Written on 12 September 2015.

Français

 Ελληνικό

An appeal: A future for Greece  has been launched  by Gabriel Colletis (France) and Ioannis Margaris (Greece). The appeal is available in several languages and can be supported by co-signing. 

germanpages.de--Deutsche Rundschau is pleased to present this paper together with comments by Rundschau editor Heinrich von Loesch (HvL)  and Professor Gabriel Colletis (GC). He was also among the economists who urged Europe to back the proposed debt crisis principles at the UN whicb were approved by the General Assembly on Sept. 10, 2015. See postscript..

Preamble

   This appeal to the social and political forces of Greece, as opposed to "institutions" that would dictate to Greece and its government what it must do and how, is hereby set in motion by its signatories, with absolute respect for the course that the Greek people and their elect have chosen.
We, the citizens of different European countries, Greeks and non-Greeks alike - a diversity of social and political backgrounds, pursuant to the fact that what unites us is far greater than what divides us, together affirm our readiness to harness our skills and experience to help Greece. We stand ready to contribute to the advancement of tools and methods needed to define and implement the development program that Greece so urgently needs.
 

 A democracy disparaged, an economy ruined

    Today, the people of Greece are being denied the fundamental right of self-determination. The Parliament is being trampled on and the government is being called upon to implement a program in which it does not believe.

According to the Euro Summit Statement of July 12, 2015, "The [Greek] government needs to consult and agree with the Institutions on all draft legislation in relevant areas with adequate time before submitting it for public consultation or to Parliament."
Once again in the nation's history, Greece has been placed under unconditional tutelage by its creditors.
The third memorandum, ratified by the Parliament of this country without any real possibility of examination, imposes a new series of austerity measures (increased VAT, lowered pensions, lowered public spending, etc.), this, at an exorbitant price, just to keep the country in the Eurozone, which is not even assured.

   Within weeks, or at most a few months, an aggravated recession will ensue, leaving the Greek people with no other option than to try to survive by seeking refuge in "grey" or parallel economies to escape ever-increasing tax burdens within a context of income reduction.
It seems that the Greek economy is recovering from the days of the bank closures. After years of contracting consumption it is growing again.
GC: well. It is not exactly what is considered as probable for 2015 and the years after. The Greek economy will remain recessive.
Creditors and institutions, (whose normative power is significantly strengthened at the expense of the Greek Parliament), are free to attack the Greek authorities for not honouring their commitments (primary budget surplus, privatizations) and then to impose new requirements. They will repeatedly and relentlessly pressure the government, whatever its political colour, threatening not to grant the sums foreseen if new austerity measures are not implemented. This worm drive mechanism will crush Greece's social structure and economy, forcing the country's (often highly qualified) youth to accept an exile they do not desire.

   Debt, the principal vector of servitude, can only grow. New loans granted within the framework of a third "aid" package will at best only serve to roll the debt over, plunging Greece into a downward spiral of over-indebtedness through the interplay of interests and decline in GDP.

HvL: Which seems to be growing, as of recently, much to the disdain of the Italians...
GC: unfortunately but logically not.

   In a document dated July 14, the IMF also indicates that the Greek state's debt is expected to reach 200% of its GDP within the next two years!
In short, what is imposed on Greece, with no advantages whatsoever, is a loss of its sovereignty, the return of the Troika and its "men in black" in Athens, deepened austerity and worsened recession.

   An impending danger is that the far-right "Golden Dawn" party could become effectively popular as the only political force offering an alternative proposal for Greek society. This disastrous consequence, should it occur, would be the product of anti-social policies.

HvL: But is Χρυσή Αυγή, "Golden Dawn" really growing?
GC: not really because they are not clever enough to try to appear otherwise than an extreme-right movement.

   Elected on a basis of opposing austerity, anti-democratic and unconstitutional practices, it is unfortunately clear that the current government has passed a third memorandum likening Greece to a colony deprived of any right to self-determination.

The future of Greece must be written in Greek!

   We contend that no international institution, (ECB, European Commission, Eurogroup, IMF), or State, has the right to dictate to the Greek people and its government how to conduct their affairs. Greece's sovereignty, like that of any other nation, is non-negotiable and not subject to conditions.

HvL: Five times since the liberation from the Ottomans, Greece has defaulted for a total of 90 years and came under foreign tutelage. Nothing new...
GC: nothing new…except the context !

   We call to mind the UN Council Resolution on Human Rights of April 23, 1999, according to which, "the exercise of the basic rights of the people of debtor countries to food, housing, clothing, employment, education, health services and a healthy environment cannot be subordinated to the implementation of structural adjustment policies and economic reforms arising from the debt".

Finally halting the decline - assuring economic and social development

   Implementation of the third memorandum steers Greece ever closer to its decline and abdication from its sovereignty.

HvL: To the contrary: only the vigorous reforms urged by the third bailout will halt the decline, restore credibility and, in the end, hopefully sovereignty.
GC: reforms are necessary but, globally, not these ones. What is needed: a good working state (administration, evaluated expenditures and resources and so on…) education, RD, investment in health, housing, entrepreneurship + good social relations…

   Whether Greece remains a member of the Eurozone or not, it is likely that Greece's social structure will be severely tested in the coming months and perhaps years. Rising inequality will produce very visible effects with an increase in extreme poverty, the very rich being largely unaffected, or possibly taking advantage of the crisis by buying up assets sold by the State or households in serious trouble.

HvL: There is an overhang of luxury real estate, yachts and luxury automobiles desperately looking for investors. The main problem for the state divestments urged by the creditors is simply: who wants to invest in Greece? Without reforms, confidence will not return.
GC: I agree. But these reforms cannot be oriented through labor market deregulation and labor cost reduction. That is the wrong way. High added value products and services need qualified and well paid workers. Greek labor force is, in general, high and sometimes highly educated.

   This risk of collapse can and must be averted. Promoting the diversified development of productive capabilities and democracy is the only way to prevent the destructive course of parallel, grey, or mafia-style economies arising from the choices imposed on Greece.
In opposition to this gruesome scenario, we believe that implementation of a program to develop the country's productive potential is essential.
Five principles seem to guide the definition of such a program:

• Recovering the political and economic sovereignty of the country

• Developing democracy in all areas of political, economic and social activity,

• Responding to the fundamental needs of the Greek people through valuing the work and skills of all.

• Protecting nature and natural resources in general,

• Promoting regional development and stimulating local economies.

   Based on these guidelines, the challenge is to develop Greek industry and agriculture comprehensively by leveraging new technologies:  

support for agricultural and agro-food activities (organic farming, "sustainable" agricultural practices, etc.), housing renovation activity (e.g., use of new materials), promoting energy conservation (intelligent networks, insulation, etc.) and renewable energy (e.g., wind, photovoltaic energy), health-related industries (biotechnology, nanotechnology, etc.), the textile and clothing sector (new materials, technical textiles, etc.), transportation equipment (small clean electric or hybrid vehicles, efficient public transportation, etc.), ship construction/repair, (e.g., new propulsion methods).

HvL: This program sounds like an excellent development plan for a highly developed country such as France or Germany. For the Greece of today it would require immense investments ("efficient public transportation", "housing renovation") and basic research (e.g the "small clean electric vehicles" which Paris craves)
GC: I agree.
HvL: There is a basic problem with long term investments in Greece:
The creditors have diluted the servicing conditions for the sovereign debt to the extent that it does not really burden the state.
GC: this is not exact.
HvL: Which means that Greece will be able to service its debt for the next few years. But the debt is still there, and -- starting in 2023 and even more after 2032 -- until the end in 2054, Greece will have to pay double digit billions per year.
GC: This is exact!
HvL: With these massive debt payments looming it will be impossible to attract the long term investments required by the above program.
GC: I agree fully
HvL: Of course, no one expects the creditors to continue insisting on full repayment. Most of the debt will be forgiven, but only in the long term. For the short term the German economist Hans-Werner Sinn warned not to reduce Greece's debt because that would encourage Greek governments to contract new debts. This warning was well understood in the creditor countries' finance ministries.
GC: to “solve” the debt problem, we have made a proposal,  you know. A win-win solution except for those who are ideologically driven.
HvL: In October, the conditions of the Greek sovereign debt will again be discussed and softened in order to satisfy the IMF's regulations and permit it to participate in the third bailout. Again, the debt as such will remain. It will be kept at its nominal value until a new generation of Greek governments proves that fiscal stability has become a centerpiece of Greek politics. It will take years, perhaps a decade, until Greece has shaken off its awful historic record of financial instability.
GC: see above.
HvL: Only after Greece has become a trusted partner of the Euro community, the debt can be reduced and the remainder deleted. In the long run, Greece will be first country to benefit from the Eurozone transfer community which French economy minister Emmanuel Macron demands as part of his reform plan.
GC: the perspective should be co-development and not transfers to reduce growing asymmetries effects.
Hvl: Back in 2011, german.pages.de--Deutsche Rundschau wrote:
"Ein Blick in die USA zeigt, dass reiche Staaten wie Massachusetts und arme wie Louisiana problemlos eine gemeinsame Währung haben können, vorausgesetzt, die Währungs- und Finanzpolitik ist zentralisiert. Dies zu erreichen, ist die Aufgabe der nächsten Jahre. "(Benedikt Brenner: http://die.soziale.spaltung.des.eurolandes.at.german.pages.de/

Only after the sovereign debt problem has been solved, Greece will be able to attract the kind of long term investments the above program requires. In the meantime, only small steps will be possible which do not require private long term investment.

GC: small steps but well oriented: to support development

   A developmental model for Greece cannot rely on a monistic vision based solely on private initiative, or only on public property, or exclusively on a social and solidarity economy. A new developmental model for Greece must be based on a diversity of economic forms, combining private initiative, a renewed public sector and a dynamic third economic sector:
   This model then must be based on complementarity and address three areas:

• The first area concerns actions to be implemented to encourage new forms of entrepreneurship, as well as innovative forms of collective social and economic organization: industrial channels, consolidation of small and medium-size businesses, collaborative projects, etc.
• The second area concerns actions aimed at developing economic and social solidarity, most often regionally. This second type of activity operates within a context of social and solidarity economy: local trade systems, time banks, short distribution channels, circular economy, etc.
• The third area, coordinating the first two, focuses on developing productive regionalized networks: clusters of different types, bringing together companies of different sizes and universities and/or technical training for so-called traditional, as well as high technology activities.

HvL: Since the crisis started in 2008/9, Greeks have successfully experimented with new forms of collective production, marketing and local barter trade. This trend certainly merits support and encouraging.
GC: I agree fully.

   It is only by immediately undertaking the project of a new diversified developmental model based on new forms of democracy and involvement of social forces that Greece will finally be able to escape the state of double political and economic dependency in which it is trapped: political dependency with respect to "institutions" and traditional political practices, economic dependency associated with imports and external financing.

Our appeal to the social and political forces of Greece

   Democracy was born in Greece. The "Greek crisis" has, for some, revealed all the Eurozone's current functional limitations and the authoritarian straightjacket of austerity it has created. For others, it only confirms the destructive dysfunctional nature of a single currency across different economies with diverse limitations and in which it only increases those differences. Whether one believes in the possibility of reform in this zone that would in the end favour development, or in its inevitable and remedial, (if possible organised) dissolution, the fate of Greece, for which we are ready to work, Greeks and non-Greeks together, is of crucial importance for all Europeans.

HvL: Introducing a single currency in a number of different countries creates problems that take years to overcome, as the United States experienced when the dollar became the standard currency for the union. The advantages of the single currency for the Eurozone are so enormous that not even a leftist Greek government --Tsipras -- wanted to renounce to its membership. For good reason! 

GC: the Grexit is almost unavoidable with the the third memorandum. Grecce will never achieve the 3.5% primary budget surplus in 2018 and 50 billions privatisations

   We believe that the hopes raised by Syriza's victory in last January's election, as well as July's referendum result, signify an immense need for change that extends beyond Greece's borders.

HvL: Unfortunately, poor Tsipras seems to be losing the support not only of his radical friends but also of the electorate at large. Since he does not want to enter in a coalition with the "old" parties (understandably!) he suggested he would step down as leader of Syriza and open the door to a coalition. Such a coalition of Syriza and New Democracy could be headed, for instance, by the last trusted politician of the old guard left in Athens, Giannis Stournaras. 

GC: Greece is going to be ungovernable.

   We, Greeks and non-Greeks alike, stand ready to engage ourselves in the mission of assisting the social and political forces that strive to forge a viable development project. This project is of crucial importance for Greece, whether it remains in the Eurozone or not. It represents a first response against a Europe dominated by financial markets that stifle production, as well as the political forces currently in power in Germany that compel that country to conduct itself in a hegemonic fashion. Some key German politicians, throughout the negotiations with the Greek government, have in fact shown that they will not hesitate to use the economic power of their country in order to enslave

HvL: Wow! Schaeuble would have preferred Greece to leave the Eurozone rather having to mess around with a tricky and costly third bailout effort.
GC: the Grexit is Schaeuble’s perspective. Which country will be the next ? What about the European Commission's role itself? Wow! I imagine Frau Merkel does not full agree with this view.

the governments of other nations (especially when these claim to choose a political path that is not their own

HvL: but which promises strength in implementing reforms that the traditional parties did not pursue because of their weakness and corruption. Perhaps it has not been understood how much trust the creditors had put in Tsipras because he represented the Greek Left.
GC: yes

or even to question the authority of the European institutions themselves (the European Commission).

  We appeal to the Greek authorities, now and in the future, to not accept political, economic and social incarceration within a context of financial logic dictated by debt repayment and deficit reduction.

HvL: Let us hope the next Greek government will not attempt to renegotiate the current bailout agreement. Any such effort would open Pandora's box and provoke a tough response by the creditors which could instantly lead to a stop of payments, a resulting bank crash and de facto Grexit.
GC: the Grexit comes anyway and the third memorandum is not viable.

   In the hope of being heard by them and despite the concessions that have been made, we appeal to the Greek authorities to henceforth serve the will of the people and urgently organize a General Assembly for Development, promoting unity and open dialogue throughout Greece and bringing together all the social forces of the country to chart the general vision and key points of the development project that Greece needs.

   We appeal to the nation's vital forces to urgently commit themselves to the creation of a development project: a program ensuring the future of the country and its youth. New forms of political and social organization must emerge or be enhanced, to mobilize the social forces that have been inactive in recent months. Only with strong determination and a sweeping popular movement will we be able to release this powerful, creative and multifaceted potential; without these qualities, nothing is possible.

   As a final point, we appeal to the Greek progressive forces to seize the opportunity of the forthcoming elections, to discuss this major challenge: a development program coordinating democracy, innovation and productivity.

To sign the appeal: just reply "I sign" by sending your message to Gabriel Colletis:
http://www.unavenirpourlagrece.com
Please indicate your occupation or title!
Gabriel Colletis
Professor of Economics at the University of Toulouse
and Ioannis Margaris
Ph.D. Energy and Technology at the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Post-Doc (DTU)

PS:

The appeal:

Europe should back debt crisis principles at the UN

On 10 September, the United Nations general assembly will vote on nine principles concerning the restructuring of sovereign debts. Abiding by such principles would have avoided the pitfalls of the Greek crisis, in which political representatives gave in to creditor demands despite their lack of economic sense and their disastrous social impact. This public interest resolution must be supported by all European states and brought into the public debate.

These nine principles reaffirm the pre-eminence of political power in handling economic policy. They limit the depoliticisation of the financial system, which until now has not left any alternative to austerity and instead has held states hostages to creditor demands. The UN vote provides a stark choice between the democratic handling of sovereign debt matters and the continuing rule by debt markets.

Yanis Varoufakis Former Greek minister of finance
Thomas Piketty Paris School of Economics
James Galbraith University of Texas Austin
Heiner Flassbeck Former chief economist, Unctad
Martin Guzman Columbia University
Jacques Généreux Sciences Po
Steve Keen Kingston University
Gabriel Colletis Toulouse 1 University
Michel Husson IRES
Benjamin Lemoine Paris-Dauphine University
Mariana Mazzucato University of Sussex
Robert Salais IDHE, Marc Bloch
Bruno Théret Paris-Dauphine University
Xavier Timbeau Principal director, OFCE
Gennaro Zezza Levy Economics Institute
Giovanni Dosi Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna
Engelbert Stockhammer Kingston University
Ozlem Onaran University of Greenwich

The vote:

Sep 11, 2015 

UN approves resolution on restructuring sovereign debts

The UN General Assembly  approved a resolution that establishes nine principles to restructure sovereign debts.
The non-binding resolution, adopted by a vote of 136-6 with 41 abstentions, urges debtors and creditors "to act in good faith and with a cooperative spirit". The U.S., U.K., Germany, Canada, Japan and Israel voted against the resolution. Greece, France, Belgium, Italy and 37 others abstained.

Written on 03 September 2015.

Greece or Italy sell me an island,ill call its independence and host the migrants and provide jobs for them building their new country

The coptic tycoon who is reportedly close to Egyptian President al-Sisi offers to host a few hundred thousand migrants on a Mediterranean island. It should probably be a large island, about the size of Malta, to accommodate so many people. Are there any uninhabited islands of that size in the Med? The infrastructure would be the costliest part, Sawiris says.

But what are his migrants going to do? First day: go swimming (if you know how to...) Second day: go swimming. Third day: look for a smuggler with a boat to take you to Europe.

  Still, Sawiris should not be ridiculed. He is a damned nice guy who tries to find a solution where there is none. Maybe he would be willing to put up the money for a more feasible way to help the migrants. In Brussels they should take good note of his address.

Update

The tycoon has since revealed on Twitter that his plan is coming to fruition, and has urged volunteers to come forward.

A statement by his firm’s communication office shared on Twitter said that he had “identified two privately owned Greek islands” that would be suitable for the project:

“We have corresponded with their owners and expressed our interest to go into negotiations with them provided they can acquire the approval of the government of Greece to host the maximum number of refugees allowable according to Greek laws.”

Written on 05 September 2015.

Wildlife corridors: four proposals to ‘rewild’ portions of North America. Smithsonian Institute, CC BY-NC

   A much-anticipated book in conservation and natural science circles is EO Wilson’s Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life, which is due early next year. It builds on his proposal to set aside half the Earth for the preservation of biodiversity.

  The famous biologist and naturalist would do this by establishing huge biodiversity parks to protect, restore and connect habitats at a continental scale. Local people would be integrated into these parks as environmental educators, managers and rangers – a model drawn from existing large-scale conservation projects such as Area de Conservación Guanacaste (ACG) in northwestern Costa Rica.

   The backdrop for this discussion is that we are in the sixth great extinction event in earth’s history. More species are being lost today than at any time since the end of the dinosaurs. There is no mystery as to why this is happening: it is a direct result of human depredations, habitat destruction, overpopulation, resource depletion, urban sprawl and climate change.

   Wilson is one of the world’s premier natural scientists – an expert on ants, the father of island biogeography, apostle of the notion that humans share a bond with other species (biophilia) and a herald about the danger posed by extinction. On these and other matters he is also an eloquent writer, having written numerous books on biodiversity, science, and society. So when Wilson started to talk about half-Earth several years ago, people started to listen.

  As a scholar of ethics and public policy with an interest in animals and the environment, I have been following the discussion of half-Earth for some time. I like the idea and think it is feasible. Yet it suffers from a major blind spot: a human-centric view on the value of life. Wilson’s entry into this debate, and his seeming evolution on matters of ethics, is an invitation to explore how people ought to live with each other, other animals and the natural world, particularly if vast tracts are set aside for wildlife.

The ethics of Wilson’s volte-face

   I heard Wilson speak for the first time in Washington, DC in the early 2000s. At that talk, Wilson was resigned to the inevitable loss of much of the world’s biodiversity. So he advocated a global biodiversity survey that would sample and store the world’s biotic heritage. In this way, we might still benefit from biodiversity’s genetic information in terms of biomedical research, and perhaps, someday, revive an extinct species or two.

   Not a bad idea in and of itself. Still, it was a drearily fatalistic speech, and one entirely devoid of any sense of moral responsibility to the world of nonhuman animals and nature.

   What is striking about Wilson’s argument for half-Earth is not the apparent about-face from cataloging biodiversity to restoring it. It is the moral dimension he attaches to it. In several interviews, he references the need for humanity to develop an ethic that cares about planetary life, and does not place the wants and needs of a single species (Homo sapiens sapiens) above the well-being of all other species.

The half-Earth proposal prompts people to consider the role of humans in nature. jene/flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

   To my ear, this sounds great, but I am not exactly sure how far it goes. In the past, Wilson’s discussions of conservation ethics appear to me clearly anthropocentric. They espouse the notion that we are exceptional creatures at the apex of evolution, the sole species that has intrinsic value in and of ourselves, and thus we are to be privileged above all other species.

   In this view, we care about nature and biodiversity only because we care about ourselves. Nature is useful for us in the sense of resources and ecological services, but it has no value in and of itself. In ethics talk, people have intrinsic value while nature’s only value is what it can do for people – extrinsic value.

   For example, in his 1993 book The Biophilia Hypothesis, Wilson argues for “the necessity of a robust and richly textured anthropocentric ethics apart from the issues of rights [for other animals or ecosystems] – one based on the hereditary needs of our own species. In addition to the well-documented utilitarian potential of wild species, the diversity of life has immense aesthetic and spiritual value.”

   The passage indicates Wilson’s long-held view that biodiversity is important because of what it does for humanity, including the resources, beauty and spirituality people find in nature. It sidesteps questions of whether animals and the rest of nature have intrinsic value apart from human use.

   His evolving position, as reflected in the half-Earth proposal, seems much more in tune with what ethicist call non-anthropocentrism – that humanity is simply one marvelous but no more special outcome of evolution; that other beings, species and/or ecosystems also have intrinsic value; and that there is no reason to automatically privilege us over the rest of life.

   Consider this recent statement by Wilson:

What kind of a species are we that we treat the rest of life so cheaply? There are those who think that’s the destiny of Earth: we arrived, we’re humanizing the Earth, and it will be the destiny of Earth for us to wipe humans out and most of the rest of biodiversity. But I think the great majority of thoughtful people consider that a morally wrong position to take, and a very dangerous one.

   The non-anthropocentric view does not deny that biodiversity and nature provide material, aesthetic and spiritual “resources.” Rather, it holds there is something more – that the community of life has value independent of the resources it provides humanity. Non-anthropocentric ethics requires, therefore, a more caring approach to people’s impact on the planet. Whether Wilson is really leaving anthropocentrism behind, time will tell. But for my part, I at least welcome his opening up possibilities to discuss less prejudicial views of animals and the rest of nature.

The 50% solution

   It is interesting to note that half-Earth is not a new idea. In North America, the half-Earth concept first arose in the 1990s as a discussion about wilderness in the deep ecology movement. Various nonprofits that arose out of that movement continued to develop the idea, in particular the Wildlands Network, the Rewilding Institute and the Wild Foundation.

   These organizations use a mix of conservation science, education and public policy initiatives to promote protecting and restoring continental-scale habitats and corridors, all with an eye to preserving the native flora and fauna of North America. One example is ongoing work to connect the Yellowstone to Yukon ecosystems along the spine of the Rocky Mountains.

Take it up a notch? The British Columbia Ministry of Transportation recently started to add signs warning motorists when they are likely to encounter wildlife.British Columbia Ministry of Transportation, CC BY-NC-ND

   When I was a graduate student, the term half-Earth had not yet been used, but the idea was in the air. My classmates and I referred to it as the “50% solution.” We chose this term because of the work of Reed Noss and Allen Cooperrider’s 1994 book, Savings Nature’s Legacy. Amongst other things, the book documents that, depending on the species and ecosystems in question, approximately 30% to 70% of the original habitats of the Earth would be necessary to sustain our planet’s biodiversity. So splitting the difference, we discussed the 50% solution to describe this need.

   This leads directly into my third point. The engagement of Wilson and others with the idea of half-Earth and rewilding presupposes but does not fully articulate the need for an urban vision, one where cities are ecological, sustainable and resilient. Indeed, Wilson has yet to spell out what we do with the people and infrastructure that are not devoted to maintaining and teaching about his proposed biodiversity parks. This is not a criticism, but an urgent question for ongoing and creative thinking.

   Humans are urbanizing like never before. Today, the majority of people live in cities, and by the end of the 21st century, over 90% of people will live in a metropolitan area. If we are to meet the compelling needs of human beings, we have to remake cities into sustainable and resilient “humanitats” that produce a good life.

   Such a good life is not to be measured in simple gross domestic product or consumption, but rather in well-being – freedom, true equality, housing, health, education, recreation, meaningful work, community, sustainable energy, urban farming, green infrastructure, open space in the form of parks and refuges, contact with companion and wild animals, and a culture that values and respects the natural world.

   To do all this in the context of saving half the Earth for its own sake is a tall order. Yet it is a challenge that we are up to if we have the will and ethical vision to value and coexist in a more-than-human world.

William Lynn -- The Conversation

Written on 03 September 2015.

   Aktuelle Bedrohungen und Herausforderungen, die von außen auf Deutschland zukommen, bereiten den Bürgern sehr große Sorgen, so das Fazit der R+V-Langzeitstudie "Die Ängste der Deutschen 2015".

   "Spitzenreiter ist die Befürchtung, dass die Euro-Schuldenkrise teuer für die deutschen Steuerzahler wird. Und: Jeder zweite Bundesbürger hat Angst vor Konflikten durch Zuwanderung und politischem Extremismus."

   Den stärksten Anstieg verzeichnet die Studie im Jahr 2015 bei der Furcht vor Terror und einem Krieg mit deutscher Beteiligung. Auch die immer häufiger auftretenden Naturkatastrophen beunruhigen die Bürger - dieses Thema steht bei den langjährig abgefragten Sorgen erstmals ganz vorn.

   Bei großen wirtschaftspolitischen Fragen sind die Deutschen erstaunlich entspannt.

   Die Ängste vor einer Wirtschaftsflaute oder vor Arbeitslosigkeit - vor 10 Jahren noch Top-Themen der Deutschen - sind heute geringer als je zuvor im Verlauf der Studie. Erstaunlich: Die seit über zwei Jahrzehnten konstant große Furcht vor steigenden Lebenshaltungskosten ist um 10 Prozentpunkte abgesackt - mehr als jede andere Sorge in diesem Jahr.  

   Seit 1992 befragt das R+V-Infocenter in einer repräsentativen Studie rund 2.400 Bürger nach ihren größten wirtschaftlichen, politischen und persönlichen Ängsten. Bei den 16 langjährig abgefragten Sorgen steht 2015 die Furcht vor vermehrt auftretenden Naturkatastrophen mit 53 Prozent auf Platz 1 (Vorjahr: 51 Prozent, Platz 2), dicht gefolgt von der Angst vor terroristischen Anschlägen (52 Prozent, Vorjahr: 39 Prozent).

   Auf  Platz 3 rangieren zwei Sorgen mit jeweils 49 Prozent: Etwa jeder zweite Deutsche fürchtet sich davor, im Alter pflegebedürftig zu werden sowie vor Spannungen durch den weiteren Zuzug von Ausländern.

   Der Angstindex, der Durchschnitt der 16 langjährig abgefragten Ängste, bleibt wie im Vorjahr 2 auf dem sehr niedrigen Wert von 39 Prozent. Eine genauere Analyse zeigt hier allerdings eine verblüffende Entwicklung: „Die Frauen, die seit Beginn unserer Studie durchweg ängstlicher als die Männer waren, zeigen sich wesentlich couragierter als in der Vergangenheit und erreichen mit einem Angstindex von 40 Prozent den niedrigsten Wert seit Beginn unserer Befragung – mit nur noch einem Prozentpunkt Abstand zu den Männern.“

   Bei den Frauen sind im Vergleich zum Vorjahr rund zwei Drittel der 16 langjährig abgefragten Ängste gesunken. Ganz anders bei den Männern: Hier sind 14 dieser 16 Sorgen gestiegen. Die Angst ums Geld: Euro-Schuldenkrise bleibt größte Sorge „Den nach finanzieller Sicherheit strebenden Deutschen sitzt die Angst ums liebe Geld seit jeher im Nacken“, so Professor Dr. Manfred G. Schmidt, Politologe an der Universität Heidelberg und Berater des R+V-Infocenters.

   Die in diesem Jahr größte Angst offenbart eine Sonderbefragung zur EU-Schuldenkrise, die das R+V-Infocenter seit fünf Jahren durchführt. „Fast zwei Drittel der Befragten befürchten, dass sie für die wirtschafts- und finanzpolitischen Sünden von EUMitgliedstaaten geradestehen müssen“, so Professor Schmidt. Die Angst davor, dass die deutschen Steuerzahler die Kosten der Schuldenkrise in der Eurozone in überproportionalem Umfang schultern müssen, ist um 4 Prozentpunkte auf 64 Prozent gestiegen – und damit die mit Abstand größte Sorge 2015.

   Fast jeder Zweite (49 Prozent, Vorjahr: 45 Prozent) befürchtet obendrein, dass der Euro als Währung gefährdet ist. Hingegen ist die Furcht vor steigenden Lebenshaltungskosten – in den vergangenen 23 Jahren 15 Mal auf Platz 1 im Ängste-Ranking – am stärksten gesunken, nämlich um ganze 10 Prozentpunkte. Jetzt liegt sie mit 48 Prozent nur noch auf Platz 5 bei den Standardfragen der Ängste-Studie.

   Deutsche fürchten um ihre Sicherheit

   Nach den Anschlägen auf das Satire-Magazin „Charlie Hebdo“ in Paris und dem Massaker im tunesischen Touristenzentrum Sousse sowie andauernden brutalen Gewalttaten von Terrormilizen ist die Furcht vor terroristischen Angriffen sprunghaft in die Höhe gegangen. Mit einem Plus von 13 Prozentpunkten ist diese Angst am stärksten gestiegen und erreicht mit 52 Prozent einen der höchsten Werte in den vergangenen 20 Jahren.

   „Für die Deutschen mit ihrer pazifistischen Grundstimmung sind Terror und Krieg besonders furchterregend“, so Professor Schmidt.  „Diese Angst wird durch intensive Berichterstattung in den Medien und nicht zuletzt durch erschütternde Bilder und aufwühlende Berichte über terroristische Gräueltaten – auch an Frauen und Kindern – weiter geschürt.“   Die Angst vor Krieg zeigt sich ebenfalls wieder stärker in den Köpfen vieler Deutscher (41 Prozent, Vorjahr: 35 Prozent).

   Große Angst vor Konflikten durch Zuwanderung

   Hunderttausende Menschen fliehen aus Ländern wie Syrien, Eritrea oder Afghanistan vor Krieg, politischer Verfolgung und Hunger. Sie suchen Schutz in Europa – viele kommen nach Deutschland. Der größte Flüchtlingsstrom seit dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs löst bei vielen Bundesbürgern Ängste aus.

   Fast jeder zweite Befragte (49 Prozent) befürchtet, dass das Zusammenleben zwischen den Deutschen und den hier lebenden Ausländern durch einen weiteren Zuzug von Ausländern beeinträchtigt wird. Außerdem sorgt sich die Hälfte der Befragten (50 Prozent) darum, dass die stark zunehmende Zahl von Asylbewerbern Deutschlands Bürger und seine Behörden überfordert, so das Ergebnis der Sonderbefragung. Dazu Professor Schmidt: „Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist faktisch seit ihrer Geburtsstunde ein Einwanderungsland. Allerdings war früher ein Großteil der Einwanderer deutschstämmig."

    Im Lichte der Erfahrungen der frühen 1990er Jahre und der Integrationsprobleme heute sei zu erwarten, dass die Behörden und die deutsche Bevölkerung überfordert werden, wenn die Zahl der Asylbewerber die Schwelle von 300.000 bis 400.000 (pro Jahr) überschreitet. Außerdem erschwere es die Integration von Zuwanderern, wenn sie „aus fremden Kulturen kommen, insbesondere aus Staaten mit einer nichtchristlichen Religion, einem geringeren Säkularisierungsgrad und einem niedrigeren Ausbildungsstand.“ so Professor Schmidts Analyse.

   Schließlich sei es für jene Zuwanderer schwierig, die mit demokratischen Strukturen und Grundrechten nicht vertraut sind, sich in Deutschland einzuleben.  Wie eine weitere Sonderfrage zeigt, sind 49 Prozent der Bundesbürger besorgt, dass sich der politische Extremismus weiter ausbreitet.

   Rekordtief bei Ängsten vor schlechter Wirtschaftslage und Arbeitslosigkeit

   Die positiven Konjunkturprognosen und die günstige Entwicklung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt spiegeln sich auch in den Ängsten der Deutschen wider. In keiner der bisherigen 24 Ängste-Studien der R+V-Serie befürchteten so wenige Deutsche, dass die Wirtschaftslage schlechter wird (40 Prozent).

   Auf dem geringsten Stand seit 1992 sind auch die Sorgen um die Sicherheit der Arbeitsplätze. Noch nicht einmal jeder Dritte hat Angst vor einer höheren Arbeitslosenquote in Deutschland (31 Prozent) oder dem Verlust des eigenen Jobs (32 Prozent). Im Osten der Bundesrepublik dominiert die Angst ums Geld und Angst vor politischen Spannungen Das durchschnittliche Angstniveau in Ost und West ist gegenüber dem Vorjahr unverändert.

   Während im Osten 43 Prozent der Bevölkerung sorgenvoll in die Zukunft blicken, sind es im Westen nur 38 Prozent. Der größte Unterschied: Die Furcht vor steigenden Lebenshaltungskosten ist im Osten um 19 Prozentpunkte höher als im Westen und liegt dort mit 63 Prozent weiterhin an der Spitze der 16 langjährig abgefragten Standardängste.

   Noch stärker ist nur die Furcht, dass die deutschen Steuerzahler die Kosten der EU-Schuldenkrise schultern müssen (Ost: 71 Prozent, West: 62 Prozent). Ebenfalls im Osten deutlich höher sind die Ängste vor einem Krieg mit deutscher Beteiligung (Ost: 47 Prozent, West: 39 Prozent) und vor dem Verlust des eigenen Arbeitsplatzes (Ost: 39 Prozent, West: 30 Prozent).

   Deutliche Unterschiede zwischen Ost und West zeigen sich auch bei den Sorgen vor Konflikten durch Zuwanderung. Spannungen durch den Zuzug weiterer Ausländer befürchtet die Mehrheit der Bürger in Ostdeutschland (55 Prozent), im Westen sind es 47 Prozent. Erheblich mehr Angst haben die Ostdeutschen (59 Prozent) auch davor, dass der Zustrom von Asylbewerbern Deutschlands Behörden und Bürger überfordert (West: 48 Prozent).

   Es kommen viele Gründe zusammen, weshalb diese Ängste im Osten größer ist, so Professor Schmidt: „Erstens haben die meisten Ostdeutschen wenig Erfahrung mit Einwanderung. Zweitens tickt Ostdeutschland politisch-kulturell anders als der Westen: ‚Postmaterialistische Werte‘ – einschließlich der Toleranz für fremde Kulturen – sind schwächer als im Westen. Drittens glauben viele Ostdeutsche, sie erhielten keinen gerechten Anteil am Wohlstand, und etliche sehen sich als Verlierer der deutschen Einheit, der Europäisierung und der Globalisierung. Zuwanderung empfinden sie als weitere Zumutung. Viertens wirkt die Zuwanderung so brisant, weil Ostdeutschland an starker Abwanderung und Schrumpfung der deutschen Bevölkerung laboriert.“

   Weitere Ergebnisse der Studie 

• Hoch ist die Besorgnis der Deutschen, im Alter als Pflegefall anderen zur Last zu fallen. Mit 49 Prozent liegt dieses Thema im Ranking der langjährig abgefragten Ängste auf Platz 3. Frauen (51 Prozent) sind in dieser Frage besorgter als Männer (47 Prozent).

• Rauschtrinken, Cannabis oder Crystal Meth sind bei vielen Jugendlichen in Mode. Trotzdem ist die Angst der Eltern, dass ihre Kinder drogen- oder alkoholsüchtig werden könnten, mit 31 Prozent gering wie zuletzt 1992. • Ebenfalls auf Rekordtief: Nur etwa jeder vierte Deutsche (27 Prozent) befürchtet, im Alter zu vereinsamen.

• Trotz hoher Scheidungsraten fürchtet sich noch nicht einmal jeder siebte Bundesbürger vor dem Zerbrechen der eigenen Partnerschaft. Diese Angst ist mit 15 Prozent auf dem bisher niedrigsten Stand und bleibt wie immer Schlusslicht im Ranking.

R+V Versicherung