Menu Expand
  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch
  4. Vol. 141, Issue 1–2
  5. pp. 25–45

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Hüther, M., Niehues, J. Inequality and Unemployment in Germany: Perception and Reality. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, 141(1–2), 25-45. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.141.1-2.25
Hüther, Michael and Niehues, Judith "Inequality and Unemployment in Germany: Perception and Reality" Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch 141.1–2, 2021, 25-45. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.141.1-2.25
Hüther, Michael/Niehues, Judith (2021): Inequality and Unemployment in Germany: Perception and Reality, in: Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, vol. 141, iss. 1–2, 25-45, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.141.1-2.25
Format
Download

Inequality and Unemployment in Germany: Perception and Reality

Hüther, Michael | Niehues, Judith

Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. 141 (2021), Iss. 1–2 : pp. 25–45

Read Now Download (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.141.1-2.25
Language
English
Pages
21
Keywords

Author Details

Michael Hüther, German Economic Institute (IW), Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 21, Cologne 50668, Germany.

Judith Niehues, German Economic Institute (IW), Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 21, Cologne 50668, Germany.

References

  1. Abel, W. (1974) 1986. Massenarmut und Hungerkrisen im vorindustriellen Europa. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.  Google Scholar
  2. Adriaans, J., S. Bohmann, S. Liebig, M. Priem, and D. Richter. 2020. “Einstellungen zu Armut, Reichtum und Verteilung in sozialen Lagen in Deutschland, ARB-Survey 2019.” Accessed September 23, 2021. https://www.armuts-und-reichtumsbericht.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Service/Studien/6-studie-diw-econ.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4.  Google Scholar
  3. Adriaans, J., P. Eisnecker, and S. Liebig. 2019. “Gerechtigkeit im europäischen Vergleich: Verteilung nach Bedarf und Leistung in Deutschland besonders befürwortet.” DIW-Wochenbericht 86 (45): 817 – 25.  Google Scholar
  4. Albers, T. N. H., C. Bartels, and M. Schularick. 2020. The Distribution of Wealth in Germany, 1895 – 2018. ECONtribute Policy Brief No. 001. University of Bonn and University of Cologne.  Google Scholar
  5. Altmann, S., A. Falk, U. J. Heuser, and J. Radbruch. 2018. “Wer zahlen soll.” Die Zeit, February 22. https://www.zeit.de/2018/09/einkommensteuer-vermoegen-verteilung-gerechtigkeit-deutschland-studie.  Google Scholar
  6. Calderón, M., J. Niehues, and M. Stockhausen. 2020. “Wie verteilt sich der Wohlstand in Deutschland? Eine kombinierte Betrachtung von Einkommen und Vermögen.” IW-Trends 47 (3): 39 – 59.  Google Scholar
  7. Deutsche Bundesbank. 2019. “Vermögen und Finanzen privater Haushalte in Deutschland: Ergebnisse der Vermögensbefragung 2017.” Monatsbericht April 2019. Deutsche Bundesbank.  Google Scholar
  8. Diermeier, M., H. Goecke, J. Niehues, and T. Tobias. 2017. Impact of Inequality-Related Media Coverage on the Concerns of German Citizens. DICE Discussion Paper no. 258. Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).  Google Scholar
  9. Diermeier, M. and J. Niehues. 2019. “Einschätzungen zur Arbeitslosigkeit.” IW-Trends 46 (2): 23 – 42.  Google Scholar
  10. Engelhardt, C. and A. Wagener. 2018. “What do Germans Think and Know about Income Inequality? A Survey Experiment.” Socio-Economic Review 16 (4): 743 – 67.  Google Scholar
  11. Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. 2020. “Lebenslagen in Deutschland. Der Sechste Armuts- und Reichtumsbericht der Bundesregierung.” Accessed September 28, 2021. https://www.armuts-und-reichtumsbericht.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Service/Studien/1-studie-iaw-ifo-tuebingen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4.  Google Scholar
  12. Fuest, W. and J. Pimpertz. 2006. “Sozialschutz in Deutschland – empirische Bestandsaufnahme und methodische Probleme.” IW-Trends 33 (4): 3 – 16.  Google Scholar
  13. Gimpelson, V. and D. Treisman. 2017. “Misperceiving Inequality.” Economics & Politics 30 (1): 27 – 54.  Google Scholar
  14. Grömling, M. 2017. “Entwicklung der makroökonomischen Einkommensverteilung in Deutschland.” IW-Trends 44 (1): 77 – 98.  Google Scholar
  15. Heinrich, R., S. Jochem, and N. A. Siegel. 2016. Die Zukunft des Wohlfahrtsstaates – Einstellungen zur Reformpolitik in Deutschland. Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.  Google Scholar
  16. Hüther, M. and M. Diermeier. 2019. “Perception and Reality – Economic Inequality as a Driver of Populism?” Analyse & Kritik 41 (2): 337 – 57.  Google Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47 (2): 263 – 91.  Google Scholar
  18. Kleimann, R., J. Späth, N. Laub, M. Biewen, M. Sturm, A. Peichl, V. Endl-Geyer, M. Fabel, P. Hufe, L. Immel, F. Neumaier, H. Rainer, M. Stöckli, D. Weishaar. 2020. Analyse der Einkommens- und Vermögensverteilung in Deutschland. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.  Google Scholar
  19. Klinger, S. and T. Rothe. 2010. “Entwicklung der Langzeitarbeitslosigkeit in Aufschwung und Krise.” Wirtschaftsdienst 90 (9): 632 – 4.  Google Scholar
  20. Köcher, R. 2016. “Generation Mitte 2016.” Accessed September 23, 2021. https://www.gdv.de/resource/blob/10000/ec665198fb10cb9c3def4882e396e953/generation-mitte-2016-717498848-data.pdf.  Google Scholar
  21. Niehues, J. 2018. “Einkommen in Europa – Arm und Reich ist auch eine Frage des Maßstabs.” IW-Kurzbericht 47 (8).  Google Scholar
  22. Niehues, J. 2014. “Subjektive Ungleichheitswahrnehmung und Umverteilungspräferenzen. Ein internationaler Vergleich.” IW-Trends 41 (2): 75 – 91.  Google Scholar
  23. Niehues, J. and M. Stockhausen. 2020. “Ungleichheit(en), ein bekanntes Phänomen?” Ifo-Schnelldienst 73 (2): 3 – 26.  Google Scholar
  24. OECD. 2020a. “PISA 2018 – Where All Students Can Succeed.” Accessed September 28, 2021. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/b5fd1b8f-en.pdf?expires=1604674077&id=id&accname=ocid41014028&checksum=147BA83A09338E936ED6C0578AB1C0CB.  Google Scholar
  25. OECD. 2020b. “PISA 2018 – Effective Policies, Successful Schools.” Accessed September 28, 2021. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/ca768d40-en.pdf?expires=1604690375&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=C0AD9C77501DA900F020BE2BA267B4AC.  Google Scholar
  26. Piketty, T. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  27. Pimpertz, J. 2015. “Sozialpolitik in Deutschland.” Accessed September 28, 2021. https://www.iwd.de/artikel/sozialpolitik-in-deutschland-242972/.  Google Scholar
  28. Plumpe, W. 2010. Wirtschaftskrisen: Geschichte und Gegenwart. Munich: C.H. Beck.  Google Scholar
  29. Press and Information Office of the Federal Government. 2017. Einstellungen zum Sozialstaat und zur sozialen Ungleichheit, GESIS Datenarchiv, ZA6636 Datenfile Version 1.0.0, Cologne.  Google Scholar
  30. Simmel, G. (1897) 1983. “Rosen. Eine soziale Hypothese.” In Georg Simmel: Schriften zur Soziologie, edited by H.-J. Dahme and O. Rammstedt, 169 – 72. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.  Google Scholar
  31. Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). 2020. Volkswirtschaftliche Gesamtrechnungen. Wichtige Zusammenhänge im Überblick 2019. Wiesbaden.  Google Scholar
  32. Stockhausen, M. and M. Calderón. 2020. “Stabile Verhältnisse trotz gewachsener gesellschaftlicher Herausforderungen.” IW-Verteilungsreport 8/2020.  Google Scholar
  33. Westermeier, C. and M. M. Grabka. 2015. “Große statistische Unsicherheit beim Anteil der Top-Vermögenden in Deutschland.” DIW-Wochenbericht 82 (7): 123 – 33.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Data for the time before the corona pandemic reveal a largely positive picture of the economic and social development in Germany. Most individuals perceived their own situation as very positive, but their views on society are rather pessimistic and overly critical. Contrasting abstract redistributive preferences with prevailing norms of justice reveals further inconsistencies. Thus, it is increasingly unlikely that policymakers can adequately address the concerns and wishes of the population. The pronounced discrepancy between empirical findings on distributional aspects and citizens’ perceptions constitutes a veritable problem for democratic processes. That is because this discrepancy is the basis for mistrust between citizens (principals) and politics (agents). Therefore, it becomes increasingly important that politicians explain the logic of their actions in an understandable way. An important prerequisite for more communicable politics is a comprehensive infrastructure for research data that enables politicians, the media, and the public to make valid assessments.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Michael Hüther / Judith Niehues: Inequality and Unemployment in Germany: Perception and Reality 25
Abstract 25
1. Social Justice in the Modern World: Key Word and Political Power 25
2. Changes in Unemployment and Key Distributional Indicators 29
3. Perceptions of Inequality, Unemployment, and the Personal Situation 33
4. Subjective Views on Inequality, Redistributive Preferences, and Norms of Social Justice 25
5. What Drives Perceptions and What Is the Political Conclusion? 25
References 25

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.