The Berlin Summit 2025: All wrong? Lessons from Bidenomics

President Biden’s economic policy is widely seen as the most ambitious break with neoliberal orthodoxy in decades and was observed by many with great hope. After the Democrat’s defeat in the November 2024 presidential election, however, much of the initial euphoria around Bidenomics seemed to evaporate. But isn’t that doing the project an injustice? At the Berlin Summit, we brought together experts from the US to dissect the Biden administration’s economic strategy – and to explore why it didn’t translate into a presidential victory. The discussion offered a nuanced evaluation of Bidenomics, highlighting both its achievements and its limitations.

Bidenomics was framed as a deliberate departure from trickle-down economics, instead promoting a “middle-out” approach – a strategy to grow the economy by empowering the middle class. It rested on three pillars: worker empowerment, promoting competition, and public investment. As one panellist put it, “the ambition was to shift the balance of power away from employers towards employees, from incumbents towards challengers and from shareholders towards stakeholders”.

Worker empowerment, while central to the vision, faced legislative gridlock. Major labour reforms stalled in the Senate, leaving the administration to rely on symbolic gestures – like President Biden joining a picket line – and regulatory tweaks. The tight labour market, bolstered by the American Rescue Plan, did improve worker leverage, but structural change remained elusive.

Promoting competition, particularly in a highly concentrated tech-driven economy, was pursued through legal channels. The Federal Trade Commission, under new leadership, adopted a more aggressive antitrust stance. However, the slow pace of litigation and limited visibility of these efforts tempered their impact.

The most tangible progress came from the third pillar: public investment. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act collectively marked a historic shift toward industrial policy. These laws funnelled trillions into infrastructure, semiconductor manufacturing, and clean energy, with tax credits and subsidies designed to attract private capital and create jobs. The U.S. experienced six consecutive quarters of record manufacturing construction, with over 900 new or expanded clean energy factories announced. Real fixed investment grew and 75% of these investments targeted counties with below-median incomes, including many previously reliant on fossil fuels. These public investments catalysed significant private sector engagement, with every federal dollar leveraging an estimated six dollars in private capital.

Overall, Bidenomics delivered impressive economic outcomes by historical and international standards. The question then is: If Bidenomics delivered such strong economic results, why didn’t it translate into a presidential victory for the Democrats? Panellists pointed to several factors: The mis-match between the long-term nature of economic reforms and immediate tangible results for Americans, misinformation and inflation. The only controversial point in the discussion was the role of inflation. Some saw it as a central, avoidable policy error that undermined real income growth and fuelled voter discontent. Others argued that inflation was only one factor among many, and its impact was overstated given that inflation had already declined by the time of the election.

Moreover, it was emphasized that voter behaviour was increasingly shaped by cultural identity, perceived status loss, and affective polarization – where political choices are driven more by hostility toward opposing groups than by material interests. Deep-rooted distrust in government and longstanding resentment toward Democrats, especially among non-college-educated voters, have created barriers that economic policies like Bidenomics struggle to overcome. As a result, even well-designed and impactful policies may fail to resonate unless they also address recognition, belonging, and the symbolic dimensions of status and respect.

Nonetheless, the panellists unanimously cautioned to interpret the election results in November as a referendum on Bidenomics. According to them it’s important to look beyond election results and mid-term results were surprisingly positive for Democrats. It is also too early to fully judge the legacy of Bidenomics. Much will depend on whether its core policies are preserved or reversed in the coming years – and what long-term effects they produce. A key part of the strategy was to make the reforms “sticky” by frontloading investments, spreading benefits across Republican-leaning districts, and designing programs that are difficult to unwind. But with ongoing political threats and budget negotiations, the durability of these reforms remains uncertain.

The panel’s conclusion was clear: Delivering strong economic outcomes is necessary but not sufficient to secure political support. To be effective, policies must be made visible and traceable, and accompanied by a compelling narrative that addresses not only economic hardship but also cultural identity and perceived status loss.