_ J.C. Kofner, economist, MIWI Institute. Munich, 22. March 2025.
In early March 2025, preliminary coalition talks between CDU/CSU and SPD established the foundation for the subsequent coalition negotiations. This analysis endeavors to provide a prognostic insight into the economic trajectory that Germany may face in the coming years—a trajectory that, according to the findings presented here, appears rather grim. Drawing on the perspective of a right-conservative and ordoliberal economist, the strategic blueprint advanced by this so-called “debt coalition” is critically examined. The proposals put forth by the CDU/CSU—whose public stance of economic conservatism is, in many respects, belied by internally progressive measures—and the fundamentally socialist policy orientations of the SPD, together with the influence of the Greens as an implicit third partner, are posited to form an alliance that risks propelling Germany deeper into economic distress.
This comprehensive evaluation of the fiscal, industrial, and energy policy measures contained in the CDU/CSU and SPD exploratory paper scrutinizes the inherent assumptions, projected costs, and long-term ramifications of the stipulated policies. The analysis aims to illuminate the potential impact on Germany’s economic sovereignty and fiscal stability. The ensuing discussion is underpinned by rigorous quantitative assessments and is intended to serve as a sober warning to policymakers regarding the dangers of policies that may burden citizens and enterprises with unsustainable financial commitments.
Evaluation of the CDU/CSU and SPD Exploratory Paper 2025
Line 97: “reduce the electricity tax for everyone to the European minimum level”
Evaluation: Positive
Companies that are not part of the manufacturing industry – such as service companies, retail businesses, or private households – will continue to pay the full electricity tax rate of 2.05 ct/kWh. In 2024, these entities consumed 260 TWh of electricity. Lowering the electricity tax to the European minimum reduces this rate to 0.05 cents per kWh. For the economy, this would result in an annual saving of 5.2 billion euros, which corresponds to a saving of 62 euros per person. This measure is to be endorsed. It was originally demanded by the AfD.
Line 97: “halve the grid fees”
Evaluation: Negative
In 2024, grid fees averaged 11.5 cents/kWh. Halving these would reduce them by 5.7 cents/kWh. With an annual consumption of 464 TWh, households and the overall economy would theoretically be relieved by 26.5 billion euros, or 315 euros per person. However, since the grid operators will still require this sum to manage the further energy transition with volatile photovoltaic and wind expansion (grid adaptation measures), the amount must be financed one way or another. In other words, this is not a real relief for companies and citizens but rather a sleight-of-hand maneuver, since the grid fees will continue to be financed through the household budget – that is, via new taxes or additional borrowing. This is analogous to the so-called “abolition” of the EEG levy, which has since been financed via the federal budget.
Line 100: “an expansion of the electricity price compensation regulations to further energy-intensive sectors”
Evaluation: Negative
Energy-intensive companies currently receive an electricity price compensation. In 2024, the total amount was 3.9 billion euros. With the proposed expansion – most likely including the food sector – the expenses for the electricity price compensation would increase by approximately 7.3 %, given the electricity consumption figures from Destatis. This means that the subsidies would rise by about 285 million euros per year. This increase would have to be counterfinanced by taxes or borrowing, resulting in an additional burden of about 3.4 euros per person annually.
Line 108: “the construction of up to 20 GW of gas-fired power plant capacity by 2030”
Evaluation: Positive
McKinsey and the EWI Cologne estimate that by 2030 the capacity gap – i.e. the shortfall in peak load coverage by secured power plant capacity – will be around 30 GW. This significant shortfall poses a great risk of blackouts in Germany. For this reason, state subsidies for building new gas-fired power plants are fundamentally to be welcomed, even if they can only represent a part of the overall energy policy strategy.
According to the exploratory paper by CDU/CSU and SPD, the power plant strategy devised by the current coalition government is to be tightened. Instead of creating only 10 GW of new gas-fired capacity over 20 years, as originally planned, the figure is to be doubled to 20 GW in just 10 years. According to their own calculations based on figures from the Forum for Ecological-Social Market Economy, this measure would cost nearly 25 billion euros in total – approximately 2.5 billion euros per year. These costs would have to be financed either through borrowing or additional taxes, which corresponds to an extra burden of about 30 euros per person per year. Given the necessity to secure capacity, this financial outlay is justified.
Line 101: “We will drive the necessary grid expansion swiftly, purposefully and cost-efficiently forward.”
Evaluation: Negative
According to a study by the Energy Economics Institute at the University of Cologne (EWI), the estimated costs for grid expansion in Germany until 2045 are about 732 billion euros in total. That is an additional cost of 36.2 billion euros per year, which must be financed either through grid fees or through subsidies (i.e. via taxes/borrowing). This amounts to 436 euros per person per year.
Line 112: “determined and grid-beneficial expansion of solar and wind energy – among others also the expansion of bioenergy, hydropower, and geothermal energy”
Evaluation: Negative
According to the PwC analysis, the aggregated total costs for an emissions-neutral energy supply until 2045 amount to approximately 568 billion euros without grid expansion. This corresponds to annual costs of 28.4 billion euros, or 338 euros per person per year. These costs would have to be financed either by higher electricity prices or through subsidies (i.e. via taxes/borrowing). Due to the energy transition, experts estimate that electricity prices for private households will rise to between 60 and 80 cents/kWh by 2030.
Line 112: (No demands for a return to nuclear energy)
Evaluation: Negative
Contrary to earlier hints and promises from Merz and Söder, the restructuring paper does not mention the reactivation of German nuclear power plants. This could result in significant cost savings for the German population. According to calculations by Dr Björn Peters for KernD, reactivating the last six existing nuclear power plants would halve the wholesale electricity price. With a current wholesale price of 16.12 cents per kWh, this would mean a saving of 8.06 cents per kWh. With an annual electricity consumption of around 464 TWh, that corresponds to annual savings of 3.7 billion euros. The reactivation costs for the six nuclear power plants are estimated at a maximum of 3 billion euros per plant, totaling 18 billion euros. With an additional 20 years of operation, the investment or selection costs would amount to 900 million euros per year. This reduces the actual annual saving to 2.8 billion euros, which is approximately 33 euros per person per year.
Line 116: “that the capture and storage of carbon dioxide (CCS) is enabled, particularly for emissions that are hard to avoid in the industrial sector”
Evaluation: Negative
According to estimates from EWI Cologne in 2024, the average cost for the capture, transport, and storage of CO₂ is about 125 € per ton. With a medium storage potential of 150 million tons of CO₂, this results in annual costs of 18.8 billion euros, which would have to be borne by companies and thus by the entire economy. This corresponds to 223 euros per person per year.
Line 118: “The hydrogen grid must connect industrial centers nationwide”
Evaluation: Negative
According to the transmission system operators (FNB Gas), the investment costs for the hydrogen grid until 2032 amount to 19.7 billion euros. This is to be borne by the private sector – with state support. That corresponds to annual costs of 2.5 billion euros, or 29 euros per person per year.
Line 121: “create lead markets for climate-neutral products, e.g. by introducing quotas for climate-neutral steel, a green gas quota, or tendering regulations.”
Evaluation: Negative
The idea of creating lead markets for so-called climate-neutral products is nothing other than a form of planned economy. In the paper, CDU/CSU and SPD call for quotas for climate-neutral steel, which can currently only be produced using green gas sources such as hydrogen or biomass. These measures are to be enforced by tendering regulations from the federal government. According to Eurofer, production costs for green steel are about 300 euros per ton higher than those for conventional steel, with a selling price of between 600 and 800 euros per ton.
A study by the Institute of the German Economy in Cologne has shown that the introduction of such requirements in state construction projects would lead to average additional costs of 68 million euros per year.
Line 123: “We stand by the German and European climate targets”
Evaluation: Negative
According to a comprehensive calculation by PwC, the macroeconomic costs for the green transformation and the achievement of climate neutrality in Germany until 2050 amount to 13.2 trillion euros in total. This corresponds to an average of approximately 508 billion euros per year from 2025 to 2050. With a population of 84 million people, the annual cost per person would be roughly 6,044 euros. These expenditures are, however, not further taken into account in order to avoid possible double counting of the costs from the exploratory paper.
Lines 128 and 132: “Strengthen strategic industries” … “We will make use of the opportunities provided by the European Chips Act as well as IPCEI.”
Evaluation: Positive
The subsidies for building and expanding a domestic semiconductor industry in Germany are perhaps one of the few positive aspects from the exploratory paper by CDU, CSU, and SPD as well as from the previous coalition government. This must be acknowledged. On one hand, the subsidies come from the European Chips Act, which envisages investments of 43 billion euros from the EU budget for all member states until 2030. On the other hand, funds flow from the “Important Projects of Common European Interest” (IPCEI), which amounts to 8.1 billion euros – of which Germany receives 4 billion euros. How much of the 43 billion euros from the European Chips Act will actually flow to Germany is not exactly known. However, the federal government has announced that it will invest a total of 20 billion euros from tax revenues in expanding the domestic chip industry by 2030. It is therefore possible that up to 16 billion euros from the European Chips Act will flow to Germany. In total, this would mean 20 billion euros in subsidies, which corresponds to an annual amount of 4 billion euros over five years – or approximately 48 euros per person per year. These investments could pay off. However, the question remains whether they will be sufficient if fundamental location conditions such as high energy costs, high taxes and levies, a shortage of skilled workers, and excessive bureaucracy continue to render investments in Germany unattractive. This is already evident in Intel’s decision to postpone the construction of its planned chip factory in Magdeburg by at least two years. Whether the factory will ultimately be built remains open.
Line 136: “promote e-mobility through a purchase incentive”
Evaluation: Negative
The Union wants to make the purchase of electric vehicles more attractive through another subsidy, as sales have plummeted since the subsidy ended in 2023. Between 2016 and the end of 2023, electric vehicles were subsidized with a total of 15.5 billion euros – of which 10.2 billion euros came from tax revenues and 5.3 billion euros from automobile companies. This corresponds to an average burden on the federal budget of 2.2 billion euros per year, which is approximately 26 euros per person. A reintroduction of the subsidy could thus cause similar additional costs.
Line 139: “We will relieve the broad middle class through an income tax reform”
Evaluation: Positive
In the exploratory paper, CDU/CSU and SPD advocate an income tax reform to relieve the middle class – a project that is fundamentally welcome. A consensus estimate by the author, based on studies by IW Cologne, ZEW, and DIW on the parties’ election programs, suggests that this reform could relieve German taxpayers by a total of 28.2 billion euros per year. This corresponds to an average relief of 335 euros per person per year.
Line 140: “increase the commuter allowance”
Evaluation: Positive
Although an increase in the commuter allowance represents a subsidy that ultimately must be counterfinanced by taxes, it would still result in direct relief. According to an analysis by the DIW on the CDU/CSU election program, this measure would result in a tax relief of 2.3 billion euros per year – which translates theoretically to a relief of 27 euros per person per year.
Lines 141 and 144: “set tangible incentives for entrepreneurial investments in Germany” … “In order to allocate equity and debt capital for investments, we intend to establish investment funds in cooperation with public guarantees (e.g. KfW) and private capital, for example for venture capital, housing construction, and energy infrastructure.”
Evaluation: Negative
The CDU and CSU call for improved depreciation options and loss carryforwards in their election program, presumably modeled on the Growth Opportunities Act. This would relieve the economy by about 7 billion euros according to calculations by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW). In contrast, the SPD proposes an investment premium of 10 % on equipment investments. However, this is not a tax relief but a subsidy that ultimately must be financed through other taxes or borrowing. According to DIW calculations, this measure would provide direct relief of around 12 billion euros, which essentially represents merely a “transfer from one pocket to another” since the financing would be achieved through taxes or debt. Most likely, the planned special fund of 500 billion euros until 2036 will be used not only for infrastructure projects but also for the energy transition and possibly social housing. This would lead to total borrowing of 600 billion euros until 2036, including repayment and annuities. This debt burden would cost the German economy approximately 50 billion euros per year, which amounts to around 595 euros per person annually.
Line 142: “We will embark on a corporate tax reform in the coming legislative period.”
Evaluation: Positive
The reduction in corporate taxation is a core demand of the AfD, which has been adopted by the CDU in its election program. Should the CDU prevail in coalition negotiations on this issue – it is already part of the exploratory paper, although not demanded by the SPD – this would relieve the German economy by around 19 billion euros. This tax relief corresponds to a relief of about 226 euros per person per year, according to studies by IW Cologne and DIW.
Line 148: “permanently reduce the value-added tax on food for consumption to seven percent.”
Evaluation: Positive
Reducing the VAT for the gastronomy sector to 7 % is a central demand of the AfD that has been taken up by the CDU/CSU in their election program. According to the exploratory paper and DIW calculations, this measure would relieve citizens by 4.3 billion euros per year, which corresponds to a saving of 50 euros per person.
Line 150: “fully reintroduce the agricultural diesel rebate”
Evaluation: Positive
The agricultural diesel rebate, which is not a subsidy but a tax relief, was reduced by 70 % by the current coalition government until January 2025. For 2026, its complete abolition was even planned. However, this decision was prevented by protests from German farmers and with support from the AfD. Consequently, the CDU/CSU was forced to adopt this AfD demand in their election campaign and support the reintroduction of the tax relief. The original saving of 450 million euros by the coalition government was widely seen as insignificant, as the enormous annual state expenditures did not correspond to this measure. On the contrary, it appeared as if the government intended to harm the agricultural sector and the farmers. Should the new government – regardless of its political orientation – reintroduce the agricultural diesel rebate, it would mean a relief of 315 million euros for farmers, which amounts to about 4 euros per person.
Line 156: “reduce the bureaucracy costs for companies by 25 percent over the next four years.”
Evaluation: Positive
According to econometric calculations by the ifo Institute, the costs of bureaucratic burden in Germany amount to about 146 billion euros per year. A reduction of this burden by 25 %, as promised in the exploratory paper, would decrease the burden on the German economy by around 36.5 billion euros. This corresponds to a relief of about 434 euros per person. However, it must be noted that such a reduction through bureaucratic simplification is considered highly unlikely. This is mainly due to the new “debt coalition” adhering to goals such as climate neutrality, the green transformation, “social justice,” and gender propaganda. It is therefore expected that the bureaucratic burden will rather increase in the coming years, especially due to the legal anchoring of the climate neutrality target in the constitution as well as ever-new EU regulations.
Line 163: “a massive increase in funding for research and development”
Evaluation: Positive
In 2023, total expenditures for research and development amounted to nearly 130 billion euros, which corresponds to 3.1 % of the gross domestic product. According to the exploratory paper, funding for research and development is to be massively increased. In the CDU/CSU election program, this is defined as an increase in R&D spending to 3.5 % of GDP. If this increase, as suggested in the paper, were to be financed solely by taxes, it would amount to an increase of 16.9 billion euros per year – approximately 200 euros per person annually. In general, spending on basic research and development is to be viewed positively, as it has long-term beneficial effects on economic growth as well as the sovereignty and competitiveness of the economy. For this reason, even if these expenditures are financed through taxes or borrowing, they are to be endorsed.
Line 175: “expand free trade: the four economic partnership agreements that the current government has introduced in the Bundestag will be reintroduced verbatim and approved. We will also advocate for the entry into force of the Mercosur Agreement and the conclusion of new free trade agreements, including with the USA.”
Evaluation: Positive
Germany remains an export nation with an export share of 83 % of GDP. Therefore, the goal announced in the exploratory paper to create free trade zones between the EU and New Zealand, Chile, Australia, as well as Mercosur, is fundamentally positive. A liberalisation of trade with these regions would increase the German economy by 1.9 %, which translates into an increase of 81.8 billion euros or 974 euros per person.
A free trade agreement between the USA and the European Union would undoubtedly have very positive effects on the German economy. Studies by the ifo Institute from 2013 forecast a growth effect of 3.1 % of GDP, which corresponds to an increase of about 133 billion euros – or roughly 1,589 euros per person. However, given the “America First” policies pursued by both Joe Biden and Donald Trump, it is very unlikely that such an agreement will be concluded in the foreseeable future.
Furthermore, every free trade agreement also brings disadvantages for certain sectors. For Germany, this mainly means the preferential treatment of food imports, which in turn puts German farmers under high cost pressure. Therefore, such agreements would need to include regulations that minimise this pressure or provide compensation for affected farmers – financed out of the additional revenues generated by free trade
Line 217: “a minimum wage of 15 euros in 2026”
Evaluation: Negative
Based on an earlier analysis by the Hans-Böckler Foundation, it can be assumed that raising the minimum wage from the current 12.82 euros to 15 euros will increase the inflation rate by about 0.3 percentage points.
Summary
In summary, the full implementation of all the measures contained in the exploratory paper by CDU/CSU and SPD would result in a net additional burden on the German economy of 382.8 billion euros per year (8.9 % of GDP). This corresponds to an additional burden of 4,553 euros per person. Despite the potential benefits of a free trade agreement between the EU and the USA as well as the positive macroeconomic effects of a reduction in bureaucratic burdens by 25 %, these high costs are primarily driven by the commitment to achieve climate neutrality by 2045.
A more differentiated picture emerges if these three and another aspects are excluded from the calculation. A free trade agreement between the EU and the USA is currently unrealistic, and it is unlikely that the government will be able to reduce bureaucracy costs because it remains committed to its climate and gender agendas as well as to further bureaucratic requirements from the EU. Similarly, including the gross costs to achieve climate neutrality would lead to double counting and should therefore be considered separately. In addition, coalition negotiations between the CDU/CSU and the SPD broke off unsuccessfully in the Subcommittee on Taxes and Finance. While the CDU/CSU is seeking a reduction in income and corporate taxes, the SPD is sticking to its socialist line and instead even demanding tax increases, including an increase in the top income tax rate. Under these assumptions, the realistic net additional burden from the tax- or debt-financed implementation of the exploratory paper is reduced to 94.3 billion euros per year (2.2 % of GDP) or 1,126 euros per person.
Furthermore, the author considers certain expenditures – which are financed either through taxes or borrowing – to be justified. These include subsidies for the construction of new gas-fired power plants, for the expansion of the domestic semiconductor industry, and for basic research. If one regards these investments as economically sensible and therefore “excludes them from the calculation,” the definitive net additional burden resulting from the implementation of the exploratory paper is 70.9 billion euros per year (1.7 % of GDP) or 848 euros per person.
Moreover, this new additional burden does not occur in isolation but supplements the existing burdens introduced by the previous coalition government. The author calculated these additional costs based on the coalition agreement of the current government from 2021. This resulted in an additional burden from borrowing, taxes, and redistribution measures amounting to 250.8 billion euros per year (then 7.3 % of GDP), which corresponds to 3,020 euros per person. These burdens include, among other things, the Supply Chain Act, increasing expenses for grid stabilisation, and the increase in the CO₂ levy.
Sources
- BDEW, (2024) Die Energieversorgung 2024 Final. Available at: https://www.bdew.de/media/documents/2024_12_18_Die_Energieversorgung_2024_Final.pdf
- BDEW, (2025) BDEW Strompreisanalyse. Available at: https://www.bdew.de/service/daten-und-grafiken/bdew-strompreisanalyse/
- Bundesregierung, (2024) Der Klima- und Transformationsfonds 2024. Available at: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/der-klima-und-transformationsfonds-2024-2250738
- Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis), (2025) Produktionsindex energieintensive Branchen. Available at: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Industrie-Verarbeitendes-Gewerbe/produktionsindex-energieintensive-branchen.html
- Umweltbundesamt (2025) Strompreiskompensation beantragen. Available at: https://www.dehst.de/DE/Themen/SPK/SPK-Antrag/spk-antrag_node.html#doc284286bodyText6 (Accessed: 22 March 2025).
- FOES (2024) Kraftwerkssicherheitsgesetz. Available at: https://foes.de/publikationen/2024/2024-10_FOES_Kraftwerkssicherheitsgesetz.pdf
- Deutschlandfunk, (2024) Bundesregierung einigt sich auf Kraftwerksstrategie. Available at: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/bundesregierung-einigt-sich-auf-kraftwerksstrategie-108.html
- McKinsey, (2023) Energiewende Index. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/de/news/presse/2023-03-06-energiewende-index
- EWI Köln (2024) Abschätzung der Netzausbaukosten und die resultierenden Netzentgelte für Baden-Württemberg und Deutschland zum Jahr 2045. Available at: https://www.ewi.uni-koeln.de/cms/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024_04_Abschlussbericht_Netzentgelte_BW_DE.pdf
- PwC, (2024) Investitionen in die Energiewende. Available at: https://blogs.pwc.de/de/auf-ein-watt/article/243270/investitionen-in-die-energiewende-lohnen-sich-doch-wie-hoch-sind-die-kosten-der-klimaschutzziele/#:~:text=Laut%20der%20PwC%2DAnalyse%20betragen,von%2013%2C3%20Billionen%20Euro
- VBW Bayern, (2023) VBW Strompreisprognose Juli 2023. Available at: https://www.vbw-bayern.de/Redaktion/Frei-zugaengliche-Medien/Abteilungen-GS/Wirtschaftspolitik/2023/Downloads/vbw_Strompreisprognose_Juli-2023-3.pdf
- Tagesschau, (2023) Strompreis 2030 – Energie. Available at: https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/verbraucher/strompreis-2030-energie-100.html
- Deutschlandfunk, (2025) Nuklear-Dienstleister Nukem – Deutsche Atomkraftwerke könnten 2030 wieder Strom liefern. Available at: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/nuklear-dienstleister-nukem-deutsche-atomkraftwerke-koennten-2030-wieder-strom-liefern-100.html
- Vahlenkamp T. et al. (2024). CO2-Abscheidung und -Speicherung – was sie bringt und was sie kostet. EWI Köln. Available at: https://content-select.com/de/portal/media/view/66fc0e0c-1ccc-40f1-9609-430aac1b000a
- T-Online (2024) Aufbau von Wasserstoff-Netz – soll 20 Milliarden Euro kosten. Available at: https://www.t-online.de/finanzen/aktuelles/id_100454376/aufbau-von-wasserstoff-netz-soll-20-milliarden-euro-kosten.html
- IW Köln, (2021) Green Public Procurement. Available at: https://www.iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Studien/policy_papers/PDF/2021/IW-Policy-Paper_2021-Green-Public-Procurement.pdf
- Euractiv, (2024) Leitmärkte EU – soll Kauf von grünem Stahl erzwingen. Available at: https://www.euractiv.de/section/finanzen-und-wirtschaft/news/leitmaerkte-eu-soll-kauf-von-gruenem-stahl-erzwingen/
- European Commission, (2024) European Chips Act. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-chips-act_de
- Euractiv, (2024) Mikrochips: Deutschland erhält 4 Milliarden aus EU-Programm. Available at: https://www.euractiv.de/section/innovation/news/mikrochips-deutschland-erhaelt-4-milliarden-aus-eu-programm/
- Reuters, (2023) Germany earmarks 20 bln Eur for chip industry coming years. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/technology/germany-earmarks-20-bln-eur-chip-industry-coming-years-2023-07-25/
- Chip, (2024) Bilanz der deutschen E-Auto-Förderung – Das brachten 10,2 bzw. 15,5 Milliarden Euro. Available at: https://efahrer.chip.de/news/bilanz-der-deutschen-e-auto-foerderung-das-brachten-102-milliarden-euro_1023558
- Bach S. (2025) Wahlprogramm der Union. DIW. Available at: https://x.com/SBachTax/status/1868243676121673761/photo/1
- Bach S. (2025) Wahlprogramm der SPD. DIW. Available at: https://x.com/SBachTax/status/1868957610013266146
- ZEW, (2025) Wie sich die Wahlprogramme fiskalisch auswirken. Available at: https://www.zew.de/presse/pressearchiv/wie-sich-die-wahlprogramme-fiskalisch-auswirken
- IW Köln, (2025) Was die Entlastungen von SPD und Union bedeuten. Available at: https://www.iwkoeln.de/presse/iw-nachrichten/tobias-hentze-martin-beznoska-was-die-entlastungen-von-spd-und-union-bedeuten.html
- Wirtschaftsdienst, (2024) Die Abschaffung der steuerlichen Begünstigung von Agrardiesel ist überfällig. Available at: https://www.wirtschaftsdienst.eu/inhalt/jahr/2024/heft/4/beitrag/die-abschaffung-der-steuerlichen-beguenstigung-von-agrardiesel-ist-ueberfaellig.html
- ifo Institute, (2024) Kosten der Bürokratie – Reformen dringend geboten. Available at: https://www.ifo.de/publikationen/2024/aufsatz-zeitschrift/kosten-der-buerokratie-reformen-dringend-geboten?utm_source=chatgpt.com
- CDU, (2025) KM_BTW 2025 Wahlprogramm Langfassung. Available at: https://www.cdu.de/app/uploads/2025/01/km_btw_2025_wahlprogramm_langfassung_ansicht.pdf
- WIFO, (2024) Analysis of the Effects of the EU Trade Agreements with Australia and New Zealand. Available at: https://www.wifo.ac.at/en/publication/268619/
- Government of the Netherlands, (2023) Expected economic effects of the EU free trade agreements with Chile, Mexico and New Zealand. Available at: https://www.government.nl/binaries/government/documents/reports/2023/07/26/expected-economic-effects-of-the-eu-free-trade-agreements-with-chile-mexico-and-new-zealand/Expected+economic+effects+of+EU+Free+Trade+Agreement+with+Chile+Mexico+and+New+Zealand.pdf
- BDE, (2020) Tratado Libre Comercio entre UE y Mercosur – Principales elementos e impacto económico. Available at: https://www.bde.es/wbe/en/publicaciones/publicaciones-discontinuadas/articulos-analiticos/tratado-libre-comercio-entre-ue-y-mercosur-principales-elemente-e-impacto-economico.html
- Bertelsmann Stiftung, (2013) Who benefits from a transatlantic free trade deal. Available at: https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/publications/publication/did/who-benefits-from-a-transatlantic-free-trade-deal
- Böckler Stiftung, (2023) Mindestlohnerhöhung auf 12 Euro beeinflusst Inflation kaum. Available at: https://www.boeckler.de/de/faust-detail.htm?sync_id=HBS-008230
- SPD (2025) Sondierungspapier CDU/CSU & SPD. Available at: https://www.spd.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Sonstiges/20250308_Sondierungspapier_CDU_CSU_SPD.pdf
- Kofner, J. (2021). Ökonomische Auswirkungen der im Ampel-Koalitionsvertrag skizzierten Wirtschaftspolitik. MIWI Institut. Available at: https://kofner.de/oekonomische-auswirkungen-der-im-ampel-koalitionsvertrages-skizierten-wirtschaftspolitik/
- WirtschaftsWoche (2025) Steuerpolitik: SPD will Steuern erhöhen – Koalitionsgespräche auf Arbeitsebene geplatzt. Available at: https://www.wiwo.de/politik/deutschland/steuerpolitik-spd-will-steuern-erhoehen-koalitionsgespraeche-auf-arbeitsebene-geplatzt/100115598.html