Economists on TUI rescue: "The state is endangering its core regulatory tasks"

display

The state as a major shareholder in the largest German travel company?

Perhaps a major shareholder who even keeps the option of a blocking minority open?

The state's entry has met with a mixed response from German economists.

The verdict ranges from “justifiable” to “fault”.

from the Center for European Economic Research (ZEW) considers the renewed aid for TUI to be

“justifiable”

.

"TUI's business model is sustainable," says the professor who heads the corporate taxation and public finance research department at the Mannheim institute.

"Tourism will recover much more quickly than business travel, for example, once the population has been vaccinated", says Heinemann.

“Unlike a business trip, a relaxing holiday cannot be replaced by a video conference.

In this respect, TUI's business area will not fall victim to the post-Corona structural change from today's perspective.

So it makes sense from a state perspective to get the company through the dry spell. "

display

Niklas Potrafke,

head of the Center for Public Finance and Political Economy at the Ifo Institute in Munich, does not consider joining the state to be fundamentally wrong, but he warns of the possible consequences.

"The corona crisis is admittedly leading to a painful structural change," says the economics professor.

"But the envisaged state participation in TUI must not lead to an obstacle to this structural change that is still necessary."

The time to exit is unclear

professor from Erlangen and member of the expert council,

argues in a similar way

.

She says: “The tourism industry has been hit particularly hard by the pandemic.

With the availability of vaccinations, the situation will improve in perspective, so it can be expedient to maintain functioning company structures. "

However, Grimm warns of the “possibility that business models and the earnings situation in the tourism industry will change permanently due to permanent changes in people's behavior.

The participations and aid must not prevent the necessary reactions to such a structural change. ”In addition, without clear rules it could be“ politically difficult to find the right time to exit ”.

display

In contrast,

speaks

of a "mistake".

“One can justify that the state should secure the existence of affected companies like TUI in this particular crisis, but this should not be done by joining the state,” says the professor from TU Cottbus.

"The example of Commerzbank shows that the exit from such adventures is often postponed far too far."

The state is not an investment fund

In addition, according to Schnellenbach, conflicting goals arise: "We expect the state to act as an arbitrator in regulating markets, but it cannot do this in a credible and impartial manner if it is also the owner."

Hence the argument that the state should become the owner because it could do a good deal for the taxpayer by selling the shares after the crisis: “That's not the point.

The state is not an investment fund, but rather endangers the performance of its core regulatory tasks when it acquires shares in private companies. "