The east will continue to be an industrial
developing country for some time
-Steffen Uhlmann, Germany
Even in the tenth year since reunification, the situation in the eastern
German economy remains precarious, since, following its major collapse, no progress is
being made on rebuilding it. Virtually none of the 100 largest eastern German companies
are in the manufacturing sector.
The cotton combine, as Bertram Hofer remembers very clearly, had some 70,000
employees in 26 plants, and was largest of the 30 leading GDR combines when the GDR ceased
to exist. At the time, the state-owned dinosaur formed the backbone of the eastern German
textile industry, which provided a living for no fewer than 330,000 eastern Germans. Then
came monetary union and market economy, and no one thought the combine or the entire
sector was worth a bean.
Flourishing landscapes: Except for Hofer, the man from the
management of the cotton combine joined forces with others to set up the Association of
the Northeast Textile and Clothing Industry and to try to make a fresh start. With hardly
any major help from investors from the west, parts of the combine were closed, merged,
re-established, and above all slimmed down to a healthy size. Less than one tenth of the
330,000 employees were left in the industry: just over 21,000 in more than 300 small or at
most medium sized firms.
Hofer believes that they are doing better than the utterly dominant western
competition that they initially faced. After all, the east German firms did record
excellent growth last year: their exports alone rose by 27.5% and some areas, such as
knitted fabrics, expanded turnover by 24%. This leads the chairman of the association to
the conclusion that ‘we have found our footing and are continuing to catch up’.
That view is shared by Chancellor Schroder and his commissioner for the rebuilding of east
Germany, minister of state Rolf Schwanitz. In the tenth year of unity, they are taking
every chance to proclaim the good opportunities available in the new Lander.
But what is the true picture of the industrial structure in the east, 10
years after reunification? Of the 30 largest GDR combines, which employed roughly one
million people in 1990 and achieved turnover of just under 200 billion marks in 1998, not
one survived the shift to the market economy. It is true that there are successor
companies i.e. parts of the combines, which were privatized and have more or less
successfully managed to compete as limited liability or joint stock companies. Take
cotton, for example, or the Carl Zeiss combine, which in GDR times was also one of the
showcases firms of the other German state, with some 70,000 employees and a turnover of
more than five billion GDR marks.
Its two successor companies, Jenoptik AG and Carl Zeiss Jena GmbH, a
subsidiary of Zeiss Oberkochen, are now ranked fifth and 43rd in the top 100 east German
firms. The performance of the two Jena based firms is undeniable. On the stock exchange,
Jenoptik is the only East German Company on the Mdax, and having hived off unprofitable
business activities and sold off shares, it has been able to clearly increase its profit
forecasts for this year. As for Carl Zeiss-Ost, it has come through a difficult period of
restructuring and will be back in the black for the first time.
But overall, the top east German 100, of which the front runner would only
come 40th amongst the 100 largest German firms-and tellingly, this is Volkswagen’s
subsidiary in Mosel, Saxony, lag far behind the west German elite in terms of growth.
Whereas last year-read 1999-the 100 largest 100 west German firms achieved a turnover
increase of just under 14%, the 100 east German companies with the highest turnover did
not even manage one percent growth: to be precise, they expanded by 0.7%.
The gap is widening further: This should not come as a
surprise, if one takes a closer look at the sectoral structure of the east German top 100.
The sectors represented tend not to be the ones like information technology, electronics
or capital goods, which drove the west German growth with a sharp rise in exports.
Instead, the top 100 from east tend mainly to be utilities or foodstuffs manufacturers
i.e. primarily companies oriented to the domestic market, and this explains the ongoing
lack of export strength of the east German economy.
And so it would appear that, in terms of economic output, the gap in growth
between east and west is widening, not narrowing. There are still no major industrial
centers in the new Lander to stimulate genuine growth throughout the region. The German
Institute for Economic Research, DIW, has studied a high innovation sector, information
and communication technologies, and produced a league table of the regions. The rankings
include places like Hanover, Karlsruhe, Bielefeld and Augsberg, but not a single east
German region- not even Jena or Dresden, which aims to become Germany’s new
microelectronics center with Siemens and AMD.
There is a lack of large companies, which generally have far greater amounts
of capital at their disposal, as can be seen in West Germany. The east German economy is
based mainly on the 500,000 newly established firms, which have at least been able to
ensure that following the collapse in the early 1990s, the number of workers in the
manufacturing sector has now stabilized at around 600,000 and is even rising slightly.
This has been achieved by a few home grown east German firms, such as Lintec
Computer AG in Saxony, which started life as one man firm in 1990, and now, ten years on,
has almost 600 employees and is already ranked 39th amongst east German companies, But,
contrary to Schwanitz’s claims, the economy is a long way from turning the corner.
Ultimately, the lack of capital stock and companies which are much too small
are the consequence of the restraint shown by west German firms when it come to investing
in the east. The first few years after reunification presented the western German
companies with a massive growth-stimulus program, thanks to transfers of public money and
the enlargement of the market, but most of them have quite simply refused to do anything
themselves to build up the economy in the east. Former Chancellor Kohl, who promised the
east Germans "flourishing landscapes" when he was in office, is a disappointed
man. He admits he was completely wrong in thinking that western German companies would be
willing "to leave their own account books to one side for once and to help wherever
they can".
55,000 jobs like back in the days of Trabi: True, some firms
did come across: Volkswagen to Mosel, Opel to Eisenach, Siemens to Dresden or BASF to
Schwarzheide. After a tough start, their investment in the east is paying off- both for
themselves and for the east German people. Opel and Volkswagen can serve as an example:
including component suppliers, they have created 55,000 jobs- just as many as worked in
the IFA combine in Karl-Marx-Stadt, which produced the Trabant and the Wartburg. (Text
courtesy: IN-Press ST 7/2000, German Embassy in Kathmandu).
Media and Democracy...
Dr. Erfried Adam, Director,
Office for Regional Cooperation in Southeast Asia,Friedrich Ebert
Stiftung
Democracy, freedom and social justice are unthinkable without independent
media. Pluralism and peaceful cooperation can only be embedded within society, when state,
economy and civil society can interchange with each other through media. There is this
saying, that media form the 4th power of democratic governance, besides the legislative,
the executive and the judiciary.
Our approach towards media development is based on quite
‘normative’ positions: Media-the press, the radio, TV, film, telecommunications
and new information technologies should be as distant from the state, as economic
independent and as open to participation of groups from the civil society, as possible
under the respective circumstances. In order to further such a development, media can not
be just left to the free interplay of the market forces, but need a minimum of legal and
administrative regulations and of a legal framework governing media development.
The inter-relationship between governments and media, between media worker
and media consumer should be determine in a fair way, and be open to arbitration by an
independent institution in all cases of conflict or doubts, or open to independent
judiciary proceedings. Different actors of civil society should have free access to
information and unhindered opportunities to articulate themselves.
It is quite obvious that this might be quite ‘ideal’ model far from
reality in many, if not most countries. But these considerations also make clear that
‘media cooperation’ or ‘media assistance’ requires more than technical
skill development or journalist training: It touches the core of a societies’
perception of self-identity and its way to provide for transparency and participation.
Our media cooperation is also based on the firm belief, that all our
activities are aimed at supporting a peaceful international development, and cooperation
and understanding between the different actors, peoples, nation states, governments,
business, social groups and civil society organizations, international bodies. It is
obvious, that in a world formed by information exchange media play a central role as a
medium and partner in cooperation.
The present times are characterized by rapid changes, but change is not
one-dimensional and effected in many ways by somehow contradictory developments. What is
named ‘globalization’ and rejected by many people as too far intruding into
cultural identities and way of lives, is largely result of an ‘explosion’ of
information, of media exchange.
In political terms we witness a trend towards more democracy and pluralism in
many developing and industrialized countries. In economic terms globalization allows for
better access to information, culture and entertainment around the world, that is
effecting the structure of governance and of political processes in many ways.
Many of these developments raise new and highly difficult questions: # There
is a growing concentration and monopolization of media: there is the danger that some day
all the media will belong to the ‘Murdochs’ of this world (or AOL-Warner, or
Bertelsmann). Stock markets and shareholder value make their impact on media development.
# There seems to be a growing commercialization of media as well, the
development of ‘infotainment’, where media move away from the central function
as forum of civil society. We know from a philosophical point of view that that there is
no ‘reality’ as such but only interpretations (reality is what we perceive, and
these perceptions are formed by culture, education, experience and information). Will our
perception of reality be formed in future only by CNN-News or Star TV and their selective
presentations?
# There is growing concern about the expansion of one single global
‘culture’ through the modern media, a ‘hegemonial’ expansion of
‘Americanism’ or ‘Westernization’- and there is reaction to this,
sometimes violent, aggressive, xenophobic, nationalistic, ethnic or combined with
religious fundamentalism. How can media contribute to the preservation of ‘cultural
identities’ without destroying the positive factors of internationalism, of the
development of a ‘global civil society’ that has won such a momentum in
contributing to the shape of a new global order?
# The technical revolution in media and Internet development is in danger of
opening up a new ‘digital divide’, a growing gap between countries and within
countries between regions and social groups who have access to education and IT, and those
who have not. It is obvious that this divide does not only pose questions for political,
cultural and social developments, but does effect economic opportunities to a large
extent. Can we allow countries and peoples to remain outside or, a more radical question:
are there any positive prospects for opting out? Is there an alternative to integration
and globalization?
Information and mass communication is more and more getting out of hands of
‘professional’ media producers, and brought in to a direct exchange through the
Internet. How does this effect the validity of information, the truth or objectivity, we
are inclined to attach to ‘news’? The Internet is full of examples of very
negative developments, where neo-nazism, hatred and xenophobia are abounded. Or where
information is distorted or manipulated. What does this mean for media and their role in
democracy?
# But can we still rely on ‘professionalism’ and ‘journalist
ethics’ in our main media? I tend to say no! There is not only a concerning trend to
‘soap’ and ‘infotainment’, and to a rigid selection and sometimes
one-sided interpretation of news in main media, there are examples of direct manipulation
for political or economic gains as well. Even more concerning seems to be another trend,
that at a first glance could be seen as example of a positive development in the expansion
of press freedom and democracy: There is a growth, sometimes even ‘mushrooming’,
of new media, journals, local radio and even TV in a number of countries. But I’m
afraid, that this is not combined with a similar growth in ‘professionalism’ and
‘ethics’ of journalism. In many ways customers are attracted by rumors,
in-fights or political manipulations, and sex, violence and crime seem to sell well than
‘good journalism’.
# And still there are many cases where governments keep a very rigid grip on
media, where media are directly owned and controlled by governments and institutions, and
where structure of censorship and self-censorship are prevalent. Some of the
justifications given may make reason, I would not exclude them on principle. But I have
the feeling that many governments could be more self-assured and allow for more freedom.
And I trust that societies in itself have the strength and ability to define their needs
and to claim what they want. But the role of media workers seems to be most essential in
this process.
Many of these questions are touched upon or dealt with in many of our
programs around the globe. But I have to say that we do not have the answers to all of
them. There are many options to sometimes-contradictory developments.
This is an extract from the welcome address given at the ‘Conference on
Media and Democracy in Asia’ held from 27-29 September 2000 in Singapore by the
author. The seminar was organized by AMIC/FES. Text courtesy: FES-Chief editor. |
