IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/pewipo/v26y2025i1p14-23n1004.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wie groß ist der wirtschaftspolitische Konsens unter Ökonominnen und Ökonomen in Deutschland? Evidenz aus 74.000 Antworten im Ökonomenpanel

Author

Listed:
  • Geißendörfer Lea

    (LMU München und ifo Institut Poschingerstr. 5 81679 München Germany)

  • Gründler Klaus

    (Universität Kassel Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre Nora-Platiel-Str. 4 34109 Kassel Germany)

  • Potrafke Niklas

    (LMU München und ifo Institut Poschingerstr. 5 81679 München Germany)

  • Schlepper Marcel

    (ifo Institut Poschingerstr. 5 81679 München Germany)

Abstract

In ihrem Beitrag zeichnen Lea Geißendörfer, Klaus Gründler, Niklas Potrafke und Marcel Schlepper die großen wirtschaftspolitischen Debatten der vergangenen neun Jahre nach und dokumentieren, wie stark sich Ökonominnen und Ökonomen hinsichtlich der wirtschafts- und finanzpolitischen Gestaltung jeweils einig waren. Sie gelangen zu drei Kernresultaten: Erstens vertreten Ökonominnen und Ökonomen ein breites Meinungsspektrum in vielen wirtschaftspolitischen Debatten. Diese Erkenntnis unterstreicht die Relevanz einer Befragung wie des Ökonomenpanels von ifo Institut und Frankfurter Allgemeiner Zeitung, welches die Pluralität der Perspektiven von Ökonominnen und Ökonomen in die politische Debatte einbringt. Zweitens unterliegt der Konsens zwischen Ökonominnen und Ökonomen erheblichen zeitlichen Schwankungen. Die niedrigsten Werte messen sie in den Jahren 2020 und 2021, als die Covid–19-Pandemie die Wirtschaft vor neue Herausforderungen stellte. Drittens stimmen Ökonominnen und Ökonomen in ihren wirtschaftspolitischen Empfehlungen in hohem Maße mit ihren Kolleginnen und Kollegen derselben Fachbereiche und Standorte überein.

Suggested Citation

  • Geißendörfer Lea & Gründler Klaus & Potrafke Niklas & Schlepper Marcel, 2025. "Wie groß ist der wirtschaftspolitische Konsens unter Ökonominnen und Ökonomen in Deutschland? Evidenz aus 74.000 Antworten im Ökonomenpanel," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 26(1), pages 14-23.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:pewipo:v:26:y:2025:i:1:p:14-23:n:1004
    DOI: 10.1515/pwp-2024-0040
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/pwp-2024-0040
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/pwp-2024-0040?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger Gordon & Gordon B. Dahl, 2013. "Views among Economists: Professional Consensus or Point-Counterpoint?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 629-635, May.
    2. Frey, Bruno S, et al, 1984. "Consensus and Dissension among Economists: An Empirical Inquiry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 986-994, December.
    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. Hendrik P. van Dalen, 2019. "Values of Economists Matter in the Art and Science of Economics," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 472-499, August.
    2. Mohsen Javdani & Ha-Joon Chang, 2023. "Who said or what said? Estimating ideological bias in views among economists," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 47(2), pages 309-339.
    3. Javdani, Moshen & Chang, Ha-Joon, 2019. "Who Said or What Said? Estimating Ideological Bias in Views Among Economists," MPRA Paper 91958, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Timothy C. Haab & John C. Whitehead, 2017. "What do Environmental and Resource Economists Think? Results from a Survey of AERE Members," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 43-58.
    5. Karl Beyer & Stephan Puehringer, 2019. "Divided we stand? Professional consensus and political conflict in academic economics," ICAE Working Papers 94, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.
    6. Marina Riem, 2017. "Essays on the Behavior of Firms and Politicians," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 73, April.
    7. Chambers, Robert, 1997. "Editorial: Responsible well-being -- a personal agenda for development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(11), pages 1743-1754, November.
    8. Colander, David, 2003. "The Aging of an Economist," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 157-176, June.
    9. Sievertsen, Hans Henrik & Smith, Sarah, 2024. "Do Female Experts Face an Authority Gap? Evidence from Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 17029, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Woller, Gary M. & Hart, David Kirkwood, 1995. "Latin American debt, the IMF, and Adam Smith: A proposal for ethical reform," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 1-20.
    11. Matthias Aistleitner & Stephan Puehringer, 2023. "Biased Trade Narratives and Its Influence on Development Studies: A Multi-level Mixed-Method Approach," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(6), pages 1322-1346, December.
    12. Ann Mari May & Mary G. McGarvey & Yana Rodgers & Mark Killingsworth, 2021. "Critiques, Ethics, Prestige and Status: A Survey of Editors in Economics," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 295-318, April.
    13. Daniel B. Klein & Stewart Dompe, 2007. "Reasons for Supporting the Minimum Wage: Asking Signatories of the "Raise the Minimum Wage" Statement," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 4(1), pages 125-167, January.
    14. O’Neill, Donal, 2015. "Divided opinion on the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013: Random or systematic differences?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 175-178.
    15. Dorine Boumans & Klaus Gründler & Niklas Potrafke & Fabian Ruthardt, 2021. "The Global Economic Impact of Politicians: Evidence from an International Survey RCT," CESifo Working Paper Series 8833, CESifo.
    16. Ho Fai Chan & Bruno S. Frey & Jana Gallus & Markus Schaffner & Benno Torgler & Stephen Whyte, 2016. "External Influence as an Indicator of Scholarly Importance," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 62(1), pages 170-195.
    17. Ruske, René & Suttner, Johannes, 2012. "Wie (un-)fair sind Ökonomen? Neue empirische Evidenz zur Marktbewertung und Rationalität," CIW Discussion Papers 03/2012, University of Münster, Center for Interdisciplinary Economics (CIW).
    18. Ruske René & Suttner Johannes, 2012. "Wie (un-)fair sind Ökonomen? – Neue empirische Evidenz zur Marktbewertung und Rationalität / How (un-)fair are economists? New empirical evidence on market valuation and rationality," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 63(1), pages 179-194, January.
    19. Reinhard Schumacher, 2013. "Deconstructing the Theory of Comparative Advantage," World Economic Review, World Economics Association, vol. 2013(2), pages 1-83, February.
    20. Urzúa, Carlos M., 2007. "Consensos y disensos entre los economistas mexicanos," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists

    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:bpj:pewipo:v:26:y:2025:i:1:p:14-23:n:1004. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyterbrill.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.