Breaking the Shyness Barrier

Sir Christopher Pissarides discussing with young economists during the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences. Photo/Credit: Lisa Vincenz-Donnelly/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

Sir Christopher Pissarides in discussion with young economists during the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences. Picture/Credit: Lisa Vincenz-Donnelly/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

 

When I was growing up as an economist, first at Essex University and then at the London School of Economics, I was hearing about the Nobel Prize and all the gossip around it and I thought those winning it must be some kind of superhumans, that every word that came out of them is a word of wisdom. I guess in economics in my formative years, there were indeed some superhumans around: Samuelson, Hicks, Arrow, Friedman, to name a few who made the subject what it is. But it is still puzzling to me why, as human beings, we attach so much importance to the few who have the medal in their hand. And it’s not new: in Classical Greece, a city would destroy part of its city walls when one of its young men got the Olympic wreath because with men like him it did not need walls to protect it. What would I not have given in those days to be in the company of the Nobel Laureates (or the Olympic athletes, for that matter) for a few days? Lindau does just that for a few hundred lucky young people. 

Lindau succeeds in breaking the shyness barrier between young people still struggling with degree studies and silver-coloured gentlemen.

 

Sir Christopher Pissarides during a Press Talk at the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences. Picture/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

Sir Christopher Pissarides during a Press Talk at the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences. Picture/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

Of course, today, being on the other side of the fence, I also count myself lucky to be in the company of so many bright young people and so many of my fellow laureates. In Lindau, I enjoy most the quiet discussions around the dinner table or talking with a cup of coffee in hand until the coffee gets cold and undrinkable (please, next time hire an Italian barista!). Lindau succeeds in breaking the shyness barrier between young people still struggling with degree studies and silver-coloured gentlemen who have forgotten what it is like to study for a degree (regrettably, there are no living women laureates in economics), to the extent that the organisers feel they should set aside certain times where the laureates can be on their own. Credit should go to the organisers, Countess Bettina Bernadotte and the staff of the executive secretariat.

I decided to lecture about my more recent interests rather than the work that won me the prize: the future of work in the age of automation and robots. It is a fascinating topic, which has attracted a lot of attention on both sides of the argument – the doom and gloom scenario that there will be no meaningful work left for humans and all the profits from the robots will go to a few wealthy individuals and the optimists who claim that society as a whole will be better off and the sooner the robots take over the work the better off we will all be. I belong to the second category but not unconditionally. A lot of jobs will no doubt be taken over by robots but many more will be created, ranging from software engineers who will develop and feed the robots with data and instructions to carers who will look after the children and ageing parents of men and women engaged in the new economy. But inequality and the question of who will get the rewards from the robots’ work is a big unresolved issue; governments need to work hard to come up with credible policies for how to reduce poverty and achieve more equality if the optimistic scenario is to materialise. These last topics were hotly debated both at the side gatherings and in the final panel session of the meeting, of which I was fortunate enough to be a member, on a beautiful day in the lush gardens of Mainau Island.

 

Pissarides talking to young economists during the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences. Photos/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

Pissarides and young economists during the Lindau Meeting in 2017. Photos/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

 

Lindau has been going on for a long time but it is an evolving organisation. This year, we had several 5-minute presentations by graduate students, which are much better than poster sessions where you wander around a room with posters hanging on its walls and students standing by them in the hope that someone will pay attention. The 5-minute presentations put laureates and student participants into the picture, enabled the students to say what their research objectives were and generated lively discussions afterwards in the gardens and coffee rooms of the island. If I have a grievance, it is that despite the length of the meeting (arrived Tuesday and left Sunday) there was still no time to visit the other attractions of Lindau Island, including, from what I am told, a wonderful old library. A free afternoon would have been welcome! This year, there were also more journalists with requests on one’s time for interviews, which interfered with participation in other laureates’ presentations, which is a shame given how much you learn from them. Journalists can reach many more people than can be present in Lindau so their presence should be welcome, but where one strikes the balance between time taken up in interviews with them and attendance at the scheduled events is something not easy to resolve. 

Overall, this was an excellent meeting; regretfully, we have to wait three whole years for the next one.

 

 

More reviews and highlights of the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences can be found in the Annual Report 2017.

Eine Chance, die man nutzen muss

Read in English

 

Ich muss gestehen, dass mich die Aussicht, an der 6. Lindauer Tagung der Wirtschaftswissenschaften teilzunehmen, sehr eingeschüchtert hat. Mehr als zwanzig der klügsten Köpfe in der Geschichte würden zusammen mit Hunderten der begabtesten Nachwuchswissenschaftler auf einer Insel verbringen – ich fühlte mich wie ein blinder Passagier auf einer exklusiven Kreuzfahrt und fragte mich, wie in aller Welt es mir gelingen sollte, mich an den Gesprächen zu beteiligen, ohne als Blender entlarvt zu werden.

 

David Smerdon (right) with Countess Bettina Bernadotte and laureate Jean Tirole. Picture/Credit: Lisa Vincenz-Donnelly/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

Gräfin Bettina Bernadotte, Nobelpreisträger Jean Tirole und David Smerdon. Photo: Lisa Vincenz-Donnelly/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

 

Doch im Nachhinein waren meine Befürchtungen unbegründet. Schon bei den allerersten Kontakten nach der Ankunft am Flughafen war jeder, dem ich begegnete, engagiert, aufgeschlossen und vor allem freundlich. Mit Nathan aus Chicago fachsimpelte ich auf der Taxifahrt vom Flughafen darüber, wie sich die Qualität von Lehrkräften am besten messen lässt, und wir tauschten Geschichten über die Kämpfe auf dem Jobmarkt aus. Nach einer Begegnung mit Veronika, einer Physikerin aus Russland, staunte ich über das, was ich über die Entwicklungen in der Finanzierung des Klimaschutzes erfahren hatte. Später beim Abendessen saß ich Banji gegenüber, der mich über die Folgen der nigerianischen Handelspolitik auf die Energiemärkte aufklärte, während mir Eleni von den ersten Ergebnissen einer Pilotstudie zum Bargeldtransfer in Äthiopien berichtete. Im Bus führte mich Roxana aus Rumänien in eine Form der Ökonometrie ein, von deren Existenz ich bis dahin nichts gewusst hatte. Als ich an diesem Abend todmüde ins Bett fiel, war mein Notizbuch bereits voll mit flüchtig festgehaltenen Notizen über die Menschen, denen ich begegnet war, und die geführten Gespräche – und dabei hatte das offizielle Programm noch nicht einmal begonnen.

Es waren dann die Begegnungen mit den Nobelpreisträgern selbst, die mich wirklich überraschten. Ich hatte ja erwartet, dass diese angesehenen Staatsmänner freundlich und zuvorkommend sein würden – was sie auch waren – aber ich hatte nicht erwartet, dass sie soweit über ihre offiziellen Pflichten (mir fällt kein besseres Wort ein) hinausgehen würden. Die Laureaten waren nicht nur unermüdlich bereit, auf unsere zahllosen übergriffigen und unterwürfigen Selfie-Wünsche einzugehen, sondern suchten aktiv den Kontakt zu uns auf intellektueller Ebene und führten bei jeder möglichen Programmpause anregende Gespräche mit unterschiedlichen Gruppen von Wissenschaftlern. Sie ermutigten uns geradezu dazu, die großen Fragen zu stellen, sei es nun zu ihrer Arbeit, unseren eigenen Karrieren oder dem Stand der Wissenschaft selbst. Sie hörten sich unsere Ansichten an, und das nicht in einer herablassenden Attitüde oder mit perfekt herausgearbeiteten Gegenargumenten, sondern in einer Haltung des echten Interesses. Ihre intellektuelle Ausstrahlung war kaum zu ignorieren. Aber dennoch zeigten uns die Laureaten bei mehreren Gelegenheiten auch ihre menschliche Seite und bewiesen beispielsweise, dass sie auch mal gerne feiern (wer hätte gewusst, dass sie so tanzen können?). Ein Ratschlag, der sich für mich wie ein roter Faden durch alle Empfehlungen der Nobelpreisträger zog, war ihr aufrichtiger Wunsch, dass junge Wirtschaftswissenschaftler relevante, die Lebensbedingungen verbessernde Forschungsthemen aufgreifen, statt sich lediglich am klassischen Veröffentlichungsmarathon zu beteiligen. Als jemand mit politischem Hintergrund und deshalb eher ein ‘Spätentwickler’ in der Welt der Wissenschaft hat mir diese Warnung sehr gut gefallen – obwohl man solche Botschaften mit einem Nobelpreis im Rücken natürlich auch leichter austeilen oder gar befolgen kann… Gleichwohl stellte ich fest, dass dieser Idealismus auf Resonanz bei meinen Forscherkollegen stieß, und so war es auch eine besondere Freude, ihren Präsentationen und den Anmerkungen der Nobelpreisträger in den Parallelveranstaltungen zu folgen – ganz zu schweigen von den vielen angeregten Gesprächen, die wir beim Essen, in den Kaffeepausen und sogar beim Schwimmen im See führen konnten. Allein aufgrund dieser kurzen Forschungseinblicke konnte man sich vorstellen, einige von ihnen irgendwann in Zukunft selbst vor dem schwedischen König stehen zu sehen.

Ich hätte diesen Positivismus in einem Raum voller Wirtschaftswissenschaftler nicht erwartet.

Besonders genossen habe ich den Austausch mit Menschen aus ganz anderen Forschungsgebieten als meinem – einschließlich, wohlgemerkt, die Begegnungen mit anderen Teilnehmern wie den Partnern der Nobelpreisträger und der Wissenschaftler, Mitgliedern des Lindauer Kuratoriums und Mitarbeitern der Geschäftsstelle sowie Industriepartnern. In der knallharten Welt der Wissenschaften kann man sich so leicht in den engen Silos verlieren, in denen wir uns heute spezialisieren. Deshalb war es ein unerwartetes Vergnügen, solch anregende Debatten führen zu können, die alle Bereiche der Wirtschaft und der Politik miteinander kombinierten, um sich auf Probleme der echten Welt zu konzentrieren (ich hatte wirklich vergessen, dass Makroökonomie Spaß machen kann). Noch wichtiger war die Entdeckung, dass offensichtlich eine gemeinschaftliche Motivation unter den Wissenschaftlern besteht, unsere Arbeit möge auf gewisse Weise von Bedeutung für die ‘Welt da draußen’ sein und dass es die Investition, die wir selbst und andere in unsere Ausbildung gesteckt haben, verdient, durch relevante Beiträge zur Verbesserung der Lebensbedingungen zurückgegeben zu werden. Um ehrlich zu sein, hätte ich diesen Positivismus in einem Raum voller Wirtschaftswissenschaftler nicht erwartet. Aber wenn ich jetzt darüber nachdenke, ist das wohl genau das, worum es bei den Lindauer Tagungen eigentlich geht.

Es war irgendwie traurig, Lindau nach dieser kurzen, aber bewegenden Zeit wieder verlassen zu müssen. Klar, ich habe mich eine Woche lang fast nur durch Koffein und kurze Nickerchen wachgehalten, das Erste-Hilfe-Zelt zweimal aufsuchen müssen und am Ende fehlten mir auch saubere Socken. Aber die Lindauer Tagung war, man verzeihe mir das Klischee, ein unvergessliches Erlebnis. Ich kam mit einer überfüllten Mappe mit Vortagsnotizen, auf Servietten gekritzelten Forschungsideen und zerknitterten Visitenkarten von Wissenschaftlern und anderen Teilnehmern nach Hause zurück – das alles dank der wunderbaren Gelegenheit, die die Stiftung und das Kuratorium für die Tagungen der Nobelpreisträger in Lindau uns geboten haben. Eine Chance, die ich nicht ungenutzt lassen werde.

Neben Nobelpreisträger Jean Tirole hielt David Smerdon eine Abschiedsrede bei #LiNoEcon.

 

Diesen und weitere Berichte über die 6. Lindauer Tagung der Wirtschaftswissenschaften finden sich im Jahresbericht 2017.

An Opportunity Not to Waste

Zur deutschen Version

 

I must admit to being incredibly intimidated about attending the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences. About twenty of history’s greatest minds coupled with hundreds of the world’s most talented young scholars on one island – I felt like a stowaway on a celebrity cruise, and I wondered how on earth I’d participate in their conversations without being discovered for the imposter I was.

David Smerdon (right) with Countess Bettina Bernadotte and laureate Jean Tirole. Picture/Credit: Lisa Vincenz-Donnelly/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

Countess Bettina Bernadotte, laureate Jean Tirole and David Smerdon. Photo: Lisa Vincenz-Donnelly/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

 

But in hindsight, my fears were ill-founded. From the very first interaction at the airport arrivals, everyone I met was enthusiastic, approachable and, above all, friendly. I discussed how to best measure teacher quality and swapped job-market war stories with Chicago-based Nathan in the taxi ride from the airport and was amazed by the developments in climate finance after meeting Veronika, a Russian physicist, in the hotel lobby. Rushing off to dinner, I sat opposite Banji, who educated me about the consequences of Nigeria’s trade policy on its energy markets, and Eleni, who detailed the early results of a cash transfer pilot study in Ethiopia. On the bus, Roxana from Romania taught me a form of econometrics I didn’t even know existed. By the time I fell asleep that night, my notebook already had pages full of scribbles about the people I’d met and the conversations I’d had – and the official programme hadn’t even begun.

But it was the interactions with the laureates themselves that really surprised me. I had expected these esteemed statesmen to be cordial and pleasant – which they were – but I had not expected them to go so far beyond their official obligations (for lack of a better word). The laureates were not only tirelessly willing to acquiesce to our floundering flattery and sycophantic selfies, but were eager to interact with us on an intellectual level, engaging in stimulating conversation with different groups of scholars at every possible break in the programme. They actively encouraged us to ask the big questions, whether it was about their work, our own careers or the state of the science itself. They listened to our views, not dismissively or with well-crafted rebuttals but with real consideration. And while it was hard to ignore their obvious intellectual aura, on several occasions the laureates showed us their human sides and let their hair down (who knew they could dance like that?). One common thread of advice I picked up from the laureates was their earnest desire that young economists take up relevant, welfare-improving research topics, rather than just playing the classic publishing game. Coming from a policy background and thus a ‘late-starter’ to the world of academia, I very much appreciated hearing this admonishment – though one could imagine it is easier to dish out, let alone follow, with a Nobel Prize hanging in one’s office… Having said that, I found that this idealism was echoed by my fellow scholars, and it was a delight to listen to their presentations and the laureates’ comments in the parallel sessions – not to mention the many animated conversations we had over dinners, coffees and even swims in the lake. Judging by these short snapshots of research, it was even possible to imagine a few of them standing in front of the Swedish monarch at some point in the future.

I didn’t anticipate such positivism in a room full of economists, but on reflection I guess that’s what the Lindau Meetings are all about.

I particularly enjoyed chatting with people from vastly different streams of research to mine – including, mind you, other attendees such as the laureates’ and scholars’ partners, members of the Lindau Council and its executive secretariat and industry partners. In the cut-throat world of academia, it’s so easy to lose one’s self in the narrow silos into which we now specialise, so it was an unexpected pleasure to have such stimulating debates that combined all branches of economics and policy, joined by a common focus on real-world issues (I’d forgotten that macroeconomics can actually be fun). More importantly, there appeared to exist a collective motivation among the scholars that our careers should matter in some tangible way to the ‘outside world’ and that the investment made by ourselves and others in our education deserved to be returned with real contributions to improving welfare. To be honest, I didn’t anticipate such positivism in a room full of economists, but on reflection I guess that’s what the Lindau Meetings are all about.

It was surprisingly sad to leave Lindau after such a brief but hectic event. Sure, I’d been running on caffeine and naps for a week, visited the first-aid tent twice and had run out of clean socks, but attending the Lindau Meeting was, pardon the cliché, an unforgettable experience. I landed home with a folder overflowing with lecture notes, research ideas scribbled on napkins and crumpled business cards of the scholars and other attendees, all thanks to the wonderful opportunity that the Foundation and the Council for the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings provided. It’s an opportunity I’m not going to waste.

 

David Smerdon gave the farewell address of #LiNoEcon alongside Nobel Laureate Jean Tirole.

 

More reviews and highlights of the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences can be found in the Annual Report 2017.

Annual Report 2017

Hot off the press: The Annual Report 2017. Photo/Credit: Lisa Vincenz-Donnelly/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

Hot off the press: The Annual Report 2017. Photo/Credit: Lisa Vincenz-Donnelly/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

The Annual Report 2017 of the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings is out now.

The report features highlights of the 67th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting (Chemistry) and the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences, including inspiring reviews from Nobel Laureates Ben Feringa and Christopher Pissarides as well as young scientists and young economists.

The digital edition of the Annual Report can be dowloaded here.

“Lindau Was a Lesson in Building Courage and Confidence”

Devaki_Slider

When submitting my application for the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences, I said that it would give me a platform to interact, exchange ideas and build collaborations with the best minds in the world: young enthusiastic people from across cultures and geographies. I now know that whatever you write, it is going to be an under-statement: my experience of Lindau was truly life changing, continuing to inspire me in my everyday life.

Lindau gave me the courage to believe in my dreams. It is very motivating to discover that there are so many young scientists who are working towards the common goal of making the world a better place to live.

I met people who have identified new economic problems brought about by the rapidly changing environment and who are using innovative ways to address issues of food wastage, environmental degradation and economic inequality. I now know that when I say that these are the causes that led me to study economics, I speak for many young people.

Lindau is the place to talk freely about your ideas and get valuable feedback from people who share your vision. This is the time and place to build networks that are already a step towards turning your ideas into actions.

The meeting is designed to create plenty of opportunities for informal conversations with Nobel Laureates over lunch or drinks. James Heckman spoke to us about his struggles in graduate school to come up with a research idea, in the process of which he read about a wide variety of topics. He told us: ‘Nothing I have learned has ever been non-useful.’ Bengt Holmström emphasised the role of serendipity, as opposed to luck, in his life: luck is random, but serendipity – that is, how well you use your luck – is not, he said.

I cannot tell you what you are going to experience because it will exceed all your expectations in one way or another.

The frontiers of science are often pushed by borrowing from other disciplines. I had a conversation with Nobel Laureate in Physics, Brian Schmidt, who had many insightful suggestions about the way we, economists, do research and how we can improve our techniques. Being an experimental physicist, he believes in the scientific use of data to answer important research questions and hopes that, in the future, more empirical economists will be honoured with the Nobel Prize.

One of the defining moments of my Lindau experience was being selected as a panellist alongside Nobel Laureate Eric Maskin and Howard Yana-Shapiro, chief agricultural officer of Mars Incorporated, to discuss problems and solutions to economic inequality in a globalised world. I seized the opportunity to draw on my own experience to talk about the problems of inequality in my home country, India.

In this respect, Lindau was a lesson in building courage and confidence: you have to speak what you believe in. The experience was rewarding. After the talk, many economists came forward to share their views on some of the issues I had raised.

Vladimir Petrov, a PhD student at University of Zurich, spoke about his experience of being involved in a start-up that is leveraging blockchain, an artefact of the new financial system, to build projects to save the environment. Carl Schramm, economist and entrepreneur, encouraged my initiative of building data to study entrepreneurship in developing countries. Discussions with Romesh Vaitilingam, writer and media consultant, taught me many important lessons about communicating economics to a broader audience without losing it in jargon.

 

Laureate Eric Maskin, Devaki Ghose and Howard Yana-Shapiro

Nobel Laureate Eric Maskin, Devaki Ghose and Howard Yana-Shapiro were on a panel discussing economic inequality at the Mars Science Breakfast during #LiNoEcon.

 

Interactions with Bruno Roche and Jay Jakub from Mars Incorporated contributed to my understanding of how collaborations between industry and academia can help address issues of economic importance, such as helping deprived communities. Lack of social and human capital in historically deprived communities hinders their participation in economic activities and restricts their purchasing power to buy goods from the market. Community-level interventions to invest in human capital can be beneficial for different stakeholders, starting from members of the community, policy-makers and multinationals.

As a confluence of ideas from both industry and academia, Lindau is different from any regular academic conference. It is not only about listening to seminars and raising questions. It is also about exchanging ideas with some of the brightest and most passionate young economists, drawing inspiration, engaging in conversations with Nobel Laureates and, most importantly, learning to express your own ideas.

My experience at Lindau opened windows of opportunities that I did not even know existed. It led me to foster connections with people who are deeply passionate about science and believe in using science to solve many of the world’s problems.

I highly encourage every young scientist to apply to the Lindau Meetings. I cannot tell you what you are going to experience because it will exceed all your expectations in one way or another. Oh, and did I not tell you that these five days are also packed with many fun activities, including music, dance and a boat trip to the pristine Mainau island?!

Young Women Economists in Lindau: Powerful Encounters

One of the reasons I applied to attend the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences was the expectation of coming back brimming with self-motivation. Moreover, I expected to be deeply fascinated by the commitment of the pioneers of economic sciences, by their bravery in addressing world issues and by their lives as common individuals facing successes and failures. My expectations were by far exceeded.

I have always genuinely aspired to become an active participant in economics and to make a difference. My passion for the subject started with my postgraduate studies and further developed during my work at the United Nations and my academic experiences. A special opportunity offered by this meeting is the possibility of interacting with Nobel Laureates and other young academics, while sharing passions and values, understanding different cultures and exchanging ideas and future collaborations.

But what also fascinated me and made this experience even more magic and overwhelming was the passion, the eagerness and the determination of the many young women economists I had the pleasure of meeting in Lindau.

 

Zeinab Aboutalebi (left) and Angela De Martiis during the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences. Picture/Credit: Lisa Vincenz-Donnelly/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

Zeinab Aboutalebi (left) and Angela De Martiis during the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences, Picture/Credit: Lisa Vincenz-Donnelly/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

 

One of the ideas that particularly got my attention during the meeting is what Nobel Laureate Bengt Holmström called serendipity. Among the various questions to the laureates, many young economists were eager to know the secret of their success: how did they do it?

A common answer was indeed serendipity. An unexpected discovery that occurs by chance, a valuable finding that was not looked for by others, being in the right place at the right time, or simply luck. Nevertheless, the role of chance – or luck – in science is also driven by passion and determination. Often, such unexpected findings come from an error in the scientist’s own methodology, according to scientists Kevin Dunbar and Jonathan Fugelsang. Passion and determination were in fact the two main elements that I sensed when talking with young women economists about their research interests.

During my week at the meeting, I had the honour of presenting my research in front of five Nobel Laureates – an invaluable experience – and the pleasure of interviewing several young women economists from different countries, cultures and backgrounds. They came from Africa, Russia, Iran, China, the United States, Germany and Italy, and they all have one element in common: passion.

When I asked them about their motivation for doing academic research, the first answer was indeed passion, eagerness to learn, to understand and provide valuable results to inform some of today’s most debated issues – such as climate change, economic sanctions, information asymmetry, inequalities, labour markets, growth theory and monetary policy. The women economists, and women’s participation in the economy more generally, provide a diversity of economic thinking, as Janet Yellen recently emphasised in a speech at Brown University.

This diversity of thinking comes from the fact that, as one of these women economists told me, economics is not just economics. Being an economist implies knowing about mathematics, statistics, natural sciences, law, politics, psychology, history, sociology and more. Economics means dealing with issues that involve institutions and individuals. All these elements together make it a powerful tool for improving people’s welfare and lives.

On the one hand, welfare is one of the motivations driving Linda Glawe, a young German economist from the University of Hagen, to focus on prolonged growth slowdowns in emerging market economies and on the concept of the middle-income trap. In a world in which more than five billion people live in middle-income countries, representing more than 70% of the world’s poor population, a slowdown in emerging markets will have strong implications for low and high-income countries. Therefore, the danger of a middle-income trap is of great relevance for future welfare. After publishing a literature survey on the middle-income trap, Linda’s current research aims to provide a theoretical contribution to discussions of future growth in China.

On the other hand, when we talk about welfare we often refer to the fact that countries have unequal living standards that makes them grow faster or slower than others. Therefore, some countries display higher inequalities in incomes, wealth and human capital. These issues are among the main research interests of Rong Hai, a Chinese young assistant professor in economics at the University of Miami.

In one recent paper, she and laureate James Heckman investigate the determinants of inequality in human capital with an emphasis on the role of credit constraints. The results show that both cognitive and non-cognitive abilities are important determinants of human capital inequality. In addition, credit constraints are important because young people cannot borrow enough against their future human capital and thus suffer from lower consumption when they are in school.

In a second paper, Rong finds that reducing income inequality between low and median income households improves economic growth. But reducing income inequality through taxation between median and high-income households reduces economic growth.

 

Angela De Martiis and other young economists during the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences,  Picture/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

Angela De Martiis and other young economists during the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences, Picture/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

 

When investigating economic inequalities, there are many reasons to explore inequality within cities or states, especially if we consider that individuals move across space. Thus, the disparity of a particular area is also a reflection of the skills of these individuals as potential workers. From a labour economist perspective, Sarah Bana, an American Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is interested in understanding the returns to skills and the role that skills play in earnings inequality in the US labour market.

One of her current research papers looks at displaced workers, those who lose their jobs as a result of a firm or plant closing. Analysing comprehensive occupational employment data, the results of her research suggest that vulnerable displaced workers’ difficulties in the labour market are a function of their skills and less related to the goods and services they were previously producing. This is due to the fact that the same set of tasks can be applied in the production of various goods and services, but there appears to be little scope for workers from shrinking occupations to find work with similar earnings, which may help to explain the large earnings losses.

As a researcher in labour economics, Sarah thinks of an individual’s work as their contribution to their family, community and society. But this may be hard for those workers who are displaced in worse labour market conditions.

Several studies investigate the effects of the global financial crisis on the labour market. The data from the displaced workers survey from 1984 to 2014 clearly show a sharp increase in the rate of job loss. Besides the effects on the labour market, the long-lasting impacts of the financial crisis on the economy and wider society have questioned the adequacy of the traditional tools in explaining periods of financial distress as well as the adequacy of the existing policy response.

At the same time, the financial crisis has shown that complex interconnections among financial institutions represent a mechanism for the propagation of financial distress and they are nowadays recognised as one of the key elements of potential financial instability or systemic risk.

This is one of the crucial issues that the young Italian economist Chiara Perillo, Ph.D. candidate at the University of Zurich, is investigating. In particular, she is exploring the implications of the unconventional monetary policies (such as quantitative easing) in the euro area by combining financial network analysis with econometric methods. Using the time evolution of loans granted from euro area banks to different institutional sectors operating in the euro area, her results show that since the beginning of quantitative easing there has been an increase in bank lending, but mostly addressed to the banking system itself.

Another element that drew my attention while getting to know the young women economists was their diverse backgrounds, another powerful tool for academic research in the diversity of thinking. Being Russian by origin and doing research based in Germany, Maria Kristalova, Ph.D. candidate at the University of Bremen, investigates the impact of the mutual sanctions between the EU and Russia, followed by the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2014. Her results show a division pattern of all EU-27 countries in two groups: the West European countries that recovered from the sanctions shock, and the East European and Baltic countries, which are still suffering with negative consequences.

Angela De Martiis (right) and Maria Kristalova during the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences

Angela De Martiis with Maria Kristalova, Picture: Courtesy of Angela De Martiis

According to Maria, this topic is of crucial importance for gaining a better understanding of the costs of political decisions that might affect the aspired convergence of Europe. In a second research topic, Maria also looks at long-run co-evolution of innovation activities and public funding in German regions. The results show strong empirical evidence of its existence.

Another issue of crucial importance, one of the most controversial, is climate change. According to Jennifer Uju Okonkwo, a young Nigerian economist based at the University of Kiel, regardless of what sceptics think, research shows evidence that the climatic system is changing and this change has several negative consequences, such as rising sea levels, coastal flooding, droughts, global warming and changes in precipitation. Hence, there is a dire need to understand optimal ways to adapt to the changing climate. Her research thus aims at finding cost-effective strategies to manage climate change that could be beneficial to developing countries with limited adaptation funds.

When investigating the issue of climate change, we immediately come across divergent views and an asymmetry in information, thus generating inefficiencies in addressing and solving such a phenomenon. As a young Iranian economist working on applied microeconomic theory at Warwick University, Zeinab Aboutalebi is investigating the role of information asymmetry.

Her research is dedicated to tracing inefficiencies created through the strategic interaction among economic actors. The role of information asymmetry is crucial in shaping the resulting consequences and in reducing the inefficiencies using, for example, different incentive schemes, designing incentive mechanisms, delegation or persuasion techniques.

Zeinab is currently working on feedback in experimentation and how the goodwill of a principal to not discourage an agent, while providing him/her feedback about the result of the experiment, could cause large inefficiencies and uninformative communication between the principal and the agent. Information asymmetry and the lack of informative communication are thus the building blocks of most of today’s big phenomena.

From climate change, to inequality, displaced workers, sanctions, growth, monetary policy and information asymmetry, it was a pleasure to make this journey into the lives and research interests of seven young women economists – to discuss new research ideas, exchange views and laugh while talking about science and about a world that is a fascinating place still to be discovered with a pinch of serendipity and a lot of determination. Thank you for sharing your passion!

Only as Strong as the Weakest Link: Global Food Supply Chains

This article appeared in a shorter form in the German newspaper Handelsblatt on August 24, 2017.

A ‘Marshall Plan for Africa’ – 300 million Euro in total. This is Angela Merkel’s bold development promise ahead of the Federal election. Germany has also placed Africa at the heart of its G20 presidency. So the future chancellor, whoever it is, needs a solid development strategy. This strategy should put farmers’ needs first and leverage the scientific expertise of companies, like Mars, that are networked throughout Africa through their supply chains.

As Bill Gates has said, “if you care about the poorest, you care about agriculture.” This is why I am joining the best economists in the world at the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings in Germany 22—26 August. We are convening an event to discuss economic inequality, agriculture and the role of businesses.

 

I was discussing economic inequality at the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences with economists Romesh Vaitilingam, Eric Maskin (Nobel Laureate) and Devaki Ghose.

I was discussing economic inequality at the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences with economists Romesh Vaitilingam, Eric Maskin (Nobel Laureate) and Devaki Ghose.

 

Why is this such an important issue? Over 475 million of the world’s 570 million farms are smaller than two hectares. Even though these smallholder farms produce over 80% of the world’s food, 80% of the global population deemed “chronically hungry” are farmers. This is the 80-80 paradox.

Agricultural supply chains in food-insecure regions like Africa need an upgrade — but this won’t happen without a concerted and long-term effort. Look at China, where they managed the ‘structural transformation’ from a mostly farming to a mostly industrial economy well. From 1952 to 2004, the structure of China’s economy shifted, from agriculture providing half the country’s GDP to providing only 14% in 2004. During this transition, the non-farm rural sector boomed – services, transport, processing, etc. The rural non-farm sector went from providing almost none of the GDP to more than one-third. Importantly, the Chinese government sent engineers and scientists into the countryside to transfer knowledge and technology to farmers and encourage non-farm business growth. Knowledge sharing combined with better infrastructure linkages between small farmers, processing facilities and retailing companies lies at the core of China’s success.  

Yet, while we can take inspiration from China, replicating the transformation process of a highly regulated, state-managed economy is not feasible elsewhere. Many governments do not have the capacity to effect these changes. I believe multinational corporations can fill this void. Companies need to be part of the international development strategy and leverage their unique position at the apex of global supply chains to share technical skills and cutting-edge innovation.

Indeed, this is already starting to happen. For example, the staple food crops grown by African smallholder farmers are finally getting attention. Traditionally, crops suited to Western climatic conditions, like potato, wheat and corn, have received all the scientific investment. Their yield, for example, has increased by a factor of five or six since the 1930s. The yield of traditionally African crops, on the other hand, is much the same as it was 100 years ago.

 

The average yield of maize and wheat has tripled since 1961 whereas the yield of millet, a crop traditionally grown in areas of Africa and India, has only increased by 50 percent

The average yield of maize and wheat has tripled since 1961 whereas the yield of millet, a crop traditionally grown in areas of Africa and India, has only increased by 50 percent.

 

Through a lack of R&D, finger millet, Bambara groundnut, teff and other staple African crops are still vulnerable to disease, pests and drought. The resulting low yields mean that African farmers have too little food to feed their families. It is no wonder that 80% of the global population deemed “chronically hungry” are farmers.

When we saw that this was happening, a group of uncommon collaborators came together for one of the most ambitious projects in the history of plant science. Mars, NEPAD, Illumina, BGI, WWF, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Agroforestry Centre and others partnered to sequence 101 African orphan crop genomes to accelerate breeding programs and improve food security for the farmers who depend on these crops. The genomes are being made available to the public so that plant breeders everywhere can breed new cultivars of the African crops with higher yields and more resistance to disease, pests and climate change. Better crops create jobs and can stimulate the rural non-farm sector in Africa. African seed companies will spring up to distribute the new cultivars to farmers; transport companies will bring surplus to markets; processors will take on the role of making food ready for the consumer, and so on.

 

Taro is a traditional crop in areas of Africa and one of the 101 crops whose genomes we are sequencing to improve nutrition, yield and resistance to drought, diseases and pests. Picture/Credit: karimitsu/iStock.com

Taro is a traditional crop in areas of Africa and one of the 101 crops whose genomes we are sequencing to improve nutrition, yield and resistance to drought, diseases and pests. Picture/Credit: karimitsu/iStock.com

 

We welcome the German government’s initiative to boost development aid to Africa, but to maximize the impact of taxpayers’ money, we need more inclusive private-public partnerships to play their role and bring the Marshall Plan for Africa to life. An inclusive approach is the only way to address one of the travesties of our age: people who grow food that don’t have enough to eat.

Looking Ahead to Economics in 2020

Young economists and laureate Oliver Hart during the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences.

Nobel Laureate Oliver Hart and young economists during the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences. Photo/Credit: Christian Flemming/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

 

The last four triennial Lindau Meetings on Economic Sciences have managed to come at significant moments for the global economy and the debate over how it should be run.

In 2008, there were emerging signs that the ‘Great Moderation’ of the previous decade had come to an end. But most people expected that the turbulence would be confined to the subprime mortgages of the United States.

 

Joseph Stiglitz in 2011 during the 4th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences. Picture/Credit: Christian Flemming/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

Joseph Stiglitz in 2011 during the 4th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences, Picture/Credit: Christian Flemming/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

Three years later and the economics profession was in the dock for failing to give any warning of what had turned out to be a global financial crisis and subsequently, a ‘Great Recession’ that cast millions into unemployment and left the major western economic powers reeling. Lindau 2011 was a focus of media attention as laureates such as Joseph Stiglitz lambasted his colleagues.

At this year’s meetings, the atmosphere was calmer with few signs of an imminent external crisis. Yet given the tenth anniversary of the onset of the global financial crisis, much of the media attention was on the defence of the European Central Bank’s quantitative easing programme by its president Mario Draghi, who gave the opening keynote speech.

Participating journalists were also intrigued by comments by German Federal Minister Peter Altmaier on Brexit and by laureate Chris Pissarides demanding that Germany reduce her current account surplus to bring a better balance to the eurozone and relief to countries such as Greece.

 

Christopher Pissarides during his lecture at the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences, Picture/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

Christopher Pissarides during his lecture at the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences, Picture/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

But at the same time, the Nobel Laureates and young economists at the Lindau Meeting were engaged in discussing a huge amount of new economic research that is going on at universities around the world that may well lead to new theories on how to make people wealthier, healthier and happier.

A total of 85 young economists made presentations on their research to a panel of laureates. These included: an experiment to achieving a collective agreement on which transactions using the cryptocurrency Bitcoin are valid and which are invalid by Demelza Hays of the University of Lichtenstein; the potential for education investment in China to combat child labour by Tang Can of Renmin University; and the work by Cindy Lopez-Bento of Maastricht University on knowledge spillovers from subsidised R&D – to name just three.

Assuming that the world economy continues on its path of consistent – albeit weak – growth, then the next Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences in 2020 may be the first for 12 years where the focus will be far more on looking forwards than backwards.

How can economics tackle the growing problem of inequality? What can be done to boost levels of productivity that are essential for growth in per capita income and wealth? What does economics have to say about high levels of poverty and ill health in developing countries? All these issues were discussed at Lindau with two science breakfasts on productivity and inequality.

But hopefully in three years time these issues will be the ones grabbing the media limelight.

Young Economists Comment on the ‘Post-Truth’ Era

The economic consensus on such matters as the benefits of trade, technology and global integration has taken a political battering recently. We asked young economists of #LiNoEcon about their perspectives on what is often referred to as a ‘post-truth’ era, and what they think economists could or should do to combat it.

 

67th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, 25.06.2017, Lindau, GermanyI think it is hubris to think that the economic consensus has ever played a role in influencing the man on the street. While the effects of trade nationalism may be catastrophic in economic dimensions I feel that in other research disciplines (e.g., climate research) the stakes are much higher. Consequently, we should stay resilient, persistent and join our fellow researchers from other fields speaking up in the name of truth.

        Chris Flath from Germany

 

 

 

 

 

 

        Photo/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings           

 

 

67th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, 25.06.2017, Lindau, GermanyEconomists and other academic researchers are often wary of over representing their findings, which does not make it easy to communicate the complexities of these problems to the public.

Sarah Quincy from the US

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

           Photo/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

 

 

67th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, 25.06.2017, Lindau, GermanyI think that this fact is mainly the outcome of the financial crisis and, more importantly, of the growing inequality in our societies.

        Dimitris Papadimitriou from Greece

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Photo/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings           

 

 

HelenaPolitical instability worldwide associated with migration flows and the financial crisis of 2008 (and thus rising income inequality) might be responsible for the development of extreme political and economic attitudes across society, especially in Europe.

Helena Chytilova from the Czech Republic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
           Photo/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

 

 

6th Lindau MeetingI don’t think that this ‘post-truth’ phenomenon is a reaction against truth or science, but against ideology-based opinions disguised as facts.

        Pedro Degiovanni from Argentina

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           Photo/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings           

 

 

6th Lindau Meeting on Economic SciencesCommunicate, communicate, communicate. We need to better explain our work and results, and actively engage in a discussion with the greater public.

Sofie R. Waltl from Austria

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
           Photo/Credit: Christian Flemming/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings           

 

 

6th Lindau MeetingI believe we as economists need to do a much better job of communicating ideas, basic economic concepts and research findings in a manner conducive to being easily understood by lay persons.

        Farooq Pasha from Pakistan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           Photo/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings          

 

 

67th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, 25.06.2017, Lindau, GermanyThe tackling of anti-intellectualism should follow from building a consensus that is capable of better foreseeing the consequences of the policies justified by it. Additionally, economists would be in a much better position to address anti-intellectualism if we embraced natural sciences, and built the profession as a natural offspring of other major disciplines.

Benjamin Leiva from the US

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           Photo/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings           

 

 

 

6th Lindau MeetingIn my opinion, the dissemination of information is the best way to combat the ‘post-truth’ mentality. Economists and researcher in various fields of study should try to connect their work with people; the debate should come out of closed circles, be more interactive and open to the dialogue in various areas of society using simple and easily accessible communication tools.

        Giovanna Zeny from Brazil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
           Photo/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings           

 

 

67th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, 25.06.2017, Lindau, GermanyWhile I believe it is important to speak in terms everyone can understand when explaining economic ideas, economists should not simplify so much as to say ‘trade is always good’ when we know that trade creates winners and losers.

Andrew Jonelis from the US

 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
           Photo/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings           

 

 

67th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, 25.06.2017, Lindau, GermanyOur policies should have in mind the poorest, neediest, and least educated citizens in our societies. We need a Europe that takes care first of all of those citizens who do not travel abroad and do not speak any other idiom than their native language. Once we’ll have that Europe, we will be dramatically closer to a truly united Europe.

        Alessandro del Ponte from Italy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           Photo/Credit: Julia Nimke/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings           

Der Mythos von der unabhängigen Zentralbank

In der heutigen Welt des Fiatgeldes hat Geld keinen ‘inneren‘ Wert. Menschen messen ihm einen Wert bei, weil andere Menschen das ebenfalls tun. Solange sich alle einig sind, dass Fiatgeld Wert hat, hat es Wert. Sobald sich aber genügend Menschen plötzlich entscheiden, ungedecktes Papiergeld für wertlos zu halten, wird es wertlos.

In Hochinflationsepisoden verflüchtigt sich das Vertrauen in eine Fiatwährung und versuchen alle, sie zugunsten von Sachgütern, Rohstoffen und sogar anderen Fiatwährungen loszuwerden. Das Anschmeißen der Druckerpresse macht die Sache nur noch schlimmer.

Makroökonomische Modelle mit (Fiat-)Geld sind also naturgemäß Modelle mit multiplen Gleichgewichten. Während der Wert des Geldes in einem bestimmten Gleichgewicht stabil ist, entwickelt sich in einem anderen eine unkontrollierbare Inflationsdynamik mit der Folge, dass das Geld entweder wertlos (Hyperinflation) oder unendlich wertvoll (Fisher-‚Schuldendeflation‘) wird.

In solchen Modellen kann die Wirtschaft plötzlich in ein explosionsartig inflatorisches Gleichgewicht umspringen. Praktisch impliziert das die mögliche Auslösung eines ‘Runs auf die Zentralbank’.

Theoretisch können Zentralbanken natürlich die Nachfrage nach ihrer eigenen Währung immer durch eine Geldschöpfung ex nihilo decken. Wenn aber ständig das Risiko eines plötzlichen Umspringens auf ein explosionsartig inflatorisches oder deflatorisches Gleichgewicht besteht, können sie den Wert nicht garantieren.

Nobelpreisträger Professor Christopher Sims argumentiert, dass es die Fiskalpolitik ist, die den Wert von Fiatgeld garantiert. Deshalb kann es keine regierungsunabhängigen Zentralbanken geben. Die ‘unabhängige Zentralbank’ ist ein Mythos.

Aber was ist mit der Europäischen Zentralbank (EZB), deren Unabhängigkeit von den Regierungen per Abkommen garantiert wird? Das ursprüngliche Konzept des Eurosystems setzt eine strenge Trennung zwischen Geld- und Fiskalpolitik voraus und geht davon aus, dass die Geldpolitik keinen Anlass zu fiskalischen Transfers gibt.

Heute wissen wir, dass alle geldpolitischen Maßnahmen fiskalpolitische Konsequenzen haben: So sorgen beispielsweise Zinserhöhungen dafür, dass sich der Wohlstand aus stärker verschuldeten Ländern auf Länder mit weniger Schulden verlagert. Der Aufkauf von Staatsanleihen nach einem ‘Kapitalzeichnungsschlüssel’ reduziert die Kosten für die Geldaufnahme größerer und reicherer Länder.

Die Existenz des Euro war durch eine finanzielle Schieflage in einigen Ländern der Eurozone bedroht. Darauf musste die EZB gezwungenermaßen reagieren. Also ist auch die EZB mit den Regierungen verflochten.

Notenbanken sind nicht nur nicht von Regierungen unabhängig, sondern zudem auf eine angemessene und plausible antizyklische Finanzpolitik der Regierungen angewiesen. Wie Professor Sims es formuliert: “Wenn die Menschen verstehen, dass die Finanzpolitik in Zeiten starker Inflation die Ausuferung staatlicher Defizite einzudämmen versucht und in Zeiten, in denen sich die Zinsen an oder in der Nähe der unteren Grenze bewegen, die Defizite ausweiten wird, sind Sonnenflecken-Fluktuationen und multiple Gleichgewichte eliminiert.“

Die ‘Fiskaltheorie des Preisniveaus’ (fiscal theory of the price level) besagt, dass die Fiskalpolitik den realen Wert öffentlicher Schulden langfristig aufrechterhalten muss, um den Wert von Fiatgeld stabil zu halten und ein Umspringen auf eine instabile inflatorische Dynamik zu verhindern. Der Fiatgeld-‚Schwindel‘, wonach es – wie bei Tinkerbell – solange Wert hat, wie die Menschen daran glauben, hängt also genauso stark von der Glaubwürdigkeit der Fiskalpolitik wie der Geldpolitik ab.

Die Fähigkeit der Zentralbanken, in einer Krise als Kreditgeber letzter Instanz zu fungieren, ist auf ihre fiskalische Rückendeckung angewiesen. Wenn eine Zentralbank aktiv Vermögenswerte aufkauft, ist ihre technische Insolvenz möglich, wenn diese Vermögenswerte an Wert verlieren. Mehrere Zentralbanken in der Welt weisen derzeit ein negatives Eigenkapital entsprechend der Marktpreisbewertung aus, darunter einige (wie die chilenische Zentralbank) über einen längeren Zeitraum.

Es ist heftig debattiert worden, ob die Solvabilität von Zentralbanken Auswirkungen auf ihre Glaubwürdigkeit als Kreditgeber letzter Instanz oder ihre Fähigkeit zur Inflationsbekämpfung hat. Das scheint wohl nicht der Fall zu sein – vorausgesetzt, dass die Fiskalbehörden sie unterstützen können.

Oft reicht der Nettobarwert der künftigen Seigniorage aus, um Inkongruenzen zwischen Aktiva und Passiva entsprechend der Marktpreisbewertung abzudecken. Reicht die Seigniorage aber nicht aus, werden Steuereinnahmen benötigt, um die Lücken zu schließen. In der Praxis heißt das, dass der Nettobarwert der prognostizierten künftigen Primärüberschüsse ausreichen muss, um die Zentralbank ohne Erhöhung der Staatsverschuldung zu rekapitalisieren.

Was passiert, wenn die Fiskalbehörde nicht zur Rekapitalisierung ihrer Zentralbank bereit ist? In Ländern wie den USA wäre das undenkbar, da die Währung dort durch das ‚volle Vertrauen‘ der US-Regierung gestützt wird.

 

Laureate Christopher Sims during his lecture at the 6th Lindau Meeting on Economic Sciences. Picture/Credit: Christian Flemming/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

Christopher Sims während seines Vortags auf der 6. Lindauer Tagung der Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Picture/Credit: Christian Flemming/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

 

Aber in der Eurozone ist die Zentralbank nicht nur völlig unabhängig von der Regierung, sondern hat es zudem mit 19 Regierungen unterschiedlich starker finanzpolitischer Glaubwürdigkeit zu tun. Die Aufrechterhaltung der Euro-Stabilität hängt von der Bereitschaft all dieser Regierungen ab, für eine Rekapitalisierung der EZB zu sorgen.

Und ihre Bereitschaft wurde, um ehrlich zu sein, bereits auf den Prüfstand gestellt. Seit den ‘Whatever it takes’-Bemerkungen von EZB-Präsident Mario Draghi auf dem Höhepunkt der Euro-Krise 2012 hat die EZB in gewissem Sinne die Rolle einer fiskalischen Institution übernommen, die aktiv öffentliche Schulden von Ländern der Eurozone aufkauft, um die Anleihezinsen niedrig zu halten.

Hätte sie nicht so gehandelt, wären einige dieser Länder zweifelsohne aus der Eurozone gedrängt worden. Dies geschah wohl auf Kosten ihrer eigenen Solvabilität. Ein ‘Run auf die EZB’, wie unter dem Eindruck der Märkte, dass die finanzielle Unterstützung für die EZB auf sich warten lässt, zu erwarten gewesen wäre, hat jedoch nicht stattgefunden.

Aber die EZB könnte nach wie vor gezwungen sein, die öffentlichen Schulden von Ländern mit ‘unverantwortlicher’ Finanzpolitik aufzukaufen, wenn ansonsten ein partieller Einbruch des Euro zu befürchten wäre. Einige Länder der Eurozone könnten davor zurückschrecken, eine Zentralbank zu rekapitalisieren, die ihrer Ansicht nach aktiv Regierungen unterstützt hat, die gegen finanzpolitische Vorschriften verstoßen haben – insbesondere, da es der EZB an einer demokratischen Legitimation für solche Entscheidungen fehlt.

Die Eurozone lebt also weiterhin in einer Welt multipler Gleichgewichte, wenn auch momentan ein plötzliches Umspringen auf eine unkontrollierbare Inflationsdynamik wenig wahrscheinlich erscheint.

Professor Sims sagt, es wäre besser, wenn es eine demokratisch kontrollierbare finanzpolitische Institution für den gesamten Euroraum mit der Befugnis zur Steuererhöhung gäbe, die den An- und Verkauf (oder die Emission) von Staatsanleihen übernehmen könnte. „Aber ich weiß auch nicht, wie man das organisieren sollte“, schloss er seine Ausführungen.

In den Vereinigten Staaten weiß man, wie man so etwas angeht. Sie nennen eine solche Institution ‘Federal Government’. Leider scheinen wir von der Einführung einer solchen Einrichtung im Euroraum weit entfernt zu sein. So werden multiple Gleichgewichte und Sonnenflecken-Fluktuationen wohl noch viele Jahre zur Tagesordnung gehören.