The 52nd EBES Conference – Istanbul takes place on July 3rd, 4th, and 5th, 2025 in Istanbul, Türkiye. Event & Program Link. The second in-person day ended.
EBES team from the left: Mehmet Bilgin, Klaus F. Zimmermann, Hakan Danis & Ugur Can
Highlights of the conference included:
Ends;
The 52nd EBES Conference – Istanbul takes place on July 3rd, 4th, and 5th, 2025 in Istanbul, Türkiye. Event & Program Link.
Left: EBES & GLO President Klaus F. Zimmermann arrived in Istanbul. Right: Preparing the day: Zimmermann with Justin Lin (Peking University) & Wolfgang Härdle (Humboldt University Berlin)
Highlights of the conference include:
Ends;
Recently, someone sent me a link to the anecdote below about a supposed historical event involving two eminent scientists. The message is timeless and still very much worth considering in light of some of today’s media disputes between scientists.
It may also inspire journal editors in their role to reach good and fair editorial decisions. For this, editorial independence is crucial. “Editorial independence ensures that editors make decisions on manuscripts free from outside influence. As integrity threats grow more complex and systematic, collaboration between editors and publishers is needed, using shared resources and expertise. However, editorial independence must remain central, with transparent decision-making structures and editors ultimately accountable for journal content.” (LINK, Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE).
(Slightly modified from a DeepL translation of the German text below.)
It is said to have happened in 1930 at a scientific conference in Germany. Albert Einstein had just presented a complex new theorem – the room erupted in applause. Who would have dared to contradict the father of modern physics?
But from the back rows, a voice quietly rose.
It belonged to a 22-year-old young physicist called Lev Landau – still completely unknown at the time. Hesitantly but firmly, he pointed out an error in Einstein’s second equation. No defiance, no tone of arrogance – just logical, precise words. And courage.
Silence.
Einstein slowly walked back to the blackboard, examined his own work – and after a brief pause, he turned to the crowd.
“The young man is right,” he said calmly.
“Please ignore my previous statement.”
No pride. No defense. Just the truth.
This moment was not only the beginning of Landau’s path to the later Nobel Prize – it also showed what true greatness means:
Einstein wasn’t afraid to be wrong.
He had understood: It’s not about always being right – it’s about being willing to always learn.
Did the story happen exactly like this ? Who knows.
But its message is clear:
Question courageously. Learn humbly. Search uncompromisingly for the truth.
*****
Source: Wissen macht den Unterschied’s post of June 11, 2025 at 6:33 Post
Man sagt, es geschah im Jahr 1930 auf einer wissenschaftlichen Konferenz in Deutschland. Albert Einstein hatte gerade einen komplexen neuen Gleichungssatz vorgestellt – der Saal brach in Applaus aus. Wer hätte es gewagt, dem Vater der modernen Physik zu widersprechen?
Doch aus den hinteren Reihen erhob sich leise eine Stimme.
Sie gehörte einem 22-jährigen Nachwuchsphysiker namens Lev Landau – damals noch völlig unbekannt.
Zögernd, aber bestimmt wies er auf einen Fehler in Einsteins zweiter Gleichung hin. Kein Trotz, kein Ton der Überheblichkeit – nur logische, präzise Worte. Und Mut.
Stille.
Einstein ging langsam zurück zur Tafel, musterte seine eigene Arbeit – und nach kurzem Innehalten drehte er sich zur Menge um.
„Der junge Mann hat recht“, sagte er ruhig.
„Bitte ignorieren Sie meine vorherige Aussage.“
Kein Stolz. Keine Abwehr. Nur die Wahrheit.
Dieser Moment war nicht nur der Beginn von Landaus Weg zum späteren Nobelpreis – er zeigte auch, was wahre Größe bedeutet:
Einstein hatte keine Angst, sich zu irren.
Er hatte verstanden: Es geht nicht darum, immer recht zu haben – sondern bereit zu sein, immer dazuzulernen.
Ob die Geschichte sich exakt so zugetragen hat? Wer weiß.
Aber ihre Botschaft ist klar:
Hinterfrage mutig. Lerne demütig. Suche kompromisslos nach Wahrheit.
Ends;
Amelie F. Constant, Simone Schüller and Klaus F. Zimmermann (2023). “Ethnic spatial dispersion and immigrant identity.” Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies (JCEBS). 2024, Vol. 22, No. 2, 205–230.
Open Access: https://doi.org/10.1080/14765284.2023.2220271
The INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY magazine (The magazine of international economic policy) has just published a debate on Is Germany Without Its Debt Brake on the Right Track? What will be the end result of a huge European debt expansion led by a Germany? More than two dozen distinguished thinkers offer their views. See LINK to the magazine and inspect the PDF of the complete set of contributions.
Below is the contribution by Klaus F. Zimmermann, Germany’s planned debt expansion presents both opportunity and risk, in: The International Economy, Is Germany Without Its Debt Brake on the Right Track?, Winter 2025, pp. 21-22.
KLAUS F. ZIMMERMANN
Professor Emeritus, Bonn University, President, Global Labor Organization, and former President, German Institute for Economic Research
The United States’ recent turn toward isolationism is reshaping the global political, economic, and military order. Its shifting stance toward Russia and erratic tariff policies have undermined confidence in U.S. leadership. Beyond diplomacy and security, the U.S. dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency is now less certain. As global trust erodes, new trade zones and investment patterns are likely to emerge, disrupting long-established flows of goods, services, and capital.
Even if some of the erratic and economically unsound policies of Donald Trump are partially reversed, the global community is unlikely to forget the instability they introduced. This has already set in motion a reorientation of international relationships, with long-term consequences that will reshape alliances and economic partnerships.
Germany’s debt brake, or Schuldenbremse, has proven to be an asset, since the low level of debt is now enabling the country to invest heavily in military equipment and growth-oriented infrastructure. Designed to prevent fiscal mismanagement, this mechanism must be preserved in a structurally sound manner for the long term.
Both Germany and the European Union are well-positioned to leverage the challenges posed by the new American policies to stabilize and enhance their own position. The size and innovative capacity of European markets provide a solid foundation for establishing new free trade zones with emerging economies.
As the issuer of the world’s leading reserve currency, the United States has long relied on global financing of its national debt, particularly from countries such as China and Japan. Europe now faces both an opportunity and a risk in tapping into these financial sources for its own development. It is anticipated that China, among other nations, will strategically exploit these challenges by investing capital in Europe. Germany’s central role in this dynamic process underscores the need for global financial markets to closely monitor its developments.
Germany’s planned debt expansion presents both opportunity and risk. If the spending spurs growth in defense, technology, and infrastructure, the euro could strengthen as markets anticipate long-term European competitiveness. But poor execution would damage Germany’s reputation and shake confidence in the euro as Europe’s financial anchor.
For years, markets have scrutinized China’s debt and political risks. But Germany’s evolving fiscal strategy now deserves equal attention. “Germany, Inc.” still commands investor confidence, but that trust depends on translating debt into innovation and resilience. If successful, Germany can reinforce European stability and help reshape a more multipolar global economy. If not, it risks undermining the very foundation of European financial credibility.
In short, the global economic balance is shifting— not just because of American missteps, but also due to how others respond. Germany’s choices in the coming years will carry outsized weight. Stability in Europe, and confidence in the euro, now rest on its ability to adapt without abandoning the fiscal discipline that once defined it.
Article by Klaus F. Zimmermann published in China Daily on April 30, 2025, p. 9. See Online and as PDF.
The global economy has endured major turbulence due to the United States’ aggressive economic policy of imposing high punitive tariffs on imports to extract maximum economic benefits. True, markets have shown resilience, but only up to a certain point.
The volatility caused by the unexpected imposition of tariffs, sudden rollbacks, and communication strategies largely conducted via social media has created deep uncertainty for investors, corporations and global supply chains.
The very strong negative reactions of international stock markets played a key role in forcing the moderation of the US’ most extreme tariff proposals. The fear of financial instability and backlash from investors contributed to the softening of positions and pushed the US administration toward partial rollbacks and renewed talks.
The US’ trade strategy lacks consistency and economic rationale. High tariffs were presented as a means of protecting domestic industries, relocating jobs and forcing trade concessions. But these measures are expected to backfire in key areas: consumer prices in the US are expected to rise, household purchasing power to weaken, and investment to slow down.
Worse, supply chains that took decades to build are feared to have been disrupted, with the effects predicted to shift global trade routes and investment flows. The broader goals of the policy-namely, reducing dependence on foreign manufacturing and bringing jobs back to the US — are in conflict with the mechanisms used to pursue them. Trade wars undermine global specialization and the efficiency gains made possible by comparative advantage.
Economic theory dating as far back as to Adam Smith and David Ricardo teaches us that international trade enables countries to allocate resources where they are most productive. Even if one country could theoretically produce all goods more efficiently, mutual gains may still arise from specialization and trade. Today’s supply chains reflect this logic. For instance, a single Apple computer integrates components and expertise from across the globe, particularly from China.
Instead of strengthening the US economy, the erratic use of tariffs as a policy tool creates distortions. The belief that tariffs can finance government budgets, stimulate domestic investment and accelerate growth overlooks both economic fundamentals and global interdependencies. What will occur instead are inflationary pressure, reduced consumer confidence, and a more fragile economic outlook.
At the core of Washington’s strategy is an outdated model of economic nationalism combined with a view of geopolitics that treats trading partners as competitors and global leadership as a zero-sum game. The idea that the US can run the global economy like a monopolistic corporation — extracting tributes or concessions in exchange for market access or security guarantees — ignores the complexity of global governance. The US does enjoy certain advantages, such as issuing the world’s reserve currency and having unmatched military power, but that doesn’t mean it should act like a global hegemon.
China is the main target of the US tariff war. But it cannot afford to appear weak in the face of the public confrontation. Direct concessions will damage China’s image, both domestically and internationally. The trade conflict has already escalated to the point where bilateral tariffs are well over 100 percent and, if sustained, trade flows between the two countries will likely come to a virtual standstill.
Beyond tariffs, China holds other strategic levers. As one of the largest holders of US Treasury securities, it could theoretically inflict financial pain by selling them in large volumes, although such a move would also hurt China’s own interests.
Strategically, China may intend to rebalance its economic relationships. Investing in the European Union is one potential path, particularly in response to the US’ export restrictions. Germany, as the economic heart of the EU, offers a possible destination for Chinese capital given its new government’s intention to debt-finance huge infrastructure investments, in case the country (and the EU) moderates its recent de-risking strategy toward China.
This brings regional partnerships, such as the EU-China trade partnership, into sharper focus. These partnerships can serve as stabilizers in an increasingly fractured global trade environment. While the US-China rivalry dominates headlines, the EU has positioned itself as a balancing force, leveraging its commitment to multilateralism and rules-based trade.
By pursuing frameworks currently on hold, such as the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment, and working toward pragmatic compromises — such as minimum pricing on Chinese-made electric vehicles instead of outright tariffs — the EU may demonstrate that collaboration, not confrontation, is still possible. China has already implemented parts of the CAI such as easing financial sector restrictions and addressing forced technology transfers and environmental commitments. Unresolved issues, mainly concerning State-owned enterprises and subsidy transparency, are still crucial. If enforced, they could drive long-needed structural reforms in China, while also supporting free trade.
Considering these factors, what steps can be taken to end the global trade conflict?
A possible solution lies in rebuilding multilateral cooperation. Unilateralism and tariff wars fuel only uncertainty and fragmentation. Hence, countries should return to the negotiating table, not just to resolve specific disputes, but also to renew trust in international institutions and rules-based trade.
Ending the trade war also requires recognizing that global economic power is no longer unipolar. We must accept a world where leadership is earned through cooperation, not coercion. Trading partners cannot be coerced into agreement, and a sustainable global trade order depends on balanced relationships, where mutual benefit, not dominance, guides policy.
Tariffs should be replaced by clear, enforceable agreements that promote fair trade practices while preserving the benefits of openness, and mechanisms to address labor rights, environmental concerns, and intellectual property must be modernized.
The alternative to cooperation is long-term economic fragmentation — slower growth, higher prices and diminished global influence for all. With the right approach, the current crisis can be transformed into an opportunity to reinvigorate global trade and provide a course away from confrontation and toward sustainable, inclusive prosperity.
The author is a professor at the Free University of Berlin and president of the Global Labor Organization, a Germany-based worldwide network of researchers investigating the path of globalization. The views don’t necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
Klaus F. Zimmermann, GLO President & Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Population Economics (CiteScore) currently visits Reykjavík for a public lecture on June 12 on The Economics of Fertility Decline in the National Museum. The PRICE Lecture on Declining Fertility is on invitation of University of Iceland & the Pension Research Institute Iceland (PRICE). University of Iceland researcher Vilmundur Torfason will complement his presentation with research findings on Iceland. (LINK) During his visit, Zimmermann will meet with GLO Fellows Gylfi Zoega and Ender Demir, and in particular with Dadi Kristofersson, Iceland’s Minister of Finance and Economics.
Zimmermann has already met with Skúli Magnússon, the “father of modern Reykjavík” (see picture). Skúli played a key role in developing Reykjavík in the 18th century. As Iceland’s first treasurer, he established industries that helped transform the settlement into a growing city. Ingólfur Arnarson is considered the first settler of Reykjavík. He arrived in Iceland around 874 AD, making him the city’s founding father. The name Reykjavík (“smoky bay”) relates to the steam rising from the area’s geothermal activity, which he likely saw upon arrival.
As of June 2025, the CiteScore 2024 (Scopus) numbers are out. In this ranking system, the Journal of Population Economics (JOPE) has stabilized and strengthened its leading position as a top field journal.
CiteScore 2024 counts the citations received in 2021-2024 to articles, reviews, conference papers, book chapters and data papers published in 2021-2024, and divides this by the number of publications published in 2021-2024.
The JOPE CiteScore 2024 (Scopus) is 8.7.
“Dear Klaus F. Zimmermann,
At Springer Nature, we are thrilled to celebrate our exceptional editors like you, whose dedication to your journals and research communities is truly inspiring. Your tireless efforts in developing your journal’s community, supporting your authors and advocating for your communities are invaluable in advancing discovery.
We are proud to honour this remarkable work through the Springer Nature Editor of Distinction Awards, and are delighted to announce that you’ve been selected to receive the following awards:
The Editorial Contribution Award for your contributions to Journal of Population Economics.
The Author Service Award for your contributions to Journal of Population Economics.
The Editor of Distinction awards recognise the outstanding contributions of our editorial community in the following key categories:
– Springer Nature Editorial Contribution Award – This award recognises your meticulous assessment of submissions and rigorous management of the peer review process, safeguarding the scientific accuracy of the published record.
– Springer Nature Author Service Award – This award recognises your exceptional service in improving the author experience and ensuring the peer review process is efficient, constructive and fair.
By rewarding you, we recognise the vital role you play in managing the peer review process and demonstrate our commitment to showcasing these activities. We greatly appreciate the time and expertise you dedicate to helping authors improve their manuscripts and are proud to work with you to build successful journals.
Congratulations and thank you for your dedication to your authors and advancing discovery!
Kind Regards,
Ritu Dhand Ph.D.
Chief Scientific Officer”
The US President has just announced ‘permanent’ tariffs on foreign cars starting April 2, 2025. The following article relates to this policy.
“Published in 1776, Adam Smith’s seminal work, The Wealth of Nations, laid the foundation for modern economic theory, advocating for the division of labor and free trade. Smith argued that specialization increases productivity and efficiency, leading to greater wealth for all. Free trade between countries follows the same principle: countries focus on producing what they do best and exchange goods and services freely, benefiting consumers with lower prices and better quality. Barriers such as tariffs disrupt this system, leading to inefficiency and economic losses.
Despite these well-respected insights, US President Donald Trump asserts that tariffs will “Make America Great Again”. He is once again pursuing a “reciprocal tariff” policy, imposing duties on imports from countries that have tariffs on US goods, claiming this will protect US industries and jobs while generating revenue.
However, economic realities contradict this view. Tariffs function as a tax on consumers and businesses, leading to higher prices and inflation. As import costs rise, manufacturers relying on foreign raw materials face increased production costs, often passing these costs on to consumers. Also, retaliatory tariffs by other countries harm US exporters, reducing market access and causing job losses in affected industries. The economic disruptions triggered by tariffs far outweigh any short-term revenue gains.
Reports indicate that the US’ reciprocal tariff policy disproportionately impacts major trade partners such as the European Union, Brazil and India. Among them, the EU may emerge as the “biggest loser”, as US tariffs target crucial sectors such as automobiles, where the EU holds a competitive edge. The EU’s auto industry, already facing challenges from electrification and regulatory pressures, could face more problems if its access to the US market is reduced.
However, the impact extends beyond automobiles. The machinery, pharmaceutical and aerospace industries are also vulnerable to trade barriers. Given that these sectors contribute significantly to the EU’s GDP and employment, prolonged tariff conflicts could lead to economic slowdown, job losses, and reduced investment.
At the same time, Chinese manufacturers have made significant progress in electric vehicle production and innovation, a challenge EU automakers are struggling to address.
Adding to the pressure, Trump is also pushing large EU companies to move production to the United States, arguing that it would create jobs and strengthen the US economy. Trump claims the EU exploits the US economically, but the fact is: while the US has a trade deficit with the EU in goods, the EU has a trade deficit with the US in services.
The US also benefits significantly from high-skilled immigration, including professionals from Europe and elsewhere in the world who contribute to US innovation and industry. Many of the most groundbreaking companies in Silicon Valley have been founded or led by immigrants, and numerous Nobel Prize winners in science and economics have come from abroad. For example, Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX, grew up in South Africa, got his university education in Canada, and later built his business empire in the US.
A critical factor to consider is that the US threat to impose tariffs may be part of a strategic game to force the EU into making concessions, buying more US products, or increase imports of US oil and gas. The EU has several potential responses to the US’ trade pressures. It could use counter-tariff measures, making US goods more expensive in the EU markets.
But such measures risk escalating the trade conflict, eventually harming both economies. A more strategic response would be to diversify trade relations away from the US. The EU has already been pursuing trade agreements with Latin America, Canada and India, aiming to expand market access and reduce dependence on any single trading partner.
The EU and the four Mercosur (Southern Common Market) countries — Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — recently reached a political agreement to develop a deep partnership. The EU is already Mercosur’s most important trade and investment partner. By deepening trade relations with China, the EU could further access a vast market for its exports, particularly in high-value industries such as automotive, luxury goods and pharmaceuticals. China, facing its own trade challenges with the US, is likely to welcome closer economic cooperation with the EU, potentially offering investment opportunities and reduced trade barriers.
In addition, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, during her recent visit to India with a high-profile delegation, held detailed discussions on a free trade agreement with the country. The EU and India aim to sign the agreement by the end of the year, making it the largest trade deal of its kind anywhere in the world. The EU hopes to gain greater access to the Indian market for its cars and spirits, despite India’s traditionally high tariffs on these goods, and is pushing for a broader investment agreement.
However, negotiations on agriculture remain difficult, with both sides struggling to find common ground.
While the US seeks to exert economic pressure through tariffs, it is unlikely that the EU will be the biggest victim of these policies. The EU remains an economic powerhouse with a large internal market, and a strong and diversified export orientation. Unlike smaller economies that struggle to absorb trade shocks, the EU is resilient enough to adjust its trade strategy and mitigate the effects of US tariffs, while its commitment to multilateral trade agreements reinforces its ability to navigate economic challenges. Given these strengths, the US will find it difficult to effectively execute its tariff policy without facing significant domestic backlash.
As a result of these developments, the EU is likely to pursue greater strategic independence in economic and other foreign policy matters, including military issues. The shift away from its reliance on US trade could extend to defense cooperation and diplomatic alignment. Strengthening China-EU ties may again emerge as a strategic priority, with economic collaboration forming the basis of broader geopolitical engagement.
While recent discussions have focused on reducing dependence on China in key supply chains, the practical need for stable trade relations may override decoupling efforts. As the EU seeks to hedge long-term risks, China will have an opportunity to enhance its standing and influence within the region. Additionally, the EU may develop a long-term strategy to attract and retain high-skilled migrants, ensuring that its own innovation ecosystem remains competitive compared with that of the US.
Ultimately, the US’ reciprocal tariff policy may backfire, not only weakening its own economy but also accelerating the EU’s shift toward a more diversified and independent global strategy. The EU’s response will shape the future of international trade, highlighting the importance of strategic partnerships and economic resilience in an increasingly uncertain global landscape.”
Published on March 19, 2025 in: China Daily, p. 9. Online & PDF as Boost China-EU trade to nullify US tariffs.
