We study the aggregate, distributional, and welfare effects of fiscal policy responses to Germany’s energy crisis using a novel Ten-Agents New-Keynesian (TENK) model. The energy crisis, compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic, led to sharp increases in energy prices, inflation, and significant consumption disparities across households. Our model, calibrated to Germany’s income and consumption distribution, evaluates key policy interventions, including untargeted and targeted transfers, a value-added tax cut, energy tax reductions, and an energy cost brake. We find that untargeted transfers had the largest short-term aggregate impact, while targeted transfers were most cost-effective in supporting lower-income households. Other instruments, as the prominent energy cost brake, yielded comparably limited welfare gains. These results highlight the importance of targeted fiscal measures in addressing distributional effects and stabilizing consumption during economic crises.

This paper analyzes the distribution and composition of pre-tax national income in Germany since 1992, combining personal income tax returns, household survey data, and national accounts. Inequality rose from the 1990s to the late 2000s due to falling labor incomes among the bottom 50% and rising incomes in the top 10%. This trend reversed after 2007 as labor incomes across the bottom 90% increased. The top 1% income share, dominated by business income, remained relatively stable between 1992 and 2019. A large share of Germany’s top 1% earners are non-corporate business owners in labor-intensive professions. At least half of the business owners in P99-99.9 and a quarter in the top 0.1% operate firms in professional services – a pattern mirroring the United States. From 1992 to 2019, Germany’s top 0.1% income concentration exceeded France’s and matched U.S. levels until the late 2000s.

Choosing a university and field of study is a key life decision that influences one’s lifelong earnings trajectory. Data shows that the share of individuals going to university is unequally distributed, and is lower among disadvantaged students. High-achieving students who are low income are less likely to opt for ambitious education paths, despite the high returns of education. Even among those students who decide to apply for college, the likelihood of whether they will apply to prestigious colleges or renowned study programs differs along the distribution of socioeconomic background. It does not only matter if you study, but also what and where you study, as there is a large variation in long-run outcomes, such as earnings, both between universities as well as between fields of study. Part of this mismatch can be attributed to unequal starting points for children, in terms of both institutional settings and the quality of information available within their close networks.