IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/wirtsc/v95y2015i3p159-177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sachverständigenrat — Wie politiknah sollte die Beratung sein?

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph Schmidt
  • Benjamin Weigert
  • Ullrich Heilemann
  • Gebhard Kirchgässner
  • Tobias Thomas
  • Kees Paridon

Abstract

The German Council of Economic Experts (GCEE) has the legal mandate to independently assess the state of the German economy, to formulate its expert opinion regarding issues of economic policy and to alert readers to any undesirable developments which threaten to arise in this context. While this might not always be easily palatable for representatives from the political realm, the GCEE bases its analyses transparently on the current state of the economic literature and on empirical evidence to contribute to the formation of an informed judgement regarding economic policy issues among policy makers, economic actors and the general public. The GCEE’s function is to offer advice to the government and provide information to the public. A survey of politicians and ministry officials shows that this advice is valued by the respondents. However, the members of the council are barely visible in the media and therefore contribute only minimally to the effective information of the broader public. One reason for this shortcoming is that fulfilling both duties is hardly possible from an institutional economics perspective. A useful comparison can be made with the the Netherlands, where the CPB, the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis — a government-financed but independent institution — has played a central role in forecasting economic developments and in analysing the consequences of policy changes in the Netherlands. Copyright ZBW and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph Schmidt & Benjamin Weigert & Ullrich Heilemann & Gebhard Kirchgässner & Tobias Thomas & Kees Paridon, 2015. "Sachverständigenrat — Wie politiknah sollte die Beratung sein?," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 95(3), pages 159-177, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:wirtsc:v:95:y:2015:i:3:p:159-177
    DOI: 10.1007/s10273-015-1802-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10273-015-1802-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10273-015-1802-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Strohner Ludwig & Berger Johannes & Thomas Tobias, 2019. "Sekt oder Selters? – Ökonomische Folgen der Reformzurückhaltung bei der Beendigung des Solidaritätszuschlags," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 19(4), pages 313-330, February.
    2. Strohner Ludwig & Berger Johannes & Thomas Tobias, 2018. "Sekt oder Selters? – Ökonomische Folgen der Reformzurückhaltung bei der Beendigung des Solidaritätszuschlags," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 19(4), pages 313-330, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    A11; D78;

    JEL classification:

    • A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:wirtsc:v:95:y:2015:i:3:p:159-177. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.