Randy McDonald ([info]rfmcdpei) wrote,
@ 2004-09-28 21:12:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
[BLOG-LIKE POSTING] The Real East German Problem?
[info]eternityfan has made a couple of fascinating posts (1, 2) on the apparent growth of political extremism in the former East Germany, as länd elections gave the Party of Democratic Socialism (made up of former Communists) 30% of the vote in Brandenburg and the allegedly neo-Nazi National Democratic Party 10% of the vote in Saxony.

Cause for the growth of this political instability in the East has been ascribed to East Germany's lagging economy, which remains consistently behind the more prosperous West, with higher rates of unemployment and poverty and lower levels of income and productivity and purportedly dim prospects. The American publication Business Week argues in the upcoming article "Germany: A Brighter Sun In The East" that by most standards East Germany's economy since reunification has been a success.



In macroeconomic terms, the East has made huge progress since reunification. East Germany, with gross domestic product growth of 54% since 1991, has outperformed Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Estonia, three other former East Bloc countries often praised for their dynamism. East Germany's biggest problem is the building industry, which is still recovering from massive overinvestment in the early 1990s. Strip out construction, and East Germany has outperformed West Germany every year since 1993, including last year when the West barely grew at all while the East managed 1.6%. "We shouldn't just paint a pretty picture, but we shouldn't pretend that nothing has happened in the past 15 years," says Angela Merkel, an Easterner who is leader of Germany's Christian Democrats -- and possibly the next Chancellor.


East Germany's economic achievements since reunification, while mixed, shouldn't be underestimated. This article at Magager Magazin (translated using the ever-convenient Babelfish), for instance, makes the point that following the initial deep post-Communist recession, East Germany's economy entered a major boom in the mid-1990s before growth dropped below West German levels. Further, the bulk of this decline seems to have occurred as a result of the collapse of the construction sector of the East German economy, logically enough once the largest of the massive infrastructural projects initiated after reunification were finished. As this Central Europe Review article suggests, the richest post-Communist economy in Europe, excepting perhaps industrious Slovenia.

Just as importantly, for East Germany the 1990s weren't a decade of relative decline. Marek Dabrowski, Oleksandr Rohozynsky, and Irina Sinitsina's paper "Post-Adaptation Growth Recovery in Poland and Russia – Similarities and Differences" (PDF format) demonstrates just how rare it was for a post-Communist economy to gain relative to the west. Poland experienced the most significant growth in post-Communist Europe, with a GDP in 2003 more than a third larger than in 1989, arguably because it already went through its transitional economic crisis in the 1980s. Estonia--commonly identified as a quick adjuster--is only now regaining 1989 levels of GDP. Poland's particularly rapid growth let it keep pace with the EU-15; the slower growth experienced by Poland's southern and northern neighbours meant that GDP per capita across the region declined as a percentage of EU-15 GDP per capita. Convergence seems to have begun recently, but as this Banque de France report (PDF format) makes clear it will take a long time indeed.

East Germany, uniquely in post-Communist Europe, managed to partly close the gap. Abiola Lapite is correct in saying that reunification on West German terms weakened the East German economy relative to the Polish and the Czech. It's still strong, though.





I've noted previously that since reunification, East Germany has seen massive emigration, with almost one-fifth of the ex-DDR's 1989 population now living in the former West Germany. This is a remarkable change, particularly considering that in the Communist era East Germany absorbed significant numbers of immigrants, and considering that the sheer scale of this emigration has only been approximated elsewhere in post-Communist Europe. The situation in the Baltic States is vaguely comparable, but complicated by the fact that a third of the Estonian and Latvian populations were stateless and alienated from their new nation-states. The scale, in fact, bears the closest similarities to the mass emigration of ethnic Germans since 1987 from across the former Soviet bloc, a demographic phenomenon that has gutted ethnic German communities in countries as far apart as Romania and Kazakhstan in the pursuit of high German living standards.

In 1989 and 1990, Germans on both sides of the Wall seem to have had an unrealistic belief in the shortness of time needed to achieve economic convergence. This was shared by Europeans generally--looking back, it seems like the sheer scale of the collapse of the Soviet economy took almost everyone by surprise. In the east, the failure to completely and rapidly close the gap produced bitterness. That East Germany, unlike Poland and Hungary, was overwhelmed by the sheer force of West Germany's economy and culture was inevitable, as was a backlash, whether expressed by ostalgie or by a rejection of the West German political consensus. In West Germany, in the meantime, the legitimacy of the East German regional identity and history seems to have been underestimated. East Germany certainly wasn't created at the will of its inhabitants, and only in its final year was it a democracy. Still, it existed and it created (or, perhaps, reinforce) a legitimate regional culture, not necessarily distinct in kind from that of Bavaria.

Agnes Stein, writing on Living in Europe, argues that reunification was both as good and as bad as could reasonably been expected, and that both sides are making mistakes.

The underlying presumption is this: Any kind of unification with Western Germany is better than what we had. Mistakes will be made because there is not enough time and also because we are mostly more intelligent in hindsight. But the principal result, to
be rid of a state which treats its people like prisoners, can only be positive. I wonder how many people have the moral clarity to see this, or if the people now ridiculing West German democracy as such were happy in the real existing socialist state of the GDR. There is a lack of thinking and a lack of courage to go forwards in the protests on the streets which must be extremely irritating to the West Germans.

On the other hand there are some of them (West Germans, mainly politicians), who haven't really scored a lot of points on the decency scale. The opportunists who now take their chance to oppose the government without having any good alternatives. Who ride the wave of discontent, even worsening it by warning Schröder of going to the East, it might be dangerous. These kinds of statements form the atmosphere in which attacks take place. I would make those people personally responsible for anything that might happen.




Radical breaks in East Germany's current trajectory--relatively slow convergence with West German standards of living coupled with a Bavaria-like sense of distance from the "center"--aren't very likely, barring unlikely things like an economic miracle in the East at one extreme or the growth of East German separatism on the other. The weight of East Germans within the broader German framework does seem likely to weaken, if only because of the very unfavourable demographic trends established long before reunification.

At the risk of sounding facile, though, reunification won't be achieved in the full sense of the word until the assumptions (of rapid convergence by East Germans, of full assimilation by West Germans) formed by both parts of the German people during die Wende are discarded. It's anyone's guess when or if that will happen.








(Post a new comment)


[info]eternityfan
2004-09-28 08:18 pm UTC (link)
Hmm, wonder how they calculated the growth of 54%. Given they started at the lowest point (most likely) then this growth rate may have to be taken with a gain of salt as East Germany lost 33% of its industry before it actually started growing again. Now while other East Block countries suffered and lost industries as well - the loss in those countries was never as big. Of course, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Hungary still have a lower GDP (also per capita), yet their costs for living might be lower too.
What I am trying to say is: 54% of econ growth sounds impressive, but may not be a good meassurement to look at progress and the health of the East German industry. :)

I also think the yearly economic growth rates are a bit too positive, I remember different ones:
2001 - growth East: -0.51% growth West: 1.09% growth Germany: 0.85%
2002 - growth East: -0.18% growth West: 0.24% growth Germany: 0.18%
2003 - growth East: -0.12% growth West: -0.14% growth Germany: -0.12%
(statistics by the MDR

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]rfmcdpei
2004-09-29 11:03 am UTC (link)
Ouch to those growth statistics.

Other East Block countries went through similar transitions. Estonia, for instance, reduced its agricultural workforce from 20% of the working population down to a target of 5% (possible given how it was an Estonian government making those changes, not a foreign entities) and gutted Soviet-era heavy industry (easy enough to do, particularly since Soviet-era Russian immigrants predominated--hmm, a comparative study of West German gastarbeiter and Soviet labour immigrants in the Baltics?). The general economic trend seems to be strongly away from agriculture, less strongly away from industry as a whole, and towards relatively light industry and particularly services.

The growth record since 1995 in East Germany hasn't been particularly good.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]lifein2x3
2004-09-28 08:28 pm UTC (link)
I wonder if the aforementioned assumptions could be compared to the situation with the South in the US post-Civil War. Before the War, the South was one of the wealthiest parts of the country; albeit rural, it didn't have the negative connotations that it does today, more than 140 years after the war.

Hopefully it won't take as long in Germany, although they were separated far longer than the US and former CS were.

(Forgive me if I'm a bit incoherent, the cold and whatnot.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]eternityfan
2004-09-28 08:47 pm UTC (link)
Interestingly enough (and if I may just comment on your comment) - this is a very good comparision. Because not only do you have two different economies (structurally), but you have two different identities, with a history of being enemies and fighting one another. So the comparison is in many aspects valid.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]angel80
2004-09-29 02:50 am UTC (link)
Christa Wolf suggested in A Model Childhood (which has a different name in the US) that by denying the existence of popular nazism, the DDR had allowed the attitudes to flourish. It is interesting that the neo-nazis did poorly in the industrial areas of western Germany (Rhein-Westphalia), and very well in the eastern ones.

Not that I think fascism is generalized in the east. The former communists have been in power in Poland since 1991 and nobody called it extremism. West German attitudes towards women and child bearing are fairly reactionary and whatever the truth of the GDP growth data, unemployment in the east has been and remains appalling.

(Reply to this)


[info]landsmand
2004-09-29 05:43 am UTC (link)
There's a pretty major philosphical gap between the Ossis and the Westerners, still, to my mind. Attitudes which have pretty well been liberal-consensus'd out of the public domain in the old BRD are still around in public in the East - fairly naked racism and so on - and an equilibrium needs to be found.

There's a social tension between the working and economic cultures East and West as well, which is not being helped by the fact that the West is in a much shittier place than it was in 1989 and, rationallly or not, the folk wisdom is that the economy would be doing much better and everything would be groovy if it wasn't for the trillions of D-Mark poured into the East.

Several times during a very short trip to Berlin the week-after-last, I was told that the Wende was too sudden and that the DDR should have kept a separate existence for at least a few years after the Honecker regime fell - probably not under Krenz, but someone recognisably a DDR citizen.

Interesting how many people remembered Thatcher resisting reunification and remarking that she had been right all along, as well.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]rfmcdpei
2004-09-29 11:00 am UTC (link)
Interesting how many people remembered Thatcher resisting reunification and remarking that she had been right all along, as well.

In the West or East?

The difficulties of building a German nation in the first place seem to have been underestimated. It took three major wars to set up the Second Reich, which then survived (or not) 47 years of Catholic unrest, latent secessionism by peripheral ethnic minorities. And even then, you had Bavarian separatism in 1918.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]landsmand
2004-09-29 01:06 pm UTC (link)
Pretty much a 50/50 split E/W, oddly - for wildly different reasons, naturally. Ossis are very forthcoming with a foreigner who knows a little bit about the DDR and I lived in Germany for enough time in the 80s to have a degree of understanding of the Westerners, so I think the responses had some significance.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2004-09-29 06:27 am UTC (link)
I think that it's worth mentioning that one should take claims about when ex-communist countries regained their 1989 per capita GNP with a salt mine rather than the customary few grains of salt. Communists were notorious for fudging their figures in order to reach their 5-year plan targets, and after two generations of fudging their figures, the numbers put out in '89 were anything but reliable.

It's also important to realize that we're comparing apples and oranges. The Communist system allocated goods and services by what amounts to a system of rationing. The capitalist economic system allocates goods and services by price. That means that a high salary in a communist system doesn't necessarily translate into a high standard of living – it often just meant a high rate of forced savings. Therefore, even to the limited extent that the '89 per capita GNP figures are accurate, they don't actually reflect how people lived.

I fully subscribe to your prediction that convergence will take a long time. I generally expect it to take about a generation (let's say about 2020) for the more-developed ex-Communist countries (Baltic Republics, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia), about two generations (about 2050) for the second tier countries (Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia), and rather longer for the third and fourth tier countries. (I'll avoid dividing those last two tiers yet since I'm unlikely to do so accurately. Let's just say that countries that haven't yet managed to create actual nation-states are likely to be in the fourth tier, while countries that successfully hitch themselves to the EU bandwagon are likely to be in the third tier. In general, that favors the Balkans over the CIS, but I'm certain that it won't end up with such a clear geographic divide.)

Alexander

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]rfmcdpei
2004-09-29 04:51 pm UTC (link)
My prediction isn't particularly unique, nor is it particularly mine. I'd give the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Slovenia the best chances of convergence, given their underlying strengths and advanced levels of economic development. Poland, Croatia, Lithuania, and Latvia I'd place in the second tier. Estonia I'd place somewhere between the two.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2004-09-30 09:13 am UTC (link)
You’re far more optimistic about Slovakia than I am. I’m afraid that I’m still concerned about their politics, which seems far more similar to the political situation in Romania and Croatia, with an electorate split between a sometimes quite ugly nationalism and a reasonably modern democratic grouping than the thoroughly modern politics that one sees in Hungary, for example.

I’d place all of the countries that are in the EU already ahead of all of the countries that aren’t both because of the financial, political and social advantages of membership, but also because they’ve moved much farther ahead on the basic economic reforms necessary to escape the legacies of communism than the remaining candidate countries, Croatia included.

Alexander

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Off topic
[info]talktooloose
2004-09-29 07:39 am UTC (link)
Did you get my e-mail Monday? Please respond in some form. Time may be of the essence if you are interested (and it may not, but still).

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Off topic
[info]rfmcdpei
2004-09-29 10:54 am UTC (link)
Yes, I'm sending my reply tonight.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Off topic
[info]talktooloose
2004-09-29 11:17 am UTC (link)
Okay, cause it turns out that I'm right. Time is of the essence.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…