Professor Malmendier, Olaf Scholz recently dismissed economists, Ifo researcher Andreas Peichl is “no longer interested” in advising on this policy. Why are you becoming a political advisor in Germany now?
I would have asked my clone a few weeks ago. But I’ve had a lot of conversations since then and the current situation in Germany is the reason for doing it.
In what way?
Traditionally, cutting-edge research and policy advice were separate worlds in Germany. In America and other countries it is different. Academic stars don’t hesitate to go to Washington for a few years when the government calls. In the meantime, however, something is also happening in Germany. Andreas Peichl also said that there is a lot of interest in the ministries and that there is good cooperation. I have now felt this in many discussions with ministries and the Chancellery. We’re knocking on open doors. At the moment I see a huge opportunity for us economists to get more involved in political advice, hopefully for the benefit of our country.
That almost sounds like a patriotic mission.
I do not find the phrase “patriotic mission” inappropriate. For US economists, it is simply part of their job to contribute their findings to politics. This is American patriotism at its best. Fortunately, a lot is happening in this country among the younger generation of researchers.
The federal government let the council of experts, which they join, starve to death. Lars Feld’s position was not filled for a long time, and there were only three members at the end. Do you worry that the Council will fade into obscurity?
First of all I can see that there is still a lot of interest in the Council and you are automatically equipped with a speaker even if you haven’t even started work yet. So he’s not that far away from the window. But the fact is that the situation has made many people think about whether the institution is still up to date or whether the Council needs to change. Honestly – I think that’s very good.
What needs to change?
To put it bluntly, I don’t imagine a way of working that involves standing on top of the podium and announcing to the public and politicians what is going wrong or how the gas embargo or the minimum wage should be decided. We’re most useful when we’re “in the room,” that is, when we’re thinking and brainstorming. The politicians make the decisions, but we can help ensure that the decisions are efficient and consider what they will mean for different population groups. The current council members Veronika Grimm, Monika Schnitzer and Achim Truger are already working hard in this direction.
Does the 500-page annual report in autumn still fit this way of working?
If we could also bring this change into the formal, that would be very nice. Instead of writing a fat annual report once a year, the chapters of which may already be irrelevant due to the major crises, it would be better to be able to work promptly when the topics become legislatively topical. So more up-to-date – and closer to what politicians hear.
Her specialty is behavioral economics. They research how people make decisions and which predictions and instruments can be developed from them. What can be derived from this for one of the current biggest problems – inflation?
My work on inflation all starts with the question of what it means for people to have experienced crises: How does that change their view of the world and their expectations? How does it influence financial, professional and private decisions? This is new in economics. Traditionally, only the now and the future were taken into account in inflation models, e.g. gender, level of education and salary developments.
