welt.de
German Government Growth Defies Lean State Promises
German political parties promise leaner government, but data shows an 11,500-post increase (6.3%) under the current coalition, with the number of parliamentary state secretaries at a record 37, exposing a disconnect between campaign rhetoric and administrative reality.
- What is the discrepancy between German political parties' promises of a leaner state and the actual growth in government personnel?
- German political parties promise leaner government, but data shows an 11,500-post increase under the current coalition, a 6.3% rise. The number of parliamentary state secretaries has also reached a record high of 37.
- How does the increase in government personnel under the current coalition compare to previous administrations, and what factors contribute to this ongoing growth?
- Promises of a leaner state contrast sharply with a 27% increase in civil servants since 2017 (152,229 to 194,034). This growth, independent of ruling parties, exposes the disconnect between campaign rhetoric and administrative reality.
- What systemic factors hinder the implementation of effective measures to reduce the size and cost of the German government, and what long-term consequences are anticipated?
- The planned reforms to streamline the German government are unlikely to succeed, given the historical trend of increasing civil servants regardless of the ruling party. Future governments will likely face similar challenges in reducing administrative personnel.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the discussion around the failure of political parties to deliver on their promises of a leaner state. The headline and introduction emphasize the discrepancy between promises and reality, highlighting the continuous growth of the bureaucracy. This framing potentially creates negative sentiment towards the parties and casts doubt on their credibility. The use of phrases like " gewohnt vollmundig" (habitually full-bodied) adds a subjective and negative tone.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "vollmundig" (full-bodied, implying exaggeration), "historischen Höchstwert" (historical high), and "Operation Abendsonne" (literally 'evening sun operation,' implying a last-minute rush of promotions). These phrases convey a negative sentiment towards the government's actions. Neutral alternatives might include 'ambitious', 'high', and 'pre-election appointments'. The repeated emphasis on the growth in personnel numbers reinforces a critical perspective.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the increasing number of government employees and the promises of different parties to reduce it, but omits discussion on the reasons behind the increase. Factors such as increased societal demands, technological advancements requiring new personnel, or changes in government responsibilities are not explored. This omission prevents a complete understanding of the issue and might lead to a misinterpretation of the situation.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as a simple choice between parties promising a 'leaner state' and the reality of a growing bureaucracy. It overlooks the complexities and nuances of government administration, such as the need for skilled personnel and appropriate resources to handle diverse and expanding government responsibilities.
Gender Bias
The article mentions the Interior Minister Nancy Faeser and focuses on her initiative to change the civil service regulations, which could have facilitated the appointment of party members. However, the analysis does not show any explicit gender bias in the coverage, and it is not possible to confirm whether similar efforts were undertaken by male politicians without additional information.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the increasing number of government officials and civil servants, despite promises from various political parties to streamline the state. This expansion of bureaucracy can exacerbate inequalities by concentrating power and resources within the government, potentially hindering equitable distribution and access to services for the wider population. The failure to reduce the size of the government as promised indicates a lack of commitment to efficient resource allocation and potentially a continuation of practices that disadvantage marginalized groups.