Almost half of the economists in the ifo Economists Panel are "rather dissatisfied" (27%) or "very dissatisfied" (20%) with the current coronavirus economic policy. This is according to the latest Economists Panel, in which the ifo Institute and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung surveyed economics professors at German universities. 30 percent answered "partly-partly". Around 20 percent said they were "rather satisfied" with coronavirus economic policy, while 2 percent were even "very satisfied". 177 economists took part in the survey.
"The results of the new panel of economists suggest that there is still a lot of room for improvement in coronavirus economic policy," says Niklas Potrafke, Director of the ifo Center for Public Finance and Political Economy. The participants said that policy was too slow and inflexible, and that no (opening) perspectives were being developed. The aid for companies is too bureaucratic and the vaccination strategy has largely failed so far. "Premiums for manufacturers who produce additional vaccine and deliver it quickly are a particularly suitable measure in the opinion of those surveyed," says Potrafke.
Forty-five percent of those surveyed viewed the premium proposal "very positively" and 21 percent "somewhat positively". 16% called it "neutral", 9% answered "rather negative" and 5% "very negative". The supporters justified their opinion by stating, among other things, that the social costs of the pandemic dwarfed everything else and that the price premiums were low in comparison.
The economists are critical of the communitization of patents with compensation payments to owners. 32% see this as "somewhat negative" and 25% as "very negative". This is described as "neutral" by 12%, "rather positive" by 13% and "very positive" by 12%. Those against it say that the added value of communitization is not clear, as licensing is already possible. The manufacturers themselves would have an interest in supplying as much vaccine as possible. The incentive to conduct research should not be diminished. This requires protection of intellectual property.
The announced expansion of the tests was met with great approval. 52% of participants see it as "very positive", 27% as "somewhat positive" and 10% as "neutral". This was described as "rather negative" by 4% and "very negative" by 3%. Those in favor said that this would make openings possible without increasing infections.
The economists rate lowering the threshold for the weekly number of infections from 50 to 35 per 100,000 inhabitants as "very positive" (20%) and "somewhat positive" (29%). This is described as "neutral" by 9%, "rather negative" by 22% and "very negative" by 19%. The reason given is that the new figure is appropriate because the mutations of the virus are more contagious than the previous version. Among other things, the critics complain of "arbitrariness" in the determination.
When asked whether an immediate and complete lifting of the lockdown would reduce the number of insolvencies, economists were divided. "No" was answered by 43%, "yes" by 35% and "don't know" by 22%. The respondents who answered "no" pointed out in particular that an immediate opening would trigger a third wave of illness - with a correspondingly negative impact on the economy.
