Abitur NRW Sozialwissenschaften 2021 · GK · Haupttermin · bilingual Englisch

Abiturprüfung 2021 – Sozialwissenschaften bilingual-englisch, Grundkurs

Aufgabenstellung · SW BIL-E GK HT 1

Topic: In search for policies that will bring economic recovery to the European Union

Björn Hacker: The European recovery is up in the air — again

[...]

1 The second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic has arrived in Europe and, in retrospect, last summer’s relatively low case numbers are proving to having been only an interlude. In wintertime, the risk of infection considerably increases when people stay in closed rooms. All across the continent, the situation is exactly what politicians wanted to prevent: restrictions and

5 curfews are turning into more extensive lockdowns – if not across the board, then regional and sector-specific. [...]

Clearly, this would be toxic for the economy.

[...]

Those countries that have already suffered severely from the euro crisis are particularly

10 exposed. When the pandemic arrived on the European continent, they were only just starting to see moderate growth in GDP per capita above pre-crisis level (with the exception of Greece), but now they are being set back again.

This applies even more so to social indicators: here, the wounds of the euro crisis were far from healed. In Greece and Spain, the unemployment rate was still just over 14 per cent in

15 March 2020, only to rise again with the pandemic. For both of these countries, the European Commission expects unemployment of almost 20 per cent of the workforce for the year as a whole. Even more dramatic is the rise in youth unemployment, which in both countries had not fallen below 30 per cent of the working population before the pandemic and now exceeds 40 per cent, while in Italy and Portugal it is increasing to around 30 per cent.

20 [...]

However, at least the EU member states are not repeating the mistakes they made in their management of the financial and economic crisis, as well as the euro crisis.

In 2009, after a successful demand-side economic stimulus, they were too quick to focus on reducing the new debt they had incurred; as a result, the recovery ended early. From 2010 to

25 2015 they made the misguided attempt to save their way out of deflation, which inadvertently¹ created a lost decade of European growth.

In contrast, after initial quarrels and national reflexes at the beginning of the pandemic, the heads of state and government managed to reach an agreement on the €750bn² ‘Next Generation EU’ recovery plan. On the fiscal side, the EU is to be authorised to grant subsidies

30 (€390bn) and loans (€360bn) to member states that apply for specific projects. This is supposed to stimulate the economic recovery, particularly in the next three years.

[...]

It should not be underestimated how some member states – especially Germany – have cast off ideological blinkers³, which until a few years ago allowed only a neoclassical tunnel

35 vision during the euro crisis. Last July’s above-mentioned decision of the heads of state and government, for the first time in an economic crisis, promises non-repayable financial transfers for ailing member states in the form of €390bn. The focus is not on the Union’s budget rules but on the needs of the countries. [...]

Correspondingly, the countries of southern and central-eastern Europe benefit much more than

40 the member states of northern and western Europe in relation to their economic strength. [...]

Whether this European solidarity can be realised as planned currently depends on an agreement between the European Parliament and the Council on the next financial framework for the EU until 2027. [...]

What is more serious are the consequences of reducing the originally planned share of grants

45 in the overall package by the ‘Frugal⁴ Five’.

Last summer, the governments of the Netherlands, Austria, and the three Nordic member states had argued for conditional and repayable loans. Their success – to significantly reduce the €500bn in grants proposed by the European Commission as well as Germany and France and to agree a higher volume of loans in the overall package – is now falling at the feet of the

50 crisis management team.

A number of member states have already announced that, although they are diligently preparing reform and investment plans for receiving the subsidies, in view of the relatively low refinancing rates⁵ it is currently not worthwhile to seek EU aid loans. In the background, if the reconstruction package is not exhausted, there is a justified concern about interventions

55 in their own economic policy that can be expected in return for the credit lines as a binding condition.

For a successful European crisis management [...] it is essential to finally do away with certain of the pre-crisis economic-political convictions. Even the ‘Frugal Five’ must recognise that pan-European economic solidarity cannot function with the old recipes of austerity. If, during

60 the second wave of the pandemic, the economy collapses more severely than recently predicted, the unthinkable must be on the agenda: an additional contribution to the Next Generation EU, for example through European-financed consumption incentives, through infrastructure projects planned at the European level and through a social rescue package for those people most severely affected by the economic crisis.

About the author: Björn Hacker, born 1980, is Professor of Economic Policy at the Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin (University of Applied Sciences).

About the source: International Politics and Society (IPS) is an online journal published by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, a political foundation associated with the SPD.

¹ inadvertently: not intended; by accident · ² bn: billion · ³ blinkers: pieces of leather placed at the side of a horse’s eyes to stop it from looking to the side · ⁴ frugal: using or spending not more than necessary · ⁵ refinancing rates: interest rates that governments have to pay when they take out loans

1. a)

Analyse the stance the author takes on economic policy in the European Union. (30 Punkte)

1. b)

Explain, with reference to two passages from the text, which economic conception the author’s position can be linked to. (16 Punkte)

2.

Describe a different, alternative economic conception, covering its basic assumptions, the role of the state and policy measures with their intended effects. (24 Punkte)

3.

Discuss whether the recovery plan mentioned in the text ought to be carried out even if it leads to a considerable rise in government debt. Take into account both possible economic and social consequences. (30 Punkte)

Abiturprüfung 2021 – Sozialwissenschaften bilingual-englisch, Grundkurs

Topic: The European Union – a force for peace and for positive change?

Materialgrundlage / Text Source

Ursula von der Leyen: Speech by President-elect von der Leyen in the European Parliament Plenary on the occasion of the presentation of her College of Commissioners and their programme, Strasbourg, 27. November 2019 (Auszug).

Mr President, Honourable Members,

[...]

3 We were bold when we sought peace where there was pain.

4 We were bold when we created a single market and a single currency.

5 We were bold when we welcomed part of our European family that had been out in the cold for too long.

6 But in the last years, we had to focus on the here-and-now, managing crises after emergency, fighting to keep our unity and solidarity intact.

[...]

10 My message is simple: Let us get to work.

Honourable Members,

This is an unsettled world, where too many powers only speak the language of confrontation and unilateralism 1. But it is also a world where millions of people are taking to the streets – to protest against corruption or to demand democratic change.

15 The world needs our leadership more than ever. To keep engaging with the world as a responsible power. To be a force for peace and for positive change.

17 We must show our partners at the United Nations that they can rely on us, as a champion of multilateralism 2.

We must demonstrate to our friends in the Western Balkans that we share the same continent, we share the same history, we share the same culture – and we will share the same destiny too. Our door remains open.

We also share the same destiny with our transatlantic partners. Yes, we have issues – without any doubt. But our ties have lasted the test of time. While we are speaking, thousands of students, researchers, entrepreneurs, artists continue to build zillions of friendships, business contacts, and science projects. This myriad of fine threads woven together make a bond that is stronger than any individual point of discord.

Countries from East to West, from South to North, need Europe to be a true partner. We can be the shapers of a better global order.

[...]

We will invest in alliances and coalitions to advance our values. We will promote and protect Europe’s interests through open and fair trade. We will strengthen our partners through cooperation, because strong partners make Europe strong too.

[...]

Honourable Members,

If there is one area where the world needs our leadership, it is on protecting our climate. This is an existential issue for Europe – and for the world.

How can it not be existential when 85% of people in extreme poverty live in the 20 countries most vulnerable to climate change?

How can it not be existential when we see Venice under water, Portugal’s forests on fire, or Lithuania’s harvests cut by half, because of droughts?

This has happened before without any question, but never with that frequency and with that intensity.

We do not have a moment to waste on fighting climate change. The faster Europe moves, the greater the advantage will be for our citizens, our competitiveness and our prosperity.

The European Green Deal 3 is a must for the health of our planet and our people – and for our economy.

[...]

At the core of it will be an industrial strategy that enables our businesses – big and small – to innovate and to develop new technologies while creating new markets. We will be global standard setters. This is our competitive advantage. And it is the best way to ensure a level playing field.

[...]

It will need massive investment in innovation, research, infrastructure, housing, and the training of people. It will require public and private investments – at the European and at national levels. And once again, Europe is already leading the way. The European Union will mainstream climate financing throughout its budget, but also throughout capital markets and the entire investment chain.

[...]

Honourable Members,

[...]

Digitalisation will change our society, our economy, our administration – root and branch. It is already doing so.

To grasp the opportunities and to address the dangers that are out there, we must be able to strike a smart balance where the market cannot. We must protect our European well-being and our European values. In the digital age, we must continue on our European path.

[...]

We can do all this if we act together, if we build on our European values. And by doing so I am confident that Europe will play a leading role in the digital age. Europe can do it!

[...]

Let’s get to work, so that in 30 years’ time too we can say: Vive l’Europe 4, es lebe Europa, long live Europe!

1 unilateralism: doctrine that supports one-sided action, i. e. action in disregard for other parties, e. g. countries

2 multilateralism: doctrine that supports the formation of alliances of multiple countries to pursue common goals

3 European Green Deal: Environmental policy concept of the EU aiming to reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases in the EU to zero by 2050.

4 Vive l’Europe: French for “long live Europe”

1.

Describe how two institutions of the European Union (EU) are composed and which powers they hold.

[24 Punkte]

2. a)

Analyse the stance the speaker takes on how the EU should develop in the future.

[30 Punkte]

2. b)

Explain what the speaker means by being “bold” in ll. 3 – 6, drawing on two events from the past course of European integration.

[16 Punkte]

3.

Draft a speech in which you respond to von der Leyen in your role as a member of the European Parliament. Take up two of her remarks on the EU’s future development and add one proposal that would help the EU to be “a force for peace and for positive change” (l. 16).

[30 Punkte]

Topic: Building a fairer society after the crisis – does Germany need more public spending to decrease social inequalities?

Michael Marmot

Covid exposed massive inequality. Britain cannot return to 'normal'

[...]

Inequalities in health, and in the social conditions that lead to ill health, have been revealed

and amplified by the pandemic and the response to it. Now, with vaccines coming onstream,

there is talk of Britain getting back to “normal”. But the “normal” that existed in February

2020 is not acceptable. The Covid-19 pandemic must be taken as an opportunity to build a

5 fairer society.

A new report that my colleagues and I at UCL 1 have published today uses evidence to suggest

how we go about doing this.

In February 2020, just one month before the UK entered a national lockdown, we published

a review of what had happened to Britain’s health and health inequalities in the 10 years

10 since 2010. The picture was bleak: stalling life expectancy and rising inequalities between

socioeconomic groups and regions. Most remarkable was the bucking of a long-term trend

of health improving year on year: a woman living in the most deprived area in north-east

England, or other areas outside London, had less chance of living a long and healthy life in

2019 than she would have had 10 years ago. We made a series of recommendations, addressing

15 the social determinants of health, for how things could and should improve.

Then, Covid-19 changed the world dramatically. But in England the changes have been entirely

consistent with its state before the pandemic hit. England’s comparatively poor management

of the pandemic was of a piece with its health improvement falling behind that of other rich

countries in the previous decade.

20 There are four possible explanations: the quality of governance and political culture, which

did not prioritise the conditions for good health; continuing increases in economic and social

inequalities, including a rise in poverty among families with children; a policy of austerity

and consequent cuts to funding of public services that were sharply regressive; and a poor

state of the nation’s health.

25 Addressing all four of these is at the heart of what needs to be done to bring about change.

A striking feature of the pandemic is the way the risk of fatal Covid-19 is distributed unevenly

across the country: the more deprived the area, the higher the mortality rate. This looks rather

similar to the picture for all causes of death. Another is the high mortality rate of members of

black, Asian and minority ethnic groups. Much of this excess risk can be attributed to living

30 in more deprived areas, working in high-risk occupations, living in overcrowded conditions

and, in the case of Bangladeshi and Pakistani groups, a greater prevalence of relevant pre-

existing conditions.

[...]

Our new report is called Build Back Fairer. One objection to our proposals is about money.

35 Reversing the cuts to children’s centres, to per-student funding in schools, to local government,

to adult social care, to the health service, will take public spending. So too will paying care

workers a living wage and having more generous safety nets that do not consign families to

dire poverty. At a time of huge national debt, can the country afford it?

Britain has tried the austerity experiment. It did not work, if health and wellbeing are the

40 markers of success. Phrases such as “maxing out the nation’s credit card” are neither helpful

nor based on sound economics. At a time of zero interest rates, with a tax rate that is at the

low end among European countries, and with control of its own currency, a nation can borrow

and it can tax for the purpose of building a fairer society – it can even print money (quantitative

easing).

45 We should not be asking if we can afford for our children’s wellbeing to rank better than

27th out of 38 rich countries, or to pay for free school meals during holidays so that eligible

children do not go to bed hungry. Social justice requires it.

[...]

To emerge from this pandemic in a healthier state, we need commitment at two levels. First,

50 to social justice and putting equity of health and wellbeing at the heart of all policymaking.

Cutting spending in a regressive way – the poorer the area, the steeper the cut – is unfair and

is likely to make health inequalities worse.

The pandemic has shown that when the health of the public is severely threatened, other

considerations become secondary. Enduring social and economic inequalities mean that the

55 health of the public was threatened before the pandemic and during it, and will be after it. [...]

The second level is to take the specific actions to create healthier lives for all throughout life:

from reducing levels of child poverty to 10%, to ensuring wages (or benefits for those who

cannot work) are sufficient to lead a healthy life, to creating the conditions for older people

to lead meaningful lives.

60 The evidence is clear. There is so much that can be done to improve the quality of people’s

lives. Inequality in health is a solvable problem. It is in all our interests to build back fairer.

1 University College London

About the author: Michael Marmot, born 1945, is professor of epidemiology at University College London, director of the UCL Institute of Health Equity and past president of the World Medical Association.

Materialgrundlage: Michael Marmot: Covid exposed massive inequality. Britain cannot return to 'normal'. In: The Guardian (online), 15. Dezember 2020 (gekürzt). URL: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/15/health-inequalities-covid-ucl-government-policymaking (Zugriff am 14.01.2021)

1. a)

Analyse the author’s stance on social inequalities in Britain. (30 Punkte)

3.

Considering the author’s position, discuss whether Germany should increase public spending in order to reduce social inequalities in view of the Covid-19 crisis. Include economic and social consequences in your discussion. (30 Punkte)

Michael Marmot

Covid exposed massive inequality. Britain cannot return to 'normal'

[...]

Inequalities in health, and in the social conditions that lead to ill health, have been revealed

and amplified by the pandemic and the response to it. Now, with vaccines coming onstream,

there is talk of Britain getting back to “normal”. But the “normal” that existed in February

2020 is not acceptable. The Covid-19 pandemic must be taken as an opportunity to build a

5 fairer society.

A new report that my colleagues and I at UCL 1 have published today uses evidence to suggest

how we go about doing this.

In February 2020, just one month before the UK entered a national lockdown, we published

a review of what had happened to Britain’s health and health inequalities in the 10 years

10 since 2010. The picture was bleak: stalling life expectancy and rising inequalities between

socioeconomic groups and regions. Most remarkable was the bucking of a long-term trend

of health improving year on year: a woman living in the most deprived area in north-east

England, or other areas outside London, had less chance of living a long and healthy life in

2019 than she would have had 10 years ago. We made a series of recommendations, addressing

15 the social determinants of health, for how things could and should improve.

Then, Covid-19 changed the world dramatically. But in England the changes have been entirely

consistent with its state before the pandemic hit. England’s comparatively poor management

of the pandemic was of a piece with its health improvement falling behind that of other rich

countries in the previous decade.

20 There are four possible explanations: the quality of governance and political culture, which

did not prioritise the conditions for good health; continuing increases in economic and social

inequalities, including a rise in poverty among families with children; a policy of austerity

and consequent cuts to funding of public services that were sharply regressive; and a poor

state of the nation’s health.

25 Addressing all four of these is at the heart of what needs to be done to bring about change.

A striking feature of the pandemic is the way the risk of fatal Covid-19 is distributed unevenly

across the country: the more deprived the area, the higher the mortality rate. This looks rather

similar to the picture for all causes of death. Another is the high mortality rate of members of

black, Asian and minority ethnic groups. Much of this excess risk can be attributed to living

30 in more deprived areas, working in high-risk occupations, living in overcrowded conditions

and, in the case of Bangladeshi and Pakistani groups, a greater prevalence of relevant pre-

existing conditions.

[...]

Our new report is called Build Back Fairer. One objection to our proposals is about money.

35 Reversing the cuts to children’s centres, to per-student funding in schools, to local government,

to adult social care, to the health service, will take public spending. So too will paying care

workers a living wage and having more generous safety nets that do not consign families to

dire poverty. At a time of huge national debt, can the country afford it?

Britain has tried the austerity experiment. It did not work, if health and wellbeing are the

40 markers of success. Phrases such as “maxing out the nation’s credit card” are neither helpful

nor based on sound economics. At a time of zero interest rates, with a tax rate that is at the

low end among European countries, and with control of its own currency, a nation can borrow

and it can tax for the purpose of building a fairer society – it can even print money (quantitative

easing).

45 We should not be asking if we can afford for our children’s wellbeing to rank better than

27th out of 38 rich countries, or to pay for free school meals during holidays so that eligible

children do not go to bed hungry. Social justice requires it.

[...]

To emerge from this pandemic in a healthier state, we need commitment at two levels. First,

50 to social justice and putting equity of health and wellbeing at the heart of all policymaking.

Cutting spending in a regressive way – the poorer the area, the steeper the cut – is unfair and

is likely to make health inequalities worse.

The pandemic has shown that when the health of the public is severely threatened, other

considerations become secondary. Enduring social and economic inequalities mean that the

55 health of the public was threatened before the pandemic and during it, and will be after it. [...]

The second level is to take the specific actions to create healthier lives for all throughout life:

from reducing levels of child poverty to 10%, to ensuring wages (or benefits for those who

cannot work) are sufficient to lead a healthy life, to creating the conditions for older people

to lead meaningful lives.

60 The evidence is clear. There is so much that can be done to improve the quality of people’s

lives. Inequality in health is a solvable problem. It is in all our interests to build back fairer.

1 University College London

About the author: Michael Marmot, born 1945, is professor of epidemiology at University College London, director of the UCL Institute of Health Equity and past president of the World Medical Association.

Materialgrundlage: Michael Marmot: Covid exposed massive inequality. Britain cannot return to 'normal'. In: The Guardian (online), 15. Dezember 2020 (gekürzt). URL: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/15/health-inequalities-covid-ucl-government-policymaking (Zugriff am 14.01.2021)

1. b)

Explain the author’s stance on Britain’s economic policy (ll. 39 – 44), drawing on two references to economic concepts. (16 Punkte)

Michael Marmot

Covid exposed massive inequality. Britain cannot return to 'normal'

[...]

Inequalities in health, and in the social conditions that lead to ill health, have been revealed

and amplified by the pandemic and the response to it. Now, with vaccines coming onstream,

there is talk of Britain getting back to “normal”. But the “normal” that existed in February

2020 is not acceptable. The Covid-19 pandemic must be taken as an opportunity to build a

5 fairer society.

A new report that my colleagues and I at UCL 1 have published today uses evidence to suggest

how we go about doing this.

In February 2020, just one month before the UK entered a national lockdown, we published

a review of what had happened to Britain’s health and health inequalities in the 10 years

10 since 2010. The picture was bleak: stalling life expectancy and rising inequalities between

socioeconomic groups and regions. Most remarkable was the bucking of a long-term trend

of health improving year on year: a woman living in the most deprived area in north-east

England, or other areas outside London, had less chance of living a long and healthy life in

2019 than she would have had 10 years ago. We made a series of recommendations, addressing

15 the social determinants of health, for how things could and should improve.

Then, Covid-19 changed the world dramatically. But in England the changes have been entirely

consistent with its state before the pandemic hit. England’s comparatively poor management

of the pandemic was of a piece with its health improvement falling behind that of other rich

countries in the previous decade.

20 There are four possible explanations: the quality of governance and political culture, which

did not prioritise the conditions for good health; continuing increases in economic and social

inequalities, including a rise in poverty among families with children; a policy of austerity

and consequent cuts to funding of public services that were sharply regressive; and a poor

state of the nation’s health.

25 Addressing all four of these is at the heart of what needs to be done to bring about change.

A striking feature of the pandemic is the way the risk of fatal Covid-19 is distributed unevenly

across the country: the more deprived the area, the higher the mortality rate. This looks rather

similar to the picture for all causes of death. Another is the high mortality rate of members of

black, Asian and minority ethnic groups. Much of this excess risk can be attributed to living

30 in more deprived areas, working in high-risk occupations, living in overcrowded conditions

and, in the case of Bangladeshi and Pakistani groups, a greater prevalence of relevant pre-

existing conditions.

[...]

Our new report is called Build Back Fairer. One objection to our proposals is about money.

35 Reversing the cuts to children’s centres, to per-student funding in schools, to local government,

to adult social care, to the health service, will take public spending. So too will paying care

workers a living wage and having more generous safety nets that do not consign families to

dire poverty. At a time of huge national debt, can the country afford it?

Britain has tried the austerity experiment. It did not work, if health and wellbeing are the

40 markers of success. Phrases such as “maxing out the nation’s credit card” are neither helpful

nor based on sound economics. At a time of zero interest rates, with a tax rate that is at the

low end among European countries, and with control of its own currency, a nation can borrow

and it can tax for the purpose of building a fairer society – it can even print money (quantitative

easing).

45 We should not be asking if we can afford for our children’s wellbeing to rank better than

27th out of 38 rich countries, or to pay for free school meals during holidays so that eligible

children do not go to bed hungry. Social justice requires it.

[...]

To emerge from this pandemic in a healthier state, we need commitment at two levels. First,

50 to social justice and putting equity of health and wellbeing at the heart of all policymaking.

Cutting spending in a regressive way – the poorer the area, the steeper the cut – is unfair and

is likely to make health inequalities worse.

The pandemic has shown that when the health of the public is severely threatened, other

considerations become secondary. Enduring social and economic inequalities mean that the

55 health of the public was threatened before the pandemic and during it, and will be after it. [...]

The second level is to take the specific actions to create healthier lives for all throughout life:

from reducing levels of child poverty to 10%, to ensuring wages (or benefits for those who

cannot work) are sufficient to lead a healthy life, to creating the conditions for older people

to lead meaningful lives.

60 The evidence is clear. There is so much that can be done to improve the quality of people’s

lives. Inequality in health is a solvable problem. It is in all our interests to build back fairer.

1 University College London

About the author: Michael Marmot, born 1945, is professor of epidemiology at University College London, director of the UCL Institute of Health Equity and past president of the World Medical Association.

Materialgrundlage: Michael Marmot: Covid exposed massive inequality. Britain cannot return to 'normal'. In: The Guardian (online), 15. Dezember 2020 (gekürzt). URL: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/15/health-inequalities-covid-ucl-government-policymaking (Zugriff am 14.01.2021)

2.

Outline the goals of the German welfare state and two principles of social security (e. g. the insurance principle). (24 Punkte)

Topic: Covid-19 pandemic – should global supply chains be shortened?

1. Outline two reasons, two characteristics and two indicators of economic globalisation. (24 Punkte)

2. a) Analyse the author's stance on the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on global trade and on the necessity of action in Europe. (36 Punkte)

b) Using two passages from the text, explain in what way the author's stance can be linked to concepts of international trade. (10 Punkte)

3. Considering the author's stance, discuss whether the European Union (EU) ought to introduce measures to shorten global supply chains. Consider both economic and political aspects. (30 Punkte)