The expert panel, consisting of Dr. Ulrich van Suntum, Emeritus of the Faculty of Economics at the University of Münster and former Secretary General of the German Council of Economic Experts (SVR), Dr. Hendrik Hagedorn, economist at the MIWI – Institute for Market Integration and Economic Policy, Oskar Lipp, economic and industrial policy spokesperson for the AfD parliamentary group in the Bavarian State Parliament, and Johannes Meier, chairman of the “Economy, Energy, Digital” working group, comprehensively discussed key topics such as the shortage of skilled labor, Chinese competition, and the planned economic tendencies of the CSU.
Securing Skilled Labor from a Right-Wing Perspective
A central topic was securing skilled labor. Bavaria faces a skilled labor gap with 157,000 open positions. Criticism was directed at uncontrolled mass immigration of mostly unqualified and integration-resistant individuals, which burdens the social system. The citizen’s allowance discourages the willingness to work, and since 2014, 80,000 highly qualified German professionals have left Bavaria on a net basis. Proposed solutions include a return to the principle of reciprocity in social policy, limiting asylum seekers to benefits in kind, incentives for the return of German emigrants, tightly controlled immigration based on the Japanese model, and an educational offensive for unskilled workers. Long-term measures emphasized active family policies with tax advantages and better childcare, as well as the opportunities of digitalization and robotization.
Dealing with Competition from China
In dealing with Chinese competition, participants generally supported free trade and opposed punitive tariffs on exports from China, even if they are subsidized. Affordable Chinese exports would leave German consumers with more money to invest in German products. It was emphasized that the German state should not select and protect key industries. Strategic infrastructures such as telecommunications should be protected, and the relocation of high technologies should be prevented when it comes to Chinese investments. However, capital inflows from China were principally welcomed. The monopolization of the German economy by American corporations and investment funds should also be reversed. Germany should rely on a market economy while confidently defending national economic interests.
Green Economic Policy from Söder and Aiwanger
The CSU was criticized for evolving from a pro-market party to a planned economy party. Examples cited include Corona restrictions, the Supply Chain Act, stricter climate protection laws, mandatory solar roofs, nuclear and coal phase-out, CO2 tax, and support for the Green Deal. Instead, the AfD called for a return to the Social Market Economy based on ordoliberal principles. Competitiveness should be achieved through attractive location conditions, not through subsidies and protectionism. This includes drastically lowering taxes and duties, eliminating bureaucratic hurdles, ensuring affordable and base-load capable energy, and securing skilled labor.
***
Dr. Hendrik Hagedorn, economist from the MIWI Institute for Market Integration and Economic Policy, played a significant role in the discussion. The MIWI Institute provides economic policy advice to right-wing parties, including the AfD, and assists the AfD in formulating its economic policy positions. Dr. Hagedorn’s participation underlined the expert economic insights contributing to the AfD’s policy development.
What your institute states all the time is a so called de-industrialising of Germany as well as a transition from a market to a planned economy.
Both is defintetely false – and I cannot understand, as an academic professional, how a research institute can make such “facts” public.
First of all, Germany has never been a market economy at all. Traditionally, German post-war economics are modelled after the “Rhineland modell”, which means that indeed there is a “free” market – but in a limited way. It has always been a duty of any German state to “cut off” the sharp edges of capitalism by etablishing sophisticated social and tax systems, also to keep key industries and technologies at least partly in state hand – for example Volkswagen, Telekom, DHL and others. This is entirely different to for example the Netherlands, where the state is not participating in such enterprises, or the United States, where there is also no social system like in many european countries.
Second, Germany in fact needs to deindustrialize. Since 1970s european industries started declining: United Kingdom, Belgium, Netherlands and France lost many of their industry factories. Automatisation, digitalisation, and globalisation led to eather closing or consolidating production sites. Because of the relative cheap german loans, which made it possible for Germany to outperform other european countries during the financial crisis 08/09, and because of the dependences between politics and industries, Germany never really started the de-industrialising process, resulting in many industries in a chronical state of almost-bankruptcy and being highly dependent from state interventions, like individual tax reductions or grants.
The exception in Germany is the former GDR: in the process of unifying, East-Germany lost almost its entire industry, which was considered as outdated at that time. After years of economic struggle, it is interesting to see that economically many East-German regions perform better than for their economic value famous regions like the Ruhrgebiet or parts of Bavaria. The reason for this is that many east german businesses do not produce mass products, like west-german “flag ship” companies as VW do. Instead their activities are concentrated in either the service sector (logistics i.e.), or they are connected to one of the many east german universities, working on limited series of products that bring recent scientific knowledge into practice.
In this proces, the economic development of many east german regions, or the former GDR, surprisingly parallels the economic development in West-European countries, such as The Netherlands, Belgium or the United Kingdom, where traditional industries became also less dominant while small, innovating enterprises as well as the service sector started playing an increasing role – eventually leading to new national champions, i.e. ASML in the Netherlands, originally started as a small spin-off / joint-venture of PHILIPS and Eindhoven University.
This little text proves that de-industrialising is nothing to be afraid for. In fact, it offers an unique possibilities of innovation, growth and shaping the future.