next twelve months, do you think that prices
in general will go up, or go down, or stay where they are
now? (Stay the same, lower, don’t know)5
4This question is from the Michigan Survey of Consumers.
5“Stay the same” and “don’t know” responses prompt further
questioning.
See “Survey of Consumers Questionnaire” (University of
Michigan Survey
Research Center, n.d.) codebook for details.

• By about what percent per year do you expect prices to go
(up/down) on the average during the next twelve months?
I next provide respondents with the information about the
Fed’s rate cut. The Federal Reserve issued the following state -
ment on March 3, 2020:
The fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain
strong. However, the coronavirus poses evolv-
ing risks to economic activity. In light of these
risks and in support of achieving its maximum
employment and price stability goals, the Fed-
eral Open Market Committee decided today to
lower the target range for the federal funds rate
by 1/2 percentage point, to 1 to 11/4 percent.
The Committee is closely monitoring develop-
ments and their implications for the economic
outlook and will use its tools and act as appro-
priate to support the economy.
In a press conference following the Federal Reserve’s rate
cut on March 3, the Federal Reserve chair said the following:
Monetary policy can be an effective tool to sup-
port overall economic activity. We do recognize
that a rate cut will not reduce the rate of infec-
tion. It won’t fix a broken supply chain. We get
that. We don’t think we have all the answers.
But we do believe that our action will provide a
meaningful boost to the economy. More specif-
ically, it will support accommodative financial
conditions and avoid a tightening of financial
conditions which can weigh on activity, and it
will help boost household and business confi-
dence. That’s why you’re seeing central banks

around the world responding as they see appro-
priate in their particular institutional context.
I reelicit unemployment and inflation expectations exactly
as before. Then I ask respondents to report “how much con-
fidence you have in each of the following to do or to recom-
mend the right thing for the economy” for President Donald
Trump and the Federal Reserve. Choices were “almost no
confidence,” “a little confidence,” “a fair amount of confi -
dence,” and “a great deal of confidence.” Respondents are
also asked to identify the Fed chair, with the possible options
of “Jerome Powell,” “Alan Blinder,” and “Alan Greenspan.”
Respondents answer two numeracy test questions from the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Survey of Consumer
Expectations:
• If the chance of getting a disease is 10 percent, how many
people out of 1,000 would be expected to get the disease?
FIGURE 1.—CORONAVIRUS ATTENTION, CONCERN, AND
RESPONSE
Panel A shows the percent of consumers who report following
news about coronavirus not closely at all, somewhat closely, or
very closely. Panels B, C, and D show the percent who are not
at all concerned, somewhat
concerned, or very concerned about effects of coronavirus on
the US economy, their household’s health, and their personal
finances. Panels E and F show the percent who have cancelled
or postponed travel or purchased
food or supplies in response to coronavirus concerns.

• Imagine the interest rate on your savings account was 1%
per year and inflation was 2% per year. After one year,
how much would you be able to buy with the money in
this account? (More than today, exactly the same, less
than today)
I classify respondents as numerate if they answer both
questions correctly. Finally, respondents could provide an
open-ended response about “anything at all that you would
like to add or to tell us about this survey.”
III. Concern about Coronavirus
Figure 1 summarizes respondents’ attention to, concerns
about, and responses to the coronavirus outbreak. Nearly all
participants follow news about coronavirus—50% somewhat
closely and 43% very closely. Consumers vary in how con-
cerned they are about the effects of coronavirus on the na-
tional economy, their household’s health, and their personal
finances. Concerns about economic effects are most preva-
lent, with 52% somewhat concerned and 38% highly con-
cerned. Consumers who follow news about the coronavirus
more closely tend to be more concerned about the effects of
the virus.
The bottom panels of figure 1 show how consumers have
actually responded to their concerns. When asked, “Have you
cancelled or postponed any travel plans due to coronavirus
concerns?” 28% say yes, and 40% say they have “purchased
food or supplies due to coronavirus concerns.” For consumers
with greater concern about the effects of coronavirus, cancel-
ing travel or making purchases is more prevalent; for exam-
ple, 45% of consumers with high concerns about effects on
their household health have cancelled travel and 56% have
purchased food or supplies.6

A. Predictors of Concern
Table 1 displays ordered probit regressions of the
coronavirus attention, concern, and response variables on
6Online appendix table A.2 summarizes the correlations
between each of
these concerns and response-related variables.
EXPECTATIONS 725
TABLE 1.—CONSUMER CHARACTERISTICS AND
CORONAVIRUS ATTENTION, CONCERNS, AND
RESPONSES
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
News Economy Health Finances Travel Purchases
age −0.05 0.00 −0.01 0.02 −0.02 −0.03
(0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.06) (0.05)
ageSq 0.00 0.00 0.00 −0.00 0.00 0.00
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
female 0.28** 0.30** 0.07 0.26** 0.04 0.33**
(0.14) (0.14) (0.14) (0.13) (0.18) (0.16)
numerate −0.01 −0.30* −0.63*** −0.74*** −0.96*** −0.39**
(0.16) (0.16) (0.18) (0.14) (0.19) (0.18)
stockowner 0.11 0.26 0.15 0.36** 0.79*** 0.66***

(0.19) (0.18) (0.16) (0.17) (0.24) (0.19)
stocknews 1.15*** 0.98*** 0.40* 0.89*** 0.28 −0.13
(0.21) (0.22) (0.23) (0.22) (0.25) (0.23)
collegedegree 0.18 0.19 0.12 0.09 0.27 0.11
(0.18) (0.18) (0.17) (0.18) (0.23) (0.18)
highincome −0.15 −0.16 −0.11 −0.31** −0.43** −0.24
(0.16) (0.15) (0.15) (0.14) (0.19) (0.18)
lowincome −0.20 0.00 −0.16 0.08 −0.08 −0.18
(0.19) (0.17) (0.18) (0.17) (0.22) (0.20)
socialmedia −0.08 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.66*** 0.25
(0.15) (0.14) (0.14) (0.13) (0.19) (0.19)
print 0.38** 0.44** 0.19 0.40** 0.19 0.04
(0.18) (0.19) (0.21) (0.16) (0.25) (0.23)
online 0.17 0.26* −0.14 0.02 0.09 0.05
(0.15) (0.15) (0.15) (0.14) (0.20) (0.19)
radio 0.10 −0.21 0.06 −0.52** −0.28 0.15
(0.18) (0.19) (0.25) (0.23) (0.29) (0.25)
tv 0.10 0.04 0.19 0.15 0.29 0.52***
(0.14) (0.14) (0.16) (0.13) (0.20) (0.18)
govgoodjob −0.04 −0.18 −0.14 −0.23 0.32 0.20
(0.16) (0.17) (0.18) (0.15) (0.20) (0.20)
govpoorjob 0.28 0.12 0.41** 0.03 0.65** 0.33
(0.21) (0.19) (0.20) (0.20) (0.27) (0.22)
N 498 498 497 499 499 499
R2 pseudo 0.10 0.11 0.06 0.12 0.27 0.13

Robust standard errors in parentheses. ∗ ∗ ∗ p < 0.01, ∗ ∗ p <
0.05, and ∗ p < 0.10. Ordered probit (columns 1–4) and probit
(columns 5–6) regressions. Dependent variables in columns 1 to
4 are categorical variables
describing respondent’s attention to news about coronavirus,
concerns about effects of coronavirus on national economy,
household health, and personal finances. Dependent variables in
columns 5 and 6 are dummy
variables indicating that the respondent has cancelled or
postponed travel due to coronavirus concerns or has purchased
food or supplies due to coronavirus concerns.
respondent characteristics. Women are more likely than men
to follow coronavirus news, to be concerned about economic
and personal financial effects, and to have made purchases
in response to concerns; each of these marginal effect sizes
is around 10 percentage points. D’Acunto, Malmendier, and
Weber (2020) document a “gender expectations gap” for a
range of macroeconomic and financial expectations and ar -
gue that this is attributable to gendered differences in gro-
cery shopping and exposure to price signals. More generally,
women tend to be more pessimistic than men in a variety of
contexts (Dawson, 2017; Bjuggren & Elert, 2019).
Respondents who own stocks or follow news about the
stock market seem more attentive to coronavirus news, more
concerned, and more likely to have responded. For example,
owning stocks is associated with a 10 percentage point greater
likelihood of being highly concerned about personal finances
and following news about stocks with a 26 percentage point
greater likelihood. Stock prices began falling in late February,
so by March 5, stock owners could have already experienced
substantial losses of wealth. High-income respondents are 9
percentage points less likely to be highly concerned about
effects on their personal finances, after controlling for stock

market participation. These respondents likely have greater
job security and ability to work from home. They may be
salaried rather than hourly workers and thus are less likely to
face a major loss of wages.
Respondents’ level of concern also depends on where
they get their news. Readers of print news (including news-
papers) are more attentive to and concerned about coron-
avirus, perhaps because newspapers cover the economy more
than other media platforms and frequently exhibit “negativity
bias” (Soroka & McAdams, 2015; Binder, 2017b). Social me-
dia news consumers are more likely to have cancelled travel
plans. Social media users are more likely to share travel expe -
riences and recommendations and collaborate on travel plan-
ning in online communities, which might make them more
aware of health risks in their travel destinations (Cahyanto
et al., 2011).
Consumers with a poor opinion of the government’s eco-
nomic policies are more concerned about the coronavirus
(though only the coefficient on health concern is statistically
significant) and more likely to have cancelled travel. Opinion
of government economic policy may be a proxy for political
party, as many consumers blame or credit the president for
TABLE 2.—RESPONSE OF CORONAVIRUS CONCERNS TO
INFORMATION TREATMENT
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Economy Health Finances Economy Health Finances

Treated −0.05 0.23 0.15 −0.06 0.40** 0.23
(0.14) (0.14) (0.13) (0.18) (0.19) (0.16)
age 0.01 −0.01 0.02 0.10* 0.11** 0.09*
(0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05)
ageSq 0.00 0.00 −0.00 −0.00 −0.00* −0.00
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
female 0.29** 0.07 0.27** 0.11 0.03 0.22
(0.14) (0.14) (0.14) (0.17) (0.18) (0.17)
numerate −0.26* −0.55*** −0.70*** −0.36* −1.01*** −0.78***
(0.15) (0.17) (0.14) (0.20) (0.20) (0.19)
stockowner 0.22 0.10 0.30* 0.23 0.23 0.50**
(0.18) (0.16) (0.17) (0.21) (0.20) (0.20)
stocknews 0.93*** 0.32 0.83*** 0.77* −0.43 0.86***
(0.22) (0.22) (0.22) (0.45) (0.31) (0.29)
collegedegree 0.14 0.10 0.09 −0.09 −0.05 −0.04
(0.18) (0.17) (0.18) (0.23) (0.20) (0.23)
highincome −0.12 −0.10 −0.28** −0.35* −0.09 −0.24
(0.15) (0.14) (0.14) (0.19) (0.20) (0.18)
lowincome 0.05 −0.08 0.11 −0.35* −0.16 0.00
(0.18) (0.17) (0.18) (0.20) (0.24) (0.21)
socialmedia 0.04 0.01 0.10 0.21 0.19 0.38**
(0.13) (0.14) (0.13) (0.16) (0.19) (0.16)
print 0.45** 0.18 0.36** 0.23 −0.05 0.44**
(0.18) (0.21) (0.16) (0.18) (0.22) (0.22)

online 0.29** −0.06 0.06 0.24 −0.04 0.08
(0.14) (0.14) (0.14) (0.17) (0.17) (0.17)
radio −0.20 0.05 −0.52** 0.21 0.25 −0.34
(0.19) (0.26) (0.24) (0.23) (0.25) (0.28)
tv 0.03 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.28 0.20
(0.14) (0.15) (0.13) (0.17) (0.18) (0.16)
N 498 497 499 298 297 299
Pseudo-R2 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.15
Sample All All All Low news Low news Low news
Robust standard errors in parentheses. ∗ ∗ ∗ p < 0.01, ∗ ∗ p <
0.05, and ∗ p < 0.10. Ordered probit regressions. Dependent
variables are categorical variables describing respondent’s
attention to news about coronavirus,
concerns about effects of coronavirus on national economy,
household health, and personal finances. “Treated” indicates
that the respondent received information about the coronavirus
prior to reporting her concerns.
In columns 4 to 6, sample is restricted to respondents who
follow coronavirus news somewhat closely or not at all.
the state of the economy (Binder, 2017a).7 Poor opinion of
government economic policy may go hand in hand with low
confidence in the government’s ability to manage a public
health crisis. Fetzer et al. (2020) find that Democrats are more
concerned about the COVID-19 crisis than Republicans. Fi-
nally, note that the pseudo-R2 of the regressions is low. Thus,
concern about coronavirus seems to be largely idiosyncratic.
B. Information Treatment and Concern
Recall that I randomly provided half of the respondents
with information from the World Health Organization and

John Hopkins University about the coronavirus. Table 2
shows ordered probit regressions of coronavirus-related con-
cern on the treatment dummy and respondent characteris-
tics.8 The treatment is associated with a statistically insignif-
7Online appendix table A.3 summarizes the correlations
between opin-
ion of the government’s economic policies, confidence in the
president,
and confidence in the Federal Reserve. All three are positively
correlated.
Opinion of government economic policy is more strongly
correlated with
confidence in the president.
8Summary statistics of respondent characteristics for the
treatment and
control groups are in online appendix table A.4. I do not include
the other
icant increase in health and personal finance–related concern.
Columns 4 to 6 of the table restrict the sample to respondents
who follow coronavirus news somewhat closely or not at all
(excluding respondents who follow the news very closely).
These respondents should be more susceptible to the informa-
tion treatment, since they are less likely to be already aware
of the information. Indeed, the treatment effect on health con-
cerns is larger and statistically significant. The marginal effect
implies that a respondent who receives the information treat-
ment is 11 percentage points more likely to be somewhat or
very concerned about the effects of coronavirus on household
health.9
coronavirus-related variables (news, travel cancellations, and
purchases) as
outcome variables because they should not plausibly respond to

the treat-
ment. I have verified that they do not respond to the treatment.
9The information treatment mentions specific states that had
reported
cases at the time. I use the IP addresses of the users to construct
a proxy for
their state of residence; 59% of respondents live in the states
mentioned in
the information treatment. I construct a dummy variable S
indicating that
the respondent lives in a state mentioned in the information
treatment. To
test whether the effect of the information treatment is stronger
for partici-
pants living in the mentioned states, in online appendix table
A.5, I regress
key survey responses (related to coronavirus concerns,
macroeconomic ex-
pectations, and opinion of government policy) on S, the
treatment dummy,
and their interaction, along with the demographic control
variables included
EXPECTATIONS 727
IV. Awareness of Fed Policy
Previous literature documents that consumer knowledge
of the Fed, monetary policy, interest rates, and inflation is
quite limited and heterogeneous (Kumar et al., 2015; Binder,
2017a; Coibion et al., 2019; Coibion, Gorodnichenko et al.,
2020), and that neither households’ nor firms’ expectations

respond much to monetary policy announcements in low -
inflation economies (Coibion, Gorodnichenko et al., 2020).
Consistent with this literature, I find incomplete and hetero-
geneous consumer knowledge of the March 3 rate cut, the
Fed chair, and the inflation target.
Of the 52% of respondents who had heard news about the
Federal Reserve in the past week, most (73%) knew that the
Fed had cut interest rates, though 25% thought that the Fed
had raised interest rates. The remaining five respondents de-
scribed other news that they had heard about the Fed; one
mentioned “repo operations are continuing” and the others
were vague or uncertain (e.g., “Not sure, as I didn’t read the
article. Something was going on.”) Overall, 38% of respon-
dents knew that the Fed had cut rates.
I find that 79% of respondents select the correct Fed chair,
compared to 70% in 2019 (Binder, 2020b) and 67% in 2017
(Binder & Rodrigue, 2018). The share who knew that the
Fed’s inflation target is 2% increased to 44%, versus 32% in
2019 (Binder, 2020b) and 26% in 2017 (Binder & Rodrigue,
2018).10
Knowledge of the rate cut, the inflation target, and the Fed
chair are moderately positively correlated with each other and
depend on certain consumer characteristics (online appendix
tables A.6 and A.7). For example, a numerate consumer is
22 percentage points more likely, and a stock owner 15 per -
centage points more likely, to be aware of the rate cut.11 Print
news readers are more likely to have heard of the rate cut,
while TV news consumers are less likely. Binder (2017b)
finds that newspapers are more likely to cover the Federal
Reserve than are cable and network television. Neither atten-
tion to nor concerns about coronavirus are associated with
greater awareness of the rate cut. Knowledge of the inflation
target and Fed chair is associated with similar characteristics

but also positively associated with income.
in the other regressions. I do not find a statistically significant
coefficient
on S or the interaction in any case. It may be that the sample is
too small or
that the IP address-based proxy is too noisy.
10Coibion, Gorodnichenko, and Weber (2019) find that less
than 20% of
consumers guess that the inflation target is 2%, and almost 40%
guess that
the target is 10% or greater. My results are not directly
comparable to those
of Coibion et al., since I first ask respondents if they know the
Fed’s target
and ask for a guess only if they respond affirmatively. Among
respondents
who claim to know the Fed’s target, 11% report a target that is
larger than
10%. Knowledge of the inflation target may be gradually
increasing over
time but nonetheless remains low.
11Among respondents who own stocks, 26% say they follow
news about
the stock market very closely. Following stock market news
closely is also
associated with greater awareness of the rate cut, though the
effect is not
statistically significant.
TABLE 3.—MACROECONOMIC EXPECTATIONS BY
CONCERNS ABOUT CORONAVIRUS
EFFECTS ON THE ECONOMY

Not Somewhat Very
Concerned Concerned Concerned
Less unemployment 0.17 0.035 0.079
More unemployment 0.19 0.33 0.45
Expected inflation 2.04 3.16 3.35
Multiple of 5% inflation 0.4 0.44 0.47
The table summarizes twelve-month-ahead unemployment and
inflation expectations for consumers
reporting that they are not at all concerned, somewhat
concerned, or very concerned about the effects of
coronavirus on the US economy.
V. Macroeconomic Expectations
In the first round of expectations elicitation, mean and
median inflation expectations are, respectively, 3.12% and
2%, with an interquartile range of 0% to 4%.12 “Don’t
know” responses are given by 23.2%, and 44.7% of fore-
casts are multiples of 5%—indicative of high uncertainty
(see Binder, 2017c). Only 6.5% of respondents expect lower
unemployment in twelve months; 57.4% expect around the
same amount of unemployment, and 36.1% expect more un-
employment.
As shown in table 3, concerns about coronavirus are as-
sociated with more pessimistic unemployment expectations
and higher inflation expectations. For example, mean infla-
tion expectations are 2.0% for unconcerned consumers and
3.4% for very concerned consumers. This is consistent with
recent research showing that consumer pessimism is associ -
ated with higher inflation expectations.
A. Effects of Information about Monetary Policy

The Federal Reserve’s rate cut and announcement on
March 3 could have affected consumer expectations in var-
ious ways. On one hand, the Fed’s response may have sig-
naled that the economic outlook was worse than consumers
previously knew (the information channel of monetary pol-
icy) (Nakamura & Steinsson, 2018). On the other hand, the
rate cut itself, reassurance that “the fundamentals of the U.S.
economy remain strong,” and the promise to “act as appro-
priate to support the economy” may have reassured con-
sumers, making them more optimistic. The statement that
“our action … will help boost consumer confidence” may
also have persuaded respondents to report more optimistic
expectations. Yet another possibility is that the length and
complexity of the statement may have discouraged respon-
dents from reading it carefully or inhibited their compre-
hension of the treatment. However, Coibion et al. (2019)
found that providing consumers with the March or May 2018
FOMC statement—“written in the dense language that is typ-
ical of central bank communications”—had similar effects
on subjects’ inflation expectations as simpler information
treatments, such as telling respondents the inflation target or
12Inflation forecasts of 50% or more in absolute value were
recoded as
“don’t know” responses. This accounted for 48 responses in the
first round
and 54 in the second round.
FIGURE 2.—EXPECTATIONS AND REVISIONS BY
KNOWLEDGE OF RATE CUT
Panels A and B show initial expectations of twelve-month-ahead

unemployment for consumers who do not know or know that the
Fed cut rates on March 3. Panels C through F show revisions of
expectations of
twelve-month-ahead inflation and unemployment after provision
of information about the Fed rate cut on March 3, for consumers
with or without prior knowledge of the rate cut.
recent inflation. Moreover, even respondents with lower in-
come and education levels revised their expectations in re-
sponse to those FOMC statements.
I examine possible effects of the rate cut and announce-
ment in several ways. First, I compare the expectations of
consumers with and without prior knowledge of the Fed’s
rate cut. As discussed earlier, prior knowledge of the rate
cut is associated with certain respondent characteristics, such
as numeracy and stock ownership, which may also affect
macroeconomic expectations. Macroeconomic expectations
may also directly influence awareness of the rate cut; for ex-
ample, consumers who were especially pessimistic about fu-
ture unemployment might have deliberately sought out news
about Federal Reserve policy. Second, I examine how re-
spondents’ expectations change when I provide them with
information about the rate cut. This information treatment is
provided to all respondents, regardless of their observable or
unobservable characteristics.
Panels A and B of figure 2 show that consumers with
prior knowledge of the rate cut are more pessimistic about
future unemployment.13 They also have higher inflation ex-
pectations: the mean is 3.7% for consumers who know about
the rate cut versus 2.8% for consumers who do not. When
controlling for respondents’ observable characteristics, how -
13Online appendix figure A.1 replicates figure 2, omitting
respondents

who took the survey in less than four minutes, who might not
have taken
the time to read the full text of the treatment. The figure is
nearly identical.
ever, the differences in macroeconomic expectations by prior
knowledge of the rate cut are not statistically significant.
Panels C and D summarize revisions to unemployment ex-
pectations following the treatment for respondents with and
without prior knowledge of the rate cut. About 80% of respon-
dents with prior knowledge and 71% without prior knowledge
make no revision to their unemployment expectations. Condi -
tional on revising, 60% of respondents with prior knowledge
and 47% without prior knowledge become more optimistic
about future unemployment.
Panels E and F of figure 2 summarize qualitative revi -
sions to inflation expectations. About 64% of respondents
with prior knowledge of the rate cut and 40% without prior
knowledge make no revision. Conditional on revising, 73%
of respondents with prior knowledge and 58% of respon-
dents without prior knowledge revised down. Quantitative
inflation expectations, on aggregate, did not respond to the
treatment: the pretreatment mean and median were 3.2% and
2%, while the posttreatment mean and median were 2.9%
and 2%. However, this lack of aggregate response reflects
the heterogeneity of individuals’ responses. Online appendix
figure A.2 shows kernel density estimates of quantitative re-
visions to inflation expectations for respondents with and
without prior knowledge of the rate cut. Revisions are cen-
tered around 0 but with mass on either side, including extra
mass at 5% and −5% from uncertain consumers who select
“round” forecasts both before and after the treatment (Binder,
2017c).

EXPECTATIONS 729
Online appendix table A.8 summarizes inflation expec-
tations revisions based on unemployment expectations revi -
sions. Among consumers who became more optimistic about
unemployment following information about the Fed’s re-
sponse, 59% revised their inflation expectations dow n and
only 11% revised their inflation expectations up. In con-
trast, for consumers who became more pessimistic about
unemployment—who interpreted the Fed’s response as a sig-
nal of the poor state of the economy—28% revised their infla-
tion expectations down and 47% revised up. This is consistent
with what Andre et al. (2019) call the “good-bad-heuristic”:
many consumers consider both inflation and unemployment
“bad” and therefore expect them to comove (also see Kam-
dar, 2019, and Coibion, Gorodnichenko et al., 2020). Andre
et al. find that consumers’ predictions about how unemploy-
ment will respond to various shocks, including interest rate
shocks, are generally in line with experts’ predictions, but
consumers’ predictions about inflation are not.
It is interesting to note that consumer disagreement about
inflation did not decline from the first to the second elici -
tation. Pretreatment and posttreatment disagreement about
inflation was identical, with an interquartile range of 0% to
4% in both cases.14 The signal about the Fed’s March 3 an-
nouncement and rate cut appears to be an exception to the
finding in Coibion et al. (2019) that “there is in general lit-
tle variation in terms of how different types of consumers
respond to most signals: conditional on their initial beliefs
(which do differ across groups), the way they respond to a
common signal is broadly similar. This pattern in updating
yields declines in disagreement across agents after each treat-
ment.” The COVID-19 crisis and related policy responses are

rare events, associated with high uncertainty, making it diffi -
cult for consumers to understand how to update their beliefs
about the future (Gallagher, 2014; Mackowiak & Wiederholt,
2018). As a result, there is more variation in how consumers
respond to the Fed’s March 3 announcement compared to the
information treatments in Coibion et al. (2019).
VI. Discussion and Conclusion
As of March 5 and 6, 2020, many consumers were con-
cerned about the potential effects of coronavirus on their
health and finances and on the US economy. These concerns
were associated with more pessimistic unemployment expec-
tations and higher inflation expectations. My results suggest
that possible increases in consumer inflation expectations in
the next few months of the COVID-19 crisis might best be
interpreted as increases in pessimism rather than as improved
expecations of aggregate demand.
The Federal Reserve’s emergency rate cut on March 3 was
relatively newsworthy, and 38% of consumers became aware
14Coibion et al. (2019) note that higher moments of inflation
expectations
are sensitive to outliers and suggest using robust measures of
disagreement
in place of variance or standard deviation. The interquartile
range is a robust
measure of disagreement. Another robust measure, the median
absolute
deviation, is also identical pre- and posttreatment.
of the cut. But consumers had mixed responses to learning
about the Fed’s announcement, and disagreement about in-
flation expectations did not decline. The fact that fewer than
half of consumers were aware of such a major policy move

and may have had trouble interpreting it points to large chal -
lenges in the central bank’s efforts to communicate with the
general public. These challenges will become especially im-
portant to address with the federal funds rate at the zero lower
bound.
Larger-scale surveys will be helpful in the upcoming
months as economic and public health conditions rapidly
evolve, and especially as consumers experience more direct
effects of the COVID-19 crisis on their lives. Panel surveys to
facilitate analysis of the persistence of effects on beliefs and
expectations will be especially valuable.15 Shortly after this
survey, long lines in grocery stores and shortages of toilet pa-
per and other items became widespread. This may exacerbate
pessimism and high inflation expectations, as D’Acunto et al.
(2019, 2020) find that many consumers extrapolate from their
grocery shopping experiences to form inflation expectations.
Job insecurity and job loss, illness, school and business clo-
sures, and future fiscal and monetary policy responses may
have notable effects on expectations and beliefs.
15In more normal times, information treatments about inflation
and Fed-
eral Reserve policy have only mildly persistent effects on
consumer expec-
tations (Coibion et al., 2019).
REFERENCES
Allcott, Hunt, Levi Boxell, Jacob C. Conway, Matthew
Gentzkow, Michael
Thaler, and David Y. Yang, “Polarization and Public Health:
Partisan
Differences in Social Distancing during the Coronavirus
Pandemic,”
NBER working paper 26946 (2020).

Allcott, Hunt, and Mathew Gentzkow, “Social Media and Fake
News in
the 2016 Election,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 31
(2017),
211–236.
Andre, Peter, Carlo Pizzinelli, Christopher Roth, and Johannes
Wohlfart,
“Subjective Models of the Macroeconomy: Evidence from
Experts
and a Representative Sample,” working paper (2019),
https://papers
.srn.com/s013/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3355356.
Armantier, Olivier, Scott Nelson, Giorgio Topa, Wilbert van der
Klaauw,
and Basit Zafar, “The Price Is Right: Updating Inflation
Expectations
in a Randomized Price Information Experiment,” this REVIEW
98
(2016), 503–523.
Baldwin, Richard, and Beatrice Weder di Mauro, eds.,
Economics in the
Time of COVID-19 (London: CEPR Press, 2020).
Barrios, John M., and Yael Hochberg, “Risk Perception through
the Lens of
Politics in the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic,” NBER
working
paper 27008 (2020).
Berinsky, Adam, Greg Huber, and Gabe Lenz, “Evaluating
Online La-
bor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s

Mechanical
Turk,” Political Analysis 20 (2012), 351–368.
Binder, Carola, “Fed Speak on Main Street: Central Bank
Communica-
tion and Household Expectations,” Journal of Macroeconomics
52
(2017a), 238–251.
——— “Federal Reserve Communication and the Media,”
Journal of Me-
dia Economics 30 (2017b), 191–214.
——— “Measuring Uncertainty Based on Rounding: New
Method and Ap-
plication to Inflation Expectations,” Journal of Monetary
Economics
90 (2017c), 1–12.
——— “Long-Run Inflation Expectations in the Shrinking
Upper Tail,”
Economics Letters 186 (2020a), 1–4.
——— “Presidential Antagonism and Central Bank Credibility,”
working
paper (2020b), https://papers.srn.com/s013/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=3545379.
Binder, Carola, and Christos Makridis, “Stuck in the Seventies:
Gas Prices
and Consumer Sentiment Stuck in the Seventies,” working paper
(2020).

Binder, Carola, and Alex Rodrigue, “Household Informedness
and Long-
Run Inflation Expectations: Experimental Evidence,” Southern
Eco-
nomic Journal 85 (2018), 580–598.
Bjuggren, Carl Magnus, and Niklas Elert, “Gender Differences
in Opti-
mism,” Applied Economics 51 (2019), 5160–5173.
Bu, Di, Tobin Hanspal, Yin Liao, and Yong Liu, “Economic
Preferences dur-
ing a Global Crisis: Evidence from Wuhan,” working paper
(2020),
https://papers.srn.com/s013/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3559870.
Cahyanto, Ignatius, Lori Pennington-Gray, Laura Mandala, and
Ashley
Schroeder, “The Effects of Social Media Usage on Travel
Informa-
tion Searching and Travel Experience Sharing,” Advancing
Tourism
Research Globally, 42 (2011).
Casler, K., L. Bickel, and E. Hackett, “Separate But Equal? A
Compari-
son of Participants and Data Gathered via Amazon’s MTurk,
Social
Media, and Face-to-Face Behavioral Testing,” Computers in
Human
Behavior 29 (2013), 2156–2160.
Cochrane, John H., Coronavirus Monetary Policy (London:
CEPR Press,
2020).

Coibion, Olivier, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Saten Kumar, and
Mathieu Pede-
monte, “Inflation Expectations as a Policy Tool?” Journal of
Inter-
national Economics 124:C (2020).
Coibion, Olivier, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, and Michael Weber,
“Monetary
Policy Communications and Their Effects on Household
Inflation
Expectations,” NBER working paper 2020-07 (2019)
——— “Labor Markets during the COVID-19 Crisis: A
Preliminary View,”
D’Acunto, Francesco, Ulrike Malmendier, Juan Ospina, and
Michael We-
ber, “Exposure to Daily Price Changes and Inflation
Expectations,”
D’Acunto, Francesco, Ulrike Malmendier, and Michael Weber,
“Gender
Roles and the Gender Expectations Gap,” NBER working paper
26837 (2020).
Dawson, Chris, “The Upside of Pessimism: Biased Beliefs and
the Paradox
of the Contented Female Worker,” Journal of Economic
Behavior
and Organization 135 (2017), 215–228.
Fetzer, Thiemo, Lukas Hensel, Johannes Hermle, and
Christopher Roth,

Perceptions of Pandemic Risk Factors and Economic Anxiety:
Evi-
dence from the Coronavirus Pandemic (2020),
https://arxiv.org/abs
/2003.03846.
Gadarian, Shana Kushner, Sara Wallace Goodman, and Thomas
B. Pepin-
sky, “Partisanship, Health Behavior, and Policy Attitudes in the
Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic,” working paper
(2020),
https://papers.srn.com/s013/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3562796.
Gallagher, Justin, “Learning About an Infrequent Event:
Evidence from
Flood Insurance Take-Up in the United States,” American
Economic
Journal: Applied Economics 6 (2014), 206–233.
Hanspal, Tobin, Annika Weber, and Johannes Wohlfart,
“Income and
Wealth Shocks and Expectations during the COVID-19
Pandemic,”
CESito working paper 8244 (2020).
Kamdar, Rupal, “The Inattentive Consumer: Sentiment and
Expec-
tations,” meeting paper from Society for Economic Dynami cs
(2019).
Kumar, Saten, Hassan Afrouzi, Olivier Coibion, and Yuriy
Gorodnichenko,
“Inflation Targeting Does Not Anchor Inflation Expectations:
Evi-
dence from Firms in New Zealand,” Brookings Papers on
Economic

Activity (2015), 151–206.
Lamla, Michael J., and Dmitri V. Vinogradov, “Central Bank
Announce-
ments: Big News for Little People?” Journal of Monetary
Economics
108 (2019), 21–38.
Levay, Kevin E., Jeremy Freese, and James N. Druckman, “The
Demo-
graphic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk
Samples,”
SAGE Open (2016), 1–17.
Mackowiak, Bartosz, and Mirko Wiederholt, “Lack of
Preparation for
Rare Events,” Journal of Monetary Economics 100 (2018), 35–
47.
Nakamura, Emi, and Jon Steinsson, “High-Frequency
Identification of
Monetary Non- Neutrality: The Information Effect,” Quarterly
Jour-
nal of Economics 133 (2018), 1283–1330.
Soroka, Stuart, and Stephen McAdams, “News, Politics, and
Negativity,”
Political Communication, 32 (2015), 1–22.
University of Michigan Survey Research Center, Institute for
Social Re-
search, ”Survey of Consumers” (n.d.), https://data.sca.isr.umich
.edu/fetchdoc.php?docid=24776.
Economics 4001.01

Intermediate Microeconomic Theory
Written Assignment
Economic research begins with a question. With that question
in mind, the researcher begins a review of the relevant
literature. This step is important because the researcher needs
to know what has already been done in terms of questions
asked, methodology used, assumptions made, data used, and
results. Most economic research is built on the work that has
already been done by someone else. Once a literature review
has been done, the researcher can develop a proposal for their
own studies. That proposal may involve asking a different
question, using a different methodology or model, testing the
affect of different assumptions, using a different set of data to
test the model, or extending the results into new areas.
This assignment will give you a chance to experience some of
that process. Your job will be to select one of the articles
provided to you, review it, and develop a proposal for research.
Your audience is someone that is familiar with economic theory
but has not read the article. Thus, your review needs to include
a general discussion of the research questions, methodology,
data used, and results. This is not a matter of rewriting the
abstract for the article. Once you have completed your review,
you should develop a proposal for research based on this article.
Note that you are not expected to carry out that proposal for this
assignment.
Required Elements:
1. Your paper should be double spaced and use an 11- or 12-
point font size. Do not use an unusual font that will be difficult
to read. A good choice would be Times New Roman.
2. A cover page with your name, class, date and the name of the
article you are reviewing.

3. A review of the article.
a. There is no word count or page count, but it is unlikely that
you will be able do an adequate review in one paragraph.
b. You need to include any information that someone that is
knowledgeable about economics but has not read the article
would need to understand what the author(s) have done.
c. You should also discuss the significance of the article as well
as any potential flaws that you found.
4. A research proposal.
a. Based on the article you read, develop a research proposal.
b. There is no word count or page count for your proposal, but it
is unlikely you can write an adequate proposal in one paragraph.
c. Discuss what you would do, how it is different from what has
already been done, and why you think that would be interesting
to someone reading your research.
5. A bibliography that includes at a minimum the article that
you have read and reviewed. If you want to expand your
literature review, you may do so. But it is not required.
Note that your assignment will be run through Turn-It-In.
Plagiarism is not acceptable. If you plagiarize, you will receive
a zero and can be reported to the academic misconduct
committee.
Rubric:
This assignment will be worth 100 points. You will be graded
on the following criteria: 1) following instructions, 2) grammar,
3) citations, 4) clarity, 5) critical thinking. Each criterion
represents 20% of your total score.

Criterion
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
Instructions
Followed all instructions
Followed almost all instructions
Followed most instructions
Followed some instructions
Did not follow instructions
Grammar
0-2 errors
3-4 errors
5-6 errors
7-8 errors
9 or more errors
Citations
All information correctly cited in the MLA format
All information correctly cited in the wrong format
1-3 missing citations or missing works cited page, in the MLA
format
1-3 missing citations or missing works cited page, wrong format
4 or more missing citations
Clarity
Clearly written and on topic
Mostly clear and on topic
Somewhat clear or tendencies to get off topic
Not clear, but mostly on topic
Not clear and off topic
Critical Thinking
Demonstrates a clear understanding of the concepts
Demonstrates a good understanding of the concepts
Demonstrates a moderate understanding of the concepts

Demonstrates a familiarity with the concepts
Does not demonstrate an understanding of the concepts

CORONAVIRUS FEARS AND MACROECONOMIC EXPECTATIONSCarola Bin

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CORONAVIRUS FEARS AND MACROECONOMIC EXPECTATIONSCarola Bin

Similar to CORONAVIRUS FEARS AND MACROECONOMIC EXPECTATIONSCarola Bin (20)

More from AlleneMcclendon878

More from AlleneMcclendon878 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CORONAVIRUS FEARS AND MACROECONOMIC EXPECTATIONSCarola Bin