Search

In diesem Artikel werden die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen eines möglichen Stopps russischer Energieimporte auf die deutsche Wirtschaft diskutiert. Wir zeigen, dass die Auswirkungen wahrscheinlich substanziell, aber handhabbar sein werden. Kurzfristig würde ein Stopp der russischen Energieimporte zu einem BIP-Rückgang zwischen 0,5% und 3% führen Zum Vergleich: Der BIP-Rückgang im Jahr 2020 aufgrund der Pandemie betrug 4,5%

This article discusses the economic effects of a potential cut-off of the German economy from Russian energy imports. We show that the effects are likely to be substantial but manageable. In the short run, a stop of Russian energy imports would lead to a GDP decline in range between 0.5% and 3% (cf. the GDP decline in 2020 during the pandemic was 4.5%). In diesem Artikel werden die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen eines möglichen Stopps russischer Energieimporte auf die deutsche Wirtschaft diskutiert. Wir zeigen, dass die Auswirkungen wahrscheinlich substanziell, aber handhabbar sein werden. Kurzfristig würde ein Stopp der russischen Energieimporte zu einem BIP-Rückgang zwischen 0,5 % und 3 % führen (Zum Vergleich: Der BIP-Rückgang im Jahr 2020 auf Grund der Pandemie betrug 4,5 %).

This article discusses the economic effects of a potential cut-off of the German economy from Russian energy imports. We show that the effects are likely to be substantial but manageable. In the short run, a stop of Russian energy imports would lead to a GDP decline in range between 0.5% and 3% (cf. the GDP decline in 2020 during the pandemic was 4.5%).(i) In the case of an import stop, imports of oil and coal from Russia can be substituted from other countries, but the situation in the gas market is more challenging. An increase in gas imports from other countries, substitution of gas used for electricity production by coal or nuclear as well as refilling of storage facilities over the summer can only reduce the shortfall to about 30% of gas consumption or 8% of German energy consumption over the next 12 months.(ii) How would the German economy cope with such a shortfall of gas deliveries?The economic effects crucially depend on substitution and reallocation of energy inputs across sectors. To quantify these effects, we use a state-of the-art multi-sectoral open economy model following Baqaae and Farhi (2021) that accounts for elasticities of substitution and reallocation between different intermediate inputs. In a second step, we turn to a simplified model that helps us derive plausible bounds for the economic effects using observed elasticities for energy inputs. In the Baqaae-Farhi model, the output costs of a Russian import stop remain firmly below 1% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or between 80 and 120 Euros per German citizen per year. In a more pessimistic scenario where it proves very difficult to substitute Russian gas in the short-run outside the electricity sector, the economic costs would rise to about 2-2.5% of GDP, or about 1000 Euros per German citizen over 1 year. This comes potentially on top of a large increase in energy prices for household and industry even without a shortfall of gas deliveries. Of course the effects are more detrimental in energy intensive sectors.(iii) Data from the Income and Consumption Survey (EVS) show variation in the expenditure share on energy across the income distribution. However, the distributional consequences of an increase in energy prices appear manageable. A targeted policy towards low-income households without reducing the incentives for households to save energy would be a cost effective way of ensuring a fair burden-sharing across households. It is important to maintain strong incentives for households to reduce gas usage.(iv) Economic policy should aim at strategically increasing incentives to substitute and save fossil energies as soon as possible. In case that an active embargo is politically desired, it should start as soon as possible so that economic agents can use the summer period for adjustment. To reduce dependence on imported energy, it is advisable for the government to commit to elevated fossil energy prices, in particular for natural gas, for an extended period to create incentives for households and industry to adjust quickly.

Ein Ende der Gaslieferungen aus Russland ist in letzter Zeit deutlich wahrscheinlicher geworden. Die russischen Liefermengen wurden bereits substantiell reduziert, und die Unsicherheit über künftige Lieferungen und die Versorgungslage im Winter ist groß. In dieser Studie fragen wir, was die ökonomischen Folgen eines kompletten Stopps russischer Gasimporte zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt (August 2022) wären. Seit unserer ersten Studie "Was wäre wenn" (Bachmann et al., 2022) zu den ökonomischen Effekten eines Importstopps für russische Energieträger aus dem März 2022 sind fast fünf Monate vergangen. Die durch die Studie ausgelöste Debatte hat den Blick für die Fragen und Annahmen geschärft, die für eine Einschätzung der wirtschaftlichen Kosten eines Importstopps russischer Energie entscheidend sind. In dieser Studie aktualisieren wir die Ergebnisse auf der Grundlage der Situation im August 2022.1 (i) Wir schätzen die notwendige Nachfragereduktion, die sich im Fall eines Stopps von russischen Gasimporten ab August 2022 ergeben würde und diskutieren wirtschaftspolitische Strategien, um diese Anpassung zu erreichen. (ii) Wir aktualisieren unsere Schätzung der zu erwartenden ökonomischen Kosten und diskutieren praktische Beispiele für Substitutionsmöglichkeiten im industriellen Bereich. (iii) Wir bewerten die wirtschaftspolitische Strategie der Bundesregierung, insbesondere die Entscheidung mit fortgesetzten Gasimporten aus Russland seit März 2022 die Speicherstände zu erhöhen, aber auf Maßnahmen zu einer frühzeitigen Reduzierung des Gasverbrauchs in der Stromerzeugung, in der Industrie und bei Haushalten und Gewerbe weitgehend zu verzichten. An end to gas supplies from Russia has recently become much more likely. Russian supply volumes have already been substantially reduced, and uncertainty about future supplies and the winter supply situation is high. In this study, we ask what the economic consequences would be of a complete halt to Russian gas imports at present (August 2022). Almost five months have passed since our first study, "What if" (Bachmann et al., 2022), on the economic effects of a March 2022 Russian energy import freeze. The debate sparked by the study has sharpened the focus on the issues and assumptions that are critical to estimating the economic costs of a Russian energy import freeze. In this study, we update the results based on the situation in August 2022. (i) We estimate the necessary demand reduction that would result if Russian gas imports were halted from August 2022 and discuss economic policy strategies to achieve this adjustment. (ii) We update our estimated expected economic costs and discuss practical examples of substitution options in the industrial sector. (iii) We evaluate the federal government's economic policy, in particular its decision to increase storage levels with continued gas imports from Russia since March 2022, but to largely forego measures to reduce gas demand in power generation, industry, and residential and commercial sectors. The key findings of the study can be summarized as follows: In the event of a complete loss of Russian gas supplies in the next few weeks, Germany will have to reduce its gas demand by around 25% (equivalent to 210 TWh) by the end of the coming heating period (April 2023), even if the planned liquefied natural gas terminals come on stream as planned in the winter. When factoring in the savings in gas demand that can be achieved through alternative energy sources in power generation, this leaves an adjustment of about 20% of gas consumption that must be borne by industry, households, businesses, and the public sector. Such a reduction is feasible in a collective effort if measures are taken quickly to save gas. The good news from our study is that Germany can get through the winter without Russian gas. Panic mongering is out of place. Nevertheless, it should be clear to everyone that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has made Germany permanently poorer. The days of cheap energy are over and collective efforts are needed to make the economy crisis-proof. Reducing gas consumption is feasible, but it comes at an economic cost. In particular, there is much less time now to substitute gas in the industrial sector and power generation than in the spring. It is difficult to estimate how many companies have made the sometimes costly investments in alternatives even without the appropriate political framework. However, it has become clear that the view that gas substitution was not possible at all within six months was wrong. There are now numerous examples of substantial substitution possibilities, including in the chemical and glass production industries. The bottom line is that the economic costs of adjusting to an import freeze are likely to remain similar to those of committing to an import freeze already in the spring. This is because the gas gap is smaller than in the spring, but the remaining adjustment period is shorter. In this respect, the costs remain substantial, but manageable with appropriate economic policy measures. There is no threat of mass poverty or popular uprisings in the event of a halt to Russian gas imports. The economy will face production losses of a magnitude that Germany has already managed in the past when it had to face economic shocks. It is also important to interpret the effects of a gas import stop relative to a scenario without an import stop. For example, Germany could fall into recession even without an import freeze. The assessment of the German government's strategy of not enforcing an early demand adjustment and continuing gas imports from Russia despite the war of aggression on Ukraine is ambivalent. Although a good 100 TWh of gas was stored from April to July, without Russian supplies the need for adjustment on the demand side remains substantial at 25% until the end of the next heating period. In a counterfactual scenario, in which Germany would have had to manage without Russian gas imports as early as from April onwards, demand would have had to be reduced by 31%, a good 6 percentage points more. Yet in return, there would have been more time to prepare the appropriate adjustments for the winter heating period. Even if the storage facilities were filled to 100% in the fall, Germany would remain dependent on Russian imports for normal winter consumption and would thus remain vulnerable to blackmail from Moscow. This is because the storage facilities only have a total capacity of below 250 TWh, which is roughly equivalent to the consumption of two winter months. In this respect, the focus on storage levels and the neglect of adaptation measures was not suitable to end Germany's dependence on Russia and its political blackmail ability completely and quickly. While closer cooperation with European partners could have mitigated the necessary reduction in gas demand in Germany, there is still a risk that national go-it-alone efforts will undermine essential European energy solidarity. In any case, the BMWK's efforts to build LNG terminals and diversify gas supplies through imports from third countries are positive. However, this could have been done even with an import freeze or tariff solutions in March.

An end to gas supplies from Russia has recently become much more likely. Russian supply volumes have already been substantially reduced, and uncertainty about future supplies and the winter supply situation is high. In this study, we ask what the economic consequences would be of a complete halt to Russian gas imports at present (August 2022). Almost five months have passed since our first study, "What if" (Bachmann et al., 2022), on the economic effects of a March 2022 Russian energy import freeze. The debate sparked by the study has sharpened the focus on the issues and assumptions that are critical to estimating the economic costs of a Russian energy import freeze. In this study, we update the results based on the situation in August 2022. (i) We estimate the necessary demand reduction that would result if Russian gas imports were halted from August 2022 and discuss economic policy strategies to achieve this adjustment. (ii) We update our estimated expected economic costs and discuss practical examples of substitution options in the industrial sector. (iii) We evaluate the federal government's economic policy, in particular its decision to increase storage levels with continued gas imports from Russia since March 2022, but to largely forego measures to reduce gas demand in power generation, industry, and residential and commercial sectors. The key findings of the study can be summarized as follows: In the event of a complete loss of Russian gas supplies in the next few weeks, Germany will have to reduce its gas demand by around 25% (equivalent to 210 TWh) by the end of the coming heating period (April 2023), even if the planned liquefied natural gas terminals come on stream as planned in the winter. When factoring in the savings in gas demand that can be achieved through alternative energy sources in power generation, this leaves an adjustment of about 20% of gas consumption that must be borne by industry, households, businesses, and the public sector. Such a reduction is feasible in a collective effort if measures are taken quickly to save gas. The good news from our study is that Germany can get through the winter without Russian gas. Panic mongering is out of place. Nevertheless, it should be clear to everyone that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has made Germany permanently poorer. The days of cheap energy are over and collective efforts are needed to make the economy crisis-proof. Reducing gas consumption is feasible, but it comes at an economic cost. In particular, there is much less time now to substitute gas in the industrial sector and power generation than in the spring. It is difficult to estimate how many companies have made the sometimes costly investments in alternatives even without the appropriate political framework. However, it has become clear that the view that gas substitution was not possible at all within six months was wrong. There are now numerous examples of substantial substitution possibilities, including in the chemical and glass production industries. The bottom line is that the economic costs of adjusting to an import freeze are likely to remain similar to those of committing to an import freeze already in the spring. This is because the gas gap is smaller than in the spring, but the remaining adjustment period is shorter. In this respect, the costs remain substantial, but manageable with appropriate economic policy measures. There is no threat of mass poverty or popular uprisings in the event of a halt to Russian gas imports. The economy will face production losses of a magnitude that Germany has already managed in the past when it had to face economic shocks. It is also important to interpret the effects of a gas import stop relative to a scenario without an import stop. For example, Germany could fall into recession even without an import freeze. The assessment of the German government's strategy of not enforcing an early demand adjustment and continuing gas imports from Russia despite the war of aggression on Ukraine is ambivalent. Although a good 100 TWh of gas was stored from April to July, without Russian supplies the need for adjustment on the demand side remains substantial at 25% until the end of the next heating period. In a counterfactual scenario, in which Germany would have had to manage without Russian gas imports as early as from April onwards, demand would have had to be reduced by 31%, a good 6 percentage points more. Yet in return, there would have been more time to prepare the appropriate adjustments for the winter heating period. Even if the storage facilities were filled to 100% in the fall, Germany would remain dependent on Russian imports for normal winter consumption and would thus remain vulnerable to blackmail from Moscow. This is because the storage facilities only have a total capacity of below 250 TWh, which is roughly equivalent to the consumption of two winter months. In this respect, the focus on storage levels and the neglect of adaptation measures was not suitable to end Germany's dependence on Russia and its political blackmail ability completely and quickly. While closer cooperation with European partners could have mitigated the necessary reduction in gas demand in Germany, there is still a risk that national go-it-alone efforts will undermine essential European energy solidarity. In any case, the BMWK's efforts to build LNG terminals and diversify gas supplies through imports from third countries are positive. However, this could have been done even with an import freeze or tariff solutions in March.

In diesem Artikel werden die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen eines möglichen Stopps russischer Energieimporte auf die deutsche Wirtschaft diskutiert. Wir zeigen, dass die Auswirkungen wahrscheinlich substanziell, aber handhabbar sein werden. Kurzfristig würde ein Stopp der russischen Energieimporte zu einem BIP-Rückgang zwischen 0,5 % und 3 % führen (Zum Vergleich: Der BIP-Rückgang im Jahr 2020 auf Grund der Pandemie betrug 4,5 %).

We study the effect of monetary and fiscal policy in a heterogeneous-agent model where households have present-biased time preferences and naive beliefs. The model features a liquid asset and illiquid home equity, which households can use as collateral for borrowing. Because present bias substantially increases households' marginal propensity to consume (MPC), present bias increases the impact of fiscal policy. Present bias also amplifies the effect of monetary policy but, at the same time, slows down the speed of monetary transmission. Interest rate cuts incentivize households to conduct cash-out refinances, which become targeted liquidity-injections to high-MPC households. But present bias also introduces a motive for households to procrastinate refinancing their mortgages, which slows down the speed with which this monetary channel operates.