The origins of the debt brake can be traced back to the crisis of the 2000s, according to Adam Tooze, professor of economic history at Columbia University, New York, and an expert on Germany.
Is debt aversion a distinctively German obsession?
Not at all. As a historian specializing in the country, I believe that there is always a concrete explanation to justify why the Germans act in such and such a way. The reasons why debt aversion is based on linguistic factors that go back to Luther – because the German word “Schuld” denotes both “debt” and “fault” -, are not convincing. Historically, the debt brake is not a reflex rooted in a long German tradition. If you look at the evolution of German debt from the 1970s to 2010, it does not stand out from the rest of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, it is average and does not differ. fundamentally that of France.
How then to explain that the Germans are the only ones to have adopted the principle of the “brake on the debt”, anchored in the Constitution, which limits to 0.35% of the GDP the structural deficit of the federal State?
In the early 2000s, the impression prevailed in political circles that Germany was in a deadlock situation. It has deeply indebted itself to finance reunification and considers that it must initiate far-reaching reforms. This is the moment when Gerhard Schröder’s “Agenda 2010” organizes labor market reforms, notably by creating a low-wage sector. This is also the moment when the first thoughts on limiting debt are manifested. You find this idea with Bill Clinton in the United States, Tony Blair or Gordon Brown in the United Kingdom. This is absolutely in line with the neoliberal spirit of the 1990s. The Germans have only taken the problem more seriously than others. The reform was also pushed forward by the Social Democrat Peer Steinbrück, Minister of Finance between 2005 and 2009, with the support of the Bavarian Christian Union (CSU). Despite the current criticism within the Greens, the Left Party and some social democratic circles, it is clear that there is currently no two-thirds majority in Parliament that could vote for a constitutional amendment on this point. .