Die Weltwirtschaft steht im Frühjahr 2025 im Zeichen sich tiefgreifend ändernder geopolitischer und wirtschaftspolitischer Rahmenbedingungen. Vor dem Hintergrund des Politikwechsels in den USA sind insbesondere in Europa, aber nicht nur dort, neue sicherheitspolitische Herausforderungen entstanden. Sie haben zunächst zu einer Lockerung fiskalischer Restriktionen beigetragen, machen aber zumindest längerfristig auch eine Überprüfung finanzpolitischer Prioritäten erforderlich. Zudem hat die US-Regierung begonnen, neue Handelshürden aufzubauen und zusätzliche Unsicherheiten für die wirtschaftlichen Akteure zu schaffen. Dies bremst den globalen Warenhandel und die Produktion sowohl weltweit als auch in den USA selbst, wo erste Anzeichen für eine Abkühlung der Konjunktur sichtbar sind.

We analyze how creditor rights affect the nonsynchronicity of global corporate credit default swap spreads (CDS-NS). CDS-NS is negatively related to the country-level creditor-control rights, especially to the “restrictions on reorganization” component, where creditor-shareholder conflicts are high. The effect is concentrated in firms with high investment intensity, asset growth, information opacity, and risk. Pro-creditor bankruptcy reforms led to a decline in CDS-NS, indicating lower firm-specific idiosyncratic information being priced in credit markets. A strategic-disclosure incentive among debtors avoiding creditor intervention seems more dominant than the disciplining effect, suggesting how strengthening creditor rights affects power rebalancing between creditors and shareholders.

We investigate public preferences for equity-enhancing policies in access to early child care, using a survey experiment with a representative sample of the German population (n ≈ 4, 800). We observe strong misperceptions about migrant-native inequalities in early child care that vary by respondents’ age and right-wing voting preferences. Randomly providing information about the actual extent of inequalities has a nuanced impact on the support for equity-enhancing policy reforms: it increases support for respondents who initially underestimated these inequalities, and tends to decrease support for those who initially overestimated them. This asymmetric effect leads to a more consensual policy view, substantially decreasing the polarization in policy support between under- and overestimators. Our results suggest that correcting misperceptions can align public policy preferences, potentially leading to less polarized debates about how to address inequalities and discrimination.