Together with colleagues, the economist Rüdiger Bachmann proposed a gas embargo against Russia in March. The concept (pdf) also included measures to deal with the gas shortage resulting from the import ban. The federal government rejected a gas embargo at the time - now it is preparing for Russia to further throttle or stop gas supplies. "You should have started by March at the latest," says Bachmann in an interview with ntv.de. "That didn't happen objectively."
Bachmann does not believe in an artificial cap on gas prices. "If consumers are relieved, this must happen independently of the rising energy costs - that is basic economic knowledge."
ntv.de: Federal Minister of Economics Habeck recently recalled the debate about a gas embargo on Deutschlandfunk and explained that he had already said at the time that he did not believe the economic calculations. "There were a number of well-known economists who said: Oh, a bit less growth, that doesn't matter." You were probably meant there. Were you wrong?
Rüdiger Bachmann: Nobody said that there would only be "a little less growth". We have always said that a gas embargo would result in a recession, at most in the magnitude of the corona recession, and that was a massive slump. At the same time, however, we pointed out that this recession could be cushioned with the right economic policy measures - that's how it was in the Corona crisis. However, the Economics Minister was apparently unwilling or unable to take the measures that the grand coalition took in the Corona crisis. That speaks for itself.
However, there still seems to be resentment in the federal government over the embargo debate. Chancellor Scholz recently said on Maybrit Illner that he was "a bit surprised by all those who just a few weeks and months ago called for an immediate ban on gas imports on many talk shows and who "are now complaining that there are consequences could, if it gradually decreases". Are you one of those people who complain when Putin doesn't turn the faucet back on after the maintenance of Nord Stream 1?
I would like to approach the question differently. Habeck has accused the economists who proposed a gas embargo of now remaining silent. I'm surprised at this night. Especially from Habeck, whose great admirer I actually am, because he can explain politics so wonderfully and admit doubts. When it comes to us, Habeck then falls back into a political logic, as if we were the opposition that had to be fought. I honestly don't understand that; I would have preferred a calm communication with him. We economists have always been told that we have to respect the primacy of politics - and that's what we do. The federal government has decided against a gas embargo, including other measures such as import duties on Russian gas. Not even the Greek and Cypriot shipowners were included in the sanctions, they are allowed to continue transporting Russian oil. As scientists, are we supposed to keep running into the same wall? In a democracy, politics decides, and that's a good thing. However, politics must then answer to the voters and to history. There may be no consequences at the ballot box. But I'm sure those decisions won't go down well in the history books. And I think Scholz and Habeck know that too.
The current issue is no longer a gas embargo, but the necessary measures to prepare for a gas shortage. This is a point from our study that was unfortunately completely lost at the time. Maybe that was our fault too. The scientific ego at least made me argue too much about the numbers. We should have said at the time: OK, we cannot agree on the exact quantitative consequences of a gas embargo. But can we at least agree that we are taking quick action to prepare for a gas shortage? Because it was always clear that it could come without an embargo.
The chancellor says that the federal government began "thinking through these questions" as early as December, which is why Germany is "very, very far along with the preparatory measures."
I even believe him that the federal government has been thinking about it for a long time. But then it would have been good if we had already started to save gas in the previous heating period. It should have started in March at the latest. That didn't happen objectively.
Where do you see the biggest omissions?
We have been generating electricity from gas for far too long, we have lost time with thermal insulation, the auction model that is now planned should have happened long ago. Gas money based on the model of climate money or other measures that make the marginal kilowatt hour of gas more expensive for citizens, but then cushion it socially, are urgently needed.
In your opinion, is it correct that Germany has campaigned for the repaired gas turbine to be returned to Russia from Canada?
This is not an economic question. Politically, that seems like another kneel to Putin. Ultimately, it is an undermining of one's own sanctions, even if the path that has now been found may be legally correct. But that is a political decision. Evaluating them is not within my economic competence.
What do you think of the fact that the gas supplier Uniper has applied for state aid?
That is logical. Incidentally, that's what we called for: one of the measures that should have accompanied a gas embargo would have been a government protective shield for the affected industry. Of course, this also applies in preparation for a gas shortage. The only question is how to design this protective screen. Does it contain savings incentives or not? The economist Jens Suedekum has pointed out that this is a very crucial question. If the protective shield enables companies to protect consumers from price increases for a long time, then politicians save themselves trouble, but they also take a high risk: What happens if the appeals don't bear fruit and not enough gas is saved?
In principle, there is nothing wrong with a bailout - this is an unpleasant measure, but sometimes necessary for systemically important companies. However, the financial aid should be subject to conditions. After all, Uniper did not get into this situation through no fault of its own. The company's wrong decisions should not remain without consequences for managers, but also for shareholders and creditors.
Do you think consumers shouldn't be spared from rising prices?
No, on the contrary. That would be the safe path to economic catastrophe. If consumers are relieved, this must happen independently of the rising energy costs - that is basic economic knowledge. Prices must not be subsidized, otherwise there is no incentive to reduce energy consumption. Relief will have to be provided for lower and middle incomes. But how exactly that looks is again a political decision. Various models are conceivable. The Institute for Macroeconomics and Business Cycle Research, for example, has suggested that a basic requirement for gas should be subsidized, but that the market price has to be paid for anything in excess.
What we definitely need is an incentive to save gas and also electricity. If we don't do that, rationing can happen.
A central principle of the federal government in the sanctions was that they must not harm Germany more than Russia. Is that a given?
This sentence is a Wiesel criterion that can be interpreted at will to justify political action. It's scientifically worthless. It is clear that there is currently no recession in Germany, but in Russia there is, and massively so. And even if we had a three or four percent slump, Germany would still be better off than Russia.
Left-wing politician Klaus Ernst says that countries like Qatar are "not model boys of democracy either," and that if you have to choose "from whom the bad guy we get our energy," then he is "for the cheapest way, and that's it Russia". Can you imagine that such a position will again be able to gain a majority in Germany?
Yes, unfortunately. But of course this is an unspeakable position. First, it's not just about doing business with flawless democracies, but about avoiding so-called cluster risks. In other words, it's idiotic to only rely on one of the bad providers. Second, Qatar is not endangering the European security architecture. Klaus Ernst does not understand what is happening here: Russia is laying the ax on the European peace order, the CSCE, with its imperialism it is not only threatening Ukraine, but also very specifically the Western European democracies. Countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia do not have this risk potential.
Hubertus Volmer spoke to Rüdiger Bachmann
