Economics in Germany: About the Unequal Distribution of Power

Abstract

This article analyzes the power relations in the field of German economics. By incorporating the capital and field theory of Pierre Bourdieu, the study investigates the distribution of economic, social, and symbolic capital on economists in Germany. In a first step, the three forms of capital have been defined and operationalized on publicly available information. This leads to eight main samples of economists. In a second step, information on these economists have been collected to derive indicators regarding their paradigmatic stance and institutional background. The findings indicate a monopolization of mainstream economics and concentration of resources on the large economic departments. Furthermore, these characteristics relate to an increased importance of Colander’s Edge, an almost complete marginalization of heterodox economics and a significant center-periphery disparity. Thus, in the field of economics in Germany, a social structural verticalization and elitism of universities as well as a paradigm monism can be observed.

Keywords:

• paradigm
• monism
• capital theory
• social studies of economics
• sociology of science

JEL Classification Codes:

• A11
• A14
• B4
• B5

Disclosure Statement

The author declares no conflicts.

Notes

1 Basically, cultural capital comprises, for instance, the educational background or style of speech or reasoning. In view of an academic discipline, it is rather the style of speech or reasoning that needs to be analyzed since educational degrees are a necessary precondition for working within academia. According to Deirdre McCloskey (1998), the monistic, scientific conception of economics can be regarded as the cultural capital in the field of economics. This implies “the doctrine that all serious economics must take the form of mathematical modelling” (Lawson 2012, 11) and a cultural weight to mathematics as opposed to other forms of argumentation and methods. The methodological foundations of economics can be seen as the standards of judgement of which analyses have more rigor or less rigor. As this aspect of modern economics is an important differentiation and classification of paradigms, the cultural capital in economics could not have been analyzed in the present study. Otherwise, the definition of cultural capital (mathematical methodology) would overlap with one of the classification dimensions of a paradigm (methodology). Nevertheless, the cultural dimension of mathematical modelling heavily affects allocation of other forms of capital through conversion processes.

2 According to Arne Heise, Henrike Sander, and Sebastian Thieme (2017), heterodox professors in Germany have on average 1.55 postgraduates and 0.77 postdocs, whereby 45 percent have no postdocs at all. Even though, reliable comparative figures of mainstream professors are not available, an unequal distribution between mainstream and heterodoxy can be expected. The German Federal Statistical Office indicates that the average number of research assistants in 2011 and 2018 was 3.71 and 3.45 respectively (Statistisches Bundesamt 2012 and 2019).

3 It has not been differentiated, whether a person has a professorship or not, but rather whether he/she is involved in the production of economic knowledge. Since the acquisition of third-party funds has been established as a necessary precondition for a successful academic career, this sample could also include economists in their doctoral or post-doctoral phase.

4 A comprehensive presentation of the methodology behind these rankings can be found in Bernau (2018).

5 There is one exception: The data and the results for professorships at universities are based on the study of Jakob Kapeller, Stephan Pühringer, and Christian Grimm (2022). The collection of that study was conducted from autumn 2015 to spring 2016. Even though there is a time gap between the two studies, it is rather unlikely that a fundamental change in the paradigmatic stance of many economists could have been observed.

6 These are the following institutes: ifo Institut—Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (ifo), Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), Institut für Weltwirtschaft (IfW), RWI—Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI), Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung Halle (IWH), Leibniz-Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW), Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW), Institut für Makroökonomie und Konjunkturforschung (IMK)

7 Four of five members of the German Council of Economic Experts are also in the scientific advisory boards of the two federal ministries.

8 This exclusion of some economists might be seen as a limitation of the used classification. To be fully transparent concerning this point, it will be made clear how many economists are excluded from each sample.

9 Based on the used classification mechanism, nine professors cannot be assigned.

10 The number of DFG projects (271) is not equated with the total number of single projects (191). The former rather corresponds with the number of researchers, who are assigned to the 191 single projects.

11 This personal differentiation within the power structures of German economics has already been shows with a view on the two components of social capital.

12 However, it can be argued that the presidents of the four large economic research institute are represented in the ranking published by the Handelsblatt. Nevertheless, Gabriel Felbermayr from IfW Kiel (place 155), Marcel Fratzscher form DIW Berlin (place 169) as well as Clemens Fuest from ifo Munich (place 248) and Achim Wambach ZEW Mannheim (place 278) are rather in the lower area of the ranking.

13 However, the paradigmatic monism should not be misinterpreted as an economic policy monoculture. Pühringer and Beyer (2021) and Schwarzbauer, Thomas, and Wagner (2019) indicate that two different clusters of economists active in policy advice exists: On the one hand a conservative and ordo- and neoliberal cluster, on the other hand a rather progressive, Keynesian-oriented cluster.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rouven Reinke

Rouven Reinke is a research assistant and PhD candidate at the Department of Socioeconomics at the University of Hamburg. His main research interests include philosophy of science, plural economics, social studies of economics and political economy. The author thanks Stephan Pühringer, the editor of this journal, and the two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions, which substantially improved this article.