IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zeswps/091999.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Der lange Schatten der schönen Illusion: Finanzpolitik nach der deutschen Einheit, 1990 - 1998

Author

Listed:
  • Zohlnhöfer, Reimut

Abstract

Die deutsche Einheit stellte sich, aller marktwirtschaftlichen Rhetorik seitens der Bundesregierung im Jahr 1990 zum Trotz, im wesentlichen als eine staatliche Veranstaltung dar. Dazu waren Finanzmittel in vorher unbekanntem Ausmaß erforderlich. Anders als von der Bundesregierung 1990 erwartet, ließen sich diese Mittel nicht durch steuerliche Mehreinnahmen infolge eines schnellen ostdeutschen Wirtschaftswunders und hoher Privatisierungserlöse durch die Treuhandanstalt aufbringen. Insofern erwies sich die Finanzkonzeption der Bundesregierung schon bald als (schöne) Illusion. Notwendig wäre also die Erarbeitung eines neuen Finanzierungsmix gewesen. Dazu kam es jedoch über weite Strecken nicht. Wie ist dies zu erklären? Angesichts der notwendigen Finanzvolumina, die zu beschaffen waren, mußte eine auch am Wiederwahlziel orientierte Regierung versuchen, die dadurch für die Wähler entstehenden Belastungen so zu organisieren, daß diese ihr die Schuld für die Belastungen nicht wahlentscheidend anlasten. Ein erfolgversprechender Ansatz hierfür hätte in der Einbeziehung der Opposition bestanden, wofür auch die politische Konstellation angesichts der Mehrheitsverhältnisse im Bundesrat nicht ungünstig war. Eine solche Strategie der 'blame avoidance' scheiterte aber daran, daß die Finanzierung der deutschen Einheit seit dem Bundestagswahlkampf 1990, in dem die Regierungskoalition den Eindruck erweckt hatte, es seien keine zusätzlichen Belastungen der Wähler notwendig, im Zentrum des Parteienwettbewerbs stand. Der Bundesrat entwickelte sich daher sogar zu einem zusätzlichen Hindernis für eine finanzpolitische Kurskorrektur. Da aber auch innerhalb der Koalition umstritten war, welcher Weg zur Konsolidierung eingeschlagen werden sollte, und die Wähler massive Kürzungen oder Steuererhöhungen als Bruch eines Wahlversprechens negativ sanktionierten, blieb der Regierung über weite Strecken lediglich der Ausweg in wenig politisierte Finanzierungsinstrumente wie die Erhöhung der Staatsverschuldung, Transfers über die Sozialversicherungen, Privatisierungen, oder Haushaltssperren. Diese konzeptionslos wirkende Finanzpolitik führte letztlich zu einem Vertrauensverlust der Regierung und trug so zur Niederlage bei der Bundestagswahl 1998 mit bei.

Suggested Citation

  • Zohlnhöfer, Reimut, 1999. "Der lange Schatten der schönen Illusion: Finanzpolitik nach der deutschen Einheit, 1990 - 1998," Working papers of the ZeS 09/1999, University of Bremen, Centre for Social Policy Research (ZeS).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zeswps:091999
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/41497/1/562723536.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weaver, R. Kent, 1986. "The Politics of Blame Avoidance," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 371-398, October.
    2. Czada, Roland, 1995. "Der Kampf um die Finanzierung der deutschen Einheit," MPIfG Discussion Paper 95/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    3. Renzsch, Wolfgang, 1998. "Die Finanzierung der deutschen Einheit und der finanzpolitische Reformstau," Wirtschaftsdienst – Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik (1949 - 2007), ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 78(6), pages 348-356.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anders Gustafsson, 2019. "Busy doing nothing: why politicians implement inefficient policies," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 282-299, September.
    2. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    3. Sofia Vasilopoulou & Daphne Halikiopoulou & Theofanis Exadaktylos, 2014. "Greece in Crisis: Austerity, Populism and the Politics of Blame," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 388-402, March.
    4. Schimank, Uwe & Stucke, Andreas (ed.), 1994. "Coping with Trouble: How Science Reacts to Political Disturbances of Research Conditions," Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, volume 14, number 14.
    5. Livia Johannesson & Noomi Weinryb, 2021. "How to blame and make a difference: perceived responsibility and policy consequences in two Swedish pro-migrant campaigns," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 41-62, March.
    6. Sten Hansson, 2018. "The discursive micro-politics of blame avoidance: unpacking the language of government blame games," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(4), pages 545-564, December.
    7. Argenton, Cédric & Potters, Jan & Yang, Yadi, 2023. "Receiving credit: On delegation and responsibility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    8. Yoshio Iida & Christiane Schwieren, 2016. "Contributing for Myself, but Free riding for My Group?," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 17(1), pages 36-47, February.
    9. Daniel Beland & Patrik Marier, 2004. "The Politics of Protest Avoidance: Policy Windows, Labor Mobilization, and Pension Reform in France," Social and Economic Dimensions of an Aging Population Research Papers 114, McMaster University.
    10. Céline Bourbousson, 2017. "Institutionalisation of a participatory instrument : An explanatory model drawing on the theory of institutional logics," Post-Print hal-01896800, HAL.
    11. Kang, Minah & Reich, Michael R., 2014. "Between credit claiming and blame avoidance: The changing politics of priority-setting for Korea's National Health Insurance System," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 9-17.
    12. Daugbjerg, Carsten & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2001. "Designing green taxes in a political context: From optimal to feasible environmental regulation," Working Papers 01-17, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    13. Andong, Sandrine & Ongolo, Symphorien, 2020. "From global forest governance to domestic politics: The European forest policy reforms in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    14. Elizabeth B Lozano & Sean M Laurent, 2019. "The effect of admitting fault versus shifting blame on expectations for others to do the same," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-19, March.
    15. Katharina Böhm & Claudia Landwehr & Nils Steiner, 2017. "What Explains Generosity in the Public Financing of High-Tech Drugs? An Empirical Investigation for 25 OECD Countries and 11 Controversial Drugs," Working Papers 1708, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    16. Jan Orbie & Viktor Opsomer & Yentyl Williams & Sarah Delputte & Joren Verschaeve, 2021. "Shielded against risk? European donor co‐ordination in Palestine," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 39(5), pages 703-720, September.
    17. Adolph, Christopher & Greer, Scott L. & Massard da Fonseca, Elize, 2012. "Allocation of authority in European health policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(9), pages 1595-1603.
    18. Svallfors, Stefan, 2015. "Politics as organized combat: New players and new rules of the game in Sweden," MPIfG Discussion Paper 15/2, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    19. Kathrin Hartmann & Georg Wenzelburger, 2021. "Uncertainty, risk and the use of algorithms in policy decisions: a case study on criminal justice in the USA," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 269-287, June.
    20. Carlos Seixas & Diogo Lourenço, 2024. "On the optimality of policy choices in the face of biased beliefs, retrospective voting and the down-up problem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 63(2), pages 299-321, September.

    More about this item

    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:zbw:zeswps:091999. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zesbrde.html .

    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.