A year ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was in the final phase of her election campaign. The incumbent, Gerhard Schroeder, lagged so far behind her Christian Democrats (CDU) in public opinion polls that she thought she would win a landslide victory and could therefore afford to expound the cruelties of the liberal austerity program delineated in her electoral campaign. She even announced a value-added tax increase (which her new government has, indeed, decided to implement next year).
But German voters did not appreciate her honesty. When she named the law professor Paul Kirchhoff, who advocated a flat tax, as her candidate for finance minister, Merkel's electoral cakewalk turned into a nightmare. She lost nearly her entire lead, and in the end won by only a tiny margin -- a margin too small to form her preferred coalition with the liberal Free Democrats.
Instead, she had to form a coalition with Schroeder's Social Democrats (SPD), though without Schroeder himself.
Merkel's first year of government will soon be over. It has been successful in terms of international relations. She won the respect of her EU partners and managed to salve Germany's damaged relationship with the US. Her unpretentious manner and intellectual capacity (she holds a doctorate in physics) quickly won her the respect of many, even of Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose language she speaks fluently.
However, Merkel has disappointed everyone who hoped that she would continue and even expand Schroder's domestic economic reform agenda. While her party program speaks of opening union contracts, relaxing job protection, and, in particular, overhauling the incentive structure of the welfare system, her government has been mostly silent about these issues. The cautious steps toward wage subsidies that her government has taken are mere window dressing and cannot be taken seriously.
Thus, Merkel has so far dampened any hope that the important and hard reforms that she announced during her campaign and that Germany urgently needs will be carried out under the CDU-SPD "grand coalition" government. To be sure, she has put healthcare reform and a reform of company taxation on the agenda, but the plans presented so far give no indication of a major breakthrough.
This stagnation in policymaking has been heavily criticized by the media and the influential Wirtschaftsrat (Economic Council), an association of entrepreneurs who sympathize with the CDU. Even Germany's Christian Democratic president, Horst Kohler, has continually reminded the government of the need to press ahead with economic reforms in order to pave the way for sustainable growth.
So why does Merkel not dare more? Why is she not sticking to the announcements she made during her campaign?
The superficial answer is that her coalition partner, the SPD, is not willing to go further. But if this is the explanation, the next question is why the SPD is unwilling to continue Schroder's reform course.
Such questions lead to the real explanation of Germany's political stagnation: there is simply no popular majority in favor of liberal reforms, because in the near term such reforms would create too many losers. Germany's extensive welfare system spends 31 percent of the country's GDP for entitlement programs operated by the government sector. No less than 41 percent of the voting-age adult population lives primarily on government transfers such as state pensions, full-scale public stipends, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, and social assistance (in East Germany, the figure is a whopping 47 percent).
Among those adults who vote, recipients of public transfers form a clear majority. Indeed, the upper 10 percent of income recipients pay more than 50 percent of aggregate income tax revenue, and the upper 20 percent pays about 80 percent, while 40 percent of income recipients pay no income taxes whatsoever. Small wonder that a huge majority of the population -- and even a slight majority of CDU voters -- prefer a strengthening of the welfare state to a more market-oriented system.
The SPD learned about these preferences the hard way, when Schroder's liberal reforms, as cautious as they were, prompted an internal revolt and induced his predecessor as party chairman and temporary former minister of finance Oskar Lafontaine to desert the SPD and found a new party. Lafontaine now plays directly on the preferences of public transfer recipients and firmly occupies the left margin of German politics, dreaming the dream of the everlasting welfare state that can draw on unlimited resources.
Indeed, after Lafontaine's "The Left" party merged with eastern Germany's ex-communists, it secured a firm base among voters, changing the political equilibrium in the country. Faced with the prospect of losing members and voters to the new party, the SPD simply cannot afford to continue Schroder's reform agenda.
Many Christian Democrats may be dreaming of the next election, and a new coalition with the Free Democrats -- and perhaps the Greens -- that would carry out the necessary welfare and labor market reforms. But the reality is that the CDU leadership is re-orienting the party toward more socialist attitudes in order to attract a larger share of the electorate, making postponement of the necessary reforms all but inevitable. In the midst of such political machinations, Germany is gradually losing its future.
Hans-Werner Sinn is the director of the Ifo Institute for Economic Research in Munich.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry