rober - civil service in germany.pdf

8/14/2019 Rober - Civil Service in Germany.pdf

1/21


2/21


3/21

Civil servants account for roughly 40% of the total workforce in Germanyspublic sector. This proportion has been fairly stable for more than 15 years (witha slight downward tendency). In general, the data displayed in table 1 can beregarded as an indicator for the diversified structure of public duties as well asfor the diminishing relevance of law-and-order-functions and the growing impor-tance of service delivery functions which are mainly fulfilled by public employ-ees (whose share of the total workforce in the public sector has continuously beenrising (from 40% in 1989 to 48% in 2002). At the same time the proportion of

public workers has fallen considerably (to 13%).

Table 1: Employment in the German Public Sector by Status Groups (2002)

Having a look at the proportion of civil servants, public employees and publicworkers at the three tiers of the federal system (cf. table 2) we can observe that the

proportion of public employees is greatest at the local level (Gemeinden). This isprimarily due to the fact that local authorities provide many of the service deliveryfunctions that are directly related to contacts with citizens (see section 3.3). Thehigh percentage of civil servants at state level (Lnder) is also linked to the type of

predominant functions because all police as well as (nearly) all education functionsare fulfilled by civil servants and both functions fall within the competence of theGermanLnder.

Table 2: Distribution of Public Service Personnel Across Levels ofGovernment Related to Status Groups (2002)*

Legal Status In 1,000s Share in %Civil Servants/Judges/Soldiers 1,860.0 38.7Public Employees 2,323.1 48.3Public Workers 626.0 13.0Total 4,809.1 100.0Source: Statistisches Bundesamt 2003

Legal StatusFederation States Local Authorities Total

In 1,000s Share in % In 1,000s Share in % In 1,000s Share in % In 1,000s

Civil

Servants/Judges

**315.2 64.3 1,244.4 57.7 175.8 12.1 1,735.4

PublicEmployees

98.4 20.1 787.5 36.5 925.1 63.9 1,867.6

Public Workers 76.7 15.6 124.7 5.8 346.3 23.9 569.1

Total 490.3 100.0 2,156.6 100.0 1,447.2 100.0 4,294.1

* Federal Railways Properties, Intermunicipal Associations and the Indirect Public Service (mittel-barer ffentlicher Dienst, see fn. 5) are not included.** Including soldiers: 185.2.Source: Statistisches Bundesamt 2003.

91


4/21

Given these figures the question can be raised whether the flexibility of the sys-tem is higher in those institutions where a significant part of public servants

belong to the group of public employees compared to those institutions in whichcivil servants dominate and whether for that reason the traditional legal status ofcivil servants can be regarded as one of the most important obstacles for modern-izing the public sector (see section 4). At first glance such conjecture seems tomake sense, because the main impetus for a new public management in Germanyhas come from the local level, where only 12% of all staff members are civil ser-vants - compared to 58% at the state level and 64% at the federal level.

This might confirm the assumption that the legal status public employeesfavours the consciousness of and the readiness for new management models. Butin practice, public employees share nearly all of the rights and benefits (and allcorresponding attitudes) civil servants already have. And additionally, theGerman public service law for civil servants provides even more opportunitiesfor a flexible modernization of public administration than the strict regulations doin collective agreements for public employees negotiated between public

employers association and trade unions. Therefore one must be very careful inassuming that a high percentage of public employees would improve theprospects for a management-oriented modernisation. The fact that the reformprocess in Germany has started at the local level must be put down to other caus-es (such as financial problems, increasingly competitive environment, lack ofeffectiveness and responsiveness).

2.2 Career Structure

One of the most conspicuous features of Germanys civil service is the rather rigidsystem of career classes hampering vertical mobility across career class borderlines. This career system for civil servants consists of four standard career levelswhich are the administrative class (hherer Dienst), the executive class (gehoben-er Dienst), the clerical class (mittlerer Dienst) and the sub-clerical-class (einfacher

Dienst). Each career class consists of five grades, each with a rising pay scale with-in the Salary Regulation A (White/Lffler 1998: 11; Rber 1996: 173). The maincharacteristic of the Salary Regulation A is increments on the basis of a seniori-ty allowance. In contrast to the salary system of Regulation A, top positions inthe civil service - which are related to the leading grades in the administrativeclass - are remunerated according to a special Salary Regulation B which does

not contain any increments for seniority, i.e. income is irrespective of the officersage or length of service. In keeping with the basic principles of a merit-based careersystem, entrance for civil servants to the civil service classes is strictly linked tocertain formal qualification requirements (for details see below, section 2.3).Similar rules, however, apply for public employees, which again indicates thatdespite the continued dual employment structure, the two categories of service lawhave in practice been coming closer to each other.

Table 3 provides a rough overview of the size of each career class indicatingthat the backbone of the German civil service is still the executive and the cleri-cal class while the size and share of the sub-clerical class has continually

92


5/21

decreased (the proportion was 48% in 1989 and was much higher previously).This can be interpreted with the observation that more and more posts inGermanys civil service require higher professional standards with far-reachingconsequences for education and training.

Table 3: Distribution of Public Service Personnel Across Career Classes (2002)*

2.3 Education, Training and Qualification

German civil servants professional profile is largely shaped by the existing sys-tem of education and recruitment which combines professional training andcareer structure. To enter the administrative class a university degree is

required which usually has to be completed by two years of preparatory service(Referendariat) with practical stages in different public and private institutionsand some courses on administrative topics. But there is no special education ortraining for the administrative class. A condition for entering the executiveclass is - after having passed the Abitur-examination which qualifies for cours-es in higher education - a degree at a college for public administration. To hold a

position in the clerical class vocational training is required which is part of thegeneral dual system integrating an administrative apprenticeship on the onehand and theoretical training at a vocational school for public administration, e.g.a local institute of public administration (Verwaltungsschule or kommunalesStudieninstitut), on the other.

Whereas on the one hand - according to federal skeleton legislation - thelegal framework and the career system of the German civil service is rather uni-form both on different levels and in differentLnder, basic and permanent train-ing are to a large degree decentralized in the German federal system. In contrastto the still centralized French system of civil service training offered by thecole

Nationale dAdministation (ENA), in Germany the Lnderare responsible foreducation and training, also with regard to their civil servants. There are no cen-tral elite schools for the education and training of the German civil service. It istrue that the universities of Potsdam and Konstanz and the German School for

Career Class In 1,000s Share in %Administrative Class 689.7 14.3Executive Class 1,469.6 30.6Clerical Class 1,854.6 38.6Sub-Clerical Class 96.2 2.0Others ** 699.0 14.5Total 4,809.1 100.0* Only full-time employees.** Public Employees without specification of career class and Public Workers.Source: Statistisches Bundesamt 2003.

93


6/21

Administrative Sciences in Speyer1 offer courses in administrative sciences.They do not, however, have the status of central institutions for the training of anadministrative elite, comparable to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge inGreat Britain or the ENAin France (Benz/Bogumil 2006). This also applies to thetraining of the executive class in as much as each state (Land) and theFederation have their own colleges of public administration. Finally, the highlydecentralised structure of the German federal system is also reflected by the

Lnders efforts at forming their own administrative elite. In addition to thetraining for leading civil servants offered by the Federal Academy of PublicAdministration (Bundesakademie fr ffentliche Verwaltung), they organizetheir own training programmes lasting between 14 and 15 months, e.g. in Bavariasince 1968 or in Baden-Wrttemberg since 1986. Not surprisingly, there is nocentral unit responsible for recruiting civil servants or public employees. Eachministry at the federal level, each state, and each local authority has the right torecruit its staff members itself.

According to the legalistic administrative culture which has been generatedby the prevalence of legal rule-application in this countrys administrative business(Siedentopf et al. 1993), the personnel structure in public administration is very

strongly moulded by a dominance of lawyers (Juristenmonopol). Thus, the propor-tion of lawyers in Federal ministries, amounting to 63%, has remained virtuallyunchanged for more than 30 years, succeeded by barely 15% of economists(Derlien 2002). Moreover, the majority of leading civil servants (78%) pass

Figure 1: Accessing the Public Service in Germany

Adapted from Reichard 1998: 514.

Preparatoryservice

University

Basic Education

Collegefor public

administrtionVocationalSchool for

Public adm.

Administrative class

Executive class

Clerical class

Sub-clerical class

1 The German School for Administrative Sciences in Speyer which is financed by the Federaland all Lnder governments offers a post-graduate programme for students preparing for a posi-tion in the public sector. Administrative Sciences can be studied at the Universities of Konstanzand Potsdam.

94


7/21

through the career system of the public service (Laufbahn), whereas only a smallnumber (22%) enters higher ranks in the administration from outside, among them10% come from private enterprises (Derlien 1990, Bogumil/Jann 2005)2.

Regarding the professional background of civil servants, we must, however,make a distinction between different policy fields on the one hand and levels ofgovernment on the other. Whereas in the Federal Ministry of the Interior about70% of the staff are lawyers, the relevant percentage in the Federal Ministry ofEconomics amounts to only 40% (Hauschild 1998: 581). Looking at the localauthorities, staff members holding a degree in law are clearly in a minority. They

primarily work in law-oriented departments, such as the office of law (Rechts-amt) or the building supervisory board (Bauaufsicht). By comparison, the propor-tion of technically trained personnel - even with regard to the leading civil ser-vants3 - predominates. These staff members have usually received a basic educa-tion at university or college, complemented by further training in administrativesubjects, e.g. at an Academy of Public Administration and Economics(Verwaltungs- und Wirtschaftsakademie) or through preparatory service

(Referendariat).Contrary to the old GermanLnder, the transformed administration in EastGermany was largely lacking in law-trained and public service-experienced per-sonnel. Due to the fact that a special administrative education for public employ-ees had, for ideological reasons, been rejected in the former GDR (Kuhlmann1997), public employees, who had been taken over from old GDR-authorities,usually had technical, economic or other non-administrative degrees. Yet, thevast majority of the East German staff were newcomers to state and local admin-istrations (Wollmann 1996). Likewise, predominant among these were holders ofdegrees in technical subjects and natural sciences. Hence, the new administrativeleaders in East German local authorities stand in marked contrast to their WestGerman counterparts, the majority of whom are trained in law or hold publicadministration-related degrees (Cusack/Wessels 1996). Responding to this qual-ification gap, immediately after reunification extensive programmes of trainingand further qualification were launched in order to familiarise East Germanadministrative actors with some basic structures of German law and administra-tive affairs. The remarkable adaptation to Western professional standards andlaw application practice is, however, mainly attributed to the East German actorsamazing capacity of learning on the job.

2 These figures refer to the Federal administrative elite between 1949 and 1984 (Derlien 1990).Unfortunately, more recent data is not available for Germany (Bogumil/Jann 2005).

3 According to a survey of 32 local building supervisory boards (at county-level) the vast majori-ty of heads of offices (Amtsleiter) held technical or urban planning-related degrees (e.g. 15 build-ing engineers, 12 architects), whereas only one head of department was a lawyer (Kuhlmann2003: 258).

95


8/21

3. Size, Structure and Development of Public Personnel inGermany: A Lean and Decentralised Public Sector?

In this part of the article we will turn to the question of whether the German Civil

Service has been modernized in terms of downsizing (measured by indicatorsfor personnel density) and/or decentralisation (measured for example by theratio of central government employment and total public sector employment).

Size, structure and development of public personnel impressively reflect theimportance of different levels of government within the German federal systemas well as the functional change they have experienced over time. In order toreveal these developmental patterns, in the following section, we will, first, high-light the changes which occurred in the old Federal Republic between 1950and 1990, and, secondly, analyse the period after reunification (1990-2000). Wewill than give a brief overview of the tasks which the public employees inGermany discharge at different levels of government. Finally, we will place the

German public service staff in the international context by comparing their sizeto other OECD-countries.

3.1 Development in the Old Federal Republic (1950-1990)

The total number of public servants more than doubled between 1950 and 1990mounting from 2 million public servants in 1950 to nearly 5 million in 1990.Accordingly, the number of public servants per 1,000 inhabitants (personneldensity) also rose significantly (from 46 in 1950 to 78 in 1990; see table 4).

Table 4: Total Public Employment in the Old Federal Republic of Germany1950-1990 (in Mill.)4

YearTotal Number ofPublic Servants

Per 1.000 Inhabitants

1950 2.28 45.71960 3.15 56.91970 3.88 63.9

1980 4.66 75.71990 4.92 77.8Source: Bogumil/Jann 2005 with further references.

4 Tables include theDirect Public Service (unmittelbarer ffentlicher Dienst), that is the territo-rial authorities (Gebietskrperschaften, namely Federation, Lnder, Communes), FederalRailways Properties and Intermunicipal Associations, as well as the Indirect Public Service(mittelbarer ffentlicher Dienst), that is Social Security and Labour Administration. The propor-tion of the Direct Public Service is about 90% of the entire Public Service in Germany.

96


9/21

The local level embracing, in 1950, roughly two fifths and the state level(Lnder) half of the total public employment of the territorial authorities(Gebietskrperschaften), against a proportion of barely 5% at Federal level, sus-

piciously reflect the starting conditions of the German public sector after theSecond World War: first new democratic and administrative structures had beeninstalled at local level, then the Lnder, and finally - after the Basic Law cameinto force on 5th of May 1949 - the Federal Republic were founded. The com-munes and their public personnel played a particularly important role in recon-structing the destroyed country and in coping with the immense social problemswhich had occurred after the war (Kuhlmann/Wollmann 1998).

Table 5: Public Personnel in the Old Federal Republic 1950-1990 in 1,000s(Rounded Figures) and Personnel Shares of Levels of Governmentin %*

In the course of the 1950s, the proportion of personnel shares at federal, state and

local level took on a shape which remained fairly stable up to the 1990s: the com-munes got a personnel share of about one third of total public employment, thestates (Lnder) roughly 50% and the Federation one fifth. Besides the extensionof the ministerial administration and the upper-level administration of the FederalRailways (Bundesbahn) and the Federal Postal Administration (Bundespost), thesteep rise in the number of Federal public servants essentially corresponds to therearming (in 1955), including the Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) and militaryadministration (Sturm 1961: 11, 102 ff.).

Comparing the three levels of government, the increase in public employmentat theLnder-level of 61% between 1960 and 1990 was obviously the highest.

Year

Federation Lnder Communes All levels

In 1,000s Share in% In 1,000s Share in% In 1,000s Share in% In 1,000s

1950** 62 4.7 722 54.4 543 40.9 1,3281960 361 18.5 950 48.6 642 32.9 1,9531970 537 21.4 1,210 48.3 758 30.3 2,5041980 553 18.2 1,568 51.5 920 30.2 3,0421990 554 17.9 1,536 49.7 1,002 32.4 3,092Increase1960-1990 in

%***

53.5 61.7 56.1 58.3

* only full-time employees of the territorial authorities (Gebietskrperschaften); Federal RailwaysProperties, Intermunicipal Associations and the Indirect Public Service (mittelbarer ffentlicher

Dienst, see fn. 5) are not included.** 1950: without Saarland.*** We calculate the increase in public personnel only from 1960 onwards in order to exclude therearming at Federal level which took place in the late 1950s.Source: Kuhlmann/ Wollmann 1998: 498 (with further references).

97


10/21

This primarily corresponds to the reforms in the education sector, falling to thecultural sovereignty of theLnder, as a result of which the number of teachingstaff was remarkably extended. Moreover, the number of local-level public ser-vants rose considerably, by 56% between 1960 and 1990, which reflects theextension of public tasks as well as the functional change which the local author-ities were faced with during this period. While continuing their reconstructionactivities after the war, the municipalities and counties were on the one handassigned an increasing number of local infrastructure tasks to (urban develop-ment and planning, public transport, house building, environment protection). Onthe other hand they were, due to the employment crises in the mid-1970s, increas-ingly confronted with local social and labour market policies.

Summarizing these findings we can say on the one hand that the Federalrepublic of Germany has traditionally been characterized by a highly decentral-ized civil service. This is primarily due to the constitutional foundations of theGerman federal system according to which the Federation is predominantlyresponsible for legislation, regulation and programming, and thus lacks, as a rule,

regional or local offices (and personnel) of its own, whereas the Lnder (andcommunes) are responsible for the implementation and execution of these pro-grammes (Schrter/Wollmann 1997: 185) and accordingly employ the major partof public personnel in Germany. In this respect Germany has always been in acompletely different situation compared to other more centralistic Europeanstates which regard their efforts towards decentralisation as an important elementof their approach to modernising the public sector.

On the other hand we can say that, contrary to the United Kingdom for exam-ple, the size of the West German public sector continuously rose until 1990 -without any serious efforts to curb public sector growth (in terms of personnel).Hence, there was - until 1990 - virtually no Public Sector modernization in termsof downsizing and cutting back public personnel.

3.2 Development after Reunification (1990-2000)

After German reunification a further 1.8 million public servants from EastGerman public institutions joined the civil service. Accordingly, in 1991 therewere 6.7 million people working in the civil service, that is 84 public servants per1.000 inhabitants. All in all, the German Public Sector has in recent years beensignificantly downsized which can be seen from the number of public employees

per 1.000 inhabitants declining from 80 in 1990 to 60 in 2000 (Bogumil/Jann2005, see table 4). Regarding different levels of government, we can observe,that the Federal share of public employment has clearly fallen below the level ofthe 1990s (to 15% in 2002 against 18% in 1990) which is on the one hand due tothe privatisation of Federal Postal Administration5 during the Kohl-era and to the

5 Privatisation during the Kohl-era also included Federal Railways the employees of which are,however, counted separately.

98


11/21

reduction of the Federal Armed Forces on the other. The share of theLnderhas,by contrast, slightly increased (from 50% in 1990 to 53% in 2002) and that of thecommunes has remained more or less stable at 32% (see table 5 and table 6).

Due to the unprecedented transformation process in East Germany, the pub-lic staffs situation and development in the two parts of Germany in the lastdecade differed remarkably. In the early 1990s, in West Germany, public employ-ment was still rising (slightly). The growing budgetary crises, however, prompt-ed public authorities to reduce public spending and to cutback public employ-ment. Yet, according to pertinent legal provisions, the public employers had prac-tically no hand in dismissing surplus staff and were primarily bound to renouncefilling job vacancies. East German authorities, were, by contrast, faced with the

problem, that on the one hand a considerable part of the suspiciously overstaffedapparatus of the former GDR-state (of about 2.1 million employees) was, accord-ing to art. 13 of the unification treaty, transferred to the East GermanLnder. Asa result, the personnel density atLnder-level, amounting to 39 public servants

per 1,000 inhabitants, in 1991, exceeded, the relevant figure in West Germany

(30) by roughly one third (see table 7).In East German communes, too, public employment soared dramatically afterreunification, in some big cities to 5,000 or even 10,000 employees6. This prima-rily corresponds to the fact that the social and cultural facilities of the former

YearFederation Lnder Communes All levels

In 1.000s Share in

%In 1,000s Share in

%In 1,000s Share in

%In 1,000s

1993 579 14.3 2,012 49.6 1,469 36.2 4,0601996 508 13.9 1,909 52.3 1,233 33.8 3,6491999 479 14.5 1,767 53.4 1,062 32.1 3,3082002 448 15.0 1,583 53.1 951 31.9 2,982Change1993-2002 in%

-22.7 -21.3 -35.2 -26.6

* only full-time employees of the territorial authorities (Gebietskrperschaften); Federal RailwayProperties, Intermunicipal Associations and the Indirect Public Service (mittelbarer ffentlicher

Dienst; see fn. 5) are not included.Source: Statistisches Bundesamt 2003.

Table 6: Public Personnel in Germany after Reunification 1993-2002 in1,000 (Rounded Figures) and Personnel Shares of Levels ofGovernment in %*

6 In the former GDR, the local personnel staffs (in the so called Rte) had been comparativelysmall, amounting, in the core administration (Kernverwaltung) of the counties and the county-free municipalities, to between 250 and 350 employees. In addition, about 600 employeesworked in subordinated (nachgeordneten) social, cultural etc. facilities, see Berg et al. 1996.

99


12/21

GDR, which had been managed by state institutions or national owned enterpris-es, were, now, (re)transferred to the communes (recommunalised). As a result,East German municipalities had significantly more public personnel than compa-rable West German communes. Thus, in 1991, the personnel density at locallevel in East Germany, which amounted to 42 public servants per 1,000 inhabi-tants, was the double of that in West Germany (21) (see table 8).

In the subsequent period, both West and East German public authorities wereincreasingly faced with budgetary problems and the need to cut back publicspending and personnel. Their enormous efforts at cutback management can beseen from the fact that total public employment in Germany (including the terri-torial authorities of Federation,Lnderand communes, the intermunicipal asso-ciations and the indirect public service, see fn. 4) was reduced by 27% between1991 and 2000. The personnel density, amounting to 60 public servants per1,000 inhabitants in 2000, has accordingly fallen to the level of the 1970s (seetable 1; Bogumil/Jann 2005).

This remarkable decline primarily corresponds to the fact, that theLnderandlocal authorities reduced their staff dramatically. East German public employerstook a particularly hard line of cutback management as a result of which the staffof theLnder was reduced by one fourth (see table 7) and that of the communesmore than halved between 1991 and 2001 (see table 8). In West Germany the

decline in public employment amounted, by contrast, to only 12% at Lnder-level and to 13% at the local level7. Although there are still some continuing differ-ences between East and West Germany, public employment in East Germany has,during the last decade, undoubtedly converged to typical West German propor-tions and structures.

Table 7: Public Employment of the GermanLnder1991-2001

7 The personnel density in East Germany is, however, still higher than that in West Germany. AttheLnderlevel, there are now 32 public servants per 1,000 inhabitants in East Germany against25 in West Germany, whereas at the local level the proportion is 21:17 (see tables 7 and 8).

Year/Change

East Germany* West Germany* Germany*Number in

1,000sPer 1,000

Inh.Number in

1,000sPer 1,000

Inh.Number in

1,000sPer 1,000

Inh.1991 634 39.9 1,938 30.2 2,572 32.2

1994 535 34.4 1,947 29.5 2,482 30.42001 475 ***31.6 1,704 ***25.2 2,179 ***26.4Change1991-2001 in %

-25.2 -12.0 -15.3

* Public Employees and Population of the City-State of Berlin (194,000 in 2001) have been assignedto both West and East Germany according to the proportion of 1.6:1 (public personnel) and 1.4:1(population).**Note: differences due to rounding.*** Calculation based on population numbers of 2002.Source: Statistisches Bundesamt 1991-2001.

100


13/21

In general we can say that the local level has in particular been subjected to cut-

backs and that they have been most active in terms of downsizing their civil serv-ices. But this can hardly be taken as an indicator for New Public Managementinspired modernisation activities. It was simply a dramatic reaction to growing

budgetary pressures that hit the local authorities in particular.

3.3 Sectors of public employment at Federal, LnderandLocal Level

Structuring public personnel by tasks mirrors the peculiar distribution of func-tions within the German Federal system in which, in principle, the administrativefunctions fall to theLnder. In a similar vein, within theLnderadministration,the allocation of administrative functions has been particularly shaped by the useof local authorities as agents for implementing Land legislation. Thus, Federaladministration is predominantly limited to defence policy, already including 64%of the entire Federal staff. In addition, there are 48,000 civil servants in theFederal revenue offices and 42,500 in the Federal border police (Bundesgrenz-

schutz) and the Federal criminal investigation office (Bundeskriminalamt)8.The high proportion of Lnder-personnel primarily corresponds to the

Lnders responsibility for culture and education (as mentioned above). Theeducation and teaching staff include one third of total public employment in

Germany which represents a fourfold increase since 1960 when, in line withinternational developments, the education sector was remarkably extended.Besides education and universities, containing approximately half of theLnder-staff, public personnel atLnderlevel is mainly employed in the sectors of pub-lic security, police and legal protection (20% of the staff - in table 9 included in

Table 8: Public Employment of German Local Authorities 1991-2001

Year/Change

East Germany West Germany Germany*Number in

1,000sPer 1,000

Inh.Number in

1,000sPer 1,000

Inh.Number in

1,000sPer 1,000

Inh.1991 662 41.6 1,334 20.8 1,996 25.01994 476 30.7 1,330 20.2 1,806 22.12001 309 20.6 1,161 17.2 1,470 17.8Change1991-2001 in %

-53.3 -13.0 -26.4

* Note: differences due to rounding.Source: Statistisches Bundesamt 1991-2001.

8 At Federal level, it is also worth mentioning the administration of water and navigation (with17,000 employees) and the Federal office of foreign affairs (with 9,000 employees)(Bogumil/Jann 2005).

101


14/21

General Services). Interestingly, the East GermanLnderemploy comparative-ly more public personnel in social services and in the public health sector thanthe West GermanLnderdo. In West Germany, by contrast, a stronger emphasisis laid on education, science and research (table 9).

Public servants at local level have, since the 1960s, discharged a growingnumber of tasks which previously fell to theLnder-administration. This applies

particularly to public welfare and health policy, but also to public housing andenvironment protection. Today, the priorities of public employment at local levelare to be seen in welfare policy, especially in child and youth care, in buildingand housing policy and public transport (see table 10). We must, however, takeinto account that a considerable part of local welfare services (e.g. kindergartens,care for the elderly, youth hostels) are not rendered by public agencies but -according to the subsidiarity principle - by non-public organisations, thus lim-

iting the municipal sector, in principle, to an enabling (and funding) function9.Most significantly, again, local welfare policies continue to be more important -in terms of public personnel - in East German communes than in West German

local authorities. This is presumably due to the fact, that local welfare services inEast Germany are still, to a large extent, being rendered by public authoritieswhereas in West Germany non-public organisations are clearly prevailing.

4. Civil Service Reform

The figures presented above show quite clearly that the number of public servantshas been reduced considerably - even if we take into account that many of thereductions can be put down to the fact that the public sector in East Germany was

heavily overstaffed and that reductions in this part of Germany can be regarded asan indispensable process of right-sizing according to West German standards. Allin all, the size of the German civil service is remarkably small (see

Naschold/Bogumil 2000 and OECD Public Management Service 2001), makingGermanys public sector one of the leanest in the OECD-world (Derlien2002: 232). If we take size and numerical flexibility in a decentralised politico-administrative system as indicators for the modernity of the public sector, Germanycan obviously stand comparisons with nearly all other European countries.

But the continuous downsizing of the public sector has raised some fears thatthe quality of public service delivery can be undermined considerably. Therefore,

in the final part of this chapter we want to outline some of the personnel manage-ment reform initiatives that might be able to counterbalance at least some of thenegative consequences of a slimmed-down public service in order to achieve thesame (or even more) with less. At present new thinking in personnel manage-ment is mainly directed at reforms of the civil service law and at experimentswith soft personnel management instruments.

9 According to estimates for the early 1990s, the welfare associations on average run two thirds ofall personal social services in the Federal Republic, including, for example, about 70% of allkindergartens and about 90% of all drug councilling centers (Bnker/Wollmann 1996).

102


15/21

4.1 Modernisation Efforts Related to the Civil Service Reform Law

Since the first serious attempt to modernize Germanys traditional and fairlyinflexible civil service (which came to nearly nothing due to strong reservationsand resistance to any substantial change by many public servants and by theirunions) at the beginning of the 1970s, the debate about reform of the civil serv-ice regained momentum only in the middle of the 1990s with the preparatorywork for the Civil Service Reform Law which was passed by Parliament

Table 9: Sectors of Public Employment in the GermanLnder(2002)

Sector ofEmployment

East Germany* West Germany Germany****

Number in1,000s

Share in%

Number in1,000s

Share in%

Number in1,000s

Share in%

General

Services** 205.0 36.67 539.2 33.70 743.2 34.47Education,Science,Research

233.2 41.93 804.2 50.27 1,037.4 48.12

Social Services,Welfare,Reparations

34.4 6.19 25.5 1.59 59.9 2.78

Public Health,Environment,Sports,Recreation

14.1 2.54 11.5 0.72 25.7 1.19

Housing, SpacialPlanning,Common LocalServices

6.6 1.19 13.4 0.84 20.0 0.93

Nutrition,Agriculture,Forests

7.2 1.29 18.8 1.18 26.0 1.21

Energy andWater Supply,Trade, Services

0.7 0.12 7.5 0.47 8.2 0.38

Transport and

Communications10.5 1.89 26.3 1.64 36.8 1.71

PublicEnterprises 9.0 1.63 7.3 0.45 16.3 0.76

SpecialCalculations*** 36.4 6.55 146.1 9.13 182.6 8.47

Total**** 556.2 100.00 1,599.9 100.00 2,156.0 100.00

* Including Berlin.** Including Political Executive/Central administration; Public Security; Legal Protection.*** Universities, Hospitals, Public Enterprises with commercial double entry accountancy.**** Note: differences due to rounding.Source: Statistisches Bundesamt 2002; Calculation: Ute Arbeit.

103


16/21

10 Due to the new regulations, the share of part-time employment has increased from 5% to 10% atthe federal level and from 11% to 15% at the state level (Bundesministerium des Innern 2001: 14).

(Deutscher Bundestag) in February 1997. According to the above mentionedconstitutional responsibilities of the Federation, this law sets the framework for

personnel management in the German public service in general. The frameworkcan be put into concrete terms by the States (Lnder) according to their specialrequirements in personnel management.

The new regulations of the Civil Service Reform Law provide better oppor-tunities for delegation (Abordnung) and transfer (Versetzung) of staff members.In the traditional system, it was nearly impossible to delegate or transfer some-one against his or her will - even where duties of the respective authority hadchanged or had disappeared completely.

As far as employment contracts are concerned - the Civil Service ReformLaw additionally contains important elements related to higher flexibility. Civilservants will get the opportunity to work part-time without any preconditions. In

the past, they were not allowed to do this according to the traditional principlesof a professional civil service (hergebrachte Grundstze des Berufsbeamten-tums), especially full dedication to public service. The new regulation for part-time work also provides more scope for greater flexibility in the form of flexibleworking hours, job sharing, working hour budgets over one year(Arbeitszeitkonten) and sabbaticals.10

Table 10: Sectors of Public Employment in German Local Authorities (2001)

Sector of EmploymentEast Germany West Germany Germany**

Number in1,000s

Share in%

Number in1,000s

Share in%

Number in1,000s

Share in%

General Administration 52.3 16.94 183.8 15.83 236.1 16.06

Public Security 26.0 8.41 88.2 7.60 114.2 7.77Schools 22.4 7.26 96.5 8.31 118.9 8.09Science, Research,Culture

18.1 5.86 51.5 4.43 69.6 4.73

Social Services/Welfare 58.8 19.05 193.8 16.69 252.6 17.19Public Health, Sports,Recreation

17.7 5.74 57.1 4.92 74.8 5.09

Housing and BuildingPolicy, Public Transport

25.0 8.09 95.5 8.23 120.5 8.20

Public Facilities,

Economic Promotion20.6 6.67 83.5 7.19 104.0 7.08

Public Enterprises 0.9 0.30 11.2 0.97 12.1 0.83Special Calculations* 66.9 21.69 299.9 25.83 366.8 24.96Total** 308.6 100.00 1,161.0 100.00 1,469.7 100.00

* Hospitals and Public Enterprises with commercial double entry book-keeping.** Note: differences due to rounding.Source: Statistisches Bundesamt 2001.

104


17/21

Another part of the Civil Service Reform Law opens up the opportunity forthe Federation itself and for States (Lnder) to introduce financial incentives forthose staff members whose performance is higher than others. It provides someelements which might be able to supersede traditional civil service regulationswhich are not conducive to the achievement principle. One element is that the sys-tem of increments every two years has been re-arranged and no longer dependsexclusively on seniority but also on individual performance. But performance-

based promotions must be neutral as far as costs are concerned which implies thatthe faster promotion of some well-performing civil servants has to be compensat-ed by the slower promotion of other civil servants (Oechsler 1997: 31).

Additionally, the Federation and the States are allowed to introduce singlebonuses for exceptional results (Leistungsprmien als Einmalzahlungen) andextra pay for a limited period of one year (Leistungszulagen). In order to preventdecisions in accordance with the principle of giving everyone a slice of thecake and excessive payments, bonuses and extra pay are restricted to 10% ofcivil servants and extra pay must not exceed seven per cent of the initial or start-

ing salary of the respective grade. Interestingly, the Federation as well as most ofthe States are still hesitating about introducing performance-related pay systems(PRP), either as bonus or as extra pay. They seem to be very uncertain about thevalidity of their appraisal systems. This is not very surprising because in practicethese systems tend to lead to an inflation of the performance marks awarded. Thismeans that the personnel evaluation has very little significance for the promotionof staff and is certainly not very appropriate for performance-related pay(White/Lffler 1998: 14). And public employers obviously seem to be afraid of poi-soning the working atmosphere (already Kohn 1993), because the overall majorityof the work force will not - due to the tight regulation in the Civil Service ReformLaw - benefit from extra money resources at all. The small survey we have beenconducting at state level gives a very clear picture that the vast majority of the stategovernments are not yet ready to introduce even a relatively moderate system ofPRP (see also Bundesministerium des Innern 2001: 5).

And finally, the Civil Service Reform Law provides the opportunity to down-grading top civil servants with poor leadership performance. The first option is togive somebody a leading position on probation usually for two years; after meet-ing all requirements associated with the higher position during these two yearsthe civil servant will be appointed for lifetime. The second option is to establishtemporary executive duties (Fhrungsfunktion auf Zeit) for civil servants whohold leading posts, like heads of an authority (Behrdenleiter), heads of depart-

ments (Abteilungsleiter) and most of the heads of sections (Referatsleiter) in stateministries. Temporary executive duties are regarded as an opportunity to correctinappropriate decisions and to cancel the appointment of people who are obvi-ously not able to meet the requirements for top managers in the public sector.Although there is a lot of scepticism and criticism that these regulations will openthe way to increased party politicisation of the higher ranks of the German civilservice, these new regulations have been used and introduced to a large extent(Bundesministerium des Innern 2001: 6-10).

Altogether, the Civil Service Reform Law is (in addition with similar regula-tions for public employees) a first step in the direction towards more flexibility

105


18/21

and modernity. Compared to other European countries that have brought theircivil services more in line with normal industrial law (Naschold/Jann/Reichard1999; Jann 2004), it is still a fairly small step because Germanys civil service isstill different and strongly moulded by the traditional principles of the civil serv-ice and the corresponding, in many respects even more rigid labour regulationsfor public employees. In that respect many of the regulations fall behind whatmany scholars and critical practitioners consider necessary for the public sector -especially for introducing a modern human resources management approach

(see for example Oechsler/Vaanholt 1997).

4.2 Modernisation Efforts Related to Human ResourcesManagement

Without any doubt, administrative reforms in Germany were driven by the needto make savings. This implied downsizing on the one hand and an emphasis onthe flexibilization of resource management on the other hand. All in all, person-nel has mainly been seen as a cost factor. But there are signs of an increasingawareness in German public administration that personnel is also a productivityfactor. If personnel is to be reduced in absolute size, it will be necessary to bettermotivate staff and to promote personnel development in order to unleash the hid-den productivity potential. But personnel development means investing in peoplewith additional financial burdens for public authorities.

Under the present financial constraints, it comes as no surprise that - accord-ing to survey data from the German Association of Cities (Deutscher Stdtetag)- personnel management is still not seen as a reform objective in its own right:

The large majority of cities has initiated public management reforms in order toincrease the efficiency and effectiveness of local administration, to improve citi-zen orientation and financial room for manoeuvre, but only a small proportion ofthe cities interviewed considered the motivation of their employees and person-nel development, for example, as a primary objective of reforms. This confirmsthe impression of many practitioners and scholars that personnel is still predom-inantly perceived as a cost factor and not as a productivity factor. This appears to

be a vicious circle - and it makes many staff members more and more suspiciousthat new concepts of personnel management might only be tricky strategies forfurther downsizing in the disguise of administrative reform.

However, there have been a number of soft personnel management reformsat different levels of the German public sector - but normally without any coher-ent integrative strategic approach (Kuhlmann 2006). Especially at the local levelefforts have focused on issues such as goal and performance agreements betweenemployees supervisors, evaluation of superiors, employee surveys and training ofsuperiors in leadership skills. Many of these personnel management instrumentsaim at increasing the managerial flexibility of employees by shifting from a con-trol-based command system to a more trust-based co-operative working style.

That means all attempts to modernise Germanys civil service must also be seenin the context of the still dominant administrative culture in Germany that is based

106


19/21

on the principles of theRechtsstaatwith its strong emphasis on legality. This cul-ture is very much influenced by the Weberian ideal type of bureaucracy.Additionally the German administrative system is characterized by the relativelydominant role of administrative law hat is for example - in connection with consti-tutional and private law - the most important part in the curriculum for educationand training for the civil service in Germany. That means that most of the publicservants in Germany are not really able or ready to accept fundamental changestowards a new public management. Attempts for example, to change and to tailorthe curriculum in internal training institutions towards more management skills arestill meeting lots of reservations and resistance from practitioners in the German

bureaucracy who are more or less captivated in their traditional law-oriented men-talities. Interestingly, in many other European countries with long traditions in the

Rechtsstaat(like the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries) the lawyerly dom-inance has been considerably diluted... (and) civil servants now come from a widevariety of disciplinary backgrounds ... (Pollitt/Bouckaert 2000: 54). In Germany,reconciling these different mentalities, cultures and rationalities seems to be one of

the greatest challenges for public sector modernisation.

References

Benz, Arthur/Bogumil, Jrg (2006): Des fonctionnaires dominants au coeur du systme fdral : lecas de lAllemagne. In: Dreyfus, F./Eymeri, J.-M (eds) (2006): Science politique de ladmi-nistration : une approche comparative. Paris: Ed. Economica. 118-134

Berg, Frank/Nagelschmidt, Martin/Wollmann, Hellmut (1996): Kommunaler Institutionenwandel.

Regionale Fallstudien zum ostdeutschen Transformationsprozess. Opladen: Leske+BudrichBogumil, Jrg/Werner, Jann (2005): Verwaltung und Verwaltungswissenschaft in Deutschland.Wiesbaden: Vs Verlag

Bnker, Frank/Wollmann, Hellmut: Incrementalism and Reform Waves: The Case of Social ServicesReform in the Federal Republic of Germany. In: Journal of European Public Policy 3. 1996.441-460

Bundesministerium des Innern (2001): Erfahrungsbericht zur Dienstrechtsreform. Berlin

Cusack, Thomas R./Weels, Bernhard (1996): Problemreich und konfliktgeladen: Lokale Demokratiein Deutschland fnf Jahre nach der Vereinigung. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin frSozialforschung. Berlin

Derlien, Hans-Ulrich: Wer macht in Bonn Karriere? Spitzenbeamte und ihr beruflicher Werdegang.In: DV 43. 1990. 311-319

Derlien, Hans-Ulrich (2002): ffentlicher Dienst im Wandel. In: Knig, Klaus (Hrsg.): DeutscheVerwaltung an der Wende zum 21. Jahrhundert, Baden-Baden. 229-254

Hauschild, C. (1998): Aus- und Fortbildung fr den ffentlichen Dienst. In: Knig, Klaus/Siedentopf,Heinrich (eds.): ffentliche Verwaltung in Deutschland. Baden-Baden. 577-597

Klages, Helmut/Lffler, Elke: Administrative Modernization in Germany - a Big Qualitative Jump inSmall Steps. In: International Review of Administrative Sciences 61:3. September 1995.373-383

Kohn, Alfie: Why Incentive Plans Cannot Work. In: Harvard Busines Review, September-October1993. 54-63

107


20/21

Kuhlmann, (Lorenz) Sabine: Personalstrukturen und Personalentwicklung in den rtlichen Rten derDDR-Verwaltung: Zwischen Verfachlichung und Politisierung. In: LKV 2/97. 1997. 45-48

Kuhlmann, (Lorenz) Sabine/Wollmann, Hellmut (1998): Kommunales Dienstrecht und Personal. In:Wollmann, Hellmut/Roth, R. (Hrsg.) (1998): Kommunalpolitik. Politisches Handeln in denGemeinden. 2nd ed. Bonn. 490-512

Kuhlmann, Sabine (2003): Rechtsstaatliches Verwaltungshandeln in Ostdeutschland. Eine Studie zum

Gesetzesvollzug in der lokalen Bauverwaltung. Opladen: Leske+BudrichKuhlmann, Sabine (2006): ffenthicher Dienst in Deutschland: Reformfhig oder-resistent ? In:Kiler, Leo/Lasserre, Ren/Pautrat, Hlne (Hrsg.): ffentliche Beschftigung undVerwaltungsreform in Deutschland und Frankreich. Frankfurt/New York (forthcoming)

Lean State Advisory Committee (1997): Final Report, Federal Ministery of the Interior, Bonn

Lffler, Elke: Flexibilities in the German Civil Service. In: Public Policy and Administration 12:4.winter 1997. 73-86

Naschold, F./Bogumil, J. (2000): Modernisierung des Staates. New Public Management in deutscherund internationaler Perspektive. 2nd. ed. Opladen: Leske+Budrich

Oechsler, Walter A.: Reform des ffentlichen Dienstrechts - Aufbruch zu leistungsorientiertemPersonalmanagement? In: Die innovative Verwaltung 2:3. 1997. 30-32

Oechsler, Walter A./Vaanholt, S.: Dienstrechtsreform - klein, aber auch nicht fein! Eine Stellungnahmeaus personalwirtschaftlicher Sicht. In: Die Betriebswirtschaft 57. 1997. 529-540

Pollitt, Christopher/Bouckaert, Geert (2000): Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis.Oxford: Oxford University Press

Reichard, Christoph (1997): Neues Steuerungsmodell: Local Reform in Germany. In: Walter Kickert(ed.) (1997): Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 59-79

Reichard, Christoph: Education and Training for New Public Management. In: KunoSchedler/Lawrence R. Jones/Stephen W. Wade (eds.): International Perspectives on the NewPublic Management. In: Advances in International Comparative Management,Supplement 3. 1997. 329-348

Reichard, Christoph (2001): New Approaches to Public Management. In: Klaus Knig/Heinrich

Siedentopf (eds.) (2001): Public Administration in Germany. Baden-Baden: Nomos. 541-556Rber, Manfred (1996): Country Study Germany. In: Sylvia, Horton/David, Farnham/John,

Barlow/Annie, Hondeghem (eds.) (1996): New Public Managers in Europe. Public Servantsin Transition. Houndmills and London: Macmillan Business. 169-193

Rber, Manfred/Lffler, Elke (2000): Germany: the Limitations of Flexibility Reforms. In: David,Farnham/Sylvia, Horton (eds.) (2000): Human Resources Flexibilities in the Public Services.International Perspectives. Houndmills and London: Macmillan Business. 115-134

Schily, Otto/Heesen, Peter/Bsirske, Frank (2004): Neue Wege im ffentlichen Dienst. Eckpunkte freine Reform des Beamtenrechts. Berlin

Siedentopf, Heinrich (1990): The Public Service. In: Knig, Klaus/von Oertzen, HanzJoachim/Wagener, Frido (eds.) (1990): Public Administration in the Federal Republic ofGermany. Baden-Baden: Nomos. 235-246

Siedentopf, Heinrich/Sommermann, Karl Peter/Hauschild, Christoph (1993): The Rule of Law inPublic Administration. The German Approach. Speyerer Forschungsberichte, no 122, Speyer:Forschungsinstitut fr ffentliche Verwaltung

Schrter, Eckhard/Wollmann, Hellmut: Public Sector Reforms in Germany: Whence and Where? ACase of Ambivalence. In: Adminstrative Studies/Haillinnon Tutmikus 3, 1997. 184-200

Statistisches Bundesamt 1991-2001: Fachserie 14, Reihe 6. Wiesbaden

Statistisches Bundesamt (1996): Lange Reihen zur Wirtschaftsentwicklung 1996

Statistisches Bundesamt (1996): Statistisches Jahrbuch 1996. Wiesbaden

Statistisches Bundesamt (2003): Statistisches Jahrbuch 2003. Wiesbaden

108


21/21

Sturm, E. (1961): Die Entwicklung des ffentlichen Dienstes in Deutschland. In: Carl Hermann Ule,C. H. (Hrsg.) (1961): Die Entwicklung des ffentlichen Dienstes. Kln etc. 11 ff

White, Geoff/Lffler, Elke: Pay Flexibility in the German and British Civil Services. In: EmployeeRelations Review 1:4. March 1998. 10-16

Wollmann, Hellmut (1996): Institutionenbildung in Ostdeutschland: Neubau, Umbau und schpferischeZerstrung. In: Kaase, Max/Eisen, Andreas/Gabriel, Oscar W./Niedermayer, Oscar/Wollmann,

Hellmut (Hrsg.) (1996): Politisches System. Opladen: Leske+Budrich. 47-153

109

rober - civil service in germany.pdf

Documents