Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Administration after 1945
To some extent the Allies, especially the British,1tried after the war to
break older administrative traditions in Germany, but the Americans and
French looked for guidance at the pre-Nazi administrative structures in
their occupation zones. Nineteenth-century organizational structures
were largely reinstated under the formula, “a new beginning, but not a
fundamentally new organization.”2But there was a focus on localizing
administration, in part as a consequence of the Potsdam Agreement that
called for “decentralization” in post-war Germany.3The reconstruction
of administration from the bottom up helped strengthen and stabilize
local self-government.4In the nineteenth century it was said that “the
state ends with the Landrat [county administrator].”5After May 1945 one
could say that in the Western zones of Germany “the state only just begins
with the Landrat.”6
The Germans carried out wide-ranging territorial reorganizations and
administrative reforms in the late 1960s and 1970s,7but these efforts were
not conceived as a deep-seated political change comparable to the admin-
istrative transformations in Prussia after 1870. Rather, they took the form
of adjustments of the administrative organization to long-ignored
changes in social and economic developments.8
Today the sixteen Länder are divided between thirteen territorial
states (Flächenstaaten) and three city states (by size of population: Berlin,
Hamburg, and Bremen). There are four large territorial states (by size of
population: North-Rhine Westphalia, Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, and
Lower Saxony), eight medium-sized states, and one small territorial state
(the Saarland). There is a remarkable unity in the basic structure of most
of the territorial Länder; the most obvious difference lies in the lack of a
3
Administrative structures
in Germany
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 81
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
82
The Länder and German federalism
“middle instance” in six small-to-medium Länder. The city states are
different in principle, because they make no distinction between “state”
and “local” administration (with some modifications regarding Bremen
and Bremerhaven).9
Some principles and concepts
Although Article 83 of the Basic Law speaks only of the Länder executing
federal laws on their own responsibility, there is a constitutional pre-
sumption that there are three administrative arenas in the Federal Repub-
lic: federal, Land, and local. While there are various interconnections
among these arenas, they remain more or less separate and autonomous.
Nevertheless, Articles 30 and 83 make reference only to the federation and
the Länder,10 and the basic constitutional structure, as in the United
States, consists of these two levels.11 Unlike the United States, however,
where the local governments are not even mentioned in the Constitution
and are creatures of the states, counties and municipalities are singled out
for protection by Article 28 of the Basic Law. This protection does not
extend to individual local governments but rather to the institution of the
county and the municipality. Their organizational structure and bound-
aries are matters for the Länder to determine. As constituent parts of the
Länder, the local governments are also responsible for administration
and, therefore, they execute federal as well as Land laws along with their
own ordinances.12
In the discussion of levels of administration below, several distinc-
tions should be kept in mind. One is between direct administration,
which is generally the “own” administration (Bundeseigene, Landeseigene
Verwaltung) by state agencies discussed above in Chapter 2 on the
constitutional framework – for example, the federal crime office or air
controllers; and indirect administration, which includes the “delegated”
administration – for example, federal highway administration delegated
to the Länder or the federal health insurance program delegated to
regional sickness funds. At the Land level, there is direct Land adminis-
tration of the schools and police and indirect administration of a large
majority of “state” (federal and Land) laws mostly by the semi-
autonomous counties and cities but also by numerous non-governmen-
tal institutions. Another distinction is between general administration,
exemplified best by the mid-level government districts and German
rural counties and large county-free cities versus specialized administra-
tion by a wide variety of special authorities (Sonderbehörden).
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 82
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
Federal administration
Federal administration differs significantly from Land administration in
two ways: the federation has no general administrative agencies, only spe-
cialized agencies; and, with some exceptions discussed below, the federa-
tion has only high authorities with no substructures.13 As at the Land
level, a distinction is made between the supreme authorities (oberste
Behörden) and the high authorities (Bundesoberbehörden). A distinction
is also made between direct and indirect administration.
Federal supreme authorities include the Chancellor and his office, the
federal ministers, the Federal Accounting Office, and the Bundesbank.14
The federal president, the presidium of the Bundestag and Bundesrat, and
the Federal Constitutional Court are sometimes given also as examples of
supreme federal authorities,15 but they are not parts of the state adminis-
trative organization.16
The high federal special authorities answer to the federal ministries,
i.e., to the supreme authorities from which they emerged as semi-
autonomous agencies. They generally have no substructures, but they can
set up branches. Examples of high federal authorities are the Press and
Information Office of the federal government, the Federal Statistical
Office, the Federal Crime Office, the Federal Cartel Office, the Patent
Office, the Office for Constitutional Protection, and the Federal Environ-
mental Office.17 Other examples of direct federal administration are tech-
nical and research institutions (Bundesanstalten) that answer to the
ministries, for instance, the air controllers under the Ministry of Trans-
portation,18 or the Federal Insurance Office under the Ministries of Labor
and Health that supervises the hundreds of public corporations that
provide retirement, health, accident, and nursing care insurance in con-
formity with federal law.19
Subnational direct federal administrative structures exist only in the
foreign service; federal waterways administration, which falls under the
Ministry of Transportation and is organized at the middle as well as at
lower levels;20 military and border control administration; and finance
administration (see below). The federal railways and postal services had
multiple levels until they were privatized in 1993–94;21 however, the fed-
eral government still has certain supervisory and other responsibilities.22
The twenty-two high finance authorities (Oberfinanzdirektionen) are
mid-level agencies that are a peculiar example of joint federal–Land
administration, i.e., they serve simultaneously as agencies of the Länder.
The head of such an office is both a federal and Land civil servant who
directs both federal and Land sections. Lower- level agencies that answer
Administrative structures in Germany 83
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 83
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
to the high finance authorities include federal customs offices, federal
property offices, and federal forest offices. As one can see from figure 3.1,
the Länder also have their own finance offices that answer to the high
finance authority.23
While less common, indirect administration also exists at the federal
level. There is, for example, the Federal Employment Office in Nurem-
berg which has its own lower Land- and local- level structures. There is
also the Deutsche Welle, which provides radio and television broadcasts
for foreign listeners and viewers, while Deutschlandfunk, now Deutsch-
landradio, serves the domestic audience based on a contract with the Län-
der. The Bundesbank is also an example of indirect federal administration,
but it is completely autonomous, as are its branches in the Länder (Lan-
deszentralbanken).24 A variety of social insurance agencies are also
included in indirect federal administration.
Administration in the territorial Länder and the city-states
The Länder are responsible for their own administrative organization.
Some Länder provide for their organizational structure in a single law,
others have it contained in several laws. In spite of a number of differ-
ences, there are certain common principles of organization based on
84
The Länder and German federalism
Customs and
sales tax division
Federal assets
division
Property and
transportation
tax division
Land assets and
construction
division
High Finance Authority
with the federal sectons
and Land sections
Federal Minister of Finance Land Minister of Finance
Major customs offices Finance offices
Figure 3.1 The joint high finance authority
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 84
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
general and special administrative agencies organized at three levels: the
Land government (cabinet) or ministry level; the government district
(Regierungsbezirk); and the rural county and city-county (or county-free
city). Exceptions to the common principles are the three city-states and
the Saarland, Schleswig-Holstein, Rhineland-Palatinate, Brandenburg,
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and Thuringia (which has a Land Adminis-
trative Office as a substitute), all small-to-medium sized Länder that do
not have the middle-level Regierungsbezirk.25
Administration in the federation and the Länder is separate in princi-
ple. Land administration is not under the federation but rather is an
autonomous arena next to the federation.26 “Mixed administration” is
supposedly not permitted by the Basic Law, for example, in that a Land
agency reports to a federal agency or that the federation must approve
Land measures or exercise some power of co-decision. In fact there are
numerous examples of some form of mixed administration,27 although
these depend in part on what is meant by the term.28 Examples of federal
involvement in Land administration are the federal legal supervision of
laws delegated to the Länder for administration and the joint tasks under
Articles 91a and 91b described later in this chapter and in Chapter 2 on
the constitutional framework of German federalism. An example of a
joint agency is finance administration mentioned briefly above. The fed-
eration and the Länder have their own finance administration, but the
twenty-two high finance authorities serve as joint agencies at the middle
level of Land administration. Joint agencies also exist among the Länder.
For example, the Film Assessment Office in Wiesbaden determines which
movies should receive public subsidies based on a contract among the
Land ministers of education and culture. Finally, there are coordinating
agencies among the Länder, for example, the Conference of Education
and Culture Ministers (Kultusministerkonferenz [KMK]); the Conference
of Ministers of Justice; and the University Rectors Conference.29
The three levels of Land administration
The high level
The first of the three levels is called the high or central level (Oberstufe)
which, as in the case of the federation above, consists of two parts: the
supreme Land authorities (oberste Landesbehörden) and the high Land
authorities (Landesoberbehörden). The supreme Land authorities are the
Land government (cabinet), the prime minister (Ministerpräsident), and
the cabinet ministers. Some would add the speaker of the Land parliament
Administrative structures in Germany 85
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 85
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
Levels Federal government Land government Local government
(1) National
(2) Land
(3) Regional
(4) Country and
large city
(5) Municipal
(subcountry)
Postal services
Federal railways
Finance and customs
Military draft administration
Federal ministries (16)
Land ministries
(Most administration
delegated to Länder)(Most administration delegated
to local governments)
(in North-Rhine
Westphalia only)
Land higher authorities
Regierungs-
Präsident
County
Zweckverband Public law
agreement
County County-free
cities
Landschaftsverband
Figure 3.2 Structure of administration in the Federal Republic of Germany
Source: Adapted from Frido Wagener, “Äusserer Aufbau von Staat und Verwaltung,” in Öffentliche Verwaltung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,
edited by Klaus König, H. J. von Oertzen, and Frido Wagener (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1981), p. 80.
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 86
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
and the Land accounting office.30 Unity is maintained by the guideline
authority (Richtlinienkompetenz) of the prime minister and the principle
of collegiality in the cabinet.
As indicated above, the prime minister is more than first among equals
in the cabinet; he exercises the “guideline authority” or leadership of the
government. Thus, in spite of the strong traditions of responsibility of
ministers for their subject areas (Ressortprinzip) and collegiality, the prime
minister is the boss (Kanzlerprinzip); but this is less true in the city-states.
The prime minister represents the Land’s interests vis-à-vis the other Län-
der in the prime ministers’ conference and the federation in the Bundesrat,
where he or she can exercise considerable influence on federal legislation.
In this regard he is far more influential nationally than a typical American
governor. He or she is assisted in leadership responsibilities by a staff
(Staatskanzlei) responsible to the prime minister; in Baden-Württemberg,
the staff is called Staatsministerium, in the city-states, Senatskanzleien. The
prime minister’s political staff has grown over the years along with the
increasing role of the prime minister as dominant Land politician and
Landesvater or “Land prince,” a designation that reflects the prime minis-
ter’s additional role as ceremonial head of state.31 The staff’s first and per-
manent task is to coordinate the work of the ministers, to support the
prime minister, to manage information, and to be innovative in initiating
and conceptualizing policy proposals. Coordinating Land policy in the
committees and plenary sessions of the Bundesrat is also a major activity.32
In addition, the chiefs of staff organize the meetings of Land prime minis-
ters, which take place about every three months (about every six months
with the Federal Chancellor). For a while, especially in the late 1960s and
early 1970s, the prime minister’s staff was engaged in development plan-
ning activities, but these have since been turned over to the ministries.33
On the other hand, political planning remains an important staff activity.34
As a rule the prime minister’s staff is organized into offices that are
responsible for areas such as parties and organizations; local govern-
ments; information and analyses; and preparation of legislation, speech
writing, and setting the prime minister’s calendar. The organization of
the staffs in the city-states is considerably more modest, but press and
public information offices are found everywhere. Some staffs house the
office of the Land representative in Bonn (now Berlin), who usually also
is head of the Land mission in the capital. Some staffs also have a special
representative for European, i.e., EU, affairs.35
In most Länder there are from seven to nine ministries. These include
the six core ministries (Interior, Education and Culture (Kultus), Finance,
Administrative structures in Germany 87
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 87
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
Economics, Social, and Justice) and others that have been added and
eliminated over the years. For example, since the 1970s a Ministry of Sci-
ence that has been given responsibility for the universities has been carved
out of the older Ministry of Education and Culture36
The specific tasks of the ministries vary from Land to Land. Thus trans-
portation is located in the Ministry of Interior in Baden-Württemberg
but in the Ministry of Economics elsewhere. Sports may be in the min-
istries of education, interior, or social welfare. Variation is especially great
regarding land use and environment, since it can be problematic to place
environment and agriculture in one ministry. The most important min-
istry traditionally has been the Ministry of Interior, which has been a kind
of “umbrella agency” for tasks not assigned to more specialized agencies.
Therefore, it is the ministry with a certain unity of command function.37
Ministers are members of the government (cabinet) and heads of sub-
ject ministries. Thus they are responsible for central leadership and direc-
tion as well as for the personnel and functional supervision of lower-level
authorities and institutions in their area. They develop general regula-
tions and rules for administrative execution at lower levels and do Land-
wide planning. They draft legislation and regulations and deal with the
Land parliament in areas under their responsibility. On the other hand,
they make individual decisions only rarely.38
These activities lead to the dual function of the ministry serving as the
highest administrative authority and at the same time as a political organ
of the cabinet. This dual function is more apparent at the Land level than
at the federal level, because the Land ministries have a complete subject
area and an administrative structure to which they can give some unity
and direction. This does not lead to a dualism between politics and
administration so much as to the function of gearshift (Umschaltfunk-
tion) between politics and administration. Thus the Land ministries more
than their federal counterparts are “simultaneously lawmaking and
administrative ministries.” That is, the experience and information
gained from administrative practice can be taken into account in the pro-
gram development and policy making process in the ministry.39
In actual practice the above distinction between the political and
administrative functions is difficult to make, because of the growth of
Land ministries over the years resulting from demands on central direc-
tion and coordination activities. Growth in the ministries is also due to an
increasing interaction with the Land parliaments in the number of writ-
ten and oral questions raised and the close contact with parliamentary
committees and with governing party group committees. Ministries have
88
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 88
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
also borne the burden of an increasing tendency toward a concern with
sets of single issues, such as the construction of an autobahn or federal
highway, airport, or nuclear power plant. This gets ministries very much
involved in planning activities which, in turn, tend to become politicized.
In practice, then, it is difficult to develop a clear picture of the multiple
functions of the ministries. They are program development agencies, but
they also exercise supervision and control over subordinate units.40
In contrast to the supreme Land authorities (oberste Landesbehörden),
the high Land authorities (Landesoberbehörden) are, like their federal
counterparts, specialized agencies responsible to a minister. They tend to
be technically demanding offices with extensive information-gathering
responsibilities and data analysis and research capabilities. Examples
include Land statistical offices, Land crime offices, and Land offices of con-
stitutional protection.41 They also include specialized agencies such as the
Land geological office and offices for environmental protection, earth
research, plant protection, agricultural development, and so forth. A
completely unique high authority is the Land Administrative Office in
Lower Saxony which combines ten formerly autonomous high authorities
without any particular connecting principle42
The middle level (Mittelstufe or Mittelinstanz)
At this level one finds the director (Regierungspräsident) of the district
government (Bezirksregierung) of the government district (Regierungs-
bezirk). This is where the important Continental administrative principle
of unity of command (Einheit der Verwaltung) has been applied most
clearly in the German administrative tradition. It is where “state” (federal
and Land) policies are “bundled” for implementation and where the
director (similar to the classic example of the French prefect) serves as a
coordinator and mediator between the high and the low levels of admin-
istration. The director of the government district is a political appointee
and the general representative of the Land government in the district, and
he or she ensures that the goals of the government are realized in the dis-
trict. This, of course, is a political function; however, the director is also a
special counsel for the concerns of the region vis-à-vis the Land and fed-
eral governments. Thus he may see himself as an “honest broker” between
the “state” and local governments, as a representative of the Land in the
district and of his district to the Land.43
The director is responsible especially to the Land Minister of the Inte-
rior but also to the other ministers for the proper administration of their
policies and laws. But as an agent of “bundling” and coordination, the
Administrative structures in Germany 89
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 89
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
director is the most important counterweight against an otherwise dom-
inant tendency toward specialization. The director attempts to counter
specialization through a variety of means, including co-signature, discus-
sions with section chiefs, coordinating units and through his involvement
in various planning activities. However, some observers argue that verti-
cal relationships (in the United States, “picket-fence” federalism) are so
strong today in the organization of the government district along minis-
terial lines and between groups of subject experts at different levels that
horizontal coordination is more difficult than in the past.44
There is a strong tradition in German administration – and on the
Continent in general – that holds that specialized agencies such as those
at all levels of American administration, especially the ubiquitous special
districts at the local level, should be discouraged in principle if not always
in fact. Where it is not feasible to integrate various functions in one
administrative unit, there should be at least an attempt to have the func-
tion administered in one territory.45 This tradition today does not deny
that there are some advantages to specialized administration, for exam-
ple, administration by subject specialists, better performance by focusing
on specific tasks, subject neutrality and nonpartisan implementation, and
sometimes greater efficiency of administration. But disadvantages
include “selective attention,” narrowness of view and blindness to other
factors, isolation within the general administrative structures, lack of
coordination with other agencies, exaggeration of the importance of own
area, and perfectionist tendencies among the administrators. This is
reflected in the “vertical brotherhood of experts”46 that exists between
higher and lower levels in German administration. Special administrative
agencies tend to be removed from politics; yet they are subject to capture
by the clientèle they serve and special interest groups. They tend also to
be less transparent, often less accountable, and removed from citizen
input.47
The director of the government district has the function of guarantee-
ing the legal and uniform conduct of administration throughout the ter-
ritory of the district through his functional and personnel supervision of
subordinate state authorities. In some Länder (Bavaria, Lower Saxony,
North-Rhine Westphalia) this includes the supervision of school teachers,
who are Land civil servants. In other Länder, e.g., Baden-Württemberg,
there is a separate and special hierarchical organization for schools. In a
more general and traditional sense, the director provides legal supervi-
sion of local governments in their areas of autonomous self-government.
This usually involves consultation and advice, but repressive measures are
90
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 90
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
available to the director in extreme cases. Related to this function is the
review of grant applications by local governments. The director also pro-
vides legal supervision of other public corporations, such as schools. He
is responsible for the legal and functional supervision of delegated state
tasks carried out by local governments as well as by special authorities
under the authority of the district government.48
While the government districts are in principle institutions of general
administration, they also carry out specialized administration on behalf
of the ministries. This relieves the ministries of certain administrative
burdens that for certain reasons cannot be included in the area of respon-
sibility of local governments. The number and kind of specialized func-
tions performed by the district government, and/or supervised by it at the
local branch level, varies among the Länder, but they tend to require spe-
cial expertise or involve common standards. Examples include the
administration of technically complicated emission controls, traffic plan-
ning, protection of nature areas, management of public property, regional
planning, and planning and taking certain measures in the areas of water
management and agriculture.49
In spite of the theory of unity of command and the efforts to combine
as many tasks as possible in the district governments, counties and cities,
there are special authorities at the middle level that can be found at least
to some extent outside the confines of the district governments. Lower
Saxony differs from the other Länder in that it has a Land Administrative
Office at the high level that combines several functional agencies outside
of the middle-level district governments but is not a “bundling” office.50
Thuringia and Rhineland-Palatinate have also created Land administra-
tive agencies that perform some of the functions found in the district
governments in other Länder. Nevertheless, even in Lower Saxony there
are special agencies that answer directly to the ministries and do not fall
under the supervision of either the district governments or the Land
Administrative Office. An unusual example of an activity that is not
included in the government districts is finance administration, where the
high finance office is both a federal and a Land middle-level agency
directed by a head who is both a federal and Land official. Salaries and
appointments of the public employees as well as functions are divided
between the federal and Land officials. Below the middle-level agency are
branch offices in the municipalities. The territory served by these local
branches does not always conform with county boundaries.51
Following the territorial and administrative reforms of the 1960s and
1970s and the re-establishment of five new Länder in the East, there were
Administrative structures in Germany 91
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 91
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
thirty-two government districts which differed significantly in size of
population and area. No other administrative institution has been called
into question so often since 1945; the government districts were almost
eliminated by Baden-Württemberg in the early 1970s. In the late 1990s
they were being considered for elimination by Rhineland-Palatinate, and
in 1999 a law was introduced in the Land parliament which did, indeed,
replace the three government districts as of 1 January 2000 with “struc-
ture and licensing directions” in Koblenz and Neustadt/Weinstraße and a
“supervisory and service center” in Trier.52 During the discussions regard-
ing the territorial reforms of the late 1960s and early 1970s mentioned
above, some critics argued that the functions of the district governments
could be divided in part by the ministries and the counties, and, espe-
cially, that they could be replaced by integrated planning and administra-
tive and financing agencies at the regional level. At least in the larger
territorial Länder, in contrast to the Rhineland-Palatinate, the view pre-
vailed that they were necessary, and regional planning today is in effect
mostly planning by the government district but in some Länder by the
counties. The government districts appear now to be firmly established in
the larger Länder;53 however, as noted above, there is no middle level in six
of the smaller territorial Länder: the Saarland; Schleswig-Holstein;
Rhineland-Palatinate; Mecklenburg-Vorpommern; Brandenburg; and
Thuringia, which has a substitute in the form of a Land administrative
office.54 North-Rhine Westphalia, which is a large territorial state with the
largest population, is in the process of reforming and reorganizing its
government districts.
A nonpartisan administration in the government districts is assumed;
however, given the politicization of much of the higher levels of adminis-
tration in Land and local governments in recent decades, some concern
has been expressed about the tradition of political neutrality at the
middle level of administration. Certain voices have called for a district
government that is “closer to the people,” a more “democratized” or “par-
liamentarized” or less bureaucratized administration. But there is no
reason why the middle level should be “political” just because the higher
and lower levels are. Indeed, the difficult job of serving as a mediator and
coordinator between Land and local governments, which often have
different partisan colors, cannot be performed well by a partisan district
government.55 Besides, any parliamentarization at the government
district level would subtract proportionately from the authority of
the Land parliaments and elected county and local government councils
(figure 3.3).56
92
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 92
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
Figure 3.3 Organization plan for the government districts of Baden-Württemberg
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 93
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
Lower Saxony was mentioned at the end of the previous section as hav-
ing a unique high authority in the form of a Land Administrative Office
in addition to government districts. Thüringia, in contrast, differs from
all other Länder in having established a single Land Administrative Office
at the middle level in place of government districts. The Rhineland-
Palatinate, as noted above, has just replaced its three government districts
with three other regional offices.
The lower level: direct state administration
In all of the Länder there are varying numbers and kinds of offices that in
some cases are directly responsible to high Land special authorities but
mostly answer to the government districts (in the Länder with no gov-
ernment districts, some local state offices are directly responsible to the
supreme Land authorities, i.e., the ministries). Typical examples of the
former are weights and measures, autobahn, road construction, and
finance offices. The far more numerous examples of state offices that are
supervised by the government districts include the police, and land reg-
istry, agriculture, and business regulation offices, and in most, but not in
all, cases, school administration and forestry (figures 3.4 and 3.5).
The lower level: indirect administration by local governments
Public administration on behalf of the state is also carried out by local gov-
ernments. Indeed, it is estimated that 75–80 percent of all federal and
Land laws are implemented by local governments. The most important
units in this regard are the counties, of which there are two kinds: the
“rural county” (Landkreis), which may be in fact rather densely populated
owing to the size and number of municipalities that constitute the
county; and the “city-county” (Stadtkreis),57 a larger city usually referred
to as the county-free city (kreisfreie Stadt).
The lower level: rural county government German rural counties are ter-
ritorial public corporations consisting of municipalities, their surround-
ing territory, and their citizens (thus Gemeindeverband). There is very little
unincorporated territory in Germany; examples would be certain forests
and lakes. The counties’ purpose is to administer those matters that are
“above” or beyond the reach or capability of the municipalities that con-
stitute the county. Matters of county self-government include the volun-
tary establishment and maintenance of social and cultural institutions
94
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 94
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
Figure 3.4 Organization plan of Baden-Württemberg
Source: Rainer Wahl, “Die Organisation und Enturicklung der Verwallung in den Ländern und in Berlin,” in Deutsche Verwaltungsgeschichte, Band 5:
Die Bundesrepublic Deutschland, edited by Kurt G. A. Jeserich et al. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1987), p. 243.
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 95
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
Heimat-
verbundene
Einrichungen
Oberfinanz-
direktion
Klosterkammer
Staatsanwaltschaften
Justizverwaltung
LA f. Wasservers.
u. Gewässerschutz
L./KriminalpolizeiA
L.VersorgungsA
L.SozialA
LA für
Bodenforschung
Zentrale f. amtl.
Mat.prüfwesen
OberbergA
FinanzÄ
VersorgungsÄ
Med. UntersuchungsÄ
Chem. UntersuchungsÄ
GewAufsichtsÄ*
VeterinäruntersuchungsÄ
Moorverw.
Ämter f. Agrarstruktur
ForstÄ
BauA f. Küstenschutz …
NeubauÄ Aller-/Leineregulierg
DomänenÄ
WassersirtschaftsÄ
Wasserschutzpol.inspektionen
Kriminalpol.inspektionen
Polizeidirekt.inspektionen
KatasterÄ
StaatshochbauÄ
Staatliche Bauleitungen
SeeA
HafenÄ
EichÄ
AutobahnÄ u/o StraßenneubauÄ
StraßenbauÄ
Amtl. Materialprüfanstalten
BergÄ
SchulaufsichtsÄ
KlosterforstÄ
KlosterrentÄ
Landkreise
und
kreisfreie
Städte
Justiz Wissen-
schaft u.
Kunst
Kultus Wirtschaft und
Verkehr
L.Verwal-
tungsA
Inneres
Ministerprasident
Staatskanzlei
Ernährung,
Landwirtschaft
und Forsten
Soziales
Bezirksregierungen
Finanz Bundes-
angelegen-
heiten
Neidersachsen
Figure 3.5 Organization plan of Lower Saxony
Source: Rainer Wahl, “Die Organisation und Enturicklung der Verwallung in den Ländern und in Berlin,” in Deutsche Verwaltungsgeschichte, Band 5:
Die Bundesrepublic Deutschland, edited by Kurt G. A. Jeserich et al. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1987), p. 243.
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 96
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
such as concert halls and museums; the construction and maintenance of
general schools, retirement and nursing homes; hospitals and ambulance
services, etc. Mandated tasks may include fire protection; vocational
schools; county roads; waste disposal; and last-resort public assistance
(Sozialhilfe). Delegated tasks include the administration of student subsi-
dies for promoting education; rent subsidies (Wohngeld); health and vet-
erinary offices; office for foreigners; building supervision; monument
maintenance; dam supervision; and hunting and fishing licenses. The
rural county can delegate some functions to its municipalities.58
The Landrat (until the second half of the 1990s a mostly ceremonial
figure in North-Rhine Westphalia and Lower Saxony, see map 3.1) is the
chief administrative officer responsible for the administration of both
“state” and local affairs – that is, he combines the two at the rural county
level and is the “connecting link between state administration and self-
government in the county.” As such he falls under the legal and functional
supervision of the government district.59 Germans therefore sometimes
speak of the county’s “loaning” the Landrat to the state (Land) for the
Administrative structures in Germany 97
Map 3.1 Counties and county-free (independent) cities in Lower Saxony
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 97
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
administration of state (both federal and Land) laws;60 however, in Lower
Saxony the county government has been “communalized” as a result of
the pressure of British occupation authorities after the war to remove
the “state” from local government. Thus the county manager in Lower
Saxony (now also called Landrat) performs delegated tasks on behalf of
the Land, but as a local official.61 In the other Länder the Landrat can be
seen as an agent of direct state administration, even though he is a local
government official. But there are no state administrative offices within
the jurisdiction of the cities, towns, and villages that make up the county,
so their administration of state laws is indirect administration under the
legal supervision of the Landrat. Of course, the specific responsibilities of
the Landrat vary rather significantly among the Länder.
The lower level: municipal governments The cities, towns, and villages
(Gemeinden in German; communes in French) are territorial public
corporations which have the right of self-government as guaranteed by
Article 28, para. 2, sent. 1 of the Basic Law (see map 3.2). They are respon-
sible for the entire range of public administration in their territory, which
is in conformity with the principle of unity of command (Einheit der
Verwaltung) that stands in sharp contrast to the functional fragmentation
98
The Länder and German federalism
Map 3.2 The municipalities (Gemeinden) in the county of Göttingen
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 98
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
of local government administration in the United States. They have
different political and administrative structures, depending on the
respective Land-wide charter law (Gemeindeordnung).62 There was a
change in the Länder in the 1990s to direct election of the mayor as chief
executive officer (even in the North German city manager systems),
which has always been a feature of the South German Council form found
in Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria. With its adoption by the five new
Länder in the East, the South German Council form of local government
is now the most common in Germany.63
German municipalities are responsible for two kinds of administration:
matters of self-government (Selbstverwaltungsangelegenheiten), also called
“own area of responsibility” (eigener Wirkungskreis); and delegated mat-
ters (Auftragsangelegenheiten), also called delegated area of responsibility
(übertragener Wirkungskreis). In matters of self-government, the principle
of general powers (Allzuständigkeit) applies.64 According to this principle,
which is somewhat comparable to home rule in the United States, the
municipalities (and counties) in Germany have the authority to do any-
thing they wish so long as it is within the framework of and does not con-
flict with a Land or federal law (Article 28, para. 2). In theory at least it
stands in sharp contrast to the American ultra vires rule, according to
which American municipalities may engage only in those activities autho-
rized by their charters. In practice the Länder have not left their cities and
towns all that much room to maneuver, so that the general powers rule,
like Articles 30 and 70 of the Basic Law regarding the powers of the Länder
and the federation, is somewhat misleading.
Matters of self-government include voluntary (freiwillige Aufgaben) and
mandated tasks (Pflichtaufgaben). Voluntary tasks may in fact be required
in the sense that they are needed and cannot be ignored. Or, on the other
hand, voluntary tasks may not be performed owing to a lack of financial
means or a lack of administrative capability. The focus of voluntary tasks
is the provision of social, cultural, and economic public facilities and ser-
vices. Examples of voluntary tasks are the construction and maintenance
of swimming pools, athletic fields, lecture halls, libraries, museums, and,
in larger cities, theaters; support of cultural associations and music
schools; the provision of parks and green areas; the construction and
maintenance of nursery schools, youth centers, retirement and nursing
homes, hospitals, and so forth. Mandated tasks include, for example, waste
collection; sewerage; public playgrounds; street construction and mainte-
nance; fire protection; zoning; maintenance of elementary schools, and,
for the city-counties, maintenance of secondary schools.65
Administrative structures in Germany 99
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 99
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
Delegated matters are responsibilities that must be carried out by the
municipalities because there are no general and direct state agencies at the
municipal level for such purposes. Municipalities carry out fewer dele-
gated tasks than the counties, but they are involved to some extent in this
area of responsibility. There are no special authorities in municipalities.
Delegated matters include passport administration; local registration of
inhabitants and the provision of personal identity cards, which in turn
is connected to registration for the military draft (or alternative civilian
service); building supervision; care of the homeless and of refugees and
asylum seekers. On the other hand various welfare tasks and the promo-
tion of economic development and culture are mostly in the category of
self-government matters.66
In their administration of matters of self-government, German munic-
ipalities are responsible for their actions, that is, they must operate within
the law. For municipalities in the counties, this means they are subject to
the legal supervision of the Landrat (or county manager) for the self-
government activities and to his or her functional supervision for the
delegated activities. The Landrat, in turn, is supervised by the director of
the government district who in turn answers to the various ministries. In
those smaller territorial Länder without government districts, supervi-
sion is by the Minister of Interior. Supervision is carried out informally
through routine consultation. The next stage usually takes the form of
requests for information. In cases of noncompliance, the supervising
authority can order compliance, arrange to implement measures at the
cost of the municipality, or, finally, replace the local authorities with a
state commissar, which was done on numerous occasions during the last
difficult years of the Weimar Republic but only rarely in the Federal
Republic. To prevent such extreme actions, there are various approval
procedures, for example, for selling public property, borrowing money,
etc. In cases of disagreement, municipalities can contest the decision of
the supervisory authority before an administrative court.67
The lower level: the county-free cities In all of the Länder, there is city-
county separation (found as a rule in the United States only in Virginia)
for the largest cities; therefore, as we have already seen, they are referred to
as city-counties (Stadtkreise) or, more commonly, as county-free cities
(kreisfreie Städte). The county-free cities are responsible for administering
all local affairs and serve also as substitutes for lower state administrative
authorities. The responsible organ is the governing mayor (or city man-
ager until the 1990s) who, however, is not “on loan” to the state. Rather,
100
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 100
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
he administers state laws as “delegated matters” of local government on
his own responsibility. Again, there are no state administrative offices
within the jurisdiction of the county-free cities, so that indirect state
administration takes place here also.68 In both the rural counties and the
county-free cities, then, the Land is relieved of establishing its own local
agencies, and the administration of state tasks is carried out by those who
are familiar with the local conditions and the people. At the same time
local governments gain some understanding for the concerns of higher
levels via contact with their agents. “[T]he leading and deeper idea behind
the organization of the lower level is not that of a clean separation between
two arenas, but communication, mutual exchange of information, and a
balancing of state and local interests.”69
Administration of delegated state functions by the county-free cities
falls under the functional supervision of the district government (see
above); supervision of all matters of local self-government is legal only. In
some Länder larger cities that are not county-free have been given similar
rights and responsibilities.70
An especially important example of county and county-free city
administration of delegated tasks is the public assistance (Sozialhilfe) that
is provided by federal law to those who have exhausted their unemploy-
ment benefits or have no other source of income. This includes not only
the handicapped and blind but also refugees and asylum seekers. This law
has been delegated to the Länder, which in turn have given the actual
administration of payments for living expenses to the rural counties
and county-free cities as a matter of self-government. Since these local
governments are responsible not only for administrative costs but also for
providing the actual funds for payments, and since there has been rela-
tively high unemployment in recent years among Germans and even
higher rates among the many foreigners that have come to Germany, the
financial stress of local governments has been exacerbated significantly by
this responsibility.
The result has been considerable conflict between the different levels
over current arrangements. Federal guidelines leave the local govern-
ments little room for maneuver, because benefits are supposed to be stan-
dard throughout the country. When the Public Assistance Act was revised
in 1961, it was assumed that its importance would decline steadily owing
to economic growth and affluence. The restrictions placed on local gov-
ernment autonomy in administering the program were therefore not
taken very seriously. With the rise of long-term unemployment and the
large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers, public assistance has
Administrative structures in Germany 101
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 101
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
become a major bone of contention between federal, Land, and local
authorities. The dilemma facing the localities is that they do not have the
revenues to assume responsibility for public assistance, and even if they
did there are strong ideological and practical reasons for having a federal
program with nation-wide standards.71
Youth and family assistance is also a delegated function that is a matter
of self-government for the rural counties and county-free cities. This
involves subsidies for nursery schools (Kindergarten); programs for
music, sports, international understanding, youth consultation, etc.; and
a variety of family social services and youth homes. Family promotion has
been added in recent years in the Länder in the form of one-time pay-
ments for bearing children (Babygeld). This is in addition to monthly
child support payments (Kindergeld) for all families. Educational promo-
tion funds, for example, funds to pay for board and room costs of some
higher school and university students (tuition is free) based on family
income, are regulated nationally, but some Länder, for example, Lower
Saxony, have added supplements for pupils attending higher secondary
schools (Gymnasien) who cannot live at home because of the distance of
the school from their place of domicile.72
There have been many complaints in Germany – as in the United States
– about the growing influence of “the state” at the local level, especially
in terms of mandated functions. A recent example is the federal law –
approved by the Bundesrat – that requires all municipalities to provide
nursery schools for all children whose parents want them but without
providing the funding for the schools. Thus some observers see the work
of local governments as consisting more or less of administering state-
mandated and delegated tasks. This has also had a significant influence on
the financial situation of the municipalities, and it raises constitutional
questions about the guarantee of local self-government.73 It also raises
questions about the extent to which the Bundesrat reflects the interests of
local governments as opposed to broader party interests.
The lower level: special inter- and intramunicipal associations Some Län-
der, e.g., Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate, Baden-Württemberg, and
Schleswig-Holstein, also have subcounty associations of villages and towns,
somewhat like a local federation of small municipalities (called, respec-
tively, Samtgemeinden, Verbandsgemeinden, Verwaltungsgemeinschaften,
and Ämter). In other cases some former villages or towns (Ortsschaften)
that were consolidated into larger municipalities during the territorial
reforms of the 1960s and 1970s were given certain limited responsibilities
102
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 102
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
in compensation for their loss of autonomy. They are modeled to some
extent on the intra-municipal city districts of certain large cities. Some
special-purpose administrative associations have been formed in Bavaria,
Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia; Bavaria, North-Rhine Westphalia, and
Rhineland-Palatinate have higher- level multiple-county associations.74
In addition, many municipalities and counties have formed special dis-
tricts (Zweckverbände), usually for a single purpose such as provision of
drinking water, regional planning, constructing a swimming pool, regu-
lating a river separating two political units, maintaining a common
school bus, etc.75 While these are common features of local government in
Germany, they are not as ubiquitous as in the United States.
The lower level: special supra-municipal associations In some Länder
associations of municipalities have been created at a regional level in
order to carry out certain functions that cannot be administered effec-
tively at the municipal or county levels. The best examples are the two
regional associations (Landschaftsverbände Rheinland and Westfalen-
Lippe) in North-Rhine Westphalia, which are in the process of being
reformed and replaced; the seven districts in Bavaria; and the Bezirksver-
band Pfalz in the Rheinland-Palatinate. There are also Land welfare asso-
ciations in Baden-Württemberg, Hesse, and Saxony as well as the regional
planning associations in Baden-Württemberg. An innovative regional
association was formed by Stuttgart and five surrounding counties in
1994, and it has a wide range of planning and coordination functions.76
Administration in the city-states
Unlike any other existing federation, Germany has three city-states:
Bremen, Hamburg, and Berlin. The first two have their origins in the
Holy Roman Empire as trading cities that were important participants
in the Hanseatic League, while Berlin’s status is the result of the city’s
division during the Cold War, its unification in 1990, and the failure of
a referendum in May 1996 that, if successful, would have led to a consol-
idation of Berlin and Brandenburg.
Bremen is not a simple city-state, but rather a two-city state. Unlike
Hamburg and Berlin, which are unitary cities, Bremen consists of the cities
of Bremen and Bremerhaven, separated by 65 km with territory from
Lower Saxony in between. The governmental organs (Senat) and parlia-
ment (Bürgerschaft) of the Land Bremen also serve the city of Bremen, but
Bremerhaven has its own city government and council in addition.77
Administrative structures in Germany 103
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 103
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
In Bremen and Hamburg the high-, middle-, and lower-level Land
functions are combined to a considerable extent. The advantage, of
course, is less distance between the citizen and government officials and
administrators; the disadvantage is the resulting complexity of city
administrative organization. In all three city-states neighborhood or dis-
trict offices have been created, but they have fewer powers in Bremen than
in Hamburg or Berlin.
In Hamburg there is no separation between the “state” and “municipal”
administration. The city, like Bremen, has a lord mayor as head of govern-
ment (Senat) and a parliament (Bürgerschaft). The city is divided into
districts which are not autonomous but do provide “deconcentrated
administration.” The districts have elected assemblies and an administra-
tion that implements measures that do not require a larger area.78
Unlike the other two city-states, Berlin has two administrative levels,
but it is different from the territorial Länder that have two levels (e.g.,
Schleswig-Holstein and Saarland). It is not a traditional city-state like
Bremen and Hamburg, which were city-states before the war and the divi-
sion of Germany after 1945. Berlin became a divided city-state under
Allied occupation during the Cold War; it was reunited in the summer of
1990, and in June 1991 the Bundestag decided by a close vote to make it
the national capital again. In 1994 the city completed a constitutional and
administrative reform that was to prepare it for its future responsibilities
at least until consolidation with Brandenburg; however, the referendum
that was to bring this about failed in May 1996, so that Berlin’s new legal
framework may last longer than many expected.
As in the other city-states, there is no difference between state and local
government administration. The tasks of the city as municipality, county
and Land are met by the parliament (Abgeordnetenhaus), government
(Senat), and administration, including administration by the twenty-three
districts into which Berlin was divided (In 1999 the twenty-three districts
were reduced to twelve). There is, then, a high or main administration and
a district administration. These two levels have existed since 1920, when
Berlin annexed eight cities, fifty-nine towns and villages, and twenty-seven
estates. The division of the city into the then twenty districts was designed
in part to compensate the incorporated areas for their lost status.79
There are three categories of tasks or responsibilities in Berlin: the tasks
of the main administration; the tasks delegated to the districts under the
supervision of the city; and district tasks. The 1994 Berlin constitution
enumerates the powers of the main administration and those that can be
delegated. What is not enumerated belongs to the districts. Federal laws
104
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 104
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
that are delegated to the Länder are divided in Berlin between the main
administration and the districts which, like local governments in the terri-
torial Länder, implement these laws as matters of their own responsibility.
The districts are responsible for such matters as schools, adult education,
hospitals, libraries, swimming facilities, youth homes, athletic fields,
parks, and music schools. Delegated matters under supervision include
building plans, street maintenance and lighting, elections, and property
issues. The districts can make their own zoning plans, and they enjoy some
fiscal autonomy. The main administration is responsible for general law
and order, constitutional protection, relations with the federal govern-
ment, asylum seekers, citizenship issues, money and credit, city-wide
planning, public housing, etc.80
Unlike the typical territorial Land described on p. 87, the “chancellor
principle” does not apply to the city-states. According to this principle,
the prime minister is elected by the Land parliament and then appoints
his cabinet members. In each of the three cities, however, the lord mayor
is elected by the city parliament which also elects the members of the cab-
inet. The city parliament can also remove cabinet ministers in a vote of
no-confidence. In practice, of course, the parliament elects the cabinet
nominees already selected in negotiations within the majority party or
majority coalition. In any case the lord mayor does not have the power to
set the guidelines of policy as do his counterparts in the territorial Länder,
that is, the principles of collegiality and ministerial responsibility are
stronger in the city-states.81
Special agencies
As noted above, a distinction is made in Germany as in the United States
between general- purpose and special-purpose administration. We have
seen that there are a good many special agencies in Germany. At the
federal and Land levels special offices are common. These serve at the fed-
eral level in place of missing substructures, but they are subunits of the
various ministries at the Land level.82 They are seen usually as means of
relieving the ministry of an administrative burden in favor of greater
decentralization, but sometimes they are also seen as centralizing agents.
They are usually at the higher level of administration, that is, below
the supreme and above the middle levels; however, some are also at the
middle level, where they may be to some extent in competition with the
district government. They tend to be technically demanding, e.g., statisti-
cal offices, or responsible for certification functions, e.g., geological
Administrative structures in Germany 105
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 105
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
offices. The Gewerbeaufsichtsämter can be found between the middle
and lower levels.83 These are special authorities established for the pur-
poses of supervising business operations regarding workplace health and
safety standards, noise levels, temperature conditions, radiation, abuse of
workers or animals, and protection of nature, and so forth.
At the lower level there is considerable administrative fragmentation,
in spite of unity of command in the rural counties and county-free cities.
This is more evident in the south (Baden-Württemberg, Rhineland-
Palatinate, Bavaria) than in the north (North-Rhine Westphalia, Hesse).
Examples of special authorities that are not easily integrated into the rural
counties and county-free cities because of the territory they cover or their
specialization are weights and measures (Eichämter); mountain and for-
est offices; and cultural and road construction offices. Regional develop-
ment and environmental protection can also be difficult to integrate
within a local unit of general administration.84
Indirect administration by nongovernmental
public bodies and private persons
Direct administration by “state” (Land and federal agencies at various
levels) and indirect administration by self-governing local governments do
not exhaust the forms and instruments of administration in Germany.
Indirect administration by self-governing nongovernmental public corpo-
rations, institutions, and foundations is also important. Public territorial
corporations have members – those living in the territory – and autonomy,
for example, municipalities and counties. Universities, on the other hand,
are personnel corporations. Public institutions (Anstalten) have the func-
tion of carrying out a particular purpose. They have no members, only
users; examples would be the Sparkassen, which have a monopoly as
savings and loan associations, or public radio and television networks85
sponsored by the Länder. Public foundations are institutions that have a
continuing purpose set by a founder with funding provided by an endow-
ment from public and/or private sources. All of these legal forms of service
providers share a degree of autonomy or the right of self-government of
their affairs, subject only to the legal supervision of ministries.
Social insurance agencies86
Next to the local governments, social insurance is the most important area
in which indirect state administration is carried out. The Federal Employ-
ment Office in Nuremberg is responsible for providing unemployment
106
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 106
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
compensation as well as employment counseling and other services such
as child support payments for all children in Germany. It is a semi-
autonomous federal institution (Anstalt) with branches at Land and local
government levels.87 Social insurance agencies that provide health and
retirement benefits with responsibilities above the Land level are federal
bodies (that is, special public corporations carrying out federal law), of
which there are several examples.
Social insurance for health, accident, retirement, and, most recently,
nursing care programs is provided by federal law, but administration is
not by government agencies. All employees who earn less than a certain
amount per month – 90 percent of the employed – are required to join a
health insurance provider. In the past there were insurance providers
restricted to special occupations or groups of employees as well as
providers for the general population. Since the beginning of 1996,
employees may select their provider; however, each provider must offer a
uniform system of services and quality standards, and no one may be
refused admission. Therefore, the price competition among the different
providers will be based primarily on the efficiency of their operations,
although there is some concern that the effect of this reform will work to
the disadvantage of the rapidly growing older population.88
The public corporations that provide insurance are semi-autonomous
institutions that implement the social insurance law as matters of their
own responsibility. In most cases an assembly and executive committee
are elected with equal representation for both employers and employees;
social insurance funds for miners, where the insured make up two-thirds
of the self-governing organs, are an exception. Eligible voters for the
assembly elections are the insured employees.
In the early 1990s there were about 1,235 sickness funds organized in
a variety of forms. The largest number of insured are with 274 regional
funds (Ortskrankenkassen, AOK). There were also 747 funds organized
by companies (Betriebskrankenkassen), 176 funds offered by vocational
groups (Innungskrankenkassen), twenty-one funds for farmers, one for
seamen, one for miners, and fifteen voluntary “substitute” funds. By
the end of 1999, these numbers had been reduced sharply to seventeen
regional funds, 354 company funds, thirty-nine vocational funds, and
nineteen substitute funds.89 Minimum numbers of insured are
required; e.g., 100,000 for the company funds, 1,000 for a vocational
fund.90 All public sickness funds are supervised by the district govern-
ments and Land, while private funds are supervised by the federal
insurance office.
Administrative structures in Germany 107
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 107
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
Retirement programs are divided among three large branches. The first
is for manual workers, which is organized into Land insurance institutions
and institutions for federal railway workers and seamen. The second is for
white-collar or salaried workers which is run by the Federal Insurance
Agency for Employees in Berlin. And the third is the Retirement Insurance
Agency for Mine Workers. Farmers were added in 1957, their family mem-
bers in 1985. Independent journalists and artists were added in 1981, and
as of 1986 mothers receive credit for retirement insurance based on the
number of years they were engaged in child-rearing activities.91
Other significant institutions in the area of social insurance are the
nongovernmental “free providers and associations.” The most important
of these are churches and religious societies as well as groups of private
welfare providers. These are engaged in the “workers’ welfare assistance,”
or the German Red Cross, German Caritas, the Jewish Central Welfare
Center, and so forth, located at different levels of government. German
Christian – especially Catholic – social doctrine focuses on the principle
of subsidiarity, according to which public policies should be carried out at
the lowest level possible. This principle has been adopted to a consider-
able extent by federal law makers, who have delegated to or authorized
private, nongovernmental agencies to carry out numerous social welfare
functions with considerable public financial support. Thus before unifi-
cation private welfare providers (freie Wohlfahrtsverbände) sponsored 40
percent of the hospitals for acute treatment, about 60 percent of the
retirement homes, about 70 percent of facilities for youth, and 60 percent
of the facilities for handicapped persons. Continuing education, espe-
cially in the form of adult education, is also a major activity. In the 1980s
there were about 900 adult education centers (Volkshochschulen) which
were being turned over increasingly to local governments which provided
about two-thirds of their funding.92
Chambers
There are numerous self-governing nongovernmental public corporations,
or chambers, in the Länder that are designed in part to relieve the min-
istries, to which they are responsible, of some administrative tasks. In the
process, they are performing indirect Land administrative functions. They
all have certain common characteristics: required membership; an assem-
bly, directly elected by the members as defined by law; a board elected
by the assembly and a professional manager; and a president elected to
represent the concerns of the chamber in the broader community.93
The chambers can be broken down into various categories. In the eco-
nomic area, for example, one finds chambers of industry and commerce,
108
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 108
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
chambers of tradesmen/craftsmen, and agricultural chambers. In the area
of free professions, there are chambers of attorneys, somewhat compara-
ble to state bar associations in the United States; and chambers of physi-
cians, dentists, pharmacists, architects, and so forth. The chambers see
themselves more as agencies assisting the state in numerous administra-
tive tasks than as typical interest groups.94
Especially well-known chambers are found in the economic area. Every
Land, for example, has at least one agricultural chamber, membership in
which is required of all farmers. This chamber is financed in part by a
modest assessment on the members based on the value of their property
and collected by the tax authorities. Some income is received from fees,
and at least half to two-thirds of the income comes from the Land. The
chamber is governed by a policy making assembly, elected by the mem-
bers, a ceremonial president, and a professional director and his staff. Tra-
ditional tasks of promoting agricultural interests are joined by other tasks
delegated by the Land. The chamber administration has sections for agri-
cultural technology, animal husbandry, training and continuing educa-
tion, plant and seed protection, forestry, and so forth. It also operates
numerous vocational schools and experimental farms.95
Two other examples of well-known economic chambers that work with
the Ministry of Economics are the Chamber of Tradesmen/Craftsmen
and the Industry and Commerce Chamber. Membership in both is
required and is represented by an elected assembly and officers. The
Chamber of Tradesmen/Craftsmen is responsible for training programs
for apprentices and for the examinations that lead to certification as jour-
neymen (Gesellen) and master craftsmen. The territory covered by such a
chamber usually conforms to that of a government district. The Industry
and Commerce Chamber consists of natural persons, commercial enter-
prises, and legal persons that operate a business in the territory of the
chamber. The chamber is financed by set contributions and by assess-
ments based on the volume of sales. Small business members pay no
assessment and only one-half of the set contribution. The task of the
chamber is to represent the interests of the members as a whole. It pro-
vides reports on the status of businesses, sets ethical standards, establishes
mediating boards for disagreements among members, takes measures
against unfair competition, regulates conditions of sales, and handles
consumer complaints. It engages in numerous other activities as well,
such as registering business enterprises, certifying various activities,
inspecting grocery stores, and providing consulting services. Like the
agricultural chambers and the chambers of tradesmen/craftsmen, it is
also responsible for training programs and vocational education.96
Administrative structures in Germany 109
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 109
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
Chambers of the free professions are numerous but not all-encom-
passing, given the differences that exist among the wide variety of prac-
ticing groups. Free professions form chambers because of the special
relationship they have with clients or patients, a nonmaterial relationship
of trust involving a special responsibility to society. Free professions, in
spite of their “freedom” and self-determination, are bound by certain
obligations and rules, e.g., formal admission procedures, fee structures,
and prohibitions on advertising. All free professions are organized in
chambers, membership in which, again, is required. Nevertheless, not all
groups are included. Thus in the health professions, there are chambers
for physicians and pharmacists, but not for homoeopaths, midwives,
dental technicians, and physical therapists. There are chambers for attor-
neys, notaries, tax advisers, and accountants, but not for business consul-
tants, salesmen, or driver training instructors. Nor are there any
chambers for scientific, artistic, educational or journalistic professions.97
Universities and specialized schools of higher education
(Fachhochschulen)
Institutions of higher education enjoy academic freedom as a constitu-
tional right and have the right of self-government “within the framework
of the laws.” In general these are Land laws, but these reflect the provisions
of the Federal University Framework Law of 1976 in the creation of which
the Länder participated. Thus, while laws vary by Land, they share many
common features. In Lower Saxony, for example, the Senate, the organ
responsible for routine academic affairs, including hiring of faculty, con-
sists of the deans of the schools as a consulting group and four groups
who have the decision making powers: professors; students; academic
assistants, research aides, etc.; and employees in the technical and admin-
istrative services. Actual representation in this “group university” takes
place in the proportion of seven professors, two students, two academic
aides, and two “others.” The concept of the “group university” originated
during the late 1960s, when students engaged in a general revolt against
older academic structures. At first there were three “groups”: faculty,
broadly defined; students; and “others,” including administrative and
technical personnel. Each group had an equal voice. The Federal Consti-
tutional Court ruled in 1973 that the professors must have a majority of
the votes in matters involving teaching and research, and the system
described briefly above emerged as a result.98
The highest official of the university is the president, elected by the
Konzil, a central university organ consisting of more than 100 faculty, for
110
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 110
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
a term of six years. The Konzil also elects the chief administrative officer,
the chancellor. Other institutions of higher education, such as the art
schools and the specialized colleges (Fachhochschulen), are led by a rector,
who is elected from the faculty for two years.
The next level of university administration consists of the general sub-
ject areas (Fachbereiche), roughly similar to schools in the United States,
headed by an elected dean who serves a two-year term. Students are
automatically members of the “student body” which is represented by a
student parliament and a general student committee (AStA) that provides
a number of student services.99
Public radio and television100
Since the electronic media fall under the concept of “culture,” program-
ming and broadcasting are the responsibility of the Länder; however, the
federation is responsible for technical matters.Until the mid-to-late 1980s,
when private satellite and cable television were introduced after consider-
able controversy over their potential effects,101 all radio and television in
Germany was public, which meant sponsored by the Länder. Each of the
individual Länder has the right to create its own network, and many have
done so. Thus Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hesse, North-Rhine
Westphalia, and the Saarland have their own radio and television networks
operated by autonomous boards. The other Länder have joined in various
combinations to form a joint network. The North German Network con-
sists of Lower Saxony, Hamburg, Schleswig-Holstein, and Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern, and the Central German Network is composed of Saxony,
Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia. In the south of Germany a part of one
Land (Württemberg) sponsors the South German Network and another
part (Baden) has joined with the Rhineland-Palatinate to form the South-
west German Network.102 In April 1997 these two networks agreed to
join into one Southwest German Network.103 There are ten public broad-
casting networks (legally, “institutions”) sponsored by the Länder. Each
network offers its own radio programming over two–eight channels, and
each has one regional television channel which it may share in part with
other networks.
In 1950 the public broadcasting institutions in the Länder formed
the Working Group of Broadcasting Institutions (ARD), an “umbrella
institution” that runs a nationwide television network known as “the first
program” and regional networks referred to collectively as “the third pro-
gram.” A second network for television only is called in German “the
second program” (ZDF); it was created in 1961 on the basis of contracts
Administrative structures in Germany 111
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 111
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
with all of the Länder after an attempt by the Adenauer Government to
form a federal network was ruled unconstitutional by the Federal Consti-
tutional Court.104
All of these networks are financed largely – more than 80 percent – by
nonvoluntary fees paid initially via the post office and since 1976 to the
License Fee Office (GEZ) operated by the ARD and ZDF. The fees are
set by the Land parliaments of all the Länder and amounted in the late
1990s to DM 28.25 per month (after 2001, DM 33.33) per household
for television and radio. The fees are divided by a ratio of 64:36 between
the ARD and ZDF. The ARD then transfers funds to the various Land
networks based on their size. Commercials also provide some income,
but they are subject to restrictions; for example, they are limited to 20
minutes a day and are not allowed after 8.00 p.m. or on Sundays and hol-
idays and not at all on the “third program.”105 The financing of the public
radio and television networks is a major theme at the prime ministers’
conferences.106
The networks are operated by a director and supervised by an adminis-
trative council of usually eight–ten members and by a larger board consist-
ing of up to fifty representatives from the parties in parliament, arts and
sciences, religious groups, management and labor, and social organiza-
tions. This internal pluralism is supposed to ensure nonpartisan, compre-
hensive programming. Just how nonpartisan the politically oriented
programs really are is subject to considerable debate, because some are
obviously slanted to the left or right. While political parties normally have
no more than one-third of the membership, their influence is reflected by
other group representatives as well.107 Nevertheless, “there is obviously a
systematic confrontation and counterbalance of political orientations” in
the public systems, that is, “no single political party has ever enjoyed undue
influence over the entire public-service broadcasting system.”108 Therefore,
there seems to be little doubt that the networks are basically independent.109
ARD and ZDF together offer a cable network, SAT 3, for an additional
fee, and they have begun new channels for children and news-oriented
programming. They also joined with a French network to offer ARTE,
which is more culturally oriented. Networks across Europe have joined in
a European Broadcasting Union (EBU) to offer “Euronews” as an alter-
native to CNN.
There is another public broadcasting network at the national level
which is operated by the national government under its authority for for-
eign affairs. Thus radio and television programs are broadcast to foreign
listeners, and while German Radio (Deutschlandradio) can be heard also
112
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 112
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
in Germany, the television broadcasts (Deutsche Welle) are available only
outside the country.
As noted above, private television and radio broadcasting was intro-
duced only in 1984. This created the “dual system” of public and private
stations in Germany today.110 Rather than “peaceful coexistence” between
the two systems, controversy has arisen over several issues. In the first
place, the public networks, ARD and ZDF, are required to offer complete,
high-quality programming. Private channels offering specialized pro-
gramming or little more than entertainment have attracted large numbers
of viewers, and they have also attracted most of the money for commer-
cials. Competition has also led to a dramatic increase in the costs of broad-
casting, for example, for major sporting events and movies. These rising
costs have placed the public networks at a serious disadvantage
Thus, Radio-Television-Luxemburg (RTL), based in Cologne, appeals
especially to younger people and is now the most-watched German tele-
vision network, with more than 16 percent of market share.111 Together
with SAT 1, which features movies and sports and operates 24 hours a day,
these two private channels have as many viewers as the public networks.
Indeed, private commercial television now has about 60 percent of the
total viewership.112
Public savings and loan associations (Sparkassen)
Sparkassen were established in Germany to encourage savings and to pro-
vide credit to the local community with particular focus on the middle
classes and weaker social groups. The responsible sponsors are larger
municipalities and rural counties. They are governed by a council, mem-
bers of which come from the local elected city or county council, and by a
two-member management board elected by the council. They are super-
vised by the district governments. Together the various Sparkassen form a
Land association under the supervision of the Land Minister of Finance.113
Foundations
Foundations exist under public, civil, and private law. An example of a pri-
vate law foundation would be the VW Foundation which promotes
research in science and technology. A well-known public foundation
under federal law is the Foundation for Prussian Cultural Treasures, which
maintains libraries, archives, museums, etc., that belonged to the state of
Prussia. An example of a Land foundation is the Lower Saxony Foundation
that provides financial support for cultural activities that the Land does
not or cannot finance, in part due to lack of funds. Its endowment comes
Administrative structures in Germany 113
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 113
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
from an initial bloc of money received from the Land, from gifts from cer-
tain large businesses and banks, and from private persons. Foundations
are most common with respect to the maintenance of certain churches,
monasteries or convents, and to the provision of funds for cultural activi-
ties. They were much more common in the past than today.114
Water and ground associations
In Lower Saxony, as an example of one Land, there are about 2,000
associations that deal with water and ground issues, including drainage,
sewerage, and water supply. There are numerous dike associations of
which all land owners in certain areas are required to be members. Costs
for the dikes and their maintenance are covered by the Land; the federal
government by way of the federal–Land “joint task” responsibility for
improving agricultural structures and coastal protection (Article 91a of
the Basic Law); and by the property owners. Forestry associations and
hunting and fishing associations are supported by the rural counties.115
“Borrowed” instruments (“Beliehene”)
Certain institutions, groups, or individuals can also be engaged in admin-
istration due to some kind of expertise. Chimney sweeps report on fire
and building conditions, emissions, and energy use in making their
required periodic checks of heating systems in homes and businesses, and
property owners are required to correct defects that have been detected.
The private technical inspection service (TÜV) performs the required
biennial inspections of safety conditions of all cars and trucks. And, owing
to the nature of their positions, ship captains and airplane pilots can
exercise certain state responsibilities for maintaining safety and order.116
Other examples include game wardens, bankruptcy administrators, some
notary publics (specialized attorneys who offer certain key legal services),
certified private schools, private welfare providers, and so forth.117
Planning in the Länder
General
Given the recent experience of the Nazi regime and the then current
example of the communist system in East Germany, there was a certain
amount of suspicion in the first years of the Federal Republic against
planning beyond zoning and budgetary plans. But some planning did
114
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 114
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
exist, for example, in agriculture (Grüner Plan), youth affairs (Bundesju-
gendplan), and with respect to roads, sports, and some other matters. The
Länder also engaged in some planning, especially for refugees and educa-
tion. The main characteristics of this first planning phase were isolated
sectoral planning; individual infrastructure planning with unsophisti-
cated methodologies and little consideration of financial resources; and
little federal–Land cooperation.118
In the period 1966–69, there was a dramatic change in the attitudes and
practices in Germany regarding planning. This was reflected, for example,
in the Federal Law of 1967 on the promotion of stability and growth of the
economy. This led to framework planning for the entire economy, or
“global direction,” on the basis of medium-term goal projections and
multi-year financial planning at the federal, Land, and local levels. It also
produced coordinating agencies, such as the financial planning council
and the economic cycle council and, finally, the corporatist “concerted
action” at the federal level involving consultations among state officials,
large firms, and unions.119
The Finance Reform of 1969, which brought about several major
changes in the Basic Law, included two articles dealing with “joint tasks.”
Article 91a deals with federal–Land cooperation in university construc-
tion, improvements in regional economic structures, and improvements
in agricultural structures and coastal protection, each of which involves a
joint planning committee, medium-term framework planning for invest-
ments, and/or subsidies and joint financing. In 1970 a federal–Land com-
mission for educational planning was created under Article 91b.
A federal territory planning program was started, and planning staffs
and planning groups were established in all of the ministries and in the
Chancellory. In the Länder work began on “Land development plans” and
numerous functional and regional plans. In larger cities there were city
development plans. Characteristic of this phase was the intensification
and perfection of already existing planning efforts, e.g., federal highway
planning and Land development planning; the introduction of a qualita-
tive new role for financial planning and direction of the economy, and
new planning units in the general administration; the securing by legisla-
tion of middle-range planning in the areas of finance and joint tasks; and
the belief that joint federal–Land planning was necessary under “cooper-
ative federalism.”120
After 1975 there was a period of critical distance from planning, due in
part to the oil crises of 1973 and 1980 and rising unemployment. This called
more for short-term crisis management than for long-term planning, and
Administrative structures in Germany 115
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 115
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
it undermined plans already made. Revenues were now below projections
and indebtedness rose. New problems, including demographic changes,
rising health costs, and environmental concerns led to more skepticism
toward planning, and planning staffs were reduced in size and their tasks
limited. Planning continued as a routine activity, but ambitious systems of
development planning were dropped. Crisis management with narrower
concerns and a shorter range of planning became especially prominent
at the local level. This has led to a renaissance of functional planning with
a reduction in expectations of vertical and sectoral coordination. But in
comparison to 1965 there is functional planning in more policy areas than
before; it is methodologically more sophisticated; and there is more areal,
financial and procedural coordination.121
Types of planning
At the federal level, the Basic Law requires or authorizes five kinds of plan-
ning: budget planning; finance planning, which is above all resource
planning but also functional planning; defense planning; framework
planning under Article 91a; and educational planning under Article 91b.
The latter two will be discussed below, since they involve the federation
and the Länder.
The Länder also engage in budget planning and five-year finance plan-
ning by the Minister of Finance. More specific to the Länder is functional
or sectoral planning for responsibilities such as roads and education (pro-
jections of pupils, teachers, building needs) and regional land-use plan-
ning. Municipal building and zoning plans must conform to these plans,
but local officials have a voice in the process before it is completed.122
Regional land-use planning is one of the most important examples of
Land planning, and it is probably the best example of attempts to coordi-
nate and integrate various sectors of planning sometimes involving fed-
eral, Land, regional, and municipal efforts.123 EU planning regulations are
also of growing importance, e.g., in highway and railway planning, in
nature preservation and the environment in general.124 An American
study of land-use planning in Germany has noted the crucial importance
of the constitutional principle of “uniformity [Einheitlichkeit] of living
conditions” found in Article 72 of the Basic Law for an understanding of
such planning.125 Article 72 is the basis for the federal concurrent legisla-
tive authority to pass the federal framework law on land use (Raumord-
nungsgesetz (ROG)) of 1997.126 But land-use planning is also based on the
German concept of the “social state.”127
116
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 116
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
The ROG provides for vertical coordination of land-use planning among
the federal ministry for regional planning and construction, Land min-
istries, and local governments, and for horizontal coordination between the
latter two levels. Another means of cooperation and coordination is
through various committees and councils, including the conference of
Land ministers of regional planning. Implementation of the goals of the
ROG is the responsibility of the Land planning process. Land law provides
for the organization of planning at the Land and local levels. Individual
land-use plans established by the Länder determine long-term goals
and include data on population, employment, economic development,
education, transportation, etc. The ROG places particular focus on the
environment, including nature preservation. Land officials also review local
county and city plans and encourage coordination and cooperation.128
The most important elements of regional planning today focus on the
“central places,” i.e., cities and towns that have been selected by the Länder
as service providers and communication centers for their surrounding
areas.129 These centers are key instruments in achieving the goal of “equiv-
alent” living conditions, because they provide the surrounding areas with
the necessary economic, financial, medical, educational, cultural, and
other services and opportunities.130 A somewhat related activity is regional
municipal planning, such as that established by Baden-Württemberg in
1994 for the city of Stuttgart and five surrounding counties. Its activities
include regional territorial planning, traffic and commuter planning,
regional economic and tourism planning, and waste disposal planning. It
can require municipalities to formulate local zoning plans in conformity
with regional plans. The agency has been given some popular legitimacy
via an elected regional assembly consisting of eighty delegates.131
The ROG provides for the development of the territory of the Federal
Republic so that, among other goals, “uniform” or “equivalent” living con-
ditions will be achieved. As noted in Chapter 2 on the constitutional
framework of German federalism, “uniform”– it was changed to “equiva-
lent” in 1994 – did not mean equality in the sense of some kind of leveling
process.132 Rather, these terms meant then and still mean today providing
the necessary infrastructure, environmental conditions, employment
opportunities, educational and cultural services, etc., that are required of
a “social state.”133 Nevertheless, there was misunderstanding of “unifor-
mity,” in that some politicians and others interpreted the term too liter-
ally.134 After unification and the recognition of dramatic differences in the
living conditions of the eastern and western parts of Germany, it became
evident that “uniformity” was misleading at best and that the conditions
Administrative structures in Germany 117
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 117
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
in the eastern part of united Germany required new thinking.135 For all of
these reasons, the term “uniform” was changed in the constitutional
reform process of 1994 to “equivalent,” but it is not clear that this change
will have much effect. In the meantime there is less emphasis on either
term today and increasing use of the concept of “comparable living condi-
tions” for the eastern Länder. This discussion has led to considerable con-
troversy, however, because it raises the question of more federal assistance
to achieve “equivalent” living conditions at the cost of Land autonomy.
Joint task planning
A continuing example of federal–Land planning, which is an otherwise
generally discouraged example of “mixed administration,” can be found in
the “joint tasks” provisions of Article 91a and 91b that were described
briefly above and in Chapter 2 on the constitutional framework of German
federalism.136 Article 91a and 91b were added to the Basic Law in 1969 as
part of the larger Finance Reform of that year, because of the consensus in
the German parties that a strict separation between the federation and the
Länder in a number of areas was no longer appropriate and constitutional
reality required cooperation. Article 91a permits the federation to partici-
pate in the construction of university facilities, including medical clinics;
in the promotion of regional development; and in making improvements
in agriculture and coastal protection. It provides for federal financing of
50 percent of university construction and regional development and 50
percent or more of agriculture improvements and coastal protection. In
practice the federation’s share has been 60 and 70 percent, respectively, for
these latter two areas.137
This cooperation requires joint planning between the federal and Land
governments, the procedures for which are provided in three federal
implementation laws passed by the Bundestag and Bundesrat. Each of the
three areas designated as a joint task has a planning committee. The
members are the federal and Land cabinet ministers responsible for the
subject matter of each committee, together with the federal finance min-
ister. The federation has sixteen votes, which must be cast as a bloc, and
each Land has one vote. A majority consists of the votes of the federation
and a majority of the Länder. The plans developed and approved are,
however, framework plans; detailed planning is left to the Länder, as are
all other executive functions connected with the joint task in question.138
Once the joint framework plans have been approved, the governments
in effect are bound to include the measures in their next budget. This, of
118
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 118
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
course, presupposes parliamentary approval. Approval can be denied,
but there is a common trust that each government will be able to abide
by the bargain. On the other hand, a Land can refuse to implement the
actions in its territory, or it can go beyond the agreed plan as long as its
actions are not in conflict with the provisions of the plan. Budgetary
autonomy is upheld in that the amounts approved are decided by the
parliaments, but they cannot in good faith cut off funds to the extent that
action is undermined. Once the budget is approved, the Land or federa-
tion is committed. Problems can arise when municipalities have plans
that are not in conformity with the general plan, in which case the Land
may be required to interfere based on its right of legal supervision of
local actions.139
While Article 91a mandates federal–Land cooperation, Article 91b
authorizes it in the areas of educational planning and in the promotion of
research institutions and plans that are of general or national importance.
As in the case of Article 91a, Article 91b provides a constitutional foun-
dation for cooperative practices (zusammenwirken) that were already tak-
ing place. For example, the German Education Council (Bildungsrat) was
formed in 1965, while the Science Council (Wissenschaftsrat) was created
as early as 1957.140
Article 91b was added to the Basic Law at a time when there was a great
deal of confidence in and enthusiasm for planning in general. A Fed-
eral–Land Commission for educational planning and promotion of
research was formed in 1970, and it set about to create a “joint long-term
framework plan for a coordinated development of the entire educational
system” together with a joint educational budget.141 For a variety of rea-
sons, including conflicts between the national government and Land gov-
ernments, partisan conflicts, and financial considerations, the planning
process proved to be more complicated than had been anticipated in
1970. While there was agreement on a Framework Plan in 1973, it did not
result in exercising any “significant influence in controlling and coordi-
nating the political activities of the individual Länder.”142 In the meantime
economic conditions had changed in Germany, partisan conflict in vari-
ous areas increased, and general educational planning under Article 91b
ended altogether in 1982, largely for partisan and financial reasons. Once
the more conservative Christian Democrats and Liberals replaced the
more planning-oriented Social Democrats in the national government in
October 1982, the downsized Commission began serving as a forum for
discussion between the national government and the Länder rather than
as an agency for planning.143
Administrative structures in Germany 119
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 119
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
In the case of Article 91b, federal–Land educational planning may have
failed,144 but cooperation continues in other areas. Cooperation in scien-
tific research, which would normally be a Land responsibility, has an
important national purpose and continues unabated, as is seen, for exam-
ple, in joint support efforts for the Max-Planck Institutes and the German
Research Association (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft).145 Indeed, a so-
called “Blue List” contains the names of about fifty research institutions
and museums that fall under Article 91b.146
As was noted in Chapter 2 on the constitutional framework of German
federalism and will be noted in Chapter 5 on finances, there has been a
good deal of criticism of Article 91a and 91b and the joint tasks they
authorize. Probably the most fundamental and certainly the best known
is the criticism by Fritz Scharpf, who notes that there is a tendency in joint
programs which are based on unanimous or near-unanimous decision
making to involve a “joint-decision trap” which leads to a number of
undesirable consequences, including increased expenditures.147 Other
criticisms include the argument that the Land parliaments are too little
involved; that the federation has too much say in the financing of projects;
and that the “mixed administration” involved violates the principle of
division of powers between responsibility for legislation by the federation
and for administration by the Länder. In reaction to these and other crit-
icisms, the argument can be made that planning is in principle an execu-
tive function in which the parliaments are not well equipped to participate
but can, instead, control to some extent; on the other hand, the Länder
now give their framework plans to their parliaments before presentation
in the joint commissions, and at the federal level the Ministry of Agricul-
ture shows its plans to the Agriculture Committee of the Bundestag
during the planning process so that questions regarding the framework
plan can be raised in time for some parliamentary control. One response
to the criticism that mixed administration violates the Basic Law is that
the constitution does not require a strict separation of functions between
the federation and the Länder.148
Public employees
Classification
In 1997 there were about 4.6 million public employees in Germany
in direct administration and excluding former employees of public
120
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 120
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
enterprises, e.g., railway workers (Tables 3.1, 3.2). This represents a little
more than 12 percent of the total work force. Public employees are divided
into two general classifications. One is the long-established division
among civil servants (Beamte); salaried employees (Angestellten); and
blue-collar workers (Arbeiter). The other classification is the division of
the above categories into the simple (einfachen), the middle (mittleren),
the elevated (gehobenen), and the higher (höhere) service levels. For the
higher service level a university background is required, usually a law
degree but increasingly a degree in economics;149 for the elevated service,
the selective secondary school degree (Abitur) and, increasingly, a special-
ized college background (Fachhochschule) is the normal precondition.
The middle level usually requires the mittlere Reife, roughly equivalent to
an average American high school degree. There are no special educational
Administrative structures in Germany 121
Table 3.1 Basic categories of public employees in direct administration
in Germany, 1999
Special Total
Federation Länder Municipalities counties districts
Full-time
Civil Servants/Judges/
Soldiersa(Beamte) 316,064 1,025,346 158,625 2,430 1,502,465
Salaried employees
(Angestellte) 84,005 615,739 652,396 33,614 1,385,754
Blue-collar workers
(Arbeiter) 79,049 125,284 251,163 17,547 473,043
Part-time
Civil servants/Judges/
Soldiers (Beamte) 6,914 231,239 17,206 170 255,529
Salaried employees
(Angestellte) 19,231 286,600 307,539 12,474 625,844
Blue-collar workers
(Arbeiter) 4,956 27,895 150,450 6,441 189,742
Total full and part-time
Beamte 1,757,994
Total full- and part-time
Angestellte 2,011,598
Total Arbeiter 662,785
Note: aCareer and longer-serving soldiers only (c. 60 per cent of total Federal Beamte).
Source: Adapted from Federal Statistical Office, Statistical Yearbook 2000 (Stuttgart: Metzler-Poeschel,
2000), p. 516.
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 121
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
Table 3.2 Classification of basic categories of public employees in Germany, 1998
Municipalities/ Special
Federation Länder counties districts Total
Full and part time (%) FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT
Civil Servants/Judges/ 318,925 4,859 1,038,010 218,418 160,653 15,428 2,415 145 1,520,003 238,850
Soldiersa(Beamte)
Higher service 30,486 867 293,799 46,615 24,869 1,635 617 39 349,771 49,156
Elevated service 61,867 2,332 492,274 151,834 81,464 8,727 1,204 61 636,809 162,954
Middle service 184,447 1,587 243,190 19,770 53,641 5,046 554 45 481,832 26,448
Simple service 42,125 73 8,747 199 679 20 40 – 51,591 292
Salaried Employees
(Angestellte) 88,018 17,443 661,169 228,009 684,833 262,324 31,394 9,260 1,465,414 517,036
Higher service 5,422 1,008 136,757 43,914 49,512 6,623 3,785 254 195,476 51,799
Elevated service 15,296 1,247 201,675 70,368 169,957 34,726 8,022 1,206 394,950 107,547
Middle service 65,282 14,610 309,116 110,226 445,322 212,772 18,628 7,451 838,348 345,059
Simple service 2,018 578 13,621 3,501 13,818 8,203 959 349 30,416 12,631
Blue-collar workers
(Arbeiter) 81,767 3,913 134,265 24,309 270,367 115,389 16,765 3,948 503,164 147,559
Note: aCareer and longer-serving soldiers only.
Source: Based on Federal Statistical Office, Statistical Yearbook 2000 (Stuttgart: Metzler-Poeschel, 2000), p. 517.
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 122
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
requirements for the simple service levels, but previous training in an
apprenticeship (Lehre) in a practical subject may be an expectation. Con-
tinuing education courses are increasingly common, especially in the first
two categories.150 There is little opportunity for promotion without hav-
ing met the educational requirements, regardless of the quality of perfor-
mance on the job – although this has changed somewhat in recent
decades. This is not much different from the private sector, where “certi-
fication” is also very important in determining opportunities for advance-
ment. It is one reason for the enormous increase in student numbers in
Germany since the late 1960s. Since the numbers of university graduates
has multiplied, there are far more applicants than available positions in
the higher service, so that graduates have moved into the elevated and
even the middle levels since the 1970s. By the 1980s a trend could be seen
toward an increase in the numbers of the two higher levels, while the mid-
dle level stagnated and the lower level was declining. Only then were efforts
undertaken to place more limits on the previously generous promotion
policies within the top two levels.151
On the other hand the proportions of civil servants, salaried employ-
ees, and workers have been relatively constant over the past decades if one
counts the blue-collar workers in the federal railway and postal services
before they were privatized in the mid-1990s. Both civil servants and
salaried employees can be in the higher, elevated, and middle services. For
example, police employees, firemen, and even locomotive engineers are
civil servants, as are teachers, professors and bureaucrats in higher
administrative positions; however, these civil servants vary in status and
pay by level of service.
The Basic Law divides the authority for regulating civil servants and the
other public employees between the federation and the Länder. If in
the federal service, civil servants are regulated by federal law; otherwise,
the federation has only framework powers under Article 75, para. 1. In
1971 the Basic Law was amended (Article 74a) to permit the federal gov-
ernment to pass legislation regulating the pay and benefits of all civil ser-
vants. This was done with the approval of the Länder in the Bundesrat,
because they were interested in reducing the salary competition that had
emerged among the Länder in spite of the federal civil service framework
law of 1957 which left the Land parliaments little leeway in regulating their
civil servants.152 This action is cited often as an example of the Länder
giving up voluntarily certain important powers that they once possessed.
There has been considerable discussion during the past decades and
again today about the rationale for preserving the difference between
Administrative structures in Germany 123
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 123
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
civil servants and salaried employees.153 Some politicians and others,
especially on the left of the political spectrum, would like to change the
status of certain classes of Beamten to Angestellten.154 Others defend the
current system and for a variety of reasons are strongly opposed to any
basic changes.155 Owing to their exercise of “autonomous public func-
tions” (hoheitsrechtlicher Befugnisse), the civil servants are said to have
certain characteristics that, taken together, distinguish them from other
public servants:
The civil servants have no right to strike, which is important in times
of crisis. Civil servants may be called upon to substitute for personnel
in the other levels if and when they go on strike.
The civil servants, owing to their positions of trust, must not demon-
strate any disloyalty to the constitutional order.
Civil servants are life-time public servants, whose career status pro-
vides them with independence; this does not exclude probationary
periods to determine suitability for office. Temporary positions also
exist, but they are of questionable legality or appropriateness.
Civil servants may be expected to work overtime and must observe cer-
tain rules of behavior in their private lives.156
Loyalty expectations
Today the second characteristic noted above is much less relevant than
before the collapse of communism in East Germany and throughout east-
ern Europe. Loyalty expectations have always existed in the German civil
service as they have in other countries, but during the Weimar Republic
of 1919–33 the democratic state was confronted by many civil servants
who were not loyal to the Constitution. As a result the Basic Law specifies
in Article 5, para. 3, that while “art and science, research and teaching
are free,” the “freedom to teach does not release one from loyalty to the
constitution.” And Article 33, paras 4 and 5, have been interpreted to
mean that those who enter the civil service must be loyal to the Federal
Republic. Thus federal laws regulating the civil service have stated that
only persons may become civil servants “who can be depended upon at
all times to stand up for the free, democratic basic order in terms of the
Basic Law.” Although there was some controversy after the establishment
of the Federal Republic concerning the employment of persons alleged to
have served the Nazis,157 it was not until the late 1960s and early 1970s that
these provisions became an important public issue. It was then that
124
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 124
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
student radicals, heavily influenced by Marxist thought, began to threaten
to “march through the institutions” of the Federal Republic and bring
about some form of revolutionary change. To keep extremists from the
right and – especially – left from entering the civil service, Chancellor
Willy Brandt and the prime ministers of the Länder agreed in 1972–73 to
a set of principles that called for a review by the Land offices of constitu-
tional protection of every applicant for a civil service position, including
teachers. These procedures caused a great deal of controversy among the
attentive public and politicians at the federal and Land levels, criticism
from abroad,158 and massive opposition by students, very few of whom
were actually rejected.159 By the time the Wall fell in November 1989,
some of the Länder governed by the SPD had ceased participating in the
reviews entirely or in part.160 Since the collapse of communism in the East,
the reviews have been dropped and the issue practically forgotten. It is not
surprising, then, that new questions have been raised about maintaining
the differences between civil servants and salaried employees.
Political patronage
Another controversy of much longer duration and relevance today is
political patronage. The model civil servant is often seen as the compe-
tent, loyal, and allegedly neutral Prussian bureaucrat in the nineteenth
century and before the First World War. It has been pointed out, however,
that civil servants at that time were recruited with a strong bias toward
social class and conservative, pro-monarchist sentiments.161 Complaints
about party patronage in the Weimar Republic after 1919 tended to
ignore the issue of loyalty of many public officials to the monarchy rather
than to the new republic.162
In the United States the Hatch Act of 1939 prevents civil servants from
participating actively in partisan politics, and there is a long tradition of
a nonpartisan civil service in Great Britain. This has not been the German
tradition. Civil servants not only participate actively in partisan politics,
they are one of the most important groups from which elected officials are
recruited. (One should keep in mind that teachers and professors are also
civil servants in Germany, and, as in France, a large proportion of the civil
servants in German legislative assemblies at all levels are teachers.) The
involvement of German public employees in politics also raises questions
about the neutrality of the civil service. Since the 1950s, there have been
complaints about the importance of a “party book,” i.e, membership in a
political party, for securing higher-level civil service as well as salaried
Administrative structures in Germany 125
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 125
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
employee positions in federal, Land, and local administrative structures,
including local government commercial enterprises, public radio and
television boards, local savings and loan associations, and, of course, city
government.163 On the other hand,
[p]arty patronage in the immediate post-war years had both moral and very
practical functions. It could be regarded as the best indicator of regime
loyalty in bureaucratic recruitment and promotions . . . [Parties] had
already emerged as undisputably the most ‘reliable’ institutions, and
membership of a party licensed by the Allies was the most tangible sign of
democratic commitment.164
Some German authors have also pointed to the positive binding of the
civil service to society and to democratic parties after 1945 as one reason
for politicization of the bureaucracy.165
Some critics accuse the German parties of being “patronage parties”
rather reminiscent of the American Tammany Hall model.166 However,
there are several important differences. First, the alleged corruption in
Germany is of a very different order and extent from the American model.
Another difference is that there was little ideology involved in the Amer-
ican spoils system, whereas ideology has been an element of patronage
politics in Germany. A third difference is that “the career principle was
modified (not displaced) in the interests of party control” in Germany,
that is, “neither side expects administrative rules to be broken solely for
reasons of political pressure or expediency.”167
The Tammany Hall analogy suggests itself because there is probably
more patronage at the local level than elsewhere,168 although the higher
Land levels are hardly exempt.169 Evidence suggests, however, that the
patronage at the federal level is modest in comparison to American prac-
tices. As Renate Mayntz has noted, “In Germany most high-level vacan-
cies continue to be filled by career civil servants even though it is
understood that political criteria can play a legitimate role in recruiting
outsiders to high positions in the federal bureaucracy.”170
While there is little disagreement that party membership can be a fac-
tor in gaining higher- level civil service positions at the federal, Land, and
local levels, there is disagreement about whether party patronage is really
a new phenomenon, the reasons why it exists, the extent to which it exists,
and whether this is so very objectionable. As noted above, the argument
that the Prussian bureaucracy was strictly neutral is a myth. In contrast to
the many voices condemning party patronage at the federal, Land, and
especially local levels and the argument by some constitutional lawyers
126
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 126
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
that it is unconstitutional under Article 33,171 other scholars have noted
that there are good reasons for the practice. As noted above, civil servants
in Germany, in contrast to their American and British counterparts, may
and do participate actively in politics as members of parties, as candi-
dates, and as elected officials.172 Defenders also point out that while there
may be some abuses, civil servants have an advantage in information and
knowledge that can make it difficult for elected politicians to control
them. To compensate for this advantage, politicians seek to gain control
over the bureaucracy by insuring that persons friendly to them are
appointed to key positions. They also need cooperative civil servants in
drafting policy initiatives in conformity with their party programs, i.e.,
promises made to their voters. This is in part a result of the fact that polit-
ical executives in Germany do not have large personal staffs and must rely
on the civil servants for help.173 Questions can also be raised about the
imprecision of the concept of patronage, and it has been noted that there
is little empirical evidence for many of the general complaints made
about patronage.174
Where evidence does exist about federal- and Land-level patronage,
it applies above all to the highest civil service levels which consist largely
of so-called “political officials” (politische Beamte) who are mostly career
civil servants who occupy key positions and may be forced to accept
temporary retirement for political reasons; however, only a small minor-
ity of about 10 percent are actually dismissed. Another, much smaller cat-
egory, consists of the parliamentary state secretaries, who are members of
the Bundestag and may answer questions for their minister at question
time and perform other, more political, functions. They have existed
only since 1967, in contrast to the “political officials,” who go back to
mid-nineteenth-century Prussia.175
Public sector unions
As we saw above, civil servants, regardless of service level, are not allowed
to strike due to their status under public law as persons serving the state
in special positions of authority that require trust and loyalty. Salaried
employees and workers may strike and have done so on several occasions
since the 1950s. The significant gains made in benefits, salaries, and
employment conditions for these two groups have, of course, affected the
civil servants as well. The result was a steady increase in personnel costs
in proportion to total public expenditures and GNP. Today personnel
costs in the old Länder average around 40 percent of their budgets. With
Administrative structures in Germany 127
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 127
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
growing financial stress in the public sector since the 1980s, however, the
real increase in salaries and benefits has been more modest. Nevertheless,
the resistance of the public service unions to privatization efforts suggests
that public employees are still relatively well off in comparison to the
private sector, especially in terms of job security.176
Federal and state civil servants do have their own union: the German
Civil Servants Federation (Deutscher Beamten Bund, DBB). The DBB may
not exercise the strike weapon, but it has excellent contacts with legislators
at the Land and federal levels, many of whom are themselves former civil
servants, e.g., school teachers, university employees, judges, police, various
bureaucratic staff, etc., and have the right to return to their old positions
if they give up their seats for whatever reason. This represents a striking
difference to the United States, where civil servants are not allowed to
engage openly in partisan politics or hold public office. Of course some
civil servants in Germany would not be considered to be part of the civil
service in the United States, e.g., school teachers and university employees.
The salaried employees (Angestellten) are represented by the German
Salaried Employees Union (Deutscher Angestellten Gewerkschaft, DAG)or
by several unions organized in the Federation of German Unions, i.e., the
Public Transportation Union (Öffentliche Transport und Verkehr, ÖTV);
the postal union; the railway workers union; or one of several competing
teachers’ unions, the Union for Education and Science. In 1961 the DAG
and ÖTV negotiated the Federal Salaried Employees Compensation Con-
tract (BAT) with the federal government, the Joint Salary Commission of
the German Länder, and the Association of Local Government Employers.
This contract, which still generally applies today, set salary schedules
and provided for various benefits that closed considerably the gap
between salaried employees and civil servants. For example, civil servants
can be relieved of their positions only for cause, and according to this
contract the same protection applies to salaried employees after fifteen
years.177 In July 2001 the largest union in the world, the united services
union, or “ver.di”, was formed by joining five separate unions: the DAG;
ÖTV; the Union for Commerce, Banks, and Insurance; the postal union;
and the media union.178
In addition to traditional union representation, civil servants and
salaried employees also have the right to elect representatives to the “per-
sonnel councils”(Personalräte) of their agencies or offices which are com-
parable to the “works councils”(Betriebsräte) in the private sector that
were introduced by a federal “codetermination” (Mitbestimmung) law in
the coal and steel industry in the 1950s. These councils are important
128
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 128
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
bodies, because they must be consulted by management in all personnel
matters. This, of course, places certain constraints on the ability of man-
agers in the public and private sectors to make personnel decisions, but
the experience in most cases seems to be that relationships are based more
on cooperation rather than confrontation.
Conclusion
The “state” in Germany is either the federation or the Land, depending on
the context in which the term is used. Either can administer policies
directly. For example, the federal government is involved in administra-
tion directly and “on its own” through a number of special agencies, such
as the Federal Statistical Office and the Federal Criminal Investigation
Office. It shares with the Länder the direct administration of finances. The
Länder also have direct “own” administration through their special agen-
cies, such as criminal investigation offices, statistical offices, and finance
offices along with many others that fall under the direct authority of a
Land ministry. Either state may also delegate policies to different bodies
for indirect administration. Thus the federal government has the Länder
administer the autobahns and numerous other federal tasks; but the fed-
eral government also turns over to the Länder many more tasks that they
then administer on their own responsibility, not merely as delegated fed-
eral responsibilities. The Länder on their part delegate some tasks to the
local governments for administration and turn over a great many other
functions to the local governments for “indirect” administration on their
own responsibility as self-governing units. As a result it is estimated that
the local governments administer 75 percent or more of all laws in Ger-
many. But the federation and the Länder also turn over many responsibil-
ities to nongovernmental bodies, such as institutions, chambers,
universities, and other agencies for indirect administration.
If the policy is delegated, the “state” exercises functional and personnel
supervision over those actually implementing it. If the policy has been
turned over to others as matters of their own responsibility, only legal
supervision by higher authorities takes place. The most common exam-
ple of legal supervision is that by the Länder over their local governments,
which have the constitutional right of self-government.
The legal persons that administer “state” functions indirectly are
various kinds of public corporations, such as local governments, social
insurance providers, and numerous chambers; institutions, such as the
Administrative structures in Germany 129
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 129
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
public savings and loan associations and public radio and television net-
works; and foundations, such as those that administer certain cultural
facilities or activities.179
Indirect administration can also be carried out by private persons, as,
for example, by chimney sweeps and the technical inspection service
(TÜV). Indirect administration works against the ideal of unity of com-
mand, but centrifugal forces are countered by many formal and informal
centripetal forces.180
Even though Germany is a two-tier federation, one can speak of three
levels of administration: the federal, Land, and local levels. But most of
the Länder also have three levels – high, middle, and local – whereas
Berlin and five of the generally smaller territorial Länder have two levels
and Bremen and Hamburg have basically only one. To complicate matters
further, one should note that the rural counties and their towns and vil-
lages constitute two levels, so that the larger Länder have four levels: Land,
middle, county, and municipalities that constitute the counties. With the
federation, this brings the total number of levels to five, unless one wants
to count as separate levels the supreme and high levels, respectively, of the
federation and the Länder, which is not normally done.181
In spite of the apparent complexity of administrative structures,
administration in Germany is based on certain fundamental principles
along with numerous exceptions that apply for mostly pragmatic reasons.
The first principle is that the federal state is responsible for most legisla-
tion, the Länder for most administration. A second principle is unity of
command, i.e., the attempt to combine administrative functions in one
unit. At the supreme levels of the federation and the Länder, the Ministry
of Interior bundles together numerous functions, while the government
districts at the middle level in eight Länder serve as classic examples of
unity of command. Other classic examples are the rural counties and,
especially, the county-free cities. A third principle is decentralized admin-
istration based on the principle of self-government subject only to legal
supervision by the state. Here the classic examples are administration by
the Länder of numerous federal laws and administration by the local gov-
ernments of most federal and Land laws, many of which are based on fed-
eral laws. Examples of nongovernmental institutions carrying out federal
and Land laws on their own responsibility are social insurance providers
and chambers. A fourth principle might be seen in the Allzuständigkeit,
the general powers, of the municipalities, in contrast to the limiting prin-
ciple of ultra vires in the United States; however, the general powers of the
local governments have in fact been circumscribed by federal and Land
130
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 130
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
laws. In any case it is possible to speak of a “system” of administration in
federal Germany – as in unitary France – to a much greater extent than in
the United States.
Notes
1 A friend of UK Prime Minister Attlee’s, Professor William A. Robson (Politi-
cal Quarterly 16, 1945), asserted that traditional German local government
had a number of undemocratic features and therefore needed radical reform.
The result of his criticism was the North German Council form of local gov-
ernment with city and county managers appointed by the local elected coun-
cils after the manner of the English chief clerk. It is not a little ironic that this
system was largely abandoned in the mid-1990s, because it was not deemed
sufficiently democratic by German critics. See Georg-Christoph von Unruh,
“Die Lage der deutschen Verwaltung zwischen 1945 und 1949,” in Deutsche
Verwaltungsgeschichte, vol. 5, edited by Kurt G. A. Jeserich, Hans Pohl, and
Georg Christian von Unruh (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1987), p. 79.
See also Wolfgang Rudzio, Die Neuordnung des Kommunalwesens in der Britis-
chen Zone (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlag Anstalt, 1968), pp. 43–45 and Arthur B.
Gunlicks, Local Government in the German Federal System (Chapel Hill: Duke
University Press, 1986), p. 28.
2 Rainer Wahl, “Die Organisation und Entwicklung der Verwaltung in den
Ländern und in Berlin,” in Jeserich et al., Deutsche Verwaltungsgeschichte,
vol. 5, p. 216.
3 Potsdam Agreement, sec. 2, para. 9.
4 Wahl, “Die Organisation und Entwicklung,” p. 217.
5 In the nineteenth century the Landrat was the appointed chief administra-
tive officer of the Prussian county. See Herbert Jacob, German Administra-
tion since Bismarck: Central Authority versus Local Autonomy (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1963), pp. 15–16.
6 Von Unruh, “Die Lage,” p. 71.
7 Gunlicks, Local Government, Ch. 4, and, by the same author, “The Reorgani-
zation of Local Governments in the Federal Republic of Germany,” in Local
Government Reform and Reorganization: An International Perspective, edited
by Arthur B. Gunlicks (Port Washington: Kennikat Press, 1981), pp. 169–
181. In the same publication, see also Raymond C. McDermott, “The Func-
tions of Local Levels of Government in West Germany and their Internal
Organization” in ibid., pp. 182–201.
8 Wahl, “Die Organisation und Entwicklung,” p. 217.
9 Ibid., p. 213.
10 Lerche in Theodor Maunz et al., Kommentar zum Grundgesetz (München:
C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1989), Article 83, Rdnr 14.
Administrative structures in Germany 131
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 131
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
11 Albert von Mutius, “Kommunalverwaltung und Kommunalpolitik,” in
Jeserich et al., Deutsche Verwaltungsgeschichte, vol. V, pp. 328–329.
12 Ibid., p. 329.
13 Hartmut Maurer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht (12th edn; München: C. H.
Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1999), p. 543.
14 Ibid.
15 Walter Rudolf, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” in Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht,
edited by Hans-Uwe Erichsen (10th edn; Berlin and New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 1995), pp. 722–723.
16 Maurer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, p. 544.
17 Ibid., p. 544 and Rudolf, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” pp. 722–723.
18 Rudolf, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” pp. 723–724.
19 Fred Schneider, “Das Bundesversicherungsamt und seine Aufgaben,” Die
Sozialgerichtsbarkeit 43, no. 2 (February 1996), pp. 45–48.
20 Rudolf, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” pp. 723–726.
21 These privatizations were, in German terms, organizational, not material,
i.e., the federal government became the only stockholder. Short-distance
routes of the German railroads have already been divided into regions, with
local governments as owners, while the long-distance trains remain for the
time being under the ownership of the federal government. There are plans
to transfer after 2003 all mail services except for letters up to 50 g to the pri-
vate sector.
22 Maurer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, p. 544.
23 Ibid., p. 548.
24 Rudolf, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” pp. 726–727.
25 Maurer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, p. 535–536.
26 Ibid., p. 545.
27 Willi Blümel, “Verwaltungszuständigkeit,” in Handbuch des Staatsrechts der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland, edited by Josef Isensee and Paul Kirchhof, vol.
IV, pp. 935–938.
28 Maurer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, p. 546.
29 Ibid., pp. 548–549.
30 Rudolf, Verwaltungsorganisation,” p. 727.
31 Alfred Katz, Politische Verwaltungsführung in den Bundesländern (Berlin:
Duncker & Humblot, 1975), p. 94.
32 For a discussion of the coordination activities of the prime ministers’ staffs,
see Klaus-Eckart Gebauer, “Zur Optimierung von Koordination und Planung
in einer Regierungszentrale,” Verwaltungs-Archiv 85, no. 4 (1 October 1994),
pp. 485–506.
33 Wahl, “Die Organisation und Entwicklung,” p. 226.
34 Gebauer, “Zur Optimierung,” pp. 507–519.
35 Manfred König, “Leistungsorganisation der Verwaltung,” in Öffentliche Ver-
waltung in Deutschland, edited by Klaus König and Heinrich Siedentopf
132
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 132
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
(Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1996), pp. 604–605.
36 Wahl, “Die Organisation und Entwicklung,” p. 223.
37 Ibid., pp. 224–225.
38 Burckhard Nedden, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” in Heiko Faber and Hans-
Peter Schneider (eds), Niedersächsiches Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht (Frank-
furt/M.: Alfred Metzner Verlag, 1985), p. 124.
39 Wahl, “Die Organisation und Entwicklung,” pp. 219–220.
40 Ibid., pp. 221–222.
41 Maurer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, pp. 536–537.
42 Wahl, “Die Organisation und Entwicklung,” pp. 237–238.
43 Ibid., p. 228 and Theodor Elster, “Die Verwaltung,” in Verfassung und Ver-
waltung des Landes Niedersachsen, edited by Heinrich Korte, Bernd Rebe, et
al. (2nd edn; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), p. 369.
44 Wahl, “Die Organisation und Entwicklung,” pp. 228, 230.
45 Elster, “Die Verwaltung,” pp. 325–327.
46 Frido Wagener, “Milderungsmöglichkeiten nachteiligen Folgen vertikaler Poli-
tikverflechtung,” in Politikverflechtung im föderativen Staat, edited by Joachim
Hans Hesse (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag sgesellschaft, 1978), pp. 149–165 and
“Gemeinsame Rahmenplanung und Investitionsfinanzierung,” Die Öffentliche
Verwaltung 30, no. 16 (August 1977), p. 588.
47 Wahl, “Die Organisationund Entwicklung,” p. 236.
48 Elster, “Die Verwaltung,” pp. 369, 470–471.
49 Ibid., p. 370 and Wahl, “Die Organisation und Entwicklung,” p. 229; for lists
of the numerous special authorities at the district government and local lev-
els in Lower Saxony, see Nedden, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” pp. 131–133.
50 Elster, “Die Verwaltung,” pp. 382–383; Wahl, “Die Organisation und
Entwicklung,” pp. 237–238.
51 Ibid., pp. 385–408.
52 Gesetzentwurf: Landesgesetz zur Reform und Neuorganisation der Lan-
desverwaltung, 31 March 1999, Drucksache 13/4168 (Rheinland-Pflalz).
53 Wahl, “Die Organisation und Entwicklung,” pp. 227–230.
54 Rudolf, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” p. 728.
55 Wahl, “Die Organisation und Entwicklung,” p. 231.
56 Elster, “Die Verwaltung,” p. 371.
57 The Stadtkreis should not be confused with the Kreisstadt, which is the
county seat.
58 Elster, “Die Verwaltung,” pp. 424–425, 440–441.
59 Rudolf, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” p. 736.
60 Maurer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, p. 539 and Rudolf, “Verwaltungsor-
ganisation,” p. 730.
61 Elster, “Die Verwaltung,” pp. 372–373.
62 For a description in English of the South German Council, the Mayor, the
Magistrat, and the North German Council forms of municipal government,
Administrative structures in Germany 133
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 133
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
see Gunlicks, Local Government, pp. 73–81; see also Maurer, Allgemeines Ver-
waltungsrecht, pp. 556–560 and Rudolf, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” pp.
732–734; for diagrams of the forms of local government, see Bernd Becker,
Öffentliche Verwaltung: Lehrbuch für Wissenschaft und Praxis (Verlag R. S.
Schulz, 1989), pp. 344–350 and Joachin Jens Hesse and Thomas Ellwein, Das
Regierungssystem der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, vol. 2: Materialien (7th
edn; Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1992), pp. 467–470.
63 Rudolf, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” p. 734 and Maurer, Allgemeines Verwal-
tungsrecht, pp. 558–559. Franz-Ludwig Knemeyer, “Verfassung der kommu-
nalen Selbstverwaltung,” in König and Siedentopf, Öffentliche Verwaltung in
Deutschland, pp. 208 and 213, suggests that the South German Council form,
now the most common in Germany, should be called the Dual
Council–Mayor form.
64 Maurer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, p. 567.
65 Ibid., pp. 567–568; Elster, “Die Verwaltung,” pp. 415–416.
66 Ibid. and ibid., pp. 416–419.
67 Maurer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, pp. 571–573.
68 Ibid., pp. 539–540 and Elster, “Die Verwaltung,” p. 730; Wahl, “Die Organi-
sation und Entwicklung,” p. 233.
69 Wahl, “Die Organisation und Entwicklung,” p. 232.
70 Rudolf, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” p. 732.
71 Ursula Münch, Sozialpolitik und Föderalismus: Zur Dynamik der Aufgaben-
verteilung im sozialen Bundesstaat (Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 1997),
pp. 232–246.
72 Ruland, Franz, “Sozialrecht,” in Niedersächsisches Staats- und Verwal-
tungsrecht, edited by Heiko Faber und Hans-Peter Schneider (Frankfurt/M.:
Alfred Metzner Verlag, 1985), pp. 507–508; Günter Happe, “Jugend- und
Familienhilfe,” in Deutsche Verwaltungsgeschichte, vol. V, pp. 596.
73 Elster, “Die Verwaltung,” p. 418.
74 Rudolf, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” pp. 734–735; Maurer, Allgemeines Ver-
waltungsrecht, pp. 575–576.
75 Maurer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, pp. 575–576.
76 Frido Wagener and Willi Blümel, “Staatsaufbau und Verwaltungsterrito-
rien,” in König and Siedentopf, Öffentliche Verwaltung in Deutschland,
pp. 118–119.
77 Wahl, “Die Organisation und Entwicklung,” pp. 283–284; Reinhold Roth,
“Bremen,” in Handbuch der deutschen Bundesländer, edited by Falk Esche
and Jürgen Hartmann (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1990), p. 171.
78 Wahl, “Die Organisation und Entwicklung,” pp. 289–292 and Roth, “Bre-
men,” p. 187.
79 Peter Massing, “Berlin,” in Esche and Hartmann, Handbuch der deutschen
Bundesländer, p. 134 and Karsten Sommer, “Die Berliner Verwaltung nach
Vereinigung, Hauptstadtbeschluß, und Verwaltungsreform,” Juristische
134
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 134
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
Rundschau, no. 10 (October 1995), p. 397.
80 Sommer, “Die Berliner Verwaltung,” pp. 399–402.
81 Massing, “Berlin,” p. 148; Roth, “Bremen,” p. 185; Falk Esche and Jürgen
Hartmann, “Hamburg,” in Esche and Hartmann, Handbuch der deutschen
Bundesländer, p. 213.
82 For a list by Land of special nonministerial organizational units, see Becker,
Öffentliche Verwaltung in Deutschland, pp. 325–327.
83 Wahl, “Die Organisation und Entwicklung,” pp. 237–238.
84 Ibid., pp. 239–240.
85 Walter Krebs, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” Handbuch des Staatsrechts der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland, vol. III, edited by Josef Isensee and Paul Kirch-
hof (Heidelberg: C. F. Müller Juristischer Verlag, 1988), pp. 585–587.
86 For a brief overview of social insurance administration, see Dieter Schi-
manke, “Selbstverwaltung außerhalb der Kommunalverwaltung, insbeson-
dere: Selbstverwaltung in der Sozialversicherung,” in König and Siedentopf,
Öffentliche Verwaltung in Deutschland, pp. 257–268. For a description in
English by Alfred Pfaller of “The German Welfare State After National Uni-
fication,” which includes a discussion of the current fiscal crisis and alterna-
tives, see www.armoninstitute.org/welfarestate.htm; also Christian Toft,
“German Social Polic,” in The Politics of Social Policy in Europe, edited by
Maurice Mullard and Simon Lee (Lyme, NH: Edward Elgar Publishing,
1997), pp. 144–169. For a comprehensive description of the German welfare
state, see Johannes Frerich and Martin Frey, Handbuch der Geschichte der
Sozialpolitik in Deutschland, (2nd edn; München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag,
1996).
87 Elster, “Die Verwaltung,” p. 521; Jochen Schmitt, “Arbeits- und Sozialver-
sicherung einschließlich Sozialversicherung und Sozialversorgung,” Deutsche
Verwaltungsgeschichte, vol. 5, p. 570.
88 Martin Pfaff, “Funktionsfähiger Wettbewerb innerhalb und zwischen den
gesetzlichen und privaten Krankenkassen,” Arbeit und Sozialpolitik 49, no.
9/10 (1995), pp. 12–13; and Wolfgang Rüfner, “Das Gesetz zur Sicherung
und Strukturverbesserung der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung (Gesund-
heitsstrukturgesetz),” Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 46, no. 12 (24 March
1993), p. 756.
89 VDAK/AEV, Ausgewählte Basisdaten des Gesundheitswesens 2000 (Siegburg,
2000), p. 20.
90 Bertram Schulin (ed.), Handbuch des Sozialversicherungsrechts, vol. I, Kranken-
versicherungsrecht (München: C. H. Beck, 1994), pp. 1193, 1197, 1201.
91 Schmitt, “Arbeits- und Sozialversicherung,” pp. 570–584; also Wolfgang
Rüfner, “Daseinsvorsorge und soziale Sicherheit,” in Handbuch des Staat-
srechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, vol. III, pp. 1079–1082.
92 Günter Püttner and Bernhard Losch, “Verwaltung durch Private und in
privatrechtlicher Form,” in Jeserich et al., Deutsche Verwaltungsgeschichte,
Administrative structures in Germany 135
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 135
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
vol. V, pp. 376–77.
93 Elster, “Die Verwaltung,” pp. 529–530.
94 Maurer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, pp. 577–578.
95 Klara van Eyll, “Berufständische Selbstverwaltung,” in Jeserich et al.,
Deutsche Verwaltungsgeschichte, vol. V, pp. 355–356.
96 Ibid., pp. 358–360.
97 Ibid., pp. 362–363.
98 Franz Letzelter, “Die wissenschaftliche Hochschulen und ihre Verwaltung,”
in Jeserich et al., Deutsche Verfassungsgeschicte, vol. V, pp. 659–664.
99 Elster, “Die Verwaltung,” pp. 509–513; Ernst Gottfried Mahrenholz, “Schul-
und Hochshulrecht,” in Niedersächsisches Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht,
pp. 540–541.
100 Much of the discussion below is based on Hermann Meyn, Massenmedien in
der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Berlin: Edition Colloquium, revised edn,
1994), pp. 117–162; see also Peter J. Humphreys, Media and Media Policy in
Germany: The Press and Broadcasting since 1945 (2nd edn; Oxford/Provi-
dence: Berg, 1994). A good overview of the electronic media in Germany
from the late 1940s to the late 1990s can be found in Ansgar Diller,
“Öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk,” in Mediengeschichte der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland, edited by Jürgen Wilke (Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische
Bildung, 1999), pp. 146–166.
101 Winand Gellner, “Federalism and the Controversy over the New Media in
West Germany,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 19, no. 4 (Autumn 1989),
pp. 133–145.
102 Humphreys, Media and Media Poicy, pp. 298–299.
103 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (16 April 1997), p. 2.
104 Diller, “Öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk,” pp. 153–158.
105 Hans J. Kleinsteuber and Barbara Thomass, “TV in Deutschland,” Deutsch-
land: Magazine on Politics, Culture, Business and Science, no. 2 (April 1998),
pp. 24–30.
106 Klaus-Eckart Gebauer, “Interessenregelung im föderalistischen System,” in
Grundrechte, soziale Ordnung und Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit, edited by
Eckart Klein (Heidelberg: C. F. Müller Juristischer Verlag, 1995), p. 75.
107 Humphreys, Media and Media Policy, pp. 140–147, 176–177, 320–321.
108 Ibid., p. 321, emphasis in the original.
109 Hesse and Ellwein, Das Regierungssystem, vol. 1, p. 140.
110 Humphreys, Media and Media Policy, pp. 255, 260, 265.
111 Kleinsteuber and Thomass, “TV in Deutschland,” p. 27.
112 Ibid., pp. 27–28; German Information Center, Deutschland Nachrichten, 13
June 1997, p. 6; and Humphreys, Media and Media Policy, pp. 271–273.
According to an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (25 June 1999),
p. 24, the public stations had 41.3 percent of the viewing public in 1998.
113 Elster, “Die Verwaltung,” pp. 525–527.
136
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 136
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
114 Mauerer, Allgemeine Verwaltungsrecht, p. 591.
115 Elster, “Die Verwaltung,” pp. 534–536.
116 Ibid., pp. 538–539; Mauerer, Allgemeine Verwaltungsrecht, p. 592.
117 Püttner and Losch, “Verwaltung durch Private,” vol. V, p. 374.
118 Heinrich Mäding, “Verwaltung und Planung,” in Jeserich et al., Deutsche
Verwaltungsgeschichte, vol. IV, pp. 1046–1047.
119 Ibid., p. 1048.
120 Ibid., p. 1049.
121 Ibid., pp. 1051–1052.
122 Mauer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, pp. 402–403.
123 Gottfried Schmitz, “Räumliche Planung,” in König and Siedentopf,
Öffentliche Verwaltung in Deutschland, p. 405.
124 Rainer Wahl, “Europäisches Planungsrecht Europäisierung des deutschen
Planungsrechts,” in Planungs–Recht–Rechtschutz, pp. 617–646.
125 Clifford Larsen, “What Should be the Leading Principles of Land Use Plan-
ning? A German Perspective,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 29, no.
5 (November 1996), pp. 967–1021.
126 Carl Sartorius, Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgesetze der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland, vol. I (München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1999),
ROG 340.
127 Larsen, “What Should be . . . ?,” p. 981.
128 Ibid., pp. 996–1006.
129 Schmitz, “Räumliche Planung,” p. 405.
130 Larsen, “What Should be . . . ?,” pp. 1006–1008.
131 Frido Wagener and Willi Blümel, “Staatsaufbau und Verwaltungsterritorien,”
in König and Siedentopf, Öffentliche Verwaltung in Deutschland, p. 119.
132 Münch, Sozialpolitik und Föderalismus, p. 149.
133 Larsen, “What Should be . . . ?,” pp. 993–996.
134 Münch, Sozialpolitik und Föderalismus, pp. 149–152.
135 Larsen, “What Should be . . . ?,” pp. 1012–1013.
136 For a detailed discussion of joint framework planning under Article 91a, see
Erwin Kalinna, Die Rahmenplanung und der Rahmenplan nach Artikel 91a
GG, Dissertation, University of Munich, 1985; see also Blümel, “Verwal-
tungszuständigkeit,” pp. 952–953.
137 Bruno Schmidt-Bleibtreu and Franz Klein, Kommentar zum Grundgesetz
(8th edn; Neuwied: Luchterhand Verlag, 1995), pp. 1187, 1203.
138 Ibid., pp. 1201–1202; Arthur Benz, “Verflechtung der Verwaltungsebenen,”
in König and Siedentopf, Öffentliche Verwaltung in Deutschland, p. 176.
139 Schmidt-Bleibtreu and Klein, Grundgesetzkommentar, Article 91a, pp. 1202–
1204.
140 Maunz et al., Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, Article 91b, Rdnr 1-3.
141 Heinrich Mäding, “Federalism and Education Planning in the Federal
Republic of Germany,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 19, no. 4 (Autumn
Administrative structures in Germany 137
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 137
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
1989). p. 120.
142 Ibid., p. 126.
143 Ibid., pp. 125–131; see also the discussion by Blümel, “Verwal-
tungszuständigkeit,” pp. 954–956.
144 Blümel, “Verwaltungszuständigkeit,” pp. 943, 954–956.
145 Paul Feuchte, “Die rechtliche Ordnung der Verwaltung im Bundesstaat und
ihre Entwicklung,” in Jeserich et al., Deutsche Verwaltungsgeschichte, vol. 5,
pp. 141–142.
146 Blümel, “Verwaltungszuständigkeit,” pp. 956–958.
147 Fritz W. Scharpf, “The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federal-
ism and European Integration,” Public Administration 66 (Autumn 1988),
pp. 255–271.
148 Schmidt-Bleibtreu and Klein, Grundgesetzkommentar, Article 91a, pp. 1189-
1190; Kalinna, Die Rahmenplanung, pp. 156–159.
149 Christoph Hauschild, “Aus- und Fortbildung für den öffentlichen Dienst,” in
König and Siedentopf, Öffentliche Verwaltung in Deutschland, p. 581.
150 Ibid., pp. 582–589.
151 Günter Püttner, “Der öffentliche Dienst,” in Jeserich et al., Deutsche Verwal-
tungsgeschichte, vol. 5, p. 1131; Hans Mommsen, “Wohlerworbene Rechte
und Treuepflichten,” in Wozu noch Beamte? Vom starren zum schlanken
Berufsbeamtentum, edited by Peter Grottian (Reinbeck: Rowohlt Taschen-
buch Verlag, 1996), pp. 19–36.
152 Püttner, “Der öffentliche Dienst,” p. 1138.
153 Helmut Lecheler, “Der öffentliche Dienst,” in Handbuch des Staatsrechts,
vol. III, p. 721.
154 Heide Simonis, “Beamte oder nicht – das ist nicht die Frage,” in Grottian,
Wozu noch Beamte?, pp. 107–121 and also “Verwaltungsreform: Jetzt oder
nie?” Verwaltung und Management 1, no. 2 (1995), pp. 68–73.
155 Detlef Merten, “Das Berufsbeamtentum als Element deutscher Rechts-
statlichkeit,” in Staat und Verwaltung: Fünfzig Jahre Hochschule für Verwal-
tungswissenschaften Speyer, edited by Klaus Lüder (Berlin: Duncker &
Humblot, 1997), pp. 145–168.
156 Detlef Merten, “Beamtenrecht und Beamtenverfassungsrecht,” in Planung–
Recht–Rechtschutz, pp. 342–346, 350.
157 There was, of course, controversy in Germany over the question of civil ser-
vants who had served the Nazi regime, but there was little concern that these
officials would try consciously to undermine the new democratic system
after 1949.
158 For criticism by one American scholar among others, see Gerard Braunthal,
Political Loyalty and Public Service in West Germany: The 1972 Decree against
Radicals and its Consequences (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press,
1990).
159 Schmidt-Bleibtreu and Klein, Grundgesetzkommentar, Article 33, p. 667.
138
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 138
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
160 Ibid., pp. 665–673; Lecheler, “Der öffentliche Dienst,” pp. 754–756.
161 Renate Mayntz, “German Federal Bureaucrats,” Bureaucrats and Policy Mak-
ing: A Comparative Overview, edited by Ezra N. Suleiman (New York:
Holmes & Meier, 1984), p. 176.
162 Hans-Ulrich Derlien, “Politicization of the Civil Service in the Federal
Republic of Germany: Facts and Fables,” in The Politicization of Public
Administration, edited by François Meyers (Brussels: International Institute
of Administrative Sciences, 1985), pp. 3–4.
163 For a devastating criticism of local party patronage practices in Cologne, see
Ervin K. and Ute Scheuch, Cliquen, Klüngel und Karrieren (Reinbeck:
Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 1992); sharp criticisms of party patronage,
particularly at the Land level, can be found in the writings of Hans Herbert
von Arnim. See, for example, his Staat als Beute: Wie Politiker in eigener Sache
Gesetze Machen (Munich: Knauer, 1993), Ch. 6 and Staat ohne Diener
(Munich: Kindler Verlag, 1993), Ch. 4.
164 Kenneth Dyson, “The West German ‘Party-Book’ Administration: An Eval-
uation,” Public Administration Bulletin 25 (December 1977), p. 4.
165 Jörg Auf dem Hövel, “Politisierung der öffentlichen Verwaltung durch
Parteien? Ursachenforschung und normative Debatte,” Zeitschrift für
Parlamentsfragen 27, no. 1 (January 1996), pp. 82–95; Everhard Holt-
mann, “Politisierung der Kommunalpolitik und Wandlungen im lokalen
Parteiensystem,” in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte B 22-23/92 (22 May 1992),
p. 20.
166 “Tammany Hall” was a corrupt party “machine” that controlled New York
City under “Boss Tweed” after the Civil War.
167 Dyson, “The West German ‘Party-Book’ Administration,” p. 20.
168 For a brief discussion in English of Filzokratie, a mixing of private and pub-
lic interests in certain large cities, see Dyson, “The West German ‘Party-
Book’ Administration,” pp. 8–12; Scheuch, Cliquen, Klüngel und Karrieren.
169 Von Arnim, Staat als Beute, Ch. 6.
170 Renate Mayntz, “The Higher Civil Service of the Federal Republic of Ger-
many,” in The Higher Civil Service in Europe and Canada, edited by Bruce L.
R. Smith (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1984), p. 65.
171 For example, Schmidt-Bleibtreu and Klein, Grundgesetzkommentar, Article
33, p. 659, and Ulrich Battis in Michael Sachs (ed.), Grundgesetz Kommentar
(München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1996), p. 870, insist that
party patronage in civil service appointments is unconstitutional. See also
Merten, “Das Berufsbeamtentum,” pp. 161–166, for a detailed analysis of
constitutional and other objections.
172 Mayntz, “German Federal Bureaucrats,” pp. 183–184.
173 Mayntz, “The Higher Civil Service,” pp. 56–57.
174 Some empirical evidence, which is not necessarily representative of the
whole and, in addition, is rather dated, can be found in Wolfgang H. Lorig,
Administrative structures in Germany 139
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 139
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access
“Parteipolitik und öffentlicher Dienst: Personalrekrutierung und Personal-
patronage in der öffentlichen Verwaltung,” Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen
25, no. 1 (January 1994), pp. 94–107; for different meanings of patronage,
see Derlien, “Politicization in the Civil Service,” pp. 5–6.
175 Mayntz, “The Higher Civil Service,” pp. 61–62.
176 Püttner, “Der öffentliche Dienst,” p. 1134.
177 Ibid., p. 1138.
178 See the website at www.verdi.de/verdi/index.php3.
179 Burckhard Nedden, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” pp. 110–111.
180 Krebs, “Verwaltungsorganisation,” pp. 578–581.
181 Wagener and Blümel, “Staatsaufbau und Verwaltungsterritorien,” p. 118;
Gerhard Wittkämper, “Die Landesverwaltung,” in Nordrhein-Westfalen: Eine
politische Landeskunde, edited by Landeszentrale für politische Bildung
(Köln: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1984), p. 156. For a detailed description in
English of the complexities of the overall administrative structures in Ger-
many, see McDermott, “The Functions of Local Levels,” pp. 182–188.
140
The Länder and German federalism
chap 3 27/5/03 11:53 am Page 140
Arthur B. Gunlicks - 9781526120670
Downloaded from manchesteropenhive.com at 08/21/2018 01:40:55AM
via free access