Emotional politics instead of realpolitik? Germany's economic blind flight and what the comparison with Singapore really reveals

Emotional politics instead of reality: What Germany urgently needs to learn from the Singapore system

### Billions for education, but performance is declining: The German state's expensive blind flight ### Prosperity or morality? Why good intentions in politics have fatal economic consequences ### Input instead of output: Why more and more tax money is vanishing into thin air in Germany ### The comfortable illusion: How the German fear of achievement is dividing society ### Good intentions, fatal consequences: Why the German state is running away from reality ###

In recent years, a political culture has taken hold in Germany that often values ​​good intentions more highly than measurable results. Whether in the energy transition, education policy, the welfare state, or the issue of migration: moral messages and feel-good rhetoric increasingly overshadow economic, physical, and demographic realities. This "politics of emotion" may provide short-term reassurance, but it comes at a high price. While countries like Singapore score points in international competition through consistent performance orientation, personal responsibility, and efficiency, Germany's competitiveness is gradually losing ground. Instead of tackling problems at their root, policymakers manage conflicting objectives with ever-increasing sums of billions – an economic blunder that stifles investment, prevents excellence, and ultimately jeopardizes prosperity. The following analysis unflinchingly demonstrates why an honest return to output-oriented realpolitik is not antisocial cynicism, but rather the absolute prerequisite for a functioning future.

When politics has to feel better than it's supposed to do

Those who judge politics primarily by whether it provides moral reassurance, emotional relief, or symbolic satisfaction distort the standards of government action. In a highly complex economy like Germany's, this leads not only to rhetorical distortions but also to real perverse incentives in energy, education, the labor market, migration, the welfare state, and investment. The real provocation, therefore, is not that emotions play a role in politics. They always do. The problem begins when they replace scarcity, productivity, performance incentives, and physical reality.

The debate on this topic is generally misguided in Germany. Either any criticism of political moralism is dismissed as cynical or antisocial, or conversely, every social or environmental objective is condemned outright as an economic dead end. Both approaches are too simplistic. Modern politics must pursue normative goals, but it cannot ignore their costs, side effects, and opportunity costs. This is precisely where a dangerous imbalance has been developing in Germany for years: public debate rewards good intentions more than demonstrable results.

This tendency becomes particularly evident when political promises are formulated in emotionally appealing imagery. For a long time, the energy transition was not sold as a laborious industrial transformation fraught with conflicting objectives, but rather as an almost automatic combination of climate protection, economic growth, technological leadership, and social justice. In this context, Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke in 2023 of potential growth rates comparable to those of the 1950s and 1960s, triggered by substantial investments in climate protection. This was precisely where the communicative power of the message lay, but also its economic flaw. Investments are not, in themselves, proof of prosperity. What matters is whether they are productive, efficient, scalable, and internationally competitive.

The fairy tale of the green economic miracle

The idea of ​​a new economic miracle through politically induced transformation is so seductive because it promises both sacrifice and hope. Citizens and businesses are expected to accept higher prices, restructuring costs, and regulatory pressure because the end result is supposed to be a dynamic, clean, and technologically superior economic location. This sounds plausible, but it ignores a fundamental macroeconomic principle: not every expenditure creates value, and not every government-initiated investment automatically increases overall economic productivity.

A historic economic miracle doesn't arise from simply injecting large amounts of money into circulation, but from a combination of cheap energy, high returns on investment, predictable framework conditions, increasing labor productivity, effective capital allocation, and international competitiveness. Germany has lost strength in several of these areas in recent years. Growth remained weak, industrial production developed disappointingly, and the debate about Germany's attractiveness as a business location was increasingly dominated by concerns about bureaucracy, labor costs, energy prices, and regulatory uncertainty.

The political narrative of the green revolution particularly underestimated the difference between the costs and benefits of transformation. When companies have to retrofit plants, electrify processes, meet additional reporting requirements, and simultaneously bear significantly higher energy prices, this initially results in a wave of costs. Whether this later translates into a productivity boost depends on whether the new structures are cheaper, more robust, or technologically superior. And this is by no means guaranteed. In some aspects of the transformation, Germany has focused more on asserting its normative leadership claim than on cost-effective implementation.

Energy prices as a silent engine of deindustrialization

Few areas illustrate the gap between political narrative and economic reality as clearly as electricity prices. For private households and especially for industry, energy prices are not a peripheral issue, but a key competitive factor. The German Economic Institute points out that companies in Germany pay significantly higher electricity prices than their competitors in the US and China, and that this negatively impacts the country's competitiveness. This highlights a core problem: An economy with a high industrial share cannot treat energy like any other consumer good.

The popular notion that high energy prices are a manageable transitional effect on the path to a more modern future underestimates the logic behind industrial location decisions. Chemicals, metals, basic materials, parts of the mechanical engineering sector, and numerous upstream industries operate in long investment cycles. If companies get the impression over several years that energy in Germany will remain structurally expensive, politically uncertain, and burdened with excessive regulation, they won't necessarily relocate all production immediately. But they will halt expansions, postpone follow-up investments, and build new capacities elsewhere. Deindustrialization often proceeds gradually, long before its dramatic impact becomes statistically apparent.

Furthermore, there is another point that is often overlooked in political discourse: physics cannot be morally dictated. An electricity system with a high proportion of fluctuating generation requires storage, grids, reserve capacities, load management, and enormous system coordination. If these components grow more slowly than political ambition, costs, instabilities, and distributional conflicts arise. The question, therefore, is not whether decarbonization is necessary. The question is whether Germany can organize it in a way that remains industrially viable. There are considerable doubts about this.

The political culture of symbolic exoneration

In many policy areas, Germany has become accustomed to a form of communication that can be described as symbolic absolution. Problems are linguistically moralized so that their practical conflicts of interest appear less visible. Those who accept this moral framework feel they belong to the good guys. Those who point out side effects quickly find themselves on the defensive. Economically, this is disastrous because it politically devalues ​​the sober cost-benefit analysis.

This culture explains why contradictory messages can coexist. For example, the energy transition could be simultaneously sold as a growth program, a social project, a climate protection strategy, a future-oriented industrial policy model, and a geostrategic narrative of liberation. Each of these narratives contains a grain of truth, but not all goals can be maximized simultaneously without incurring costs. A system that aims to guarantee climate protection, security of supply, price stability, and industrial attractiveness at the same time requires priorities and tough economic decisions. Those who communicate as if conflicting objectives can be largely resolved ultimately produce disappointment and a loss of trust.

The politics of positive emotions is therefore not merely a matter of style. It creates an institutional bias in favor of visible, morally appealing measures and at the expense of unspectacular but effective reforms. An additional funding program appears more politically attractive than simplifying an approval process. An emotionally charged promise of justice sells better than the uncomfortable explanation that prosperity must first be generated. It is precisely this shift that has brought Germany to a point where input often seems more important than output.

Education policy between equalization and loss of excellence

This trend is particularly evident in education policy. Germany spends a great deal of money on education, yet has achieved disappointing results in international performance comparisons for years. The PISA survey shows significant declines in mathematics, reading, and science for Germany in 2022 compared to previous surveys, while Singapore is among the top performers. The central question, therefore, is not whether Germany talks enough about education, but whether the system reliably produces high-achieving students.

The German debate often focuses on equal opportunities, participation, inclusion, and psychological relief. These goals are legitimate. Problems arise when they effectively translate into a policy of lowering standards. When grade inflation increases, differences in performance are rhetorically viewed with suspicion, and academic competition is systematically diminished, not only does excellence decline, but social mobility also suffers. A system that fails to clearly measure and reward achievement often ultimately benefits precisely those families who can compensate for shortcomings privately.

Singapore is such an insightful comparison because the city-state has built a consistently performance-oriented education system that combines high expectations, early assessment, targeted support, and clear standards. This cannot be directly transferred to Germany. But the comparison shatters the convenient illusion that high spending alone is proof of quality. What matters is not the amount of resources allocated, but their institutional translation into competence development. An education system can be expensive, well-intentioned, and inefficient all at once.

Why high education spending is no proof of quality

In Germany, spending on education is often treated as a form of moral absolution. Increased budget allocations are almost seen as political proof of serious problem-solving. Economically, this view is naive. Additional expenditures can be lost in inefficient structures, exacerbate perverse incentives, or simply manage symptoms. More staff, more programs, and more responsibilities do not guarantee better learning outcomes.

The comparison with Singapore suggests that system architecture is more important than mere budget size. There, clearer performance requirements are combined with higher teacher quality, a stronger focus on mathematics and science, and a closer orientation toward verifiable results. Germany, on the other hand, tends to reinterpret structural performance problems in pedagogical terms. Poorer results are then not seen as a warning sign of declining standards, but rather as evidence of increasing heterogeneity or social pressure. This interpretation may be more politically convenient, but it does not solve the core problem.

For a knowledge-based economy, this has enormous implications. A decline in mathematical, linguistic, and scientific skills is not merely a sectoral issue, but rather a long-term loss of productivity. The consequences only become apparent with a delay: in terms of innovation capacity, skills shortages, the speed of technological adaptation, and ultimately, the ability to retain complex industrial value creation within the country. Therefore, anyone who sentimentalizes education policy is unintentionally pursuing a policy that undermines the future of the economy.

Performance is not social cruelty

A central misunderstanding in the German debate is the pitting of merit against social fairness. In reality, the opposite is often true. Especially in open societies, performance measurement is an instrument of fairness because it can relativize social background. When standards are lowered, assessments are watered down, and differences are rhetorically problematized, the weaker members of society do not automatically win. Often, those who are already privileged, who can draw on tutoring, networks, and cultural capital, are the ones who benefit.

Singapore's educational success cannot be reduced to simple rigorous training. Behind the excellent results lies a system that combines performance assessment with targeted support and systematically develops talent. The German alternative—making differences visible as late as possible or downplaying them linguistically—may seem humane, but can be socially regressive. Real differences in performance don't disappear simply because a system is reluctant to discuss them. A serious reform perspective must therefore begin with an uncomfortable but necessary principle: Good policy must not seek to shield people from every experience of difference. It must create conditions under which differences can be productively addressed. This applies to schools as well as the labor market. A society that perceives competition only as an affront loses its economic dynamism.

Our EU and German expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital

Industry focus areas: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More information here:

• Expert Business Hub

A thematic hub offering insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform covering global and regional economies, innovation and industry-specific trends
• A collection of analyses, insights, and background information from our key areas of focus
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• A hub for companies seeking information on markets, digitalization, and industry innovations

Health policy and the illusion of expensive compassion

The healthcare sector also demonstrates how easily high spending can be mistaken for high quality. Analyses regularly highlight Singapore's system, which, by international standards, combines good healthcare outcomes with relatively moderate spending. Germany, on the other hand, has been among the countries with high healthcare expenditures for years, without this automatically translating into superior performance across all key indicators. This points to a general problem in highly developed welfare states: spending expansion replaces structural reform.

The emotional core of the German healthcare debate often revolves around the idea that a compassionate system must primarily guarantee as many services as possible. This sounds socially responsible, but it ignores questions of efficiency. The crucial factor is not how expensive a system is, but how it balances prevention, personal responsibility, financing, incentives, and quality of care. Singapore traditionally relies more heavily on hybrid models combining state-provided coverage, mandatory preventative care, and cost-consciousness on the part of patients. While this approach isn't easily transferable from other cultures, it demonstrates that a system can be based on solidarity without completely eliminating economic incentives.

This doesn't offer a simple template for Germany, but it does provide a lesson. An aging society with medical advancements, staff shortages, and rising expectations cannot permanently stabilize its healthcare system simply through increased funding. Without prioritization, productivity gains, digitalization, and clearer cost accountability, expenditure will outpace the benefits. Politically, this may feel good in the short term. Fiscally, it will be dangerous in the long run.

Welfare state between security and loss of incentive

The tension between morality and economics becomes even more controversial in the context of the welfare state. Germany rightly sees itself as a country with strong social security. However, every form of social security creates incentive structures. Therefore, what is economically relevant is not only the level of social benefits, but also their impact on employment incentives, skills development, integration, and fiscal sustainability. This is precisely what is often discussed in a simplified way in Germany, because any criticism of perverse incentives is quickly interpreted as an attack on solidarity.

The reference to Singapore is admittedly exaggerated, but insightful. Singapore has significantly lower unemployment and a more labor-market-oriented social architecture than Germany. This doesn't mean that Germany should abolish its welfare state. It does mean, however, that a system aiming to maximize security must always examine which forms of passivity, bureaucratization, and long-term dependency it unintentionally reinforces.

Long-term unemployment is therefore not merely a social problem, but a central economic one. It diminishes human capital, reduces potential growth, and burdens public finances for years. If Germany performs significantly worse in this area than more flexible or activation-oriented systems, this is not a sign of exceptional humanity, but often an expression of institutional inertia. A rational social policy would have to link assistance more closely with activation, clear expectations, and rapid reintegration.

Migration, reality, and moral overload

Few areas in Germany are as heavily influenced by moral over-coding as migration. On the one hand, there is a real need for skilled immigration in an aging economy. On the other hand, there are significant integration problems, fiscal burdens, and conflicting objectives between humanitarian norms and the state's capacity to control immigration. The political error lies in rhetorically conflating these two issues. This creates the impression that every form of immigration is automatically economically advantageous or morally unassailable in principle.

From a data-driven perspective, this view is untenable. The benefits of migration depend on qualifications, employability, language skills, speed of integration, level of education, law enforcement, and institutional capacity. A highly productive economy does not benefit from immigration per se, but from well-managed immigration. This very distinction is often blurred in German discourse because moral self-justification crowds out sober assessments.

This becomes particularly problematic economically when costs are borne collectively in the short term, but the returns are uncertain and significantly delayed. In such cases, the political incentive increases to offer reassurance through narrative rather than strict control. However, this strategy undermines trust. A population is more likely to accept a high degree of transparency when the state visibly manages, sanctions, integrates, and prioritizes. Where this credibility is lacking, moral outrage translates into a political backlash.

Defense, state capacity, and the cost of escapism

Defense policy also exemplifies what happens when wishful thinking overshadows actual capabilities. For years, Germany cultivated the illusion that security stability was a virtually free byproduct of the international order. Military capabilities were considered by some in the political culture to be unappealing or outdated. Only the Russian attack on Ukraine revealed how costly a policy of strategic neglect can be.

From an economic perspective, defense is part of a state's basic capacity. A country that cannot credibly safeguard its security, infrastructure, energy supply, and industrial base loses its appeal as an investor. The connection is indirect, but real. Companies don't just calculate based on taxes and wages, but also on geopolitical resilience, the state's ability to act, and its capacity to cope with crises. In this respect, defense is not a consumer luxury, but a prerequisite for economic stability.

The political tendency to postpone unpleasant capacity issues is therefore not limited to individual departments. It permeates the entire state apparatus. Germany likes to discuss goals, values, and responsibilities, but often too little about implementation, impact, and resilience. This is the real crux of the criticism of a politics of emotions: it not only replaces analysis with morality, but also the ability to govern with self-description.

Why Germany needs to measure output instead of input

A common denominator in almost all of the aforementioned areas is the fixation on input factors: more money for education, more climate funding programs, more healthcare services, more social transfers, more announcements, more strategy papers. Inputs are highly visible politically and easily used for communication. Outputs, on the other hand, are often sobering, technical, delayed, and fraught with questions of accountability. Therefore, they are systematically underestimated in everyday politics.

For an economically rational policy, the perspective would have to be reversed. What matters is not how many resources are mobilized, but what results are achieved under real constraints. In the case of electricity, it's not the number of political commitments that counts, but a competitive industrial electricity price in the long term. In education, it's not programs that matter, but skills. In social policy, it's not expenditures that matter, but transitions into productive employment. In healthcare, it's not the level of benefits on paper that matters, but the healthcare return per euro invested.

This output-oriented approach would change the political debate. Many morally appealing measures would then have to be measured by their effectiveness, side effects, and alternative costs. That would be more uncomfortable, but more honest. And it would refocus political attention on mathematics, physics, economics, and institutional design, instead of on symbolic self-affirmation.

The comparison with Singapore is useful, but it's not a blueprint

Referencing Singapore can be analytically very fruitful, as long as it doesn't descend into naive admiration. Singapore is a city-state with different cultural, geopolitical, and demographic conditions than Germany. Institutional transferability is therefore limited. Nevertheless, the comparison is valuable because it shows that high performance in education, healthcare, and economic organization does not necessarily require higher costs or less stringent standards.

This is precisely why Singapore is so uncomfortable for the German debate. The city-state represents a political culture that places significantly greater emphasis on results, functionality, governability, and performance standards. Germany, on the other hand, often struggles with the desire to achieve efficiency without exerting pressure for efficiency; to create integration without demanding commitment; to implement climate policy without openly acknowledging scarcity; and to establish educational equity without clearly recognizing differences in performance.

The analytical value of this comparison, therefore, lies not in idealizing Singapore, but in questioning German assumptions. If another system, with less sentimentality and a stronger focus on results, achieves better outcomes in several areas, then this should at least increase the willingness to critically examine one's own institutional routines. It is precisely this willingness to learn that is often lacking in Germany, particularly where political identity becomes stronger than empirical curiosity.

The true price of emotional politics

The main economic problem with emotionally driven politics is not that it speaks in moral terms. Politics must do that. Its problem is that it obscures conflicting objectives, obscures costs, and glosses over failures with rhetoric instead of correcting them institutionally. As a result, mismanagement accumulates for years without being addressed politically in a timely manner. The consequences then appear with a time lag in the form of weak investment, stagnant productivity, declining education, fiscal pressure, and dwindling trust.

This mechanism is particularly dangerous in a country like Germany, which has built its prosperity over decades on industrial expertise, technical training, reliability, exportable quality, and a capacity for gradual reform. When these foundations erode, it cannot be compensated for by communicative moral dividends. An economy can appear highly progressive symbolically while simultaneously losing material substance. This is precisely the risk that is real in Germany.

The price of emotionally driven politics is therefore higher than the daily debate suggests. It consists not only of increased spending or isolated misjudgments, but of a creeping loss of touch with reality within political institutions. And without a sense of reality, neither prosperity can be secured nor change successfully managed.

What a reality-oriented reform agenda should achieve

A serious counter-strategy would have to address several areas simultaneously. First, Germany needs a clear priority in its energy policy for cost efficiency, security of supply, and industrial competitiveness, instead of solely focusing on morally charged expansion targets. Second, the education system needs binding standards again, honest performance measurement, targeted support for struggling students, and a stronger focus on excellence in teaching, curriculum, and school management. Third, the welfare state must be more strongly geared towards activation, qualification, and rapid reintegration, without abandoning its core protective functions.

Fourth, the country needs a much clearer distinction in its migration policy between humanitarian obligations and labor market-related immigration. Both are legitimate, but only manageable if the objectives are not rhetorically conflated. Fifth, the state must strengthen its basic capacities: administrative enforcement, infrastructure, defense, digitalization, and law enforcement. A modern economy fails not only because of flawed ideas, but often because of a lack of implementation capacity.

Furthermore, Germany needs a cultural shift. Politicians must once again openly acknowledge that not every desirable service is financially feasible, that not every inequality is unjust, that not every problem can be solved with more money, and that good intentions are no substitute for functioning systems. This honesty might be uncomfortable in the short term, but in the long run it would be economically and democratically stabilizing.

Sobriety is not cynicism

Perhaps the most important conclusion is therefore this: A more realistic approach to politics would not be more inhumane, but more responsible. It would not abandon social goals, but rather tie them back to the conditions of their affordability and effectiveness. Sobriety is not cynicism. On the contrary: Those who constantly reassure people with sentimental rhetoric, even as structures erode, ultimately act more irresponsibly than those who openly address uncomfortable truths.

Germany doesn't need policies that oppose emotions, but rather policies in which emotions are not the final authority. Mathematics, physics, economic logic, and institutional effectiveness must once again be given greater weight than symbolic narratives. Only then can the energy transition, education, the welfare state, migration, and the industrial future be shaped in a way that is not merely well-intentioned, but actually works.