IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/imk/report/163-2020.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Erholung setzt sich nach Dämpfer fort

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastian Dullien

    (Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK))

  • Alexander Herzog-Stein

    (Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK))

  • Peter Hohlfeld

    (Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK))

  • Katja Rietzler

    (Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK))

  • Sabine Stephan

    (Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK))

  • Silke Tober

    (Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK))

  • Sebastian Watzka

    (Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK))

Abstract

Die Weltwirtschaft setzte ihren Erholungskurs nach dem pandemiebedingten Einbruch bis in den Herbst hinein fort. Im Winterhalbjahr wird die Weltkonjunktur infolge gestiegener Infektionszahlen und damit einhergehender Kontakteinschränkungen einen Dämpfer erfahren. Für das Jahr 2021 ist im Jahresverlauf eine deutliche Erholung der Weltwirtschaft zu erwarten. Der Welthandel dürfte nach dem Einbruch in diesem Jahr (-10,9 %) um 9,3 % zunehmen. Die deutsche Wirtschaft befand sich im Jahr 2020 in großen Turbulenzen. Im Jahresdurchschnitt wird das Bruttoinlandsprodukt (BIP) voraussichtlich um 5,0 % sinken Für den Einbruch waren vor allem die Unterbrechung der internationalen Lieferketten und der globale Nachfrageeinbruch verantwortlich; die unmittelbaren Maßnahmen der Kontaktbeschränkung in Deutschland hatten infolge mangelnder Konsummöglichkeiten zudem gravierende Auswirkungen auf den privaten Verbrauch. Die schnelle Reaktion der Wirtschaftspolitik verhinderte einen noch viel stärkeren Rückgang. Für das Abschlussquartal 2020 ist mit einer annähernden Stagnation der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Produktion zu rechnen, da infolge steigender Infektionsraten abermals Kontaktbeschränkungen verfügt wurden. Für 2021 ist im Jahresverlauf mit einer kraftvollen Erholung der deutschen Konjunktur zu rechnen. Die Jahresverlaufsrate beträgt im Jahr 2021 6 % nach -3,9 % in diesem Jahr. Im Jahresdurchschnitt 2021 dürfte das Bruttoinlandsprodukt (BIP) um 4,9 % zunehmen. Die Arbeitslosenquote liegt bei 5,7 % (2020: 5,9 %). Die Inflationsrate beträgt 1,3 % nach 0,5 % in diesem Jahr.

Suggested Citation

  • Sebastian Dullien & Alexander Herzog-Stein & Peter Hohlfeld & Katja Rietzler & Sabine Stephan & Silke Tober & Sebastian Watzka, 2020. "Erholung setzt sich nach Dämpfer fort," IMK Report 163-2020, IMK at the Hans Boeckler Foundation, Macroeconomic Policy Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:imk:report:163-2020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_imk_report_163_2020.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jorra, Markus & Esser, Andreas & Slopek, Ulf D., 2018. "The import content of expenditure components and the size of international spillovers," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 244, pages 21-29, May.
    2. Valerie A. Ramey, 2020. "The Macroeconomic Consequences of Infrastructure Investment," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Analysis and Infrastructure Investment, pages 219-268, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sebastian Dullien & Alexander Herzog-Stein & Katja Rietzler & Silke Tober & Sebastian Watzka, 2021. "Die Erholung nachhaltig gestalten: Wirtschaftspolitische Herausforderungen 2021," IMK Report 164-2021, IMK at the Hans Boeckler Foundation, Macroeconomic Policy Institute.

    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. Sebastian Dullien & Ekaterina Jürgens & Christoph Paetz & Sebastian Watzka, 2021. "Wachstums- und Verschuldungseffekte einer kreditfinanzierten öffentlichen Investitionsoffensive [Growth and Debt Effects of a Credit-Financed Public Investment Offensive]," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 101(9), pages 700-705, September.
    2. Marius Clemens & Marcel Fratzscher & Claus Michelsen, 2021. "Ein Investitionsprogramm zur Krisenbewältigung," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 101(3), pages 168-171, March.
    3. Di Bartolomeo, Giovanni & D'Imperio, Paolo & Felici, Francesco, 2022. "The fiscal response to the Italian COVID-19 crisis: A counterfactual analysis," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    4. Sheila Campbell and Chad Shirley, 2021. "Fiscal Substitution in Spending for Highway Infrastructure: Working Paper 2021-13," Working Papers 57430, Congressional Budget Office.
    5. Gilles Duranton & Geetika Nagpal & Matthew A. Turner, 2020. "Transportation Infrastructure in the US," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Analysis and Infrastructure Investment, pages 165-210, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. António Afonso & Eduardo Rodrigues, 2024. "Is public investment in construction and in R&D, growth enhancing? A PVAR approach," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(24), pages 2875-2899, May.
    7. Mario Alloza & Danilo Leiva-León & Alberto Urtasun, 2022. "The response of private investment to an increase in public investment," Economic Bulletin, Banco de España, issue 2/2022.
    8. Moszoro Marian W., 2024. "The direct employment impact of public investment," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 60(1), pages 59-74, March.
    9. Abiad (ADB), Abdul & Furceri (IMF and University of Palermo), Davide & Topalova (IMF), Petia, 2016. "The macroeconomic effects of public investment: Evidence from advanced economies," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 224-240.
    10. Ligia Alba Melo-Becerra & María Teresa Ramírez-Giraldo, 2023. "Transport infrastructure and technical efficiency in a panel of countries: accounting for endogeneity in a stochastic frontier model," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-18, January.
    11. Caroline Bozou & Jérôme Creel, 2023. "Comparing different features of a fiscal stimulus in the euro area," Working Papers hal-04122087, HAL.
    12. Pfeiffer, Philipp & Roeger, Werner & Vogel, Lukas, 2021. "Optimal fiscal policy with low interest rates for government debt," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    13. Jorge Pablo Puig & Martin Ardanaz & Eduardo Cavallo & Alejandro Izquierdo, 2021. "Output effects of fiscal consolidations: does spending composition matter?," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4507, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    14. Gupta, Arpit & Van Nieuwerburgh, Stijn & Kontokosta, Constantine, 2022. "Take the Q train: Value capture of public infrastructure projects," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    15. Sabaj, Ernil & Sbia, Rashid & Troug, Haytem, 2023. "Does it matter where and how governments spend?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    16. James Malley & Apostolis Philippopoulos & Jim Malley, 2023. "Stimulating Long-Term Growth and Welfare in the U.S," CESifo Working Paper Series 10658, CESifo.
    17. Chunbing Cai & Jordan Roulleau-Pasdeloup, 2023. "Simple Analytics of the Government Investment Multiplier," Papers 2302.11212, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    18. Angela Köppl & Margit Schratzenstaller, 2022. "Macroeconomic Effects of Green Recovery Programmes. Conceptual Framing and a Review of the Empirical Literature," WIFO Working Papers 646, WIFO.
    19. Francisco Louçã & Alexandre Abreu & Gonçalo Pessa Costa, 2021. "Disarray at the headquarters: Economists and Central bankers tested by the subprime and the COVID recessions [Forward guidance without common knowledge]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(2), pages 273-296.
    20. Iana Paliova, 2021. "Bulgaria’s Fiscal Sustainability and Policy Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak," Global Economic Observer, "Nicolae Titulescu" University of Bucharest, Faculty of Economic Sciences;Institute for World Economy of the Romanian Academy, vol. 9(1), pages 31-38, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:imk:report:163-2020. 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: Sabine Nemitz (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/imkhbde.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.