EN | DE

Naja. Ich weiß es auch nicht so genau, aber irgendwie scheinen mir diese Fragen komplizierter zu sein. Vielleicht deshalb, deshalb, und deshalb.

“Die Politik gleicht der Sphinx der Fabel: Sie verschlingt alle, die ihre Rätsel nicht lösen.” — Antoine de Rivarol

Fortschritt ist, wenn wir etwas (1) gemeinsam Beschlossenes, Vernünftiges und Gutes erreichen, (2) dass uns freier und gleicher macht, (3) auch gegen Widerstände. Wir müssen uns also zusammenraufen und der Sphinx sagen, welche Antwort sie für uns alle einloggen soll, damit Fortschritt passieren kann. Seit 225 Jahren machen We the People das mit Abstimmungen und Freiheitsrechten. In unseren pluralistischen Demokratien kämpfen Interessengruppen um die politische Macht im Staat. Bürgerinnen verfolgen diesen Wettkampf in der Zeitung, schließen sich, folgend ihren gegebenen Interessen Gruppen zusammen, wählen die ihnen am nähesten stehende Partei — und das ist dann das gute Ende der Geschichte. Oder?

[1:30ff] “I’m a little angry that I apparently was voting in a completely different election than most of the country. I thought we were having a rational discussion about how best to protect ourselves in perilous times — and actually, it was a referendum on boys kissing.” — Comedian Bill Maher on his HBO special “I’m Swiss”, referring to the 2004 US presidential election.

Im polarisierten Amerika sieht man deutlicher (und mit schärferer Satire), wie sich eine Demokratie “selbst auffrist“. Die immer professionellen, oft käuflichen und manchmal gewissenlosen Kampagnen streiten schon lange nicht mehr um die beste Antwort auf schwierige Fragen, sondern um die am billigsten zu bewerbende. Sex, Guns und Joe, the Plumber ziehen Stimmen, aber keine more perfect union.

Auch auf dem deutschen und europäischen Marktplatz der Ideen sind Dumping-Anbieter unterwegs. Unser Politik-Ramsch kreischt nicht schrill, er lullt uns ein in seiner ganzen, miefigen Mittelmäßigkeit: konzeptionell, rhetorisch, visionär. Wir tauschen keine Argumente aus, denn Basta, es gibt keine Alternative. Wir nennen keine Gründe, denn wir nehmen ja “Augenmaß“, “machen unsere Hausaufgaben” und halten unsere “Hände ruhig“. Was bedeuten diese betäubend-sinnentlehrten Phrasen?

Amerika und uns plagt die gleiche Krankheit, in unserem gemäßigten politischen System schreitet sie nur schleichender voran. Es ist eine schlimme Krankheit, bei der sich der demokratische Prozess loslöst von den tatsächlichen Abstraktionen, die unsere Welt regieren und den machbaren Alternativen, die sich unserem Gemeinwesen bieten. Entscheidungen werden bestenfalls im Hinterzimmer verkuhhandelt, meistenfalls gewinnt der Status Quo und schlimmstenfalls diktieren wenige Interessierte. Wir raufen uns nicht mehr zusammen, wir raufen nur noch zusammen.

Früher war nicht alles besser, aber manches einfacher. Wenn in den 50er Jahren ein Kumpel für mehr Mitbestimmung die SPD und ein Beamtin für bessere Pensionen die CDU wählten, dann lagen sie damit beide grob richtig, folgten ihren gegebenen Interessen.  Wenn 2013 eine Häuslebauerin gegen Eurobonds die CDU und eine Bandarbeiterin für paritätische Sozialabgaben die SPD wählt, dann ist das nicht mehr so klar (vielleicht deshalb und deshalb). (Glücklicherweise) funktioniert unsere Demokratie nicht mehr als Zuschauersport, in dem wir einfach jeder alle vier Jahre das für sich bessere Team wählt. Von den billigen Plätzen ist es einfach verdammt schwer geworden zu sehen, wo das Tor steht. Die weiter hinten sitzen können nur hoffen, dass die Trainer es sehen, die Wahrheit sagen, und das Spiel nicht längst gekauft ist.

Ich will nicht Politikerinnen verunglimpfen oder Wählerinnen verhöhnen. Sie tun, wir alle tun das im gegebenen Rahmen Mögliche. Nicht alle Politikerinnen sind schlecht oder alle Wählerinnen dumm, sondern die Institutionen der pluralistischen Demokratie überkommen. Die Komplexität und Ungerechtigkeit unserer Welt passt nicht in eine SPON-Fotostrecke, nicht in 1:30 Tagesschau. Unser Gemeinwesen braucht keine harte aber faire Arena, sondern die Sendung mit der Maus.

Wie soll das gehen? Nicht auf dem (pluralistischen) Marktplatz der Ideen, sondern in der (deliberativen) Schule der Demokratie. Wir müssen uns, alle und in Stichproben, zusammen setzen. Wir müssen lange, vertrauensvoll, und wohlwollend miteinander reden, den anderen verstehen. Wir müssen viel zusammen lernen, andere fragen. Wir müssen allgemeingültige Gründe austauschen, nicht eigene Präferenzen. Wir müssen um Gerechtigkeit streiten, ohne dabei an uns selber zu denken.

Das geht (und geht, und geht, und geht, und geht, und geht vielleicht). Es ist unsere letzte, beste Hoffnung.

Alarmismus und Utopismus? Pff, Professor Pangloss. Wir vertun wohlmöglich Chancen. Was wäre das für schändlicher Verrat: Sorry, eine andere Welt ist nicht möglich, mit Bild, BamS und Glotze?

Fortschritt ist: Trotzdem.

Filed under: BIGSSS, Research Tagged: Deliberation, Democracy, Germany, Mass Communication Science, United States ]]> http://maxheld.de/2012/02/05/twilight-democracy/feed/ 0 53.084756 8.820828 53.084756 8.820828 Deliberative Democracy Now! Max Mehr Netto vom Brutto Campaign Posters Federal Election 2009 Keep your dirty government hands off my medicare Washington, 2010: The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, original by afagen Things Could Be better http://maxheld.de/2010/06/29/eurolektionen-ergebnisse/ http://maxheld.de/2010/06/29/eurolektionen-ergebnisse/#comments Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:59:44 +0000 Max Held http://maxheld.de/?p=1367 Continue reading →]]>

“Die Schule der Nation ist die Schule.”
(Willy Brandt, 1913-1922)

Eurolektionen fragt: Sind die Schulen Europas eine gute Schule für den in Vielfalt geeinten Kontinent?

Wir berichten aus Rumänien, Schweden und Berlin, von Lehrerinnen und Schülerinnen. Wir erzählen von einem sauberen Europa und einem friedliebenden Europa, von einem Europa der Identitäten und einem Europa ohne Visa, von einem Europa des Erinnerns und einem Europa ohne Eltern und einem in den Binnenmarkt verliebten Kontinent.

Wir fragen uns und wir fragen Sie: Lernen wir gut und lernen wir fair, nicht für die Schule, sondern für Europa?

Antworten auf diese Fragen finden Sie hier auf http://eurolektionen.de und im gleichnamigen Beitrag im 6. Sammelband des Studienkollegs zu Berlin Projekt Junges Europa, das heute im Wehrhahn-Verlag erscheint. Es ist ab sofort bei Wehrhahn und über Amazon zu beziehen.

Mehr über den Inhalt und die folgenden Posts hier.

Eurolektionen – Europa in der Schule

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1. Do we need some education?
2. Europa in der Schule
3. Europa ist: …
   1. schön!, freundlich und sehr sauber!
   2. Ein Europa ohne Eltern
   3. Materialismus: Money makes the world go around …
   4. Bildung lohnt sich nicht
   5. Erinnerung und Geschichte: Erzählen und Verstehen
   6. Das beste Argument gegen Demokratie: Ein Fünf-Minuten-Gespräch mit einer Schülerin?
4. Europa sollte sein: …
   1. Engagement: “Stell’ Dir vor es geht, und keiner kriegt’s hin”
   2. Solidarität: Einer für alle und alle für einen
   3. Identität: Wer bin ich – und wenn ja wie viele?
   4. Informierte Teilhabe, sonst frisst die EU ihre eigenen Kinder
5. Reflexion
   1. Methode: Nur dem Fortschritt und der menschlichen Kultur?!
   2. Adorno: “Das Ganze ist das Unwahre”?!
6. Unsere Vision: So träumt Eurolektionen
7. Epilog

They are not. If we balance the burden of economic transformation on labor and capital, and strengthen progression, we can have it both: near full employment and open borders.

The sentiment is right, but the policy is flawed.

No, the answer is not a minimum wage. No, it’s not protectionism. No, it won’t hurt growth. But yes, it will require fundamental reform, hard work and international cooperation.

Structural unemployment and working poverty require honest, if politically incorrect explanations. The questions they pose are not trivial: economic theory holds that perfectly competitive markets clear. At equilibrium prices, every worker should find employment. And yet, they do not, and if they do, frequently under dire conditions and low pay. What happened?

Return of Manchester-capitalism

At least three mechanisms are at play. The first is exploitation.

If workers are not organized and able to credibly threaten strike, their collective bargaining power breaks down. Employers, often larger and better organized, can exploit the collective action problem of labor and pay lower wages than they otherwise would be ready to accept. This is the dynamic that plagued early, Manchester-style capitalism: individual workers, faced with the alternative of being replaced by someone else, will accept almost any wage, irrespective of their productivities. We may witness a sad resurgence of this dynamic in some sectors of the service economy (think security, cleaning, labor leasing). This is an outrage, to be sure. We need to ensure fair, collective bargaining as much we can and otherwise threaten with direct intervention (sectoral minimum wages). And yet, while exploitation is an easy sell politically, it is only a part of the story. The following argument concentrates on that other part.

Blame trade? (no)

The second culprit is trade and capital mobility.

As borders become permeable, the global economy specialises, each according to national comparative advantage. In developed economies, this means that labor-intensive production of tradable goods is frequently outsourced or off-shored (FDI) abroad, where workers are in ample supply and willing to work for lower pay. Deindustrialisation sets workers free in the rich world, or may force them to accept lower real incomes. Again, a culprit that looks good on campaign posters. And yet, we have known since David Ricardo (1772 – 1823) that, at least in principle, trade increases overall welfare, and we have seen it work in practice. Ricardo, of course, assumed complete factor mobility, thereby ruling out structural unemployment. Our understanding of international economic transformation has grown since his time, and revealed more complex dynamics and empirical findings, featuring agglomeration effects, proximity to target markets, dependency theory, and costs of moving, to name just a few. But still, whatever happens in our labor markets occurs under the constraint of someone else, somewhere else being able to get it done for less.

Rage against the machine? (please, no)

The third cause is economic and technological modernisation. Fewer, but more productive workers replace many, less educated workers. This invisible hand of specialisation takes many forms. Sometimes, a machine is invented that renders human beings redundant in production (think microchip, not paper). Sometimes, organisations grow, integrate and evolve to do more with less people (think lean management, not Fordism). Sometimes, better educated workers find new, more efficient ways to do things (think engineering, not trial-and-error). Since early-industrial rage against the machine, specialisation has receded into the background of political conflict. It may be inopportune to say out loud, but it is nonetheless true: the latter two dynamics of trade and domestic specialisation are unambiguously positive for our economies as a whole. These painful throes of transition are the very carrots and sticks that make us prosper. Specialisation is, indeed, the key to the “Wealth of our Nations” (cf. Smith 1776).

We do need some education …

Structural unemployment and working poverty emerge from the dysfunctional interaction of economic transition and an inaptly intervening welfare state. Where precariously low wages are not a product of bargaining power asymmetries, they suggest that some people just do not produce enough value to partake in the riches of our economies. Similarly, structural unemployment arises when some workers are not productive enough to warrant pay at whatever we collectively deem a socially acceptable minimum income. Whether this minimum is implemented as a statutory minimum wage or as welfare transfers makes little difference. Whoever is below either of the two will not find a job.

“It’s a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it’s a depression when you lose yours.”
(Harry Truman, 1884-1972)

The only genuine cure for the twin societal illnesses of structural unemployment and working poverty is education, and increasing social mobility. The first political imperative must be to ensure that at least the children of those struck in precarious conditions today will once be able to earn their living without the transfer payments, hardship and stigma of their parents. This will require colossal public resources, but also, fresh ideas.

… but also: redistribution

The hardships of structural unemployment and working poverty are good reasons to redistribute the carrots more than a little, to strengthen tax progression, both for normative and instrumental reasons. Where do we stand today?

A bad, bad fiscal configuration: taxing to pieces

Over the past decades, in many industrial countries, we have seen a shift towards regressive schedules on immobile tax bases. Taxes on capital (capital gains and associated corporate income taxes) have decreased, and the progression of the income tax has been reduced – mostly for fear of capital flight abroad. Taxes on labor (payroll) and, most dramatically, consumption taxes (VAT), have increased – because these tax bases cannot easily emigrate.

This fiscal configuration may not only be regarded as unjust, it also exacerbates structural unemployment and working poverty. Payroll taxes and social insurance contributions further widen the gap between actual labor productivity and gross wages. Even fewer people will find gainful, let alone adequate employment. VAT hikes increase the effective socially acceptable minimum income by raising the costs of living. VAT is also, in truth, a regressive tax because poorer people spend more (all) of their income generating ability on consumption that richer people do, who can generate untaxed interest with their surpluses.

Progressive transfer is the answer

The solution to structural unemployment and working poverty lies in boosting progressive components of taxation. The least productive person must be taxed so little that she will still find gainful employment at adequate pay. For many, this may necessitate a negative tax rate (read transfers), as the prominently suggested (Friedman 1961) but never implemented negative income tax. Under the NIT, workers would receive progressive transfer payments for hourly market wages below the socially acceptable minimum. However, in contrast to current income supplements, real market wage increases are not entirely eaten up by transfer cuts: at any given level of income, earning more on the market will leave you with more net in the bank. For example, under a minimum acceptable hourly income of EUR 7.50 (current minimum wage proposal in Germany), moving from a EUR 2.00 market price to a EUR 4.00 market price job could increase your post-tax income from EUR 7.50 (transfer EUR 5.50) to EUR 8.50 (transfer EUR 4.50), always maintaining your incentives to earn more on the market. This may also help to counteract rent-seeking exploitation by low-paying firms.
The NIT is one promising proposal to shift the burden of economic transformation away from the unemployed and working poor who now bear its brunt. It will get us closer to welfare-maximising full employment. Yet, it will be very costly, and, to the extent that it alleviates the material hardship of the working poor, it will include a zero-sum redistributive component.

Deciding who should bear more of the burden and designing how to pay for it will not be easy. Just taxing capital and investment across the board would depress growth and redistribute from the future to today. If anything, progressive taxation of assets (read expropriation, estate tax) and consumption (think conspicuous consumption) appear to be promising candidates to maintain incentives and still raise enough revenue to redistribute. Either way, more progressive taxation will require strong international cooperation to avoid capital flight. Also, whenever resources are channeled from investment to people who are ill-equipped to be sufficiently productive that very redistribution of consumption may alleviate the very pressures we all need to adapt.

Live to work, not work to live (some Marx, at last)

For the goal must ultimately be to enable all people to participate gainfully in the mainstream of social and economic life,  to enable them to earn their living. As Marx wrote, man lives to work, meaningfully and adequately paid, one might add. No one should work to live, certainly not under some decommodifying transfer scheme that grants sustenance, but not gratification.

And yet, for the time being, transfer is the answer. The plight of structural unemployment and hardship of working poverty are not inevitable, for no one. Balancing the burden of economic transformation with progressive taxation is of our own, collective choosing. If we do it right today, and never cease to improve education and social mobility for tomorrow, we can have it all: to prosperity and opportunity.

This piece first appeared in the print issue 8 of Schlossplatz3, Hertie‘s own student magazine. Find more articles on the future of labor here.

I’m critical about the efficiency, equity and legitimacy of civil society, and I think foundations are a case in point. This tax-exempt, free-roaming and supposedly benevolent capital is subjected to only minimal public accountability and may sometimes reflect a troublingly elitist vision of the common good.

Bertelsmann Stiftung / AG Berlin, via Flickr, originally uploaded by Gertrud K.

Kommandantenhaus, Unter den Linden 1, 10117 Berlin: charity?

Foundations exist for many purposes, in many forms and in many (though not all!) legislations. I concentrate here on the charitable foundation, established by private sponsors.

Eternal tax privilege, minimal public accountability

The concept of a charitable foundation is quite extraordinary: it’s a capital stock, exempt from taxes, eternally devoted to a specified charitable cause, ideally discharging only the interest gained. Everyone can establish such a foundation, and many do. State authorities then check the charitable cause according to some set of (rather broad) criteria, and your foundation is good to go. Foundations are then regularly audited by supervising bodies.

Is that enough in terms of accountability? I think not. The test for a charitable cause, similar to that for a tax-exempt association, is necessarily and by definition a minimal criterion: a foundation is either charitable, nor not. And how exactly that earmarked capital could best serve the common good is not subject of the test. It’s simply a test of whether it will serve some charitable cause, in Germany broadly defined to include things like local history, education and tradition. The democratic deficit of foundations becomes more dire in the long run: no one, neither within, let alone outside the foundation has the right to change the cause to which it was originally committed. Whether it’s the foundation to honor the memory of Konrad Zuse (yes, according to Brömmling 2005: 49, that does exist) or the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, their goals are carved into stone, irrespective of what the polity wants.

And the polity should have a say, because it exempts both the turnover, and income of as well as donations to foundations from taxation. If you add the interest and compound on the Hertie Foundation‘s EUR 799 million endowment, that’s a lot of tax money foregone.

Hertie fellow’s annual meeting 2009.
Who agreed to co-fund this class trip with public money? (I benefited greatly, see below)

Ambiguity: civic virtue/elitist nepotism

Foundations have been described as both the epitome of civic virtue and as harbor of elitist nepotism. The Bertelsmann Foundation study suggests that above all, people want to give back, they want to feel effectual and they want to meet with people. Francie Ostrower (1997), on the other hand, has shown that philanthropy can serve to represent high status and elite membership. The Bertelsmann Foundation itself adds to suspicions about conflicts of interest by holding large amounts of shares in the Bertelsmann AG.

Hertie fellow’s annual meeting 2009.
Dining with the former President, Roman Herzog. Status games or genuine exchange? (I enjoyed myself, see below)

This is an irresolvable ambiguity: where does civic virtue end, and where does elitist nepotism begin?

I have recently had a chance to experience this ambiguity at an event with the Friends of the Hertie Foundation. I know next to nothing about their work, but their dinner party, set in a good Frankfurt restaurant, gave me a sense of this blurry line between virtue and nepotism. Some of the guests seemed genuinely excited about the Foundation’s projects, were eager to learn more, get involved and bring their own ideas. For others, the whole thing seemed more like a good occasion to meet friends or do business in a protected environment with what must be a fairly sizeable entrance fee.

This ambiguity is a good price to pay for a liberal society with constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association. Yet, foundations, with their affinity to big money, “closed shop” internal governance (boards of trustees recruit themselves), limited openness and public accountablity, all the same with full tax privileges, are probably not the best institutional set-up to face that ambiguity.

Taxation and e.V. should do

Foundations aren’t an ideal instrument to harness private wealth, as Prof. Meffert, ex-CEO of the Bertelsmann Foundation said in his foreword to the Foundation’s own study. Taxes are. If for no other reason, because private wealth is never truly our own business to begin with.

Still, it’s a little hard to argue against foundations when you speak to committed donors, who want to give back to their communities and know their causes. Also, this is not to say that foundations in Germany or elsewhere may not be doing excellent work. They may, or they may not. Some of them may, some of them may not.

My point is this: eternal tax exemptions with minimal public accountability make for a lousy governance mechanism to maximize the common good. There is one organization already which decides on and provides public goods: the democratic state, ideally involving everyone, taxing everyone. There are also organizations already that harness that civic virtue, local knowledge and commitment: charitable associations. They are more open, and they go with the times, as their membership changes. Let’s stick to these two.

Or, at least, let’s strengthen strengthen public (parliamentary?) oversight over foundations. The Hertie School of Governance, itself a foundation project, may be a good place to think about how foundation governance and accountability could be improved.

Full disclosure: this author has been a fellow of the Berlin Studies Centre and has received a partial tuition waiver from the Hertie School of Governance, both of which are co-funded projects of the Hertie Foundation, one of the leading foundations in Germany.

via Flickr, originally uploaded by Mindful One

Don’t tax me, I’ll donate?!

Sloterdijk’s hyperliberal argument may be spearheading the kind of uncritical naturalizing of private property that also underlies much of the praise of foundations. Sloterdijk has it wrong when he believes that he doesn’t owe the polity much to be taxed.

No man is an island.
John Donne (1572 – 1631)

We do in fact, owe the polity a lot, and certainly all of our private property. This is not to say that property is theft, as the latrine Marxists like to sloganeer. This is to say: private property is never pre-social, is never independently our own doing. To begin with, private property is real only in so far as we mandate and equip a state to uphold it, just like all the other public goods, on which all individual prosperity relies (think: streets, social peace). Also, we have plenty ofempirical and normative reasons to believe that market outcomes are at best an imperfect indicator of achievement. Lastly, we know that social inequality can be self-reinforcing and we know that wealth has diminishing, if not conspicuous returns.

None of this is to say that rich people are bad people, an easy political sell that too many populists go for (this, Sloterdijk is right about). This is to say: rich people are rich because they earned a lot of the carrots we apparently need to keep things going. They deserve to eat and enjoy some of these carrots (consumption), because, ideally, they have created great value for everyone around them. Also, it’s probably a good idea to entrust these people with capital, because they ideally know how to make good use of it (investment).

Rich people aren’t rich because they created the carrots or capital out of mid-air. The polity handed out these consumption checks, and the polity has every right to bounce some of them, if that is considered fair.

Voluntary donations instead of progressive taxation and eternally tax-exempt foundation endowments restrict the polity’s right to do this rebalancing and reallocating. They shouldn’t. Private property isn’t theft, but neither is taxation.