Five key features are central to understanding the German political–administrative regime, its continuities and changes since unification, and its present performance with regard to administrative reform: (1) the federal system of interlocking politics, (2) the domination of the rule of law, (3) the impacts of different state traditions, (4) the consequences of Europeanization, and (5) the incorporation of East Germany.
The following sections examine each of these features in turn.
1.1 The Federal System of Interlocking Politics
Germany is characterized by a parliamentary system with a division of powers between the federal government and 16 Länder, or state governments. In principle, both levels of government are independent of one another. The Länder are states with sovereign rights and responsibilities and are not devolved from the federation. The administration of the federal, Länder, and local levels of government are formally independent but are largely structured along uniform lines within an integrative legal system, standardized public services, and a consistent economic–financial system.
3.1.3 The NSM at the Local Level ...83 3.2 Decentralization and De-Bureaucratization ...83 3.2.1 De-Bureaucratization at the Federal Level ...83 3.2.2 De-Bureaucratization at the State Level... 84 3.2.3 De-Bureaucratization at the Local Level ...85 3.3 The Influence of E-Government ...85 3.3.1 E-Government at the Federal Level ...86 3.3.2 E-Government at the State Level ...87 3.3.3 E-Government at the Local Level ...87 3.4 Public–Private Partnerships ...88
3.4.1 Public–Private Partnerships at the Federal
Level ...88 3.4.2 Public–Private Partnerships at the State Level ...88 3.4.3 Public–Private Partnerships at the Local Level ...89 3.5 Reforming the Public Service ...89 3.5.1 Public Service Reform at the Federal Level ...89 3.5.2 Public Service Reform at the State Level ... 90 3.5.3 Public Service Reform at the Local Level ... 90 4 Conclusions ... 90 References ...91
In practice, a system of interlocking politics (Politikverflechtung) has evolved within Germany. The traditional problems of horizontal coordination within cer- tain policy fields, which are typical for any system of public administration, are reinforced by additional problems of coordination across different vertical levels of government. Today, successful coordination is crucial for modern governance.
With the exception of reforms aimed specifically at managing the current fiscal crisis, nearly all changes in the contemporary German political–administrative sys- tem have tended to reduce governmental coordination and coherence by degrees.
At the same time, there are increasing demands for a more coherent and coordi- nated government.
German federalism is both implementation oriented and cooperative.1 Imple- mentation-oriented federalism means that most federal laws are executed by the Länder and ultimately by local governments.2 Thus, field offices at the federal level are limited to administration of the Foreign Service, the national defense, customs, the labor administration, and the federal police. Moreover, the federal government’s direct involvement in policy implementation and control of public administration is limited to legal supervision and financial appropriation. This functional division of labor between the federal and state governments has often been criticized in instances where the lack of efficiency and effectiveness has been characterized as
“decision-making traps”3 and when this relationship has been assessed as a “unitary state in disguise.”4 This relatively new and somewhat unclear structural arrange- ment, which replaced formerly clear-cut jurisdictions for the federal government and for the Länder, forces decision makers within these two levels of government to act in a cooperative fashion.
In the past, the federal government has been mainly responsible for formulating and enacting legislation, but a kind of legislative dualism has developed in prac- tice whereby the Länder are deeply involved in the federal legislative process. This involvement includes, among other things, a veto right in the Federal Chamber when proposed legislation has implications for administrative affairs of the Länder or when it involves a European Union (EU) matter. Nonetheless, the number of policy areas regulated by federal legislation (e.g., competing legislation, frame leg- islation, and joint tasks) has increased over time. This trend was reversed in 2006 when federal reform gave some legislative rights back to the Länder. Thus, the Ger- man system of interlocking politics is currently typified by two kinds of conflicts where German federal policy is concerned. First is the political conflict between federal cooperation and party competition. Second, but no less important, is the distributive conflict among the Länder.5
1.2 The Dominating Role of the Rule of Law Concept
The administrative culture in Germany is traditionally dominated by the concept of the rule of law (Rechtsstaat). Within this culture, law binds all executive and
administrative powers, in particular when interfering with basic individual rights.
All public power is subject to judicial control with citizens having access to consti- tutional courts at the federal and Länder levels as well as access to special admin- istrative courts of justice. Therefore, legality is traditionally more important than efficiency and effectiveness in the German culture.
The Rechtsstaat principle implies that legislation is subject to judicial review by the Federal Constitutional Court when questions about constitutionality arise. In such cases, the Court can be regarded as an “institutional veto power” that may restrict the scope of executive leadership in Germany and may modify or block governmental reforms even after their acceptance by parliament.6 Under these cir- cumstances, the Rechtsstaat principle provides the political–administrative regime in Germany with a “rigid backbone” while simultaneously possessing the capacity to restrict the scope of governmental reform.7
1.3 The Impacts of Different State Traditions
Different ideas of the German state and its functions are influencing public admin- istrative reforms today. One perspective of what the German state should be is reflected in the classical tradition of the autonomous and authoritarian state, with the state being separated from society. A second view reflects the democratic tradi- tion in which the state “is not separated and does not stand above society, but is part of it.”8 Pluralism is seen as a necessary prerequisite in this cooperative state. A third perspective is in the liberal tradition, whereby the threats of the state to civil liberties and its limited potential to solve societal problems are the primary con- siderations. Therefore, the overburdened and overextended state must be limited.
Finally, in the socialist and Marxist tradition, the state is seen as an instrument of the ruling classes. With the exception of the latter, all traditions have left their marks on the German understanding of the state, the nature of public administra- tion, and, in current debates, administrative reform.9
1.4 The Consequences of Europeanization
As a member of the EU, Germany is subjected to Europeanization in that it must adapt its political–administrative regime “to a European political centre and Euro- pean-wide norms.”10 As a result, the influence of European institutions is increasing in many aspects of governance, and European law is thus becoming an increasingly important source for law in Germany.
In the field of administration, however, the consequences of Europeanization are diffuse. So far no agreement on a common European administrative model has been reached, and only a fuzzy trend toward what some observers refer to as a
“European administrative space” has been realized to date.11 For example, admin- istrations of the EU member states are currently forced to adapt to European standards, and efforts to gradually harmonize administrative law among EU mem- bers are under way. Despite such efforts to generate commonality, administrative disparities within the EU appear to have increased primarily as a result of incorpo- ration of 12 new member states in 2004 and 2007. Thus, the impetus for European integration of administrative reform in Germany is rather limited.
Europeanization and globalization influence administrative changes in Ger- many “to a lesser degree than indigenous domestic factors.”12 The German admin- istrative regime changes only incrementally,13 strictly within given constitutional constraints, and in ways that are consistent with the institutional framework and the political culture of the federation. Therefore, the current political culture is primar- ily characterized by wide acceptance of the pivotal role of the state in upholding the social market economy and promoting Germany’s prointegration stance in the EU.
1.5 The Transformation in East Germany
After German unification in 1990, the administration of the former East German state (GDR) was successfully incorporated into the political–administrative regime of the German Federal Republic (FRG). Five new East German Länder with admin- istrations of their own were established. Each of these Länder incorporated the constitutional system, the administrative structure, and the institutional arrange- ments of the FRG into their respective governance systems.14 By thusly establishing a “ready-made state” in eastern Germany,15 it was expected that the social risks of the transformation could be minimized and that the construction of “modern market economy institutions” could be accelerated. This top-down transformation process, with few chances for institutional innovation, was called the “blueprint approach” and included a historically unique transfer of institutions, elites, and public money.16 By the mid-1990s, the new administrative institutions in the East were consolidated, and the elite transfer came to an end. Financial transfers, on the other hand, are expected to continue until 2019.
Surprisingly, a specific kind of administrative culture developed in East Ger- many that is markedly different from the Weberian model of bureaucracy that typi- fies the West. East German authorities have clearly “departed from the ‘supreme, power-like’ model of public administration.”17 This is especially true for local actors within the new Länder who are able “to handle public administration in a more problem- and goal-oriented rather than a rigid law-abiding manner.”18 Nonethe- less, pressure for administrative reform in the East remains higher than in the West because of an extreme budgetary crisis, overstaffed public service organizations, and a declining population.