In times of crisis, we consider what can be done to return to a path of prosperity and wealth. However, there is a tendency to mistake the previous manifestations of economic success—the sectors and products that an economy has, in the past, successfully produced—for the more fundamental source of success.
When, in 1947, Ludwig Erhard lifted price regulations and decisively shifted the German economic system away from heavy interventionism towards a free market economy, the stage was set for what is commonly—though perhaps misleadingly—referred to as the “German Economic Miracle.” The rest is history.
Today, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the origins of wealth that endangers the already struggling German economy’s future. This misunderstanding is also observable in other societies. The mistake is taking the really-existing businesses and sectors that have emerged under a successful economic system to be the decisive element in an economy’s growth. For example, Germany’s economic system has produced an economy focused on, put very roughly (and, strictly speaking, of course, falsely), cars. So, one may conclude that all that is necessary for protecting and reinvigorating the German economy is to protect and support the German carmakers’ ability to produce cars. Precisely this is what many commentators on the German economic situation, as well as politicians, seem to believe. According to this view, the focus must be on ensuring favorable conditions for the auto sector, a proven powerhouse of the economy in the past.
This is not necessarily false—but if it is correct, it is correct contingently, not necessarily. Consider that a system of free enterprise will lead to the production of certain goods and services, and those may well lead to a focus on cars. But it could also lead to specialization in another industry, or to more diverse economic activity.
The goods and services that entrepreneurs focus on are not given or predetermined. Rather, in a free market, entrepreneurs who can produce profitably will succeed, regardless of the industry they operate in. It may well be that carmakers are exceptionally profitable. But the success of carmakers, or any other industry for that matter, is only worth celebrating when it is a manifestation of the healthy market economy.
So, what’s the lesson? It is that not industrial production, nor cars, nor any other sector was the decisive element for Germany’s economic success. These are just specific manifestations of that economy in this specific time and place. What the economy needs is a system that ensures market-tested success, not the prospering of any particular industry.
Instead, the decisive factor is the economic system, where entrepreneurs must be free to flourish while also being responsible for their actions. In other words, the free market is crucial—and, historically, it was the reason for the tremendous economic growth Germany experienced. In any economy’s past, this economic success will have manifested in certain sectors being central to the economy; tomorrow, it may be precisely these sectors again, but it could also involve completely different ones.
To retain—and in Germany’s case, regain—its economic clout, a society’s focus must be on its economic system, not on the sectors that have historically emerged as the strongest under that system. Put simply, what is required is a return to the free market, not the bolstering of one specific sector that has recently achieved success.
Now, let me be clear that there are certainly measures that would not only promote the specific sector that has historically brought success, such as the automotive sector in Germany, but also represent a return to free market principles. Consider deregulation and lowering corporate income taxes. However, the focus must always be on the market if the objective is to rekindle the economy, rather than on any specific sector that seems promising to politicians, such as subsidizing energy prices for industry.
This misunderstanding of what constitutes economic success permeates not only German policy recommendations but also those of many other countries. To some extent, it is understandable as the success of an economy manifests, or at least is primarily visible, in specific industries. However, this is precisely to misunderstand the true origins of a society’s economic miracle. You do not enrich your citizens by protecting an industry that has been successful in the past. Rather, at the basis of economic growth we find a solid market economy—just what Ludwig Erhard had restored in 1947 when he eliminated a host of government interventions to free the citizens from the constraints that had prevented them from enriching themselves and others.
READER COMMENTS
David Henderson
Oct 23 2025 at 12:09pm
Actually, it was 1948. Here’s the more complete story in my Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GermanEconomicMiracle.html
Matthias
Oct 23 2025 at 8:32pm
Thanks for the link.
As an interesting parallel: when East Germany joined the Federal Republic of Germany the increase in economic freedom was comparable to what seems to have caused the earlier West German Wirtschaftswunder. But none ever came.
We can ask why?
In the case of East Germany we can blame political pressure to convert wages and prices and debts at the (black) market exchange rate between the East German and West Germans Marks. Instead we got a 1:1 conversion for political reasons. Even then, East German nominal wages were below those of the west; West German unions pushed for a quick convergence. And East Germans naively embraced that as a good thing.
Though that’s probably not the whole story: when we have a look at neighbouring Poland we see the poster child for shock therapy. The reforms eventually worked and Poland grew and is a prosperous country today. But the first half of the 1990s were really rough, and even the latter half were no fun.
In contrast, the West German reforms that kicked off the Wirtschaftswunder seem to have ‘worked’ pretty much right away. What gives? Why?
Craig
Oct 23 2025 at 10:01pm
I would suggest recovery from war creates a very strong base effect where the German economy can grow from Stunde Null by leaps and bounds precisely because it had been subjected to considerable war damage. Quick google telling me East Germany is about 75% of West Germany +/- true or not, there are similar, indeed wider gaps between states, groups of states in the US.
Max Molden
Oct 24 2025 at 5:13am
Matthias, you underestimate the economic development in East Germany. There’s been a tremendous catching up to West Germany (see, for instance, https://www.wirtschaftsdienst.eu/inhalt/jahr/2019/heft/7/beitrag/ostdeutschland-30-jahre-nach-dem-mauerfall-erreichtes-und-wirtschaftspolitischer-handlungsbedarf.html). There still is a gap, but don’t be misled by this to overlook the achievement of East Germany.
When you speak of Poland, which has has strong growth, compare Poland’s GDP/capita to East Germany’s GDP/capita. See, for instance, this data for East Germany: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/germany/esa-2010-gdp-per-capita-by-region/gdp-per-capita-east-germany-incl-berlin Compared to Poland, this is still much better—even though Poland has been poorer in 1990 and is now developing better.
@David: thanks for the correction!
David Henderson
Oct 28 2025 at 9:53am
You’re welcome.
Craig
Oct 23 2025 at 7:35pm
Four score and eight years ago, the world’s most evil dictator founded a car company. Kraft durch Freude?
Mactoul
Oct 24 2025 at 3:03am
Can it be so that the underlying problem in Germany is widespread belief in climate change and Net zero cult? Which makes energy both expensive and unreliable. If this is so, no amount of economic liberalism is going to work miracle. Germany is a land that demolished and dynamited perfectly good nuclear reactors with public support.
Max Molden
Oct 24 2025 at 5:18am
There’s some truth to this, Mactoul! However, an economy can grow even though we have mad policies implemented by politicians. A good example of this may be the U.S. under Trump’s tariff regime.
I think the point is simply that there must not be too much hindrance to entrepreneurs. If you have a largely free economy, you can deal even with a mad energy policy. However, if regulations and tax burdens accumulate, it becomes increasingly difficult.
nobody.really
Oct 24 2025 at 11:31am
Please tie together your argument that Germany is in the grips of a zero-emissions cult with the claim that Germany tore down perfectly good nuclear generators. I struggle to see the relationship between these claims.
Kurt Schuler
Oct 24 2025 at 7:49pm
Exactly: the environmental movement in Germany is not logically consistent in its views.
Mactoul
Oct 24 2025 at 10:01pm
Rather, they are consistent in opposing what works.
Mactoul
Oct 25 2025 at 8:46pm
That Germany shut down working nuclear plants is not a claim but a well-known fact. Per Wikipedia, “Nuclear power accounted for 13.3% of German electricity supply in 2021,supplied by six power plants. Three of these were switched off at the end of 2021, and the other three ceased operations by April 2023.”
Monte
Oct 25 2025 at 5:30pm
Partially. Erhard’s “solid market economy” was actually a blend of free market reforms and light industrial policy, which reinvigorated the economy. These measures – combined with social insurance and redistribution mechanisms and state investment in infrastructure – are what actually resulted in the German economic miracle.
You might even argue that the Japanese economic miracle, which happened concurrently with German economic miracle was a result of the instituting the same types of mechanisms. Both economies, of course, benefitted tremendously from U.S. aid – Germany through the Marshall Plan, and Japan by U.S. procurements of military orders and access to U.S. technology and markets under the U.S/Japan security alliance.
Comments are closed.