Die Projektgruppe Gemeinschaftsdiagnose prognostiziert für das Jahr 2025 einen leichten Zuwachs des Bruttoinlandsprodukts in Deutschland um 0,2 %. Im weiteren Prognosezeitraum stimuliert die expansive Finanzpolitik die Konjunktur. Die Institute prognostizieren für die kommenden beiden Jahre Expansionsraten von 1,3 % und 1,4 %. Strukturelle Probleme wie abnehmende Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und der demografische Wandel bleiben bestehen. Um Wachstumsperspektiven für die deutsche Wirtschaft zu schaffen, bedarf es einer umfangreichen Reformpolitik. Zur Orientierung präsentieren die Institute einen Zwölf-Punkte-Kompass für den Herbst der Reformen.

Die Projektgruppe Gemeinschaftsdiagnose hat ihre Prognose für den Anstieg der Wirtschaftsleistung im laufenden Jahr auf 0,3 % angehoben. Im Herbst 2022 hatte sie noch mit einem Rückgang um 0,4 % gerechnet. Der konjunkturelle Rückschlag im Winterhalbjahr 2022/2023 ist glimpflicher ausgefallen als im Herbst befürchtet, weil die Energiepreise schneller wieder gesunken sind als erwartet. Dennoch wird die Inflationsrate nur langsam zurückgehen, von 6,9 % im vergangenen Jahr auf 6,0 % im Jahr 2023.

We use the World Input–Output Database (WIOD) combined with regional sectoral employment data to estimate the potential regional employment effects of international trade barriers. We study the case of a no-deal Brexit in which imports to the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU) would be subject to tariffs and non-tariff trade costs. First, we derive the decline in UK final goods imports from the EU from industry-specific international trade elasticities, tariffs and non-tariff trade costs. Using input–output analysis, we estimate the potential output and employment effects for 56 industries and 43 countries on the national level. The absolute effects would be largest in big EU countries which have close trade relationships with the UK, such as Germany and France. However, there would also be large countries outside the EU which would be heavily affected via global value chains, such as China, for example. The relative effects (in percent of total employment) would be largest in Ireland followed by Belgium. In a second step, we split up the national effects on the NUTS-2 level for EU member states and additionally on the county (NUTS-3) level for Germany. The share of affected workers varies between 0.03% and 3.4% among European NUTS-2 regions and between 0.15% and 0.4% among German counties. A general result is that indirect effects via global value chains, i.e., trade in intermediate inputs, are more important than direct effects via final demand.

By adopting an identification strategy of difference‐in‐difference estimation combined with propensity score matching between liberalized and closed countries, this paper provides robust evidence that opening the capital account is associated with an increase in income inequality in developing countries. Specifically, capital account liberalization, in the long run, is associated with a reduction in the income share of the poorest half by 2.66–3.79% points and an increase in that of the richest 10% by 5.19–8.76% points. Moreover, directions and categories of capital account liberalization matter. The relationship is more pronounced when liberalizing inward and equity capital flows.