By November 2025, it is projected that there is a probability of 33.56 percent that the United States will fall into another economic recession. This reflects a significant decrease from the projection of the preceding month.

The Long Depression was, by a large margin, the longest-lasting recession in U.S. history. It began in the U.S. with the Panic of 1873, and lasted for over five years. This depression was the largest in a series of recessions at the turn of the 20th century, which proved to be a period of overall stagnation as the U.S. financial markets failed to keep pace with industrialization and changes in monetary policy. Great Depression The Great Depression, however, is widely considered to have been the most severe recession in U.S. history. Following the Wall Street Crash in 1929, the country's economy collapsed, wages fell and a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. It would take almost four years for recovery to begin. Additionally, U.S. expansion and integration in international markets allowed the depression to become a global event, which became a major catalyst in the build up to the Second World War. Decreasing severity When comparing recessions before and after the Great Depression, they have generally become shorter and less frequent over time. Only three recessions in the latter period have lasted more than one year. Additionally, while there were 12 recessions between 1880 and 1920, there were only six recessions between 1980 and 2020. The most severe recession in recent years was the financial crisis of 2007 (known as the Great Recession), where irresponsible lending policies and lack of government regulation allowed for a property bubble to develop and become detached from the economy over time, this eventually became untenable and the bubble burst. Although the causes of both the Great Depression and Great Recession were similar in many aspects, economists have been able to use historical evidence to try and predict, prevent, or limit the impact of future recessions.

The statisic shows the concern among Americans around the impact of the European financial crisis on the United States economy. According to the source, 15 percent of those polled stated that they were 'not too concerned' about the impact of the European financial crisis on the U.S. economy.

The statistic shows the gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States from 1987 to 2024, with projections up until 2030. The gross domestic product of the United States in 2024 amounted to around 29.18 trillion U.S. dollars. The United States and the economy The United States’ economy is by far the largest in the world; a status which can be determined by several key factors, one being gross domestic product: A look at the GDP of the main industrialized and emerging countries shows a significant difference between US GDP and the GDP of China, the runner-up in the ranking, as well as the followers Japan, Germany and France. Interestingly, it is assumed that China will have surpassed the States in terms of GDP by 2030, but for now, the United States is among the leading countries in almost all other relevant rankings and statistics, trade and employment for example. See the U.S. GDP growth rate here. Just like in other countries, the American economy suffered a severe setback when the economic crisis occurred in 2008. The American economy entered a recession caused by the collapsing real estate market and increasing unemployment. Despite this, the standard of living is considered quite high; life expectancy in the United States has been continually increasing slightly over the past decade, the unemployment rate in the United States has been steadily recovering and decreasing since the crisis, and the Big Mac Index, which represents the global prices for a Big Mac, a popular indicator for the purchasing power of an economy, shows that the United States’ purchasing power in particular is only slightly lower than that of the euro area.

United States CSI: Eco: Recent Buss Conditions: Unfavorable Energy Crisis data was reported at 1.000 % in May 2018. This records an increase from the previous number of 0.000 % for Apr 2018. United States CSI: Eco: Recent Buss Conditions: Unfavorable Energy Crisis data is updated monthly, averaging 0.000 % from Jan 1978 (Median) to May 2018, with 485 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 16.000 % in Jul 1979 and a record low of 0.000 % in Apr 2018. United States CSI: Eco: Recent Buss Conditions: Unfavorable Energy Crisis data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by University of Michigan. The data is categorized under Global Database’s USA – Table US.H028: Consumer Sentiment Index: Economic Conditions. During the last few months, have your heard of any favorable or unfavorable changes in business conditions? The question was: What did you hear?

The Covid-19 pandemic saw growth fall by 2.2 percent, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent the year before. The last time the real GDP growth rates fell by a similar level was during the Great Recession in 2009, and the only other time since the Second World War where real GDP fell by more than one percent was in the early 1980s recession. The given records began following the Wall Street Crash in 1929, and GDP growth fluctuated greatly between the Great Depression and the 1950s, before growth became more consistent.

This file contains the data and code for the publication "The Federal Reserve’s Response to the Global Financial Crisis and its Effects: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis of the Impact of its Quantitative Easing Programs" by A. C. Kamkoum, 2023.

On October 29, 1929, the U.S. experienced the most devastating stock market crash in it's history. The Wall Street Crash of 1929 set in motion the Great Depression, which lasted for twelve years and affected virtually all industrialized countries. In the United States, GDP fell to it's lowest recorded level of just 57 billion U.S dollars in 1933, before rising again shortly before the Second World War. After the war, GDP fluctuated, but it increased gradually until the Great Recession in 2008. Real GDP Real GDP allows us to compare GDP over time, by adjusting all figures for inflation. In this case, all numbers have been adjusted to the value of the US dollar in FY2012. While GDP rose every year between 1946 and 2008, when this is adjusted for inflation it can see that the real GDP dropped at least once in every decade except the 1960s and 2010s. The Great Recession Apart from the Great Depression, and immediately after WWII, there have been two times where both GDP and real GDP dropped together. The first was during the Great Recession, which lasted from December 2007 until June 2009 in the US, although its impact was felt for years after this. After the collapse of the financial sector in the US, the government famously bailed out some of the country's largest banking and lending institutions. Since recovery began in late 2009, US GDP has grown year-on-year, and reached 21.4 trillion dollars in 2019. The coronavirus pandemic and the associated lockdowns then saw GDP fall again, for the first time in a decade. As economic recovery from the pandemic has been compounded by supply chain issues, inflation, and rising global geopolitical instability, it remains to be seen what the future holds for the U.S. economy.

China’s export benefits from the significant fiscal stimulus in the United States. This paper analyzes the global spillover effect of the American economy on China’s macro-economy using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)-Gibbs sampling approach, with the goal of improving the ability of China’s financial system to protect against foreign threats. This paper examines the theories of the consequences of uncertainty on macroeconomics first. Then, using medium-sized economic and financial data, the uncertainty index of the American and Chinese economies is built. In order to complete the test and analysis of the dynamic relationship between American economic uncertainty and China’s macro-economy, a Time Varying Parameter-Stochastic Volatility-Vector Autoregression (TVP- VAR) model with random volatility is constructed. The model is estimated using the Gibbs sampling method based on MCMC. For the empirical analysis, samples of China’s and the United States’ economic data from January 2001 to January 2022 were taken from the WIND database and the FRED database, respectively. The data reveal that there are typically fewer than 5 erroneous components in the most estimated parameters of the MCMC model, which suggests that the model’s sampling results are good. China’s pricing level reacted to the consequences of the unpredictability of the American economy by steadily declining, reaching its lowest point during the financial crisis in 2009, and then gradually diminishing. After 2012, the greatest probability density range of 68% is extremely wide and contains 0, indicating that the impact of economic uncertainty in the United States on China’s pricing level is no longer significant. China should therefore focus on creating a community of destiny by working with nations that have economic cooperation to lower systemic financial risks and guarantee the stability of the capital market.

Abstract

After 2008 all the countries around the world are experiencing an economic crisis known as the global economic crisis. The economic crisis which usually only experienced by poor countries or developing countries, this time also experienced by developed countries like the United States and Japan. The impact of the global economic crisis is obviously rising unemployment rate and declining purchasing power. Indonesia as a developing country in Southeast Asia is not immune from the crisis. Some foreign companies in Indonesia close their operations and lay off employees. Activities of Indonesia's exports to developed countries also declined. In addition there are many other socio-economic impact of the global economic crisis that hit until today.

In order to determine the impact of the global economic crisis that occurred in Indonesia, the Statistics Indonesia (BPS) in cooperation with the National Development Planning Agency and the World Bank organized a Global Crisis Monitoring Survey (SMKG). SMKG Survey is a panel survey implemented in three round, with the first round in August 2009, second round in November 2009 and the third round in February 2010.

Implementation of the first round of SMKG integrated with the activities of the National Labor Force Survey (Sakernas) in August 2009. SMKG second round conducted independently, while implementation of the third round of SMKG integrated with Sakernas activity in February 2010 for a sample of the packages 1, 2 and 3 as well as to independent samples from the packages 5 and 6.

Geographic coverage

National coverage, representative to the district level.

Analysis unit

The unit of analysis of this survey are the Household (RT), Puskesmas (Public Health Center), and Dinas Kesehatan (Health Agency) at the district / city level.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

There are two sampling frame used in the SMKG, census blocks frame selection and households frame selection. Census blocks frame selection is a list of Sakernas census blocks selected in August 2009. While households frame selection is list of selected household in Sakernas August 2009, the results of up dating.

Implementation of SMKG covers 2355 blocks which spread in 2314 census villages, 1911 subdistricts, 471 districts / cities in 33 provinces. The number of household samples per each census block are 6 households, selected at random systematic sampling of Sakernas 2009 household samples. It can be concluded that the household samples of SMKG are the same household samples of Sakernas 2009, but not all Sakernas 2009 household samples used in SMKG.

In SMKG, besides household sample, data also collected from institutions like Dinas Kesehatan (Health Agency) and from Puskesmas (Community Health Center). Dinas Kesehatan that visited were at district / city level. All Dinas Kesehatan SMKG samples must be visited. The number of districts / cities covered by SMKG activities were 471 districts / cities, so the number of SMKG's Dinas Kesehatan samples as well as 471. In the other hand, Puskesmas visited mostly were selected sample of Puskesmas in the subdistrict. SMKG's Puskesmas samples is all Puskesmas in selected SMKG census block location or nearest locations of with SMKG's census block samples. The number of Puskesmas samples in each district / city are 5 Primary Puskesmas.

SMKG field officers for the all three rounds expected to be the same officers , that is the Sakernas 2009 team that selected in accordance with the selected SMKG's census blocks. Workload of each team vary according to the number of SMKG's census blocks sample selected from SAKERNAS census blocks of his team's responsibility.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The questionnaires prepared consist of three types: List of SMKG-RT used to collect household data, List of SMKG-Puskesmas to collect data from Puskesmas (Community Health Center) and List of SMKG-Dinas to collect data from SMKG-Dinas Kesehatan (Health Agency).

James‘ study is a comprehensive approach to present the special features of Germany’s economic crisis during the period of the world economic crisis. Germany’s very specific crisis factors are described using new sources and considering new research questions. It is an analysis of the political and economic sociological structure of the crisis. The economic crisis was a significant turning point in the economic activities of people. The change in expectations and behaviours manifested in two ways: in the politicization of the economy and in the states’ obligation on the principle of economic interventionism. Harold James classifies the German crisis into a wider framework. The distinguishing characteristic of the German crisis in comparison to other countries is the degree of politicization, the close association of economic and political crisis. In the research there are three different explanations for the depression that lay the main emphasis on international relations. The explanations focus on the degree of global technical progress, the development of world trade, and the development of the international capital markets. Other approaches favour a purely domestic economic explanation of the economic crisis. James starts from two problem areas in his analysis: first, the slow growth of world trade in the twenties and second, the German tax burden. Five aspects of the problem area are analysed: 1. How big was the willingness of taxpayers to accept the tax increases? 2. How was the organizational development of German industry and what were the reasons for the development? What consequences had the organizational structure of the industry for the German economy? 3. How affected the wage push of the late twenties the German economy structure, and what policy responses have been evoked by the wage push? 4. How did the German agricultural sector succeeded in influencing the political decision-making processes so strong that there has been no price fall of agricultural products during the depression? What were the consequences of the agricultural development on the overall economic development? 5. The bank system and the credit system was in the period of the twenties highly unstable. Its instability has contributed significantly to the worsening of the depression. To what extent was the increasing instability due to political calculation?

Datatables in the search- and downloadsystem HISTAT (Topic: Growth, Economy, and Crisis (=Wachstum, Konjunktur und Krisen) ):

A. Die öffentlichen Finanzen (= Official Finances: revenues, expenses, national dept, municipal dept, tax revenues)

A.01a Staatseinnahmen, Staatsausgaben und Staatsverschuldung in Deutschland, in Millionen Reichmark (1926-1933) A.01b Zunahme der deutschen Kommunalverschuldung, in Millionen Reichmark (1928-1931) A.02 Steuereinnahmen der Kommunen, in Millionen Reichsmark (1928-1933) A.03 Schulden der Kommunen mit über 10.000 Einwohnern, in Millionen Reichmark (1928-1930)

B. Die industrielle Struktur: Stagnation und Immobilität (= Industrial Structure: stagnation and immobility. Average yearly growth rate of german industrial products; share of taxes and social expenditurs on the national income; lending; industrial investment)

B.01 Durchschnittliche jährliche Zuwachsraten der deutschen Industrieproduktion, in Prozent (1913-1932) B.02 Anteil der Steuern und Sozialabgaben am Volkseinkommen in Großbritannien, Frankreich und Deutschland, in Prozent (1925-1929) B.03 Kreditvergabe der Kreditinstitute, ohne Waren- und Wertpapierlombardgeschäfte (1913-1933) B.04 Industrielle Investitionen von Kapitalgesellschaften, in Millionen Reichsmark (1924-1931) B.05 Der Steinkohlenbergbau des Ruhrgebiets (1913-1931)

C. Lohnentwicklung (= Wage-Development. Real Wages; hourly wages and productivity; share of wages on national income)

C.01a Kumulierte Reallohnposition, Basisjahr 1938 (1925-1933) C.01b Stundenlöhne und Produktivität in der deutschen Industrie und im deutschen Handwerk (1925-1932) C.02 Stundenlohnsätze, im Jahresdurchschnitt (1925-1932) C.03 Anteil der Löhne am Volkseinkommen (1927-1939)

D. Beschäftigung (= occupation. Labour disputes; number of employees of Siemens and of the rhenish-westphalian heavy industry)

D.01 Durch Arbeitskämpfe in Deutschland ausgefallene Arbeitstage (1924-1932) D.02 Zahl der Beschäftigten bei Siemens & Halske und der Siemens-Schuckertwerke GmbH (1928-1934) D.03 Zahl der Beschäftigten in der rheinisch-westfälischen Schwerindustrie (1927-1932)

E. Die Landwirtschaft (= agricultural sector: Germany´s crop yields; average weight of animals for slaughter; Germany’s animal stock; level of dept of Germany’s agriculture)

E.01a Bodenerträge in Deutschland, (1913-1924) E.01b Durchschnittsgewicht der Schlachttiere (1906-1924) E.01c Gesamtviehbestand in Deutschland (1913-1924) E.02 Die Verschuldung der deutschen Landwirtschaft (1925-1930) E.03 Zinsbelastung der deutschen Landwirtschaft (1924-1932)

F. Die Bankenkrise (=...

Life in the European Union. Voting behaviour and the European Parliament. European elections 2009. Europeans and the economic crisis. Life satisfaction in the European Union. Opinion on the European Union. Climate change. Chemically contaminated products.

Topics: 1. Life in the European Union: frequency of political discussions on national, European, and global matters with friends; life satisfaction; assessment of the present situation of the national, the European, and the global economy, of the personal job situation, the financial situation of the own household, and the national employment situation; expectations regarding improvement or worsening within the next twelve months in the general life situation, the financial situation of the own household, the national employment situation, the personal job situation, the economic situation in the European Union, and in the world; most important national and personal problems; assessment of the own country’s EU membership as a good thing; benefit from the EU membership of the own country; approval of the current development in the own country, in the EU, and in the USA; trust in institutions: national government, national parliament, EU, European Parliament, European Commission, European Central Bank; image of the EU; change in the purchasing power of the own household in the last five years; difficulties paying bills; assessment of the life of future generations as easier or more difficult; influence of the EU on national issues: fighting crime, economic situation, inflation, price stability, fighting unemployment, immigration, environmental protection, healthcare system, combating climate change, research, consumer safety, agriculture, energy supply, food prices, own country’s role in the world, security situation of the own country; most important issues in the EU; assessment of the role of the EU in protecting its citizens from negative effects of globalisation; opinion on the role of the EU: should take a more important role in developing new rules for the global financial market, has sufficient power to defend the European economic interests in the world; prioritized fields in which the EU should take action to overcome the financial crisis; satisfaction with selected aspects of everyday life: housing, residential area, standard of living, state of health, medical services and job opportunities in the local area; assessment of the personal risk of poverty and feeling of social exclusion; assessment of the likelihood to become homeless; trust in media; preferred source of information about politics.

1. Voting behaviour and the European Parliament (only in EU 27): voting behaviour in the last elections to the national parliament; party identification in general and in relation to European issues; reception of information about the European Parliament in the media; image of the European Parliament on the basis of the information received through the media.

Again all: knowledge test about the European Union: direct election of the members of the European Parliament, same number of MEPs per country, sovereignty of the EU Parliament in budget decisions and in legislation; seating plan of the members of the European Parliament according to their nationality or political opinion; preference for increased influence of the European Parliament; strengthening of the role of the European Parliament in the European Union in the last decade; preferred issues and values that should have priority in the European Union.

1. European elections 2009 (only in EU 27): knowledge of the date of the next European elections; interest in the elections; likelihood to vote (scale); main criteria for the own voting decision; reasons for abstention (political inefficacy of the own voice, rejection of the European Union, ignorance about the role of the European Parliament, inadequate consideration of problems that concern the respondent by the European Parliament; insufficient knowledge to vote); preferred issues of the campaign for the European elections.

2. Europeans and the economic crisis: significance of the current and future repercussions of the economic and financial crisis on the global, the European, and the national economy as well as on the personal situation; most competent institution to tackle the economic and financial crisis: national government, European Union, United States, G8, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF); assessment of the current joint or individua...

This paper takes stock of what we have learned from the "Renaissance" in fiscal research in the ten years since the financial crisis. I first discuss the new innovations in methodology and various strengths and weaknesses of the main approaches to estimating fiscal multipliers. Reviewing the estimates, I come to the surprising conclusion that the bulk of the estimates for average spending and tax change multipliers lie in a fairly narrow range, 0.6 to 1 for spending multipliers and -2 to -3 for tax change multipliers. However, I identify economic circumstances in which multipliers lie outside those ranges. Finally, I review the debate on whether multipliers were higher for the 2009 Obama stimulus spending in the United States or for fiscal consolidations in Europe.

The Corona crisis (COVID-19) affects a large proportion of companies and freelancers in Germany. Against this background, the study examines the personal situation and working conditions of employees in Germany in times of corona. The analysis mainly refers to the situation in May 2020 and can only make limited statements about the further situation of the employed persons in the course of the corona pandemic.
1. Personal situation: change in working times during the corona crisis; current work situation (local focus of one´s own work); preference for home office; preference for future home office; financial losses due to the corona crisis; concerns about the financial and economic consequences of the corona crisis in Germany; concerns about the corona crisis in personal areas (job security, current working conditions, financial situation, career opportunities, family situation, health, psychological well-being, housing situation); support from the employer in the corona crisis.

1. Economy and welfare state: political interest; assessment of the economic situation in Germany; preferred form of government (strong vs. liberal state); agreement on various statements on the weighing of values in the Corona crisis (the restrictions on public life to protect the population from Corona are not in proportion to the economic crisis caused by it, the money now being made available for economic aid will later be lacking in other important areas such as education, infrastructure or climate protection, for politicians, the health of the population is the top priority, the interests of the economy influence them less strongly with regard to the corona crisis, the worst part of the crisis is now behind us, as a result of the economic effects of the corona crisis the contrast between rich and poor in Germany will become even more pronounced, the corona crisis affects the low earners more than the middle class, the corona crisis significantly advances the digitalisation of the world of work); perception of state action in the corona crisis on the basis of pairs of opposites (e.g. bureaucratic - unbureaucratic, passive - active, etc.); responsibility of the state to provide financial support to companies in the corona crisis; responsibility of the state to provide financial support to private individuals in the corona crisis over and above basic provision; recipients of state financial aid in the corona crisis (companies, directly to needy private individuals, companies and private individuals alike); assessment of the bureaucracy involved in state financial aid (speed vs. exact examination).

2. Measures: awareness of current measures to support business and individuals in the corona crisis; assessment of current measures to support business and individuals in the corona crisis; reliance on assistance in the corona crisis; nature of assistance used in the corona crisis; barriers to use of assistance in the corona crisis; assessment of the effectiveness of the state measures to cope with the corona crisis; appropriate additional measures to mitigate the economic consequences; concerns about the consequences of the planned state measures (increasing tax burden, rising social contributions, rising inflation, stagnating pension levels, rising retirement age, reduction of other state transfers, safeguarding savings).

3. Information: active search for information on financial assistance offers by the Federal Government in the corona crisis; self-assessment of the level of information on measures to support business and private individuals in the corona crisis; request for detailed information on state assistance measures in the corona crisis (e.g. application process, sources of funding, conditions for receiving assistance, etc.) sources of information used about state aid measures in the Corona crisis; contact with institutions offering economic and financial aid during the Corona crisis (development bank/ municipal development agency, employment agency, tax office, none of them); experience with institutions offering economic and financial aid during the Corona crisis (appropriate treatment).

4. Outlook: assessment of the future economic situation in Germany; assessment of Germany´s future as a strong business location; assessment of its own future economic situation; assessment of the duration of the economic impairment caused by the Corona crisis.

Demography: age; sex; education; employment; self-localization social class; net household income; current household income; household income before the crisis; occupational activity; belonging to systemically important occupations; number of persons in the household; number of children under 18 in the household; size of town; party sympathy; migration background.

Additionally coded: current number; federal state; education (low, medium, high); weighting factor.

Why suffered Germany a crisis of unprecedented scale after a promising stabilization of the Mark in 1923/24 and the subsequent increase, and which factors are linked to the disaster?The study ties in with one of the most controversy in the German economic history of the last decades. In the so-called ‘Borchardt controversy’ the researcher Knut Borchardt questioned the traditional interpretation of the seriousness of the global economic crisis of 1929. The usual interpretation was that the depression and finally the following establishment of the Nazi - regime was due by unforced errors in the economic policies of the last Weimar governments, especially the ‘Brüning deflation policy’. This Keynesian-influenced interpretation was opposed by Borchardts supply side inspired view that even before the global economic crisis the German economy had been sick and that the deflation and a balanced budget policy of Bruning resulted from a dilemma. A central objection to Borchard’s interpretation was the question, why only a year after Bruning´s resignation a dramatic shift to an expansionary monetary and fiscal policies could be initiated. A new interpretation of Brünings deflationary policy is presented in shifting the focal point of criticism of the German economic policy in the period of the ‘Dawes-Plan’. This new focus of criticism leads to a new interpretation of the Borchardt-theses on German’s economic policy in recent years of the Weimar Republic. Germany’s undamped foreign indebtedness since 1924 plays a key role in explaining Germany’s crisis and economic situation between the Dawes-Plan and the transfer stop. The central thesis of the investigation is: “The interdependence between Reparation payments and Germany’s economic trend is the lack of stimulus compatibility of the different reparationregimes. There was no reparation arrangement before the Young Plan fo 1929/30, which gave the German side an incentive for a net transfer of resources. Germany underwent systematical the reparation transfer of the Dawes plan by massive foreign indebtedness. The previous impacts of the German balance of payment by foreign debt contributed causative to the heaviness of Germany’s crisis.” (see: Ritschl, A., 2002: Deutschlands Krise und Konjunktur 1924-1934. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, S. 17). In Ritschl’s opinion the reparations has not been disastrous for the German development. But fateful German attempt to deny reparation payments with maneuvers, leads to Germany’s crisis in the interwar period.

Datatables in HISTAT:

A-Tables: Data of the German Empire’s budget and of the public sector as a whole. B-Tables: Draft of a national accounting for the years 1925 to 1938 (social product and it’s components). C-Tables: Quarterly interpolation of further timeseries (e.g. paid employment)

Topics of the Study: - The Empire’s revenues by financial years (Mio. RM) - Job creation bills of exchange and armor bills of exchange by financial years (Mio. RM) - Net borrowing of the German Empire by financial years (Mio. RM) - Interest payments on the debt of the German Empire by financial years (Mio. RM) - Expenses, revenues and deficit of the German Empire by financial years (Mio. RM) - Quarterly revenues and expenses of the German Empire. - Quarterly circulation of job creation bills of exchange. - Estimated quarterly interest and principal payment of the German Empire. - Expenses and revenues of the German Empire by calendar years. - Expenses and revenues of German states and municipalities by financial years. - Expenses and revenues of the public sector by calendar years. - National income 1913 and 1925 to 1938. - Reallocation of the national income. - Aggregated investments. - Balance of payment. - Expenditure side of the social product. - Foreign trade. - Public and privat consum. - Use of social product. - Paid employment.

Territory of investigation: Germany in the borders of Weimar Republic, 1924 – 1934.

Survey Method, used sources: - Unpublished archival sources (Federal Archive in Koblenz und Potsdam, Main-Archive of the German Federal Bank (Deutsche Bundesbank), Archive of the Institute for Contemporary History IfZ, Munich.) - Published sources (files of the Reich Chancellery, AdR; proceedings of the Reichstag, 5th term, vol. 448, 456; Foreign Relations of the United States, FRUS, born 1931) - Official Statistics - Other literature (selected scientific publications).

Since the early 1970s the European Commission´s Standard & Special Eurobarometer are regularly monitoring the public opinion in the European Union member countries. Principal investigators are the Directorate-General Communication and on occasion other departments of the European Commission or the European Parliament. Over time, candidate and accession countries were included in the Standard Eurobarometer Series. Selected questions or modules may not have been surveyed in each sample. Please consult the basic questionnaire for more information on country filter instructions or other questionnaire routing filters. In this study all question modules are in the standard Eurobarometer context: 1. Standard EU and trend questions, 2. Europe 2020 strategy, 3. Financial and economic crisis, 4. European citizenship, 5. Living conditions in the EU.
Topics: 1. Attitudes towards the EU (standard EU and trend questions): life satisfaction; assessment of the current situation in the following areas: national economy, European economy, personal job situation, financial situation of the own household, national employment situation, quality of life in the own country, quality of life in the EU; expectations for the next twelve months regarding: personal life in general, national economic situation, financial situation of the own household, national employment situation, personal job situation, economic situation in the EU; most important problems in the own country, personally, and in the EU; assessment of the own country’s assumed membership in the EU as a good thing; trust in selected institutions: political parties, national government, national parliament, European Union, United Nations, regional or local public authorities; image of the EU; meaning of the EU to the respondent; most suitable attributes for describing the EU: modern, democratic, protective, efficient, bureaucratic, remote; approval of the following statements on the EU: creates conditions for more jobs in Europe, is responsible for austerity in Europe, makes doing business easier in Europe, generates too much bureaucracy, will emerge fairer from the crisis, makes the financial sector behave more responsibly, makes the cost of living cheaper in Europe, makes quality of life better in Europe, helps tackle global threats and challenges, helps protect its citizens, needs a clearer message; knowledge of and trust in selected institutions : European Parliament, European Commission, European Central Bank; knowledge test on the EU: number of member states, direct election of the members of the European Parliament by the citizens of each member state, Switzerland is a member of the EU; attitude towards the following issues: European economic and monetary union with one single currency, common foreign policy of all member states, further enlargement, common defence and security policy; satisfaction with the democracy in the own country and in the EU; approval of the following statements: respondent understands how the EU works, globalisation as an opportunity for economic growth, better development of the own country outside the EU, further development into federation of nation states, more decisions to be taken at EU level, need for a united Europe; current and prioritized main objective in building Europe; optimism about the future of the EU.

1. Europe 2020 strategy: likelihood to reach the following objectives by 2020: three quarters of people between 20 and 64 years of age having a job, share of funds invested in research and development reaching 3% of the wealth produced in the EU each year, reduction of EU greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% (compared to 1990), increase of the share of renewable energy in the EU by 20%, increase of energy efficiency in the EU by 20%, reduction of the share of young people leaving school without qualifications to 10%, at least 40% of the people aged 30 to 34 having a higher education degree or diploma, reduction of the number of people living below the poverty line by a quarter; EU is going in the right direction to exit the crisis and face new global challenges.

2. Financial and economic crisis: impact of the economic crisis on the job market has already reached its peak; most effective institution to fight the effects of the financial and economic crisis: national government, EU, United States, G20, International Monetary Fund; approval of the following statements: own country needs reforms to face the future, EU member states should increase cooperation to tackle financial and economic crisis, measures to reduce public deficit and debt in the own country cannot be delayed, measures to reduce public deficit and debt in the own country are not a priority for now, EU has sufficient power and tools to defend its economic interests globally; assessment of the effectiveness of selected measures to tackle the current financial and economic crisis: more important role for the EU in regulating financial services, EU...

Abstract

After 2008 all the countries around the world are experiencing an economic crisis known as the global economic crisis. The economic crisis which usually only experienced by poor countries or developing countries, this time also experienced by developed countries like the United States and Japan. The impact of the global economic crisis is obviously rising unemployment rate and declining purchasing power. Indonesia as a developing country in Southeast Asia is not immune from the crisis. Some foreign companies in Indonesia close their operations and lay off employees. Activities of Indonesia's exports to developed countries also declined. In addition there are many other socio-economic impact of the global economic crisis that hit until today.

In order to determine the impact of the global economic crisis that occurred in Indonesia, the Statistics Indonesia (BPS) in cooperation with the National Development Planning Agency and the World Bank organized a Global Crisis Monitoring Survey (SMKG). SMKG Survey is a panel survey implemented in three round, with the first round in August 2009, second round in November 2009 and the third round in February 2010.

Implementation of the first round of SMKG integrated with the activities of the National Labor Force Survey (Sakernas) in August 2009. SMKG second round conducted independently, while implementation of the third round of SMKG integrated with Sakernas activity in February 2010 for a sample of the packages 1, 2 and 3 as well as to independent samples from the packages 5 and 6.

Geographic coverage

National coverage, representative to the district level.

Analysis unit

The unit of analysis of this survey are the Household (RT), Puskesmas (Public Health Center), and Dinas Kesehatan (Health Agency) at the district / city level.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

There are two sampling frame used in the SMKG, census blocks frame selection and households frame selection. Census blocks frame selection is a list of Sakernas census blocks selected in August 2009. While households frame selection is list of selected household in Sakernas August 2009, the results of up dating.

Implementation of SMKG covers 2355 blocks which spread in 2314 census villages, 1911 subdistricts, 471 districts / cities in 33 provinces. The number of household samples per each census block are 6 households, selected at random systematic sampling of Sakernas 2009 household samples. It can be concluded that the household samples of SMKG are the same household samples of Sakernas 2009, but not all Sakernas 2009 household samples used in SMKG.

In SMKG, besides household sample, data also collected from institutions like Dinas Kesehatan (Health Agency) and from Puskesmas (Community Health Center). Dinas Kesehatan that visited were at district / city level. All Dinas Kesehatan SMKG samples must be visited. The number of districts / cities covered by SMKG activities were 471 districts / cities, so the number of SMKG's Dinas Kesehatan samples as well as 471. In the other hand, Puskesmas visited mostly were selected sample of Puskesmas in the subdistrict. SMKG's Puskesmas samples is all Puskesmas in selected SMKG census block location or nearest locations of with SMKG's census block samples. The number of Puskesmas samples in each district / city are 5 Primary Puskesmas.

SMKG field officers for the all three rounds expected to be the same officers , that is the Sakernas 2009 team that selected in accordance with the selected SMKG's census blocks. Workload of each team vary according to the number of SMKG's census blocks sample selected from SAKERNAS census blocks of his team's responsibility.

Sampling deviation

In the first round of SMKG (August 2009) due to conditions that are not possible, 3 (three) districts in the Papua Province (Bintang Mountains, Tolikara, and Mamberamo Raya Districts) did not carry out the SMKG first round enumeration . So for these districts in the second round special questionnaire prepared (SMKG-RT II) to obtain some information that should be obtained in the first round.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The questionnaires prepared consist of three types: List of SMKG-RT used to collect household data, List of SMKG-Puskesmas to collect data from Puskesmas (Community Health Center) and List of SMKG-Dinas to collect data from SMKG-Dinas Kesehatan (Health Agency).

During a 2025 survey in the United States, marketers' optimism level about the American economy declined to 62.2 points, down from 63.8 in Fall 2024. Optimism was at its lowest level since Fall 2022 - that year, Russia's invasion of Ukraine led to global economic uncertainty, while high inflation and recession fears also added to a general negative sentiment.

Since the early 1970s the European Commission´s Standard & Special Eurobarometer are regularly monitoring the public opinion in the European Union member countries. Principal investigators are the Directorate-General Communication and on occasion other departments of the European Commission or the European Parliament. Over time, candidate and accession countries were included in the Standard Eurobarometer Series. Selected questions or modules may not have been surveyed in each sample. Please consult the basic questionnaire for more information on country filter instructions or other questionnaire routing filters. In this study the following modules (standard & special modules) are included: 1. Standard EU and trend questions, 2. Europe 2020 strategy and policy priorities, 3. Financial and economic crisis and related EU policies, 4. European citizenship, 5. Future of Europe, media use and political information, 6. European Parliament 2019 Post-Electoral Survey I, European Parliament 2019 Post-Electoral Survey II, 7. EU citizens and development cooperation.
Topics: 1. Attitudes towards the EU (standard EU and trend questions): assessment of the current situation in the following areas: own country, national economy, European economy, personal job situation, financial situation of the own household, national employment situation, provision of public services in the own country; expectations for the next twelve months regarding: personal life in general, situation in the own country in general, national economic situation, financial situation of the own household, national employment situation, personal job situation, economic situation in the EU; most important problems in the own country, personally, and in the EU; general direction things are going in the own country, the EU, and in the USA; trust in selected institutions: media, political parties, national legal system, police, army, public administration, regional or local public authorities, national government, national parliament, European Union, United Nations; image of the EU; positive associations with the following terms: free trade, globalisation, protectionism, large companies, small and medium-sized companies, welfare state, security, solidarity, entrepreneurship, liberalisation, competition, trade unions, public service; meaning of the EU to the respondent; most suitable attributes for describing the EU: modern, democratic, protective, efficient, remote, forward-looking; assessment of the own country’s membership in the EU as a good thing; benefits from the EU membership and reasons for benefit; assessment of the full application of EU legislation for the Turkish Cypriot Community (TCC) as a good thing; expectations of benefit from the full application of EU legislation for the Turkish Cypriot Community (TCC); knowledge of and trust in selected institutions: European Parliament, European Commission, European Central Bank, European Council, Council of the European Union; knowledge test on the EU: number of member states, direct election of European Parliament members by the citizens of each member state, Switzerland is a member of the EU; attitude towards the following issues: European economic and monetary union with one single currency, common foreign policy of all member states, further enlargement, common defence and security policy, common trade policy, common migration policy, common energy policy, digital single market within the EU, free movement of EU citizens; satisfaction with the democracy in the own country and in the EU; approval of the following statements: respondent understands how the EU works, recognition of the own country’s interests in the EU, EU’s voice counts in the world, globalisation as an opportunity for economic growth, better development of the own country outside the EU, more decisions to be taken at EU level; optimism about the future of the EU.

1. Europe 2020 strategy and policy priorities: likelihood to bring industry’s contribution to the EU economy to 20 % of GDP by 2020; most important objectives in a European energy union; feeling towards immigration of people from: other EU member states, outside the EU; attitude towards additional measures to fight illegal immigration of people from outside the EU on EU level and / or on national level; attitude towards the right for EU citizens to: live or work in every member state of the EU, live or work in the respondent’s country.

2. Financial and economic crisis and related EU policies: impact of the economic crisis on the job market has already reached its peak; approval of the following statements: measures to reduce public deficit and debt in the own country cannot be delayed (split A), measures to reduce public deficit and debt in the own country are not a priority for now (split B), EU has sufficient power and tools to defend its economic interests globally, private sector is better placed to create new jobs than public sector, public money should be used...

Since the early 1970s the European Commission´s Standard & Special Eurobarometer are regularly monitoring the public opinion in the European Union member countries. Principal investigators are the Directorate-General Communication and on occasion other departments of the European Commission or the European Parliament. Over time, candidate and accession countries were included in the Standard Eurobarometer Series. Selected questions or modules may not have been surveyed in each sample. Please consult the basic questionnaire for more information on country filter instructions or other questionnaire routing filters. In this study all question modules are in the standard Eurobarometer context: 1. Standard EU and trend questions, 2. Europe 2020 strategy, 3. Financial and economic crisis, 4. European citizenship, 5. Information on European political matters.
Topics: 1. Attitudes towards the EU (standard EU and trend questions): satisfaction with life; frequency of political discussions about national, local and European politics; assessment of the economic situation in the country, in Europe and the world, the personal professional, financial situation and the national labour market situation ; expectations on life in general, to the economic development of the world, the EU and the own country, financial situation of the household, the personal job situation and the employment situation in the country; important political issues at the EU and at the country as well as personal impact of these issues; future EU membership of the country as a good thing; favorability of EU membership for the country; full application of EU legislation for the Turkish Cypriot Community (TCC) as a good thing; advantages of the full application of EU legislation for the Turkish Cypriot Community; assessment of the general development trend at national level and in the EU; trust in certain institutions (media, political parties, national government, Parliament, European Union, United Nations, regional or local public authorities); image of the EU; personal associations to the EU; characterization of the EU as modern, democratic, protective, efficient, technocratic; knowledge of European institutions (European Parliament, European Commission, Council of the European Union, European Central Bank, Court of Justice of the European Union) and trust in these institutions; knowledge test about the EU (number of countries, direct election of the members of the EU Parliament, EU membership of Switzerland); consent to an economic and monetary union and to enlargement of the EU; personal understanding how the EU works; own voice counts in the EU and in the own country; EU´s voice counts in the world; globalisation as an opportunity for economic growth; ability of the own country to deal with the negative effects of globalisation; support for a common foreign policy, a common defence and security policy among EU Member States as well as presentation of the candidates for the post of European Commission President at the next European Parliament election; satisfaction with democracy in the own country and in the EU; consideration of national interests in the EU; EU membership increases sense of security of the country; EU protects its citizens from the negative effects of globalisation (split A) or enables its citizens to better benefit from the positive effects of globalisation (Split B); the country could better face the future outside the EU; development of the EU into a federation of Nation-States; current main objective for the building of Europe and preferred main objective in the future; personal optimism about the future of the EU.

1. Europe 2020 strategy: importance of promoting research and development, education, economic development by fast internet connections, support more environmentally friendly production, promoting entrepreneurship, modernising the labour market and promoting economically weak persons (social participation) (scale); assessment of the accessibility of political goals by 2020: full employment, increasing research funding, reduce EU greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, increasing the share of renewable energy by 20%, increase energy efficiency by 20%, reduce early school leaving rate to 10%, the slope of young people with higher education to 40%, reducing the poverty line by a quarter; development of the EU in the right direction.

2. Financial and economic crisis: impact of the economic crisis on the labour market reached its peak versus the worst is still to come; current situation of own household; most suitable actor to tackle the financial and economic crisis (national government, European Union, United States, G20 or international Monetary Fund IMF) ; set to the need for reform in the own country , for cooperation among EU Member States in addressing the crisis, to reduce the public deficit (Split: immediate versus later); the EU has sufficient power to defend the economic interests of Europe...