Abitur NRW Sozialwissenschaften 2023 · GK · Haupttermin · bilingual Englisch

Abiturprüfung 2023 – Sozialwissenschaften bilingual-englisch, Grundkurs

Topic: Is it advisable for the German government to fund the country’s economic transformation through higher public debt?

Materialgrundlage: Thorsten Benner: “Germany must abandon its debt brake to make up for the lost Merkel years”. In: The New Statesman vom 08. August 2022 (um Teasertext gekürzt).

1. Describe four economic policy goals in Germany as set out in the “stability and growth law” (“magic square”), the four indicators that go with them, and one possible conflict of objectives between two of these goals. (24 Punkte)

Abiturprüfung 2023 – Sozialwissenschaften bilingual-englisch, Grundkurs

Topic: Is it advisable for the German government to fund the country’s economic transformation through higher public debt?

Materialgrundlage: Thorsten Benner: “Germany must abandon its debt brake to make up for the lost Merkel years”. In: The New Statesman vom 08. August 2022 (um Teasertext gekürzt).

2. a)

Analyse the author's stance on the economic importance of the debt brake.

(30 Punkte)

2. b)

Explain, using two passages from the text, in what way the author's position can be linked to concepts of economic policy.

(16 Punkte)

3.

Discuss the author's claim that “massive debt-funded investments are needed” (l. 45) with regard to Germany. Take into account economic as well as social consequences.

(30 Punkte)

Abiturprüfung 2023 – Sozialwissenschaften bilingual-englisch, Grundkurs

Topic: UN peacekeeping – what contribution can the EU make?

Materialgrundlage

Joe Biden: Remarks by President Biden Before the 77th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. United Nations Headquarters, New York, 21. September 2022 (Auszug; Anpassungen an die sprachliche Richtigkeit wurden vorgenommen).

Joe Biden

Remarks Before the 77 th Session of the United Nations General Assembly

[...]

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, my fellow leaders, [...]

Let us speak plainly. A permanent member of the United Nations Security Council invaded its neighbor, attempted to erase a sovereign state from the map.

[...]

5 Again, just today, President Putin has made overt nuclear threats against Europe and a reckless disregard for the responsibilities of the non-proliferation regime 1.

[...]

This war is about extinguishing Ukraine’s right to exist as a state, plain and simple, and Ukraine’s right to exist as a people. Whoever you are, wherever you live, whatever you

10 believe, that should not – that should make your blood run cold.

That’s why 141 nations in the General Assembly came together to unequivocally condemn Russia’s war against Ukraine. [...]

So, we – each of us in this body who is determined to uphold the principles and beliefs we pledge to defend as members of the United Nations – must be clear, firm, and unwavering

15 in our resolve.

Ukraine has the same rights that belong to every sovereign nation. We will stand in solidarity with Ukraine. We will stand in solidarity against Russia’s aggression. Period.

Now, it’s no secret that in the contest between democracy and autocracy, the United States – and I, as President – champion a vision for our world that is grounded in the values of

20 democracy.

The United States is determined to defend and strengthen democracy at home and around the world. Because I believe democracy remains humanity’s greatest instrument to address the challenges of our time.

We’re working with the G7 and likeminded countries to prove democracies can deliver for

25 their citizens but also deliver for the rest of the world as well.

But as we meet today, the U.N. Charter – the U.N. Charter’s very basis of a stable and just rule-based order is under attack by those who wish to tear it down or distort it for their own political advantage.

And the United Nations Charter was not only signed by democracies of the world, it was

30 negotiated among citizens of dozens of nations with vastly different histories and ideologies, united in their commitment to work for peace.

As President Truman said in 1945, the U.N. Charter – and I quote – is “proof that nations, like men, can state their differences, can face them, and then can find common ground on which to stand.” End of quote.

35 That common ground was so straightforward, so basic that, today, 193 of you – 193 member states – have willingly embraced its principles. And standing up for those principles for the U.N. Charter is the job of every responsible member state.

I reject the use of violence and war to conquer nations or expand borders through bloodshed.

To stand against global politics of fear and coercion; to defend the sovereign rights of smaller

40 nations as equal to those of larger ones; to embrace basic principles like freedom of navigation, respect for international law, and arms control – no matter what else we may disagree on, that is the common ground upon which we must stand.

If you’re still committed to a strong foundation for the good of every nation around the world, then the United States wants to work with you.

45 I also believe the time has come for this institution to become more inclusive so that it can better respond to the needs of today’s world.

Members of the U.N. Security Council, including the United States, should consistently uphold and defend the U.N. Charter and refrain – refrain from the use of the veto, except in rare, extraordinary situations, to ensure that the Council remains credible and effective.

50 That is also why the United States supports increasing the number of both permanent and non-permanent representatives of the Council. This includes permanent seats for those nations we’ve long supported and permanent seats for countries in Africa [and] Latin America and the Caribbean.

[...]

55 Let me also urge every nation to recommit to strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime through diplomacy. No matter what else is happening in the world, the United States is ready to pursue critical arms control measures. A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.

The five permanent members of the Security Council just reaffirmed that commitment in

60 January. But today, we’re seeing disturbing trends. Russia shunned the Non-Proliferation ideals embraced by every other nation at the 10th NPT Review Conference.

[...]

The non-proliferation regime is one of the greatest successes of this institution. We cannot let the world now slide backwards, nor can we turn a blind eye to the erosion of human rights.

65 Perhaps singular among this body’s achievements stands the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the standard by which our forebears challenged us to measure ourselves.

They made clear in 1948: Human rights are the basis for all that we seek to achieve. And yet today, in 2022, fundamental freedoms are at risk in every part of our world [...].

[...]

70 My fellow leaders, the challenges we face today are great indeed, but our capacity is greater. Our commitment must be greater still.

So let’s stand together to again declare the unmistakable resolve that nations of the world are united still, that we stand for the values of the U.N. Charter, that we still believe by working together we can bend the arc of history toward a freer and more just world for all our children,

75 although none of us have fully achieved it.

We’re not passive witnesses to history; we are the authors of history.

[...]

1 Non-proliferation regime: Built on the international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which seeks to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The treaty was first signed in 1968 and was extended indefinitely in 1995. It is reviewed every five years in meetings called Review Conferences.

About the speaker: Joseph “Joe” Robinette Biden, Jr., born 1942, is the 46 th and current president of the United States of America.

1.

Outline three of the UN's aims as set out in Article 1 of the UN Charter and describe how two principal UN organs are composed and what functions they have. [24 Punkte]

2. a)

Analyse the speaker's stance on the importance of the UN Charter in the 21 st century. [30 Punkte]

2. b)

Explain two statements the speaker makes about possible UN reforms (cf. ll. 45 – 53). [16 Punkte]

3.

Taking the role of an EU representative, draft a speech responding to President Biden before the General Assembly of the United Nations. Pick up two of his remarks on the UN Charter and add your own proposal on what part the European Union should play in future in fostering global stability and peace. [30 Punkte]

Topic: The divide between rich and poor – should it be narrowed through increased government spending?

Julia Davies and Winsome Hill

One of us is a millionaire, the other a care worker. The cruel divide between rich and poor disgusts us both

The two of us are from very different worlds. One of us is a millionaire investor, the other a

care worker and trade union member. We have totally different experiences of the economy,

but we share a fundamental belief that it is broken – and the government in its autumn

statement did nothing to fix it.

5 The cost of living crisis affects all of us, but it doesn’t affect us equally. One of us struggles

to afford the spiralling price of the weekly shop, while the other can shop as before, unaffected

by rising food prices. One of us fears turning on the heating to keep her house warm, while

the other can heat her home and travel for some winter sun without a second thought.

This isn’t how an economy succeeds. The argument of the last prime minister 1 – that the only

10 route to economic success is to allow inequality in our country to grow even greater – is

simply wrong. Wealth does not come from the top and trickle down, it comes from all of

us. There is no route to prosperity through increasing inequality.

The new chancellor 2 may have accepted this argument in theory, saying in his autumn

statement that he is “asking more from those who have more”, but this is not the reality. A

15 slight lowering of the threshold for the top rate of tax and some tweaks to the thresholds for

dividend and capital gains taxes will, as one of us can testify to, hardly be noticed by those

with real wealth. In comparison, the squeeze on income tax rates for low and middle earners

raises far more revenue and will cause far more economic pain.

Instead of squeezing low earners, the chancellor should have matched his actions to his rhetoric

20 and taxed wealth at the top. If the last prime minister’s attempt to give huge tax cuts to rich

people is part of what crashed the economy, then the opposite seems like a good place to start

in fixing it – as even those of us on the highest incomes should recognise.

Let’s start with taxing the seriously wealthy – people with wealth of more than £10m 3. A

wealth tax of just 1% or 2% on their stocks of wealth over £10m would give our country the

25 investment it desperately needs to see out the hard winter to come. A 1.1% tax on wealth above

£10m would raise £10bn 4 from the wealthiest 0.04% of the population, according to Arun

Advani, assistant professor of economics at the University of Warwick’s CAGE research centre.

We also need to make sure that people’s incomes are taxed at the same rate, no matter how

they are earned. The reality of our current tax system is that money made from work, such as

30 caring for vulnerable people, is taxed at a higher rate than money made from investments or

the rising value of assets. The unfairness is maddening, and it’s also holding our economy back.

This matters because of the other big part of the chancellor’s plan: the squeeze on public

services. The bitter experience of the last few years shows us that when public services such

as social care are cut, it piles pressure on to other areas and we all suffer. We need to invest

35 in our public services and those who work in them, rather than inflict further cuts that continue

a journey of decline. This isn’t unaffordable. The wealth exists in this country, but the

government’s unwillingness to tax it properly is what is starving our services of the funding

we need. One of us is seeing the result of this underfunding every day, as staff in the care

sector work longer and longer hours for less and less pay, and feel more overwhelmed than

40 ever before. These staff simply can’t be asked to continue to give everything to keep the social

care sector afloat, when what is desperately needed is the extra resource that only government

can provide.

A collection of groups have come together to form the Stop the Squeeze campaign, in order

to call for this vital change of direction. It is a rejection of the failed inequality economics

45 that has held us back, and an endorsement of the simple idea that, as the saying goes, we’re

all better off when we’re all better off. This agenda is backed by economists, charities and

trade unions, but more importantly it is supported by the public, with large majorities across

the political spectrum in favour of higher taxes on wealth. The two of us have never met, but

we both felt the inequality in this country couldn’t continue, so we got involved with Stop

50 the Squeeze (one through a union, the other as part of the anti-inequality Patriotic Millionaires

group), and decided to write this piece together.

The media also have a role to play here. The narrative about the overall “tax burden” is spin 5

designed to deflect from the real questions that need to be asked about exactly who is being

asked to pay, and whether it makes sense. The focus on tax cuts during the summer

55 Conservative leadership race, which even included the BBC framing questions to the

candidates in terms of when, not if, taxes should be cut, is a good example of this lack of

nuance in the public debate around tax. We can all see where that kind of groupthink led us.

If anything should have impressed upon people the need to question propaganda about low

taxes on the rich being good for everyone then surely the past few months should have been

60 the wake-up call we needed.

We may not have got to vote for the new prime minister, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t

have to listen to us. An economy that works for one of us, but not the other, is an economy

that is never going to succeed. A country where people who do essential work in our

communities struggle to put food on the table is not a country that is working.

About the authors:

Winsome Hill is a care worker and member of the trade union Community.

Julia Davies is a millionaire investor, lawyer and member of Patriotic Millionaires.

1 Liz Truss (Conservative Party), in office 6 September 2022 – 25 October 2022. She was succeeded by Rishi Sunak (Conservative Party).

2 The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the minister responsible for all economic and financial matters. Jeremy Hunt (Conservative Party) assumed office on 14 October 2022.

3 £10m: £10,000,000

4 £10bn: £10,000,000,000

5 spin, here: something made up

1. a)

Analyse the authors' stance on political measures aimed at tackling inequality in the United Kingdom. (30 Punkte)

3.

Discuss, taking into account both economic and social aspects, whether Germany requires increased government spending in order to reduce the gap between rich and poor. Also take the authors' position into consideration. (30 Punkte)

Topic: The divide between rich and poor – should it be narrowed through increased government spending?

Julia Davies and Winsome Hill

One of us is a millionaire, the other a care worker. The cruel divide between rich and poor disgusts us both

The two of us are from very different worlds. One of us is a millionaire investor, the other a

care worker and trade union member. We have totally different experiences of the economy,

but we share a fundamental belief that it is broken – and the government in its autumn

statement did nothing to fix it.

5 The cost of living crisis affects all of us, but it doesn’t affect us equally. One of us struggles

to afford the spiralling price of the weekly shop, while the other can shop as before, unaffected

by rising food prices. One of us fears turning on the heating to keep her house warm, while

the other can heat her home and travel for some winter sun without a second thought.

This isn’t how an economy succeeds. The argument of the last prime minister 1 – that the only

10 route to economic success is to allow inequality in our country to grow even greater – is

simply wrong. Wealth does not come from the top and trickle down, it comes from all of

us. There is no route to prosperity through increasing inequality.

The new chancellor 2 may have accepted this argument in theory, saying in his autumn

statement that he is “asking more from those who have more”, but this is not the reality. A

15 slight lowering of the threshold for the top rate of tax and some tweaks to the thresholds for

dividend and capital gains taxes will, as one of us can testify to, hardly be noticed by those

with real wealth. In comparison, the squeeze on income tax rates for low and middle earners

raises far more revenue and will cause far more economic pain.

Instead of squeezing low earners, the chancellor should have matched his actions to his rhetoric

20 and taxed wealth at the top. If the last prime minister’s attempt to give huge tax cuts to rich

people is part of what crashed the economy, then the opposite seems like a good place to start

in fixing it – as even those of us on the highest incomes should recognise.

Let’s start with taxing the seriously wealthy – people with wealth of more than £10m 3. A

wealth tax of just 1% or 2% on their stocks of wealth over £10m would give our country the

25 investment it desperately needs to see out the hard winter to come. A 1.1% tax on wealth above

£10m would raise £10bn 4 from the wealthiest 0.04% of the population, according to Arun

Advani, assistant professor of economics at the University of Warwick’s CAGE research centre.

We also need to make sure that people’s incomes are taxed at the same rate, no matter how

they are earned. The reality of our current tax system is that money made from work, such as

30 caring for vulnerable people, is taxed at a higher rate than money made from investments or

the rising value of assets. The unfairness is maddening, and it’s also holding our economy back.

This matters because of the other big part of the chancellor’s plan: the squeeze on public

services. The bitter experience of the last few years shows us that when public services such

as social care are cut, it piles pressure on to other areas and we all suffer. We need to invest

35 in our public services and those who work in them, rather than inflict further cuts that continue

a journey of decline. This isn’t unaffordable. The wealth exists in this country, but the

government’s unwillingness to tax it properly is what is starving our services of the funding

we need. One of us is seeing the result of this underfunding every day, as staff in the care

sector work longer and longer hours for less and less pay, and feel more overwhelmed than

40 ever before. These staff simply can’t be asked to continue to give everything to keep the social

care sector afloat, when what is desperately needed is the extra resource that only government

can provide.

A collection of groups have come together to form the Stop the Squeeze campaign, in order

to call for this vital change of direction. It is a rejection of the failed inequality economics

45 that has held us back, and an endorsement of the simple idea that, as the saying goes, we’re

all better off when we’re all better off. This agenda is backed by economists, charities and

trade unions, but more importantly it is supported by the public, with large majorities across

the political spectrum in favour of higher taxes on wealth. The two of us have never met, but

we both felt the inequality in this country couldn’t continue, so we got involved with Stop

50 the Squeeze (one through a union, the other as part of the anti-inequality Patriotic Millionaires

group), and decided to write this piece together.

The media also have a role to play here. The narrative about the overall “tax burden” is spin 5

designed to deflect from the real questions that need to be asked about exactly who is being

asked to pay, and whether it makes sense. The focus on tax cuts during the summer

55 Conservative leadership race, which even included the BBC framing questions to the

candidates in terms of when, not if, taxes should be cut, is a good example of this lack of

nuance in the public debate around tax. We can all see where that kind of groupthink led us.

If anything should have impressed upon people the need to question propaganda about low

taxes on the rich being good for everyone then surely the past few months should have been

60 the wake-up call we needed.

We may not have got to vote for the new prime minister, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t

have to listen to us. An economy that works for one of us, but not the other, is an economy

that is never going to succeed. A country where people who do essential work in our

communities struggle to put food on the table is not a country that is working.

About the authors:

Winsome Hill is a care worker and member of the trade union Community.

Julia Davies is a millionaire investor, lawyer and member of Patriotic Millionaires.

1 Liz Truss (Conservative Party), in office 6 September 2022 – 25 October 2022. She was succeeded by Rishi Sunak (Conservative Party).

2 The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the minister responsible for all economic and financial matters. Jeremy Hunt (Conservative Party) assumed office on 14 October 2022.

3 £10m: £10,000,000

4 £10bn: £10,000,000,000

5 spin, here: something made up

1. b)

Explain in what way the authors' statements are connected to different ideas of economic policy. Base your explanation on two passages from the text. (16 Punkte)

Julia Davies and Winsome Hill

One of us is a millionaire, the other a care worker. The cruel divide between rich and poor disgusts us both

The two of us are from very different worlds. One of us is a millionaire investor, the other a

care worker and trade union member. We have totally different experiences of the economy,

but we share a fundamental belief that it is broken – and the government in its autumn

statement did nothing to fix it.

5 The cost of living crisis affects all of us, but it doesn’t affect us equally. One of us struggles

to afford the spiralling price of the weekly shop, while the other can shop as before, unaffected

by rising food prices. One of us fears turning on the heating to keep her house warm, while

the other can heat her home and travel for some winter sun without a second thought.

This isn’t how an economy succeeds. The argument of the last prime minister 1 – that the only

10 route to economic success is to allow inequality in our country to grow even greater – is

simply wrong. Wealth does not come from the top and trickle down, it comes from all of

us. There is no route to prosperity through increasing inequality.

The new chancellor 2 may have accepted this argument in theory, saying in his autumn

statement that he is “asking more from those who have more”, but this is not the reality. A

15 slight lowering of the threshold for the top rate of tax and some tweaks to the thresholds for

dividend and capital gains taxes will, as one of us can testify to, hardly be noticed by those

with real wealth. In comparison, the squeeze on income tax rates for low and middle earners

raises far more revenue and will cause far more economic pain.

Instead of squeezing low earners, the chancellor should have matched his actions to his rhetoric

20 and taxed wealth at the top. If the last prime minister’s attempt to give huge tax cuts to rich

people is part of what crashed the economy, then the opposite seems like a good place to start

in fixing it – as even those of us on the highest incomes should recognise.

Let’s start with taxing the seriously wealthy – people with wealth of more than £10m 3. A

wealth tax of just 1% or 2% on their stocks of wealth over £10m would give our country the

25 investment it desperately needs to see out the hard winter to come. A 1.1% tax on wealth above

£10m would raise £10bn 4 from the wealthiest 0.04% of the population, according to Arun

Advani, assistant professor of economics at the University of Warwick’s CAGE research centre.

We also need to make sure that people’s incomes are taxed at the same rate, no matter how

they are earned. The reality of our current tax system is that money made from work, such as

30 caring for vulnerable people, is taxed at a higher rate than money made from investments or

the rising value of assets. The unfairness is maddening, and it’s also holding our economy back.

This matters because of the other big part of the chancellor’s plan: the squeeze on public

services. The bitter experience of the last few years shows us that when public services such

as social care are cut, it piles pressure on to other areas and we all suffer. We need to invest

35 in our public services and those who work in them, rather than inflict further cuts that continue

a journey of decline. This isn’t unaffordable. The wealth exists in this country, but the

government’s unwillingness to tax it properly is what is starving our services of the funding

we need. One of us is seeing the result of this underfunding every day, as staff in the care

sector work longer and longer hours for less and less pay, and feel more overwhelmed than

40 ever before. These staff simply can’t be asked to continue to give everything to keep the social

care sector afloat, when what is desperately needed is the extra resource that only government

can provide.

A collection of groups have come together to form the Stop the Squeeze campaign, in order

to call for this vital change of direction. It is a rejection of the failed inequality economics

45 that has held us back, and an endorsement of the simple idea that, as the saying goes, we’re

all better off when we’re all better off. This agenda is backed by economists, charities and

trade unions, but more importantly it is supported by the public, with large majorities across

the political spectrum in favour of higher taxes on wealth. The two of us have never met, but

we both felt the inequality in this country couldn’t continue, so we got involved with Stop

50 the Squeeze (one through a union, the other as part of the anti-inequality Patriotic Millionaires

group), and decided to write this piece together.

The media also have a role to play here. The narrative about the overall “tax burden” is spin 5

designed to deflect from the real questions that need to be asked about exactly who is being

asked to pay, and whether it makes sense. The focus on tax cuts during the summer

55 Conservative leadership race, which even included the BBC framing questions to the

candidates in terms of when, not if, taxes should be cut, is a good example of this lack of

nuance in the public debate around tax. We can all see where that kind of groupthink led us.

If anything should have impressed upon people the need to question propaganda about low

taxes on the rich being good for everyone then surely the past few months should have been

60 the wake-up call we needed.

We may not have got to vote for the new prime minister, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t

have to listen to us. An economy that works for one of us, but not the other, is an economy

that is never going to succeed. A country where people who do essential work in our

communities struggle to put food on the table is not a country that is working.

About the authors:

Winsome Hill is a care worker and member of the trade union Community.

Julia Davies is a millionaire investor, lawyer and member of Patriotic Millionaires.

1 Liz Truss (Conservative Party), in office 6 September 2022 – 25 October 2022. She was succeeded by Rishi Sunak (Conservative Party).

2 The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the minister responsible for all economic and financial matters. Jeremy Hunt (Conservative Party) assumed office on 14 October 2022.

3 £10m: £10,000,000

4 £10bn: £10,000,000,000

5 spin, here: something made up

2. Outline the aims of the German welfare state, two of its constitutional foundations, and two principles of social security (e. g. insurance principle). (24 Punkte)