SHARE
COPY LINK
For members

ECONOMY

Schuldenbremse: What is Germany’s debt brake and how does it affect residents?

Nothing sums up Germany's cautious relationship with money quite as well as the debt brake - but this little clause in the constitution has recently caused no end of chaos. Here's what you need to know about the so-called 'Schuldenbremse'.

A cyclist passes the Federal Finance Ministry in central Berlin.
A cyclist passes the Federal Finance Ministry in central Berlin. Photo: picture alliance/dpa | Kay Nietfeld

What is the debt brake and why did Germany introduce it?

Known as the Schuldenbremse in German, the debt brake is a cap on government borrowing that’s enshrined in Germany’s constitution. It states that the federal government can only take on a certain amount of new debt in each fiscal year.

This is capped at 0.35 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – the amount of money the country produces each year in goods and services. Though GDP varies from year to year, this generally gives the government enough wiggle room to borrow around €9 billion annually.

When it comes to spending on a regional level – i.e. by state governments in Germany – the rules are even stricter. States aren’t allowed to borrow any money to fund their plans and must therefore create balanced budgets that finance spending exclusively through tax income and money from the central government.

But why exactly has Germany decided to tie itself to such strict rules on spending? Well, there are quite a few answers to that. 

Back in 2009, the Grand Coalition of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Social Democrats (SPD), led by Angela Merkel, decided to bring the debt brake into law. At the time, the global economy was struggling to deal with the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis, and Germany was racking up a huge deficit. 

The idea was to bring borrowing back under control as soon as possible and prevent leaving billions of euros in debt for future generations to pay off. It also paid homage to the main edicts of neo-liberalism, creating a streamlined state with little room for generous investments or high social welfare payments. 

Thanks to the ongoing effects of the financial crisis, the debt break only came into force seven years after it was put in the constitution. This means that since 2016, the federal governments have been tied to 0.35 percent cap on borrowing.

That said, there are a few exceptions to the Schuldenbremse: in periods of national emergency, such as natural disasters or pandemics, the government is allowed to put the debt brake to one side. That’s exactly what happened during the Covid pandemic in the years 2020 to 2022, and now it appears it will be put aside for the fourth year in a row. In other words, it has been sidelined for exactly half of the time it has been in place.

READ ALSO: Germany to seek debt rule suspension for 2023

Why has the debt brake been in the news recently?

The debt brake was put in the spotlight in early November when Germany’s Constitutional Court declared tens of billions of earmarked government spending to be ‘unconstitutional’.

The case related to €60 billion of borrowing that was originally intended for tackling the Covid crisis but had later been diverted towards a fund for fighting climate change known as the Climate and Transformation Fund.

In normal cases, moving unspent money around wouldn’t be a problem – but in this case, the specific rules around the debt brake came into play. Utilising the exceptions in the debt brake, the €60 billion was borrowed for the purpose of stabilising the economy during the pandemic – and as such it was only supposed to go towards tackling that emergency.

Wind turbines in Germany

Wind turbines in the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein. Photo: picture alliance/dpa | Christian Charisius

Beyond this amount, which already represents a huge chunk of the national budget, the court decision also invalidated the Economic Stabilisation Fund (WSF). This fund was also originally set up during the Covid crisis and later repurposed as Olaf Scholz’s ‘Doppelwumms’: a €200 billion pot that paid for the energy price breaks and other relief measures in the wake of the Ukraine war. 

READ ALSO:

Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) announced that the debt brake would be set aside for one more year to allow the government to meet its financial commitments for 2023. However, the budget for next year – and how the significant gaps in funding will be filled – still remain unclear.

The crisis has sparked a major debate among politicians about whether the debt brake is still fit for purpose. 

What do critics of the debt brake say? 

As you might expect, the tight controls on spending aren’t popular with everyone – especially those on the left on the political spectrum. 

Proponents of the debt brake say we should lower the deficit to avoid lumbering future generations with unmanageable debts, but critics of the mechanism make the opposite argument. They say that straightjacketing spending will actually put a strain on future generations as the government will be unable to invest in modern infrastructure and could therefore be hindering growth.

If borrowing is slashed too much and tax revenues don’t increase, projects like the green transformation, upgrading public transport and pushing ahead with digitalisation will inevitably be put on the backburner. The government will be forced to prioritise its urgent day to day spending in the present rather than trying to invest in the future – and it could also be forced to cut vital public services.

Deutsche Bahn train

Deutsche Bahn staff give the sign for an ICE high speed train to leave the main railway station in Stuttgart, southern Germany, on August 11, 2021. Photo by THOMAS KIENZLE / AFP

Other critics argue that the debt brake was appropriate at the time when it was introduced but that times have changed and governments require more flexibility. 

In the early to mid-2000s, Germany was riding high on a booming manufacturing and exports sector fuelled by cheap Russian gas, and had made little attempt to invest in renewable energy. Now, however, with Germany transitioning away from cheap Russian gas while trying to slash the country’s carbon emissions, Germany is faced with numerous expensive challenges at a time when the economy is especially weak – meaning borrowing more or raising more taxes feel like an inevitability. 

READ ALSO: ‘2024 a turning point’: When will Germany’s rail network run on time?

Could the debt brake be reformed in the future?

That’s certainly an idea that’s come from multiple camps – not least Economics Minister Robert Habeck of the Green Party. Speaking at the recent Green Party Conference, Habeck slammed the current rules on borrowing, stating: “With the debt brake as it is, we have voluntarily tied our hands behind our backs and are going into a boxing match.”

According to Habeck, the debt brake should be reformed according to the “green golden rule” to allow borrowing for investments rather than everyday spending. This is an idea that has also been put forward by economists.

Saskia Esken, the co-leader of the SPD, has also spoken out in favour of a reform of the debt brake to avoid putting a drag on growth in the future. 

However, the likelihood of this happening seems low at the moment, even if Greens and SPD politicians – and some members of the CDU – are in favour of it. 

That’s because it takes a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag to change any aspect of the Grundgesetz, or constitution – a much higher bar than the simple majority needed to change a law.

The FDP, who are in the coalition alongside the Greens and SPD, are also fiercely opposed to any reform of the debt brake and want to rein in government spending instead. 

Christian Lindner

German Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) speaks in the Bundestag. Photo: picture alliance/dpa | Michael Kappeler

Messing with this fiscal rule could also prove unpopular: a recent poll found that 61 percent on Germans were opposed to any reform of the debt brake, as opposed to 35 percent who were in favour of it, and 4 percent who didn’t know. 

It means that in the medium term at least, the government may have to take a scalpel to its previous spending plans, cutting spending on investment projects, public services like healthcare and transport and social welfare such as child and unemployment benefits. Or it may find a way to raise some taxes without upsetting the FDP. 

READ ALSO: How Germany’s budget crisis could affect you

Member comments

  1. If the €60 billion is not allowed to go into the Climate and Transformation Fund, where does it go? I would assume it is paid back to whoever holds the debt for the Covid funds but I do not know for sure. Thanks in advance for clarifying.

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.

ECONOMY

Why two leading grocery delivery apps are leaving Germany in May

Speedy delivery services boomed during the Covid years, offering customers the chance to have groceries delivered in minutes. But now two of Germany’s bigger players are leaving the country entirely. Could this be the end of the on-demand delivery trend?

Why two leading grocery delivery apps are leaving Germany in May

Speedy delivery start-ups Getir and Gorillas will leave Germany by mid-May.

After the 15th, customers will no longer be able to order groceries via the Getir or Gorillas apps, and delivery couriers in Getir’s branded purple suits, or Gorilla’s black jackets, will no longer be seen making dizzying laps on Germany’s urban streets.

Getir’s remaining warehouses will be closed down over the next couple weeks. According to WirtschaftsWoche, 1,800 Getir employees in Germany have already received termination notices.

The Gorillas app has continued to serve customers but is owned entirely by Getir, meaning that grocery delivery by Gorillas will also cease in Germany this month.

Why are grocery delivery apps failing?

The speedy grocery sector, sometimes called quick commerce (Q-commerce), grew immensely in recent years. But none of the fast grocery delivery start-ups have managed to turn a profit. 

They have instead been fuelled by large sums of investor money, which was easy to grab when customer numbers rose through the Covid pandemic.

Turkey-based Getir was founded in 2015 and began rapidly expanding in Europe six years later. At its peak, it had a valuation of $12 billion (€11.2 billion).

Meanwhile, Berlin-based Gorillas was founded in 2020, and expanded rapidly across the capital city, subsequently rolling out across Germany and the EU and even entering the US.

Shortly after Gorillas came Flink: yet another Berlin-based grocery delivery start-up, but in pink. Both Gorillas and Flink succeeded in achieving unicorn status, meaning that they grew to a $1 billion valuation within their first year of business.

However, Gorillas’ shining success was short-lived. From early on, the start-up faced criticism from workers who complained about physically hazardous working conditions, faulty gear, and stressful performance demands. 

Meanwhile the company was rapidly burning through investment capital in its efforts to expand into new markets and coax in new customers with hefty discounts.

READ ALSO: German discount supermarket Aldi Süd launches delivery service

Getir bought Gorillas at the end of 2022, despite signs that Gorillas was crashing at the time.

One year later, the writing was on the wall for Getir as it began winding down operations in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal. In August of 2023, Getir announced that it was laying off 2,500 workers, equal to about 11 percent of its staff at the time.

According to British broadcaster Sky, shareholders have agreed to give further funding to Getir on the condition that the company withdraw from the UK, Germany and the Netherlands to instead focus on expansion in its home market in Turkey.

With Getir and Gorillas out of the way, Flink has secured its position as Germany’s market leader. According to Flink, its annual turnover is twice as much as Getir’s, at €560 million.

But even as the clear market leader, whether or not Flink can succeed in making rapid delivery profitable remains to be seen.

The company reportedly secured a further €100 million to extend its runway in Germany for the time being.

Betting on speed was a fatal miscalculation

Those who lived in Germany’s bigger cities in 2020 or 2021 may recall a period when delivery apps like Gorillas, Flink and others were dominating advertisement spaces on the streets and in U-bahn stations.

Gorillas infamously promoted deliveries in “ten minutes” on its billboards, and even on the backpacks and jackets that its riders wore.

Gorillas backpack on a rider

“Groceries delivered in 10 minutes” was among Gorillas’ initial marketing campaigns. Photo: picture alliance/dpa | Annette Riedl

Eventually the brand phased out the ten minute suggestion, presumably because most deliveries took longer than that. But it stuck with speed-focused marketing, turning instead to slogans like “faster than you”.

But market analysts have since determined that the focus on speed was a mistake. Logistically, providing super quick deliveries requires too many warehouse locations and too many employees.

With rents and other costs increasing recently, the weaknesses of the speed-based delivery business model were exposed.

Delivery jobs can be hazardous and exploitative

Delivery start-ups also faced protests and bad press as delivery and warehouse workers complained that they suffered immense stress on the job, and bodily injuries. 

Furthermore many delivery companies stood accused of trying to circumvent workers’ protections, traditionally seen as a key pillar of Germany’s social market economy, by hiring most of their workforce as “self-employed” contractors rather than full or part-time employees.

Gorillas, in particular, faced an onslaught of bad press for years as the so-called Gorillas workers’ collective organised countless protests against the company, and dozens of cases of wage-theft were brought in Berlin’s courts.

Even as Gorillas and Getir exit Germany, these issues can be expected to continue.

On Friday, German and Dutch food couriers protested in front of the headquarters of Just Eat Takeaway in Amsterdam. Just Eat Takeaway is the parent company for Lieferando, which has about 7,000 employees in Germany. 

In response to these kinds of labour disputes, the EU Parliament recently adopted a Platform Directive aiming to improve the working conditions and rights of platform workers at food delivery companies, including measures to prevent companies from hiring “self-employed” workers.

The EU directive also hopes to provide protections for consumers. Companies with delivery apps will be obliged to provide more transparency about how their algorithms work.

READ ALSO: REVEALED – Where to buy groceries on a Sunday in Berlin

SHOW COMMENTS