Germany has weathered the financial crisis much better than most of its neighbors. Regarded as the sick man of Europe as recently as 1999, today the nation boasts the continent’s strongest economy, accounting for roughly a quarter of its exports. Its unemployment rate, at just below 5 percent, is half the European average. The federal budget is balanced for the first time in a decade.
However, it would be a mistake to assume that Germany’s economic performance vindicates its policymaking. In fact, Germany’s economic dominance has been built on a policy framework that stands in direct opposition to that championed by former German chancellor Ludwig Erhard, the father of its post-World War II “economic miracle.”
In lieu of Erhard’s so-called “ordoliberalism” — in which the state lays the groundwork for a functioning market economy by actively managing the legal environment — the economic strategy pursued by German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s administration has been haphazard, driven more by political expediency than by any underlying philosophy. Germany would be wise not to take its economic success for granted. In a time of increasing economic and political uncertainty, Erhard’s guiding principles are more important than ever.
CLOCK-LIKE MECHANISM
Germany’s policymakers seem to be stumbling from decision to decision. Instead of steering the economy, they are being driven by it, reacting with no clear sense of direction to the demands of the moment. The country’s celebrated decarbonization is putting its industry at risk. Collective bargaining, once left to economic actors, is becoming increasingly politicized. Changes in pension policy are boosting public spending and contributing to rising levels of debt.
At the heart of Germany’s troubles is the stubborn — and internationally widespread — idea that the economy is a large, clock-like mechanism into which the state can intervene without consequences. The increasing mathematization of economics in recent decades has abetted this development.
The central weakness of democratic systems also contributes to the problem: The quest for votes favors the extension of social benefits and discourages unpopular measures that would put the economy on a more sustainable footing. As the German economist Herbert Giersch once put it, what is politically expedient is rarely economically beneficial.
It is for this reason that a return to ordoliberalism is more important than ever. Erhard’s objective was to counter political pragmatism and activism with an orderly vision of economic and social policy. The need to take a holistic view of the economy was self-evident. For today’s social engineers and economists, this is no longer the case.
Erhard’s vision of a social market economy was a third way, an alternative to both large-scale state intervention and the risks of laissez-faire liberalism. Germany’s historical experience had demonstrated that freedom without order led to chaos, and order without freedom resulted in coercion and the renunciation of democracy.
COLD AND ANTI-SOCIAL
Unguided capitalism undermined itself, according to Erhard, as monopolists cornered markets and captured the state. However, the attempt to perfect life through increasingly comprehensive state intervention, until even the smallest injustices were compensated, was also bound to fail. Human society simply does not follow the rules of a termite colony; order must accommodate freedom and individuality.
The continuing relevance of Erhard’s ideas can be seen in the growing number of protest movements — strengthened by social networks — challenging the market economy and neoliberalism. Any increase in the market’s perceived legitimacy brought about by the failure of communism was temporary at best. Market-oriented policies today are seen as cold and anti-social, especially in Western industrialized nations. The paternalistic welfare state is viewed as more humane, despite the loss of freedom and the financial distortions associated with it.
Erhard was well aware of the tension between economic freedom and the democratic state. He and his followers never envisaged ordoliberalism as an unchangeable dogma, but rather as a model that could be adapted to new challenges. Erhard even attempted to adjust it to the sociopolitical changes of the 1960s, developing the concept of a “formed society,” whereby factionalism would be minimized and the state governed by consensus.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Erhard failed to gain support for this controversial idea.
However, given rising inequality and growing disenchantment with politics and political parties, it addresses questions that remain relevant for representative democracy today.
As Erhard himself would have argued, ordoliberalism is not a one-size-fits-all solution. However, there can be no question that in today’s globalized world, the economy — and perhaps politics as well — would benefit from the imposition of order.
No political system capable of overcoming hardship and misery can be built without first realizing improvements in the economy’s potential. That must be achieved by minimizing state intervention, bureaucracy, and privileges for the chosen few. Erhard’s guiding principle was simple: There must be guiding principles. It is an idea that remains as important as ever — in Germany and beyond.
Jurgen Jeske is the former publisher of the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS