Germany’s Political Power to Navigate through the Covid-19 Crisis
IWAMA Yoko / Professor at National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
September 24, 2020
Chancellor Merkel frequently talks to the public at appropriate moments concerning measures to fight against the novel coronavirus and makes announcements on speedy economic policies. The way she is handling the situation has been highly praised by the German people. Under its federal system, a minister president from each German state has considerable authority to execute necessary measures, and Chancellor Merkel has convened frequent online conferences with the state minister presidents and discussed measures to be taken. As a result, the situation has been handled with scrupulous care largely upon the initiatives of each state government. To minimize the social impact, the scope of restrictions on activities has been kept as narrow as possible. Because of the public’s keen conscious of their rights, excessive restrictions can easily lead to litigations.
Thus appropriate measures are being probed with the judiciary playing a part.
Before this viral crisis, Merkel’s administration had put high priority on balancing the budget and not been proactive on fiscal spending. However, it recognized that special measures would be required in an emergency situation and has hammered out various actions since March. It can be said that the German economy is has a robust enough strength to do so, thanks to the budget surplus maintained thus far. As for tax reduction, it is a totally different story from Japan, where the consumption tax rate is 10 %. Value-added-tax was originally high in Germany, so it was decided that the standard tax rate would be lowered from 19 % to 16 % and the reduced tax rate from 7 % to 5 %.
Chancellor Merkel also worked hard on measures at the European Union level, despite her previous reluctance. Germany assumed the presidency of the EU in July and organized the EU summit meetings on countermeasures to COVID-19 at the end of July, where Germany insisted on providing a support package of 750 billion euro to the countries severely impacted by the virus. It did not back down until the package was approved and the summit continued for 5 days in the end. It could not have been achieved without Chancellor Merkel’s strong determination.
The agenda was about ‘a recovery fund’ whereby joint EU coronavirus bonds would be issued to support those countries which had been severely impacted by the virus such as Italy and Spain. To the proposal, “the Frugal Four,” the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Austria insisted that the ratio of the loan requiring repayment should be higher than the grant-in-aid which does not require repayment.
Now that the EU has jointly assumed the debt, there is a marked change in the attitude of Germany, which has adamantly insisted that debts should be incurred by individual countries. As a background of this change, distrust of EU had been mounting among its member countries since before the COVID-19 crisis. Because of this viral challenge, Germany apparently came to realize with a shared sense of crisis that the existence of the EU itself could be in danger, if it failed do anything about the situation. Brexit might also have played a role in the change of course.
Germany would face difficulties in various ways if the EU ceased to exist. It has been accepting immigrant labor from the wide EU regions and many German companies have factories in the neighboring countries. Germany did not seem receptive to the reform proposals of the EU by President Macron of France, giving the impression that Chancellor Merkel was not interested in the EU. It is as though Germany has just suddenly woken up. Since Chancellor Merkel has strong ethical and humanitarian views, reaching out to those who are sick and suffering apparently matches her belief.
Germany has not declared a state of emergency at the national level. The national and the state governments divide responsibilities, and restrictions on people’s activities are enforced by the states. In the case of Japan, the restrictions on actions have lacked a pinpoint focus, although there is the so-called “Special Measures Law”. If there is an outbreak of a similar infectious disease in the future, there should be clear demarcations of authorities and costs-bearing between the national and local governments. In principle, prefectural governors should manage the handling of disasters and diseases.
It was said that Japan had been managing the situation relatively well during the first peak of the epidemic in April. This, however, was achieved as a result of the efforts of almost all citizens throughout Japan who stuck it out by staying home. The restrictions are structured in an all or nothing manner, where they apply to 100% of the people or none at all, without a system of restrictions that apply to specific people or regions within a narrow range. Thus the government hesitates to declare a state of emergency and its measures are haphazard and insufficient, allowing the insidious spread of the infection. It could result in high social costs.
Although Prime Minister Abe’s initial response was fast, it subsequently tended to be late at times. The reason why the second wave of infection has been more or less contained is not because political leadership has been exerted, but because the public have voluntarily change their behaviour. I highly values certain aspects of Mr. Abe such as his national security policies, but in regard to the new coronavirus measures, he has not communicated effectively with the public. As long as the basic rights of the people, starting from children’s right to education, are sacrificed, more finely tuned, empathetic communication is called for. The leader of a nation should take the lead to express gratitude to medical care personnel and others who provide necessary services to society while exposing themselves to the risk of infection, and show the way to approach those people who have been infected, and so on. The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan has many second- or third- generation Diet members, and an overwhelming number of bureaucrats surrounding the prime minister are male graduates from Tokyo University. They may be somewhat removed from, and unable to grasp the ground realities of the society. I truly believe that greater diversity is necessary among our policymakers.
Our entire society is becoming inflexible and less capable of coping with changes. I would like to see Japan build a society of greater flexibility and diversity. How to deal with the Covid-19 crisis will be a determining factor for the future vitality of each of our countries.
Yoko Iwama is a professor of international politics at National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies. This is a summary of an article that appeared in “Bengoshi.com” on 17 August, 2020.
Thus appropriate measures are being probed with the judiciary playing a part.
Before this viral crisis, Merkel’s administration had put high priority on balancing the budget and not been proactive on fiscal spending. However, it recognized that special measures would be required in an emergency situation and has hammered out various actions since March. It can be said that the German economy is has a robust enough strength to do so, thanks to the budget surplus maintained thus far. As for tax reduction, it is a totally different story from Japan, where the consumption tax rate is 10 %. Value-added-tax was originally high in Germany, so it was decided that the standard tax rate would be lowered from 19 % to 16 % and the reduced tax rate from 7 % to 5 %.
Chancellor Merkel also worked hard on measures at the European Union level, despite her previous reluctance. Germany assumed the presidency of the EU in July and organized the EU summit meetings on countermeasures to COVID-19 at the end of July, where Germany insisted on providing a support package of 750 billion euro to the countries severely impacted by the virus. It did not back down until the package was approved and the summit continued for 5 days in the end. It could not have been achieved without Chancellor Merkel’s strong determination.
The agenda was about ‘a recovery fund’ whereby joint EU coronavirus bonds would be issued to support those countries which had been severely impacted by the virus such as Italy and Spain. To the proposal, “the Frugal Four,” the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Austria insisted that the ratio of the loan requiring repayment should be higher than the grant-in-aid which does not require repayment.
Now that the EU has jointly assumed the debt, there is a marked change in the attitude of Germany, which has adamantly insisted that debts should be incurred by individual countries. As a background of this change, distrust of EU had been mounting among its member countries since before the COVID-19 crisis. Because of this viral challenge, Germany apparently came to realize with a shared sense of crisis that the existence of the EU itself could be in danger, if it failed do anything about the situation. Brexit might also have played a role in the change of course.
Germany would face difficulties in various ways if the EU ceased to exist. It has been accepting immigrant labor from the wide EU regions and many German companies have factories in the neighboring countries. Germany did not seem receptive to the reform proposals of the EU by President Macron of France, giving the impression that Chancellor Merkel was not interested in the EU. It is as though Germany has just suddenly woken up. Since Chancellor Merkel has strong ethical and humanitarian views, reaching out to those who are sick and suffering apparently matches her belief.
Germany has not declared a state of emergency at the national level. The national and the state governments divide responsibilities, and restrictions on people’s activities are enforced by the states. In the case of Japan, the restrictions on actions have lacked a pinpoint focus, although there is the so-called “Special Measures Law”. If there is an outbreak of a similar infectious disease in the future, there should be clear demarcations of authorities and costs-bearing between the national and local governments. In principle, prefectural governors should manage the handling of disasters and diseases.
It was said that Japan had been managing the situation relatively well during the first peak of the epidemic in April. This, however, was achieved as a result of the efforts of almost all citizens throughout Japan who stuck it out by staying home. The restrictions are structured in an all or nothing manner, where they apply to 100% of the people or none at all, without a system of restrictions that apply to specific people or regions within a narrow range. Thus the government hesitates to declare a state of emergency and its measures are haphazard and insufficient, allowing the insidious spread of the infection. It could result in high social costs.
Although Prime Minister Abe’s initial response was fast, it subsequently tended to be late at times. The reason why the second wave of infection has been more or less contained is not because political leadership has been exerted, but because the public have voluntarily change their behaviour. I highly values certain aspects of Mr. Abe such as his national security policies, but in regard to the new coronavirus measures, he has not communicated effectively with the public. As long as the basic rights of the people, starting from children’s right to education, are sacrificed, more finely tuned, empathetic communication is called for. The leader of a nation should take the lead to express gratitude to medical care personnel and others who provide necessary services to society while exposing themselves to the risk of infection, and show the way to approach those people who have been infected, and so on. The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan has many second- or third- generation Diet members, and an overwhelming number of bureaucrats surrounding the prime minister are male graduates from Tokyo University. They may be somewhat removed from, and unable to grasp the ground realities of the society. I truly believe that greater diversity is necessary among our policymakers.
Our entire society is becoming inflexible and less capable of coping with changes. I would like to see Japan build a society of greater flexibility and diversity. How to deal with the Covid-19 crisis will be a determining factor for the future vitality of each of our countries.
Yoko Iwama is a professor of international politics at National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies. This is a summary of an article that appeared in “Bengoshi.com” on 17 August, 2020.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
コロナ禍を乗り切るドイツの政治力
岩間 陽子 / 政策研究大学院大学教授
2020年 9月 24日
コロナ対策について、メルケル首相は国民に対して適切な語りかけを頻繁に行い、迅速な経済対策を発表し、その対応が国民に高く評価されている。連邦制のドイツでは、各州の首相が大きな権限を持って必要な処置を行うが、メルケル首相は州首相とオンライン会議を頻繁に開催し、対策を協議していた。その結果、州政府を中心に、細やかな対応がうまく実施されている。社会的影響を最小限にとどめるため、行動制限の範囲をなるべく狭くしている。国民の側も権利意識が高いため、過度の制限があればすぐに訴訟になって、司法を挟んで適切な対策を模索している。
メルケル政権はこれまで財政均衡を重視しており、コロナ以前はあまり財政支出に積極的ではなかった。しかし、非常事態には特別な対応が必要だと認識して、３月以降様々な措置を打ち出している。これまで黒字でやってきたので体力があるとも言える。減税については、日本の消費税は10％だが、ドイツは元々付加価値税が高く、今回は標準税率19％を16％、軽減税率を7％から5％に年末まで下げるという話で、日本とは状況が異なる。
メルケル首相は、これまで消極的だったEUレベルの対策でも頑張った。７月からEUの議長国となったが、コロナ対策で７月下旬にEU首脳会議を開催し、コロナでダメージを受けた国への7500億ユーロの支援パッケージが決まるまで引き下がらず、最終的には5日間首脳会議を続けた。メルケル首相がやる気でないと、持ち帰りになっていただろう。
論議されたのは、EU共同でコロナ債を発行し、イタリアやスペインといった酷い被害を受けた国へ支援を行う、「復興基金」である。援助金と借款の割合について、オランダ・デンマーク・スウェーデン・オーストリアという「倹約4カ国」が返済不要の補助金よりも、返済が必要な融資の割合を高くすべきと主張してきた。
今回、債務の共同化という形で、EUとして借金を引き受けていくこととなり、国家単位の債務にこだわっていたドイツの姿勢も変わった。この背景には、コロナ危機以前から各国でEUに対する不信感が募っていたところに、この大きな危機が起こり、これでEUが何もできなければ、EU自体が危ないかもしれないとドイツでも危機感が共有されるようになったという事情がある。ブレグジットも流れをかえたかもしれない。
EUがなくなるとドイツは様々な意味で困る。EU圏内の広範囲から移動労働者が入ってきているし、ドイツ企業の工場も周辺国にある。今までフランスのマクロン大統領が、EUの改革案を出しても、ドイツ側から反応がなくて、メルケル首相はEUに関心がないのかと見られがちだったが、突如目覚めたような印象である。メルケル首相には強い倫理観、人道主義があり、病気で困っている人は助けないと、ということがしっくりきたのではないかと思う。
ドイツでは国全体で非常事態宣言をしているわけではなく、国と州で役割分担をして、行動制限は州レベルで行われている。日本の場合は、いわゆる「特措法」があるが、ピンポイントの行動制限ができていない。今後、類似の感染症が起きた時、国と地方自治体の権限と費用負担の仕分けをはっきりして、災害や病気は基本的に知事の対応とするべきだろう。
4月の最初の感染の山の時は、日本は比較的うまくいったといわれているが、これは日本中ほぼみんなが家にこもって頑張った結果である。制度のたてつけが10か0になっていて、狭い範囲の特定の人や地域だけの行動を制限する制度は用意されていない。国が緊急事態宣言をためらって対応が不十分だと、ずるずると感染が広がって、結果的に社会的コストが高くなりかねない。
安倍首相の初動は早かったが、その後は遅れがちである。第二波がこの程度に収まっているのは、政治が頑張ったからではなく、国民が自主的に行動変容しているからだと思う。筆者は安全保障など、安倍首相を評価している面もあるが、コロナ対策に関しては、国民とのコミュニケ―ションがうまく取れなかったと思う。子供の教育を受ける権利を始め、国民の基本的権利が犠牲になる以上、もっと細やかなコミュニケ―ションが必要だった。医療従事者を始め、社会に必要なサービスを感染の危険にさらされながら提供している人々への感謝の気持ちを率先して表明したり、感染してしまった人々への接し方などは、国のリーダーが率先してしめすべき。自民党は二世、三世議員が多く、首相の周りを固める官僚も東大卒男性が圧倒的、社会の実情が見えていないのではないか。もっと政策担当者に多様性が必要だと思う。
日本の社会全体が硬直化して来て、変化に対応できなくなっている。柔軟性を高め、多様性がある社会を構築して欲しい。各国のコロナ危機への対処の仕方が、今後のそれぞれの国の活力の明暗をわけることになるだろう。
筆者は政策研究大学院大学教授（国際政治）。本稿は２０２０年8月17日付き「弁護士ドットコム」に掲載された記事の要約である。
メルケル政権はこれまで財政均衡を重視しており、コロナ以前はあまり財政支出に積極的ではなかった。しかし、非常事態には特別な対応が必要だと認識して、３月以降様々な措置を打ち出している。これまで黒字でやってきたので体力があるとも言える。減税については、日本の消費税は10％だが、ドイツは元々付加価値税が高く、今回は標準税率19％を16％、軽減税率を7％から5％に年末まで下げるという話で、日本とは状況が異なる。
メルケル首相は、これまで消極的だったEUレベルの対策でも頑張った。７月からEUの議長国となったが、コロナ対策で７月下旬にEU首脳会議を開催し、コロナでダメージを受けた国への7500億ユーロの支援パッケージが決まるまで引き下がらず、最終的には5日間首脳会議を続けた。メルケル首相がやる気でないと、持ち帰りになっていただろう。
論議されたのは、EU共同でコロナ債を発行し、イタリアやスペインといった酷い被害を受けた国へ支援を行う、「復興基金」である。援助金と借款の割合について、オランダ・デンマーク・スウェーデン・オーストリアという「倹約4カ国」が返済不要の補助金よりも、返済が必要な融資の割合を高くすべきと主張してきた。
今回、債務の共同化という形で、EUとして借金を引き受けていくこととなり、国家単位の債務にこだわっていたドイツの姿勢も変わった。この背景には、コロナ危機以前から各国でEUに対する不信感が募っていたところに、この大きな危機が起こり、これでEUが何もできなければ、EU自体が危ないかもしれないとドイツでも危機感が共有されるようになったという事情がある。ブレグジットも流れをかえたかもしれない。
EUがなくなるとドイツは様々な意味で困る。EU圏内の広範囲から移動労働者が入ってきているし、ドイツ企業の工場も周辺国にある。今までフランスのマクロン大統領が、EUの改革案を出しても、ドイツ側から反応がなくて、メルケル首相はEUに関心がないのかと見られがちだったが、突如目覚めたような印象である。メルケル首相には強い倫理観、人道主義があり、病気で困っている人は助けないと、ということがしっくりきたのではないかと思う。
ドイツでは国全体で非常事態宣言をしているわけではなく、国と州で役割分担をして、行動制限は州レベルで行われている。日本の場合は、いわゆる「特措法」があるが、ピンポイントの行動制限ができていない。今後、類似の感染症が起きた時、国と地方自治体の権限と費用負担の仕分けをはっきりして、災害や病気は基本的に知事の対応とするべきだろう。
4月の最初の感染の山の時は、日本は比較的うまくいったといわれているが、これは日本中ほぼみんなが家にこもって頑張った結果である。制度のたてつけが10か0になっていて、狭い範囲の特定の人や地域だけの行動を制限する制度は用意されていない。国が緊急事態宣言をためらって対応が不十分だと、ずるずると感染が広がって、結果的に社会的コストが高くなりかねない。
安倍首相の初動は早かったが、その後は遅れがちである。第二波がこの程度に収まっているのは、政治が頑張ったからではなく、国民が自主的に行動変容しているからだと思う。筆者は安全保障など、安倍首相を評価している面もあるが、コロナ対策に関しては、国民とのコミュニケ―ションがうまく取れなかったと思う。子供の教育を受ける権利を始め、国民の基本的権利が犠牲になる以上、もっと細やかなコミュニケ―ションが必要だった。医療従事者を始め、社会に必要なサービスを感染の危険にさらされながら提供している人々への感謝の気持ちを率先して表明したり、感染してしまった人々への接し方などは、国のリーダーが率先してしめすべき。自民党は二世、三世議員が多く、首相の周りを固める官僚も東大卒男性が圧倒的、社会の実情が見えていないのではないか。もっと政策担当者に多様性が必要だと思う。
日本の社会全体が硬直化して来て、変化に対応できなくなっている。柔軟性を高め、多様性がある社会を構築して欲しい。各国のコロナ危機への対処の仕方が、今後のそれぞれの国の活力の明暗をわけることになるだろう。
筆者は政策研究大学院大学教授（国際政治）。本稿は２０２０年8月17日付き「弁護士ドットコム」に掲載された記事の要約である。
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟