The effect of institutional differences on the economic development of German-speaking countries

Abstract

The growth rates and sustainability of economic development of five German-speaking countries: Austria, German Democratic Republic (GDR), Luxembourg, Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and Switzerland in the period 1947-1990 are investigated. The comparison is carried out for five economic cycles of the united Germany over this period. The indicators of the standard deviation of the growth rates of real GDP and national income are used as a sustainability performance. It is revealed that the GDR’s institutional system showed in a sustained way high growth rates, and after the isolation of West Berlin – favorable risks and firmness of prices. This system may even be regarded as the best institutional model of economic development for the German nation. At the moment of accession into the blocs, the member countries of the military and political bloc obtained benefits of development; during the exacerbation of the military and political situation, Switzerland, which was far from the contact of the blocs, became the winner, and during the detente – border Austria. Countries with smaller economies demonstrated greater institutional mobility.

Typification Of The Economic Development Of The Leaders Of The World Economy

“…The possibility of such a study arose in the framework of our research on the processes of the influence of culture on economic institutions, and the latter on economic development. The methodologicalontological and theoretical foundations of institutional modeling in different cultural environments are presented by us in our studies (Savelyev, 2015(Savelyev, , 2016, the statement of the problem for game-theoretic modeling of these processes in the article (Savelyev, 2020b), evidence of the influence of culture and institutions on economic development is presented in phenomenological (Savelyev, 2015) and empirical publications (Savelyev, 2020a;Savelyev et al, 2020a;Savelyev et al, 2020b;Savelyev et al, 2021aSavelyev et al, , 2021bSavelyev et al, , 2021cSavelyev et al, , 2021d. Maddison (2006) was a pioneer in calculating the results of economic activity over long historical periods.…”

“…So, studies of the economic development of Great Britain are devoted to works (Brock, 2011;Clark, 2012;Crafts, 2018;Hobsbawm, 1999;Lloyd, 1996;Tomlinson, 2020). Studies of the German economy are devoted to works (Evans, 1986;Olczyk, 2019;Ridley, 1968;Savelyev et al, 2020a;Tsedilin, 2005), the US economy (Butorina, 2015;Grigoryev, 2013;Kapeliushnikov, 2015;Klinov, 2013;Porokhovsky, 2005), Russia and the USSR (Baranov, 2012;Drobyshevsky et al, 2018Savelyev https://doi.org/ 10.15405/epsbs.2021 Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference eISSN: 2357-1330 833 2020a, 2020b; Savelyev et al, 2021c), China and India (Karlusov, 2009;Klinov, 2010;Lin, 2011;Lopatkin, 2014;Kheyfets, 2020;Savelyev, 2020a;Savelyev et al, 2021d), etc.…”

Features Of Economic Development Policies For New Industrial Countries

“…When assessing the controllability and sustainability of economic development of countries, it seems most reasonable to use indicators of economic growth and risk, quantitatively expressed in the growth rates of real Gross Domestic Product and standard deviation (SD) of these rates, respectively. This research scheme is described in detail in (Savelyev, 2020a) and applied to study the development of Russia in the imperial, Soviet and modern periods (Savelyev et al, 2020b), in relation to German-speaking countries (Savelyev et al, 2020a), Portuguese-speaking and French-speaking (Savelyev et al, 2021a(Savelyev et al, , 2021b, as well as in combination with factor analysis to analyze the activities of Russian governments over the past 30 years (Savelyev et al, 2021c). With regard to the development of newly industrialized countries, this study builds on our previous study (Savelyev et al, 2021d), but for a wider range of countries.…”