Ranking among the most decentralized and politically strongest among among European countries, Germany’s local governments play an important role in Germany’s federalism and beyond. Over the years, the country’s local governance structure has proved to be a remarkable mechanism for problem solving and innovation.
At the same time, Germany’s local governance system is not static. The current evolution of Germany’s federal multi-level system is informed by a similtanous centralizing and decentralizing trend.
On the one hand, under the pressure of and in response to multiple international and domestic challenges, Germany’s multi-level system has experienced a “centralizing” trend as the federal government has assumed new competences and tasks “top-down” affecting the subnational levels. On the other hand, the expansion of upper (federal and EU) level policy initiatives and interventions have upgraded and strengthened the position and task profile of the local authorities in their pivotal local level implementation function.
The simultaneity of these two overlapping seemingly contradictory, but in fact mutually supportive trends of strengthening collective (centralized) decision making and decentralized implementation arguably attests the peculiar adaptability and flexibility of Germany’s federal multi-level.
A recent book by Hellmut Wollmann (2024) outlines the key functional, administrative and fiscal features of German’s local governance system and places the German local governance system in a comparative (European) context, summarized in the current blog.
Structure and functional profile of local government in Germany
The broad functional profile which traditionally characterizes the position of the local authorities in Germany’s multi-level system is rooted in the territoriality- based “dual task” model which comprises local self-government tasks as well as tasks transferred or “delegated” to them by the State (Land) level.
Within the country’s two-tier local government structure, the assignment of public functions applies in particular to the (107) single-tier county-free municipalities (kreisfreie Städte) and (294) upper-tier counties (Kreise). Up to some 80 percent of all implementation-requiring legal provisions are carried out by the local authorities. The same holds true also for tasks that originate directly or indirectly from the EU. Moreover, up to two thirds of all public (infrastructural) investments are handled by the local authorities.
In comparative perspective, Germany’s local government system ranks, along with Sweden, among the functionally strongest in Europe. In parallel and in reaction to the growing outreach of federal (as well as EU) policy initiatives and interventions the importance of the local authorities as decentral operational level has been further enhanced. Thus they are called upon to play a key role in advancing the energy transition (Energiewende) by realizing a plethora of energy-saving and renewal energy-related activities and in accommodating and integrating the asylum seekers and refugees.
Local government and governance
Historically, dating back to the late 19th century, the local arena in Germany was marked by the emergence and co-existence of a “political community” embodied by the elected local government, on the one side, and of a “social community” made up of an array of societal actors, such as non-profit charities, voluntary groups, cooperatives, etcetera, on the other. In the concept and language of the governance debate, such multidimensional local actor constellations may be seen and interpreted as early (“embryonic”) forms of local governance-type settings.
Since the 1980s, in the wake of EU-driven marketization and New Public Management-inspired “outsourcing” of the public functions, the organizationally integrated local government sector has been organizationally fragmented and frayed while at the same time the non-public and societal actors and organisations have multiplied and extended. As a result (local) governance-type actor constellations typically made up of public/municipal as well non-public/societal actors have further expanded. In assembling around and focusing on specific policy issues they form “policy networks”. In coping with the recent upsurge of challenges the local authorities have increasingly turned to and set on local level governance -type actor constellations and networks as a key action potential and strategy.
Local autonomy
Under article 28 of the Federal Constitution (Basic Law, Grundgesetz) the local authorities (municipalities and counties) are “guaranteed the right to regulate all local affairs on their own responsibility within the limits prescribed by the laws”. Later, the 1994 amendment of article 28 Basic Law has added that “the guarantee of self-government shall extend to the bases of financial autonomy”.
Although the action space within which the local authorities operate is framed and restricted by manifold (federal, Land and also EU-derived) legal and financial provisions the local authorities dispose of a significant degree of local autonomy. For identifying and quantifying the scope of the local autonomy in international comparative research, a Local Autonomy Index (LAI) has been construed which is based on 11 indicators and covers 39 European countries. Among the indicators figure the “policy scope” (the range of local government tasks), the effective political discretion (the extent to which local government has real decisional influence over these functions) and fiscal autonomy (the extent to which local government can independently tax its population). According to this index, Germany’s local authorities rank fifth behind Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Ireland in the group of 39 European countries. This signals a comparatively high degree of local autonomy notwithstanding the dense net of legal provisions and financial restrictions under which the local authorities act.
Local arena and local actors
Until the 1990s Germany’s local government system was marked, with variance among the States (Länder), by an elected local council and a council-elected mayor. In the early 1990s the Länder proceeded to profoundly rewrite their local government codes by introducing the direct election of the local chief executive (mayor or county commissioner, Landrat), the recall of the latter by local referendum as well as binding local referendums on local matters. This broad scope of direct democratic procedures is, with the exception of Switzerland, unmatched in other European countries. The direct election of the mayor and of the Landrat has significantly changed the local political dynamics by strengthening the leadership position particularly of the mayor in the local political arena. This also pertains to his role as key “networker” or “reticulist” in activating and coordinating the (local) governance- type actor constellations and “policy networks”.
Administrative profile
Since the early 1990s, under the budgetary pressure building up in the wake of the German Unification, an incisive administrative reform drive has been set off which, finally catching up with the internationally rampant New Public Management (NPM) movement, was guided by a NPM variant labelled “New Steering Model” (NSM). Different from most other countries where NPM-prompted reforms have been initiated and pushed “top-down” by the central government level in Germany the NPM/NSM-inspired modernization impulse was taken up and realized at first on the local government level.
By introducing managerialist principles (such as “decentralized resource management”, “achievement accounting”) the traditional “Weberian” administrative schema of legal rule-based hierarchical administration has been significantly remoulded. As a result, on the one hand, the organizational setting, operational capacity, as well as citizen and costumer orientation of local administration have been distinctly recast and improved. On the other, a comprehensive ‘paradigmatic’ shift from Weberian bureaucracy to a managerial NSM administration has not occurred. Consequently local administration is marked by a mix of NSM-inspired features and traditional (“Weberian”) elements which has been labelled a “neo-Weberian” type of public administration.
Summary and perspective
Over the years, from their conspicuous performance in the immediate post-1945 phase and interim landmark achievements unto their recent involvement in coping with multiple challenges Germany’s local authorities have exhibited a by and large remarkable readiness and capacity to respond to and cope with difficult situations and to carry and take on a larger and more complex load of functions and responsibilities than in most other European countries. No doubt there have been serious shortcomings, delays and setbacks. However in view of overall remarkable long-term track record of the local authorities and their path-dependency exhibited readiness and aptitude for institutional responsiveness and learning there is plausibly good reason to conclude that they are capable to overcome and master the current challenges and to also cope with upcoming ones.
Yet, there exist looming political, financial, and migration-related uncertainties and imponderables, in particular the unpredictable further course of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, that cannot be ignored as ominous writing on the wall.
This blog was written by Hellmut Wollmann (December 2024), drawing on his recent book:
Hellmut Wollmann. 2024. Local Government and Governance in Germany: Challenges, Responses and Perspectives. Springer Professional. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68354-1
