Introduction

Ministerial bureaucracy fulfils a key function within the German political system. Compared to parliament(s) and party central offices, federal ministries traditionally have access to a much more differentiated and sophisticated as well as professional and competent political ‘apparatus’ to provide information and appropriate solutions for society. Thus, over the years, ministerial bureaucracy has set up strong in-house capacities. More than 18,000 people are employed at federal ministries, about one half in Berlin and the other half in Bonn – a difficult situation that goes back to the times of unification.

But in an increasingly complex world these capacities seem to be reaching their limits – and have been more and more supplemented by scientific advisory boards (for instance, the German Council of Economic Experts) and influential commissions of experts (see Chapter 10, this volume). Prominent examples of this are the Hartz Commission (2002: labour market reforms), the Rürup Commission (2002/03: pensions, health and care insurance reforms) and the Süssmuth Commission (2000/01: immigration policies) or the latest Ethikkommission für eine sichere Energieversorgung (2011: Expert Commission on [Renewable] Energy Supply). Is this evolution of external commissions accompanied by a downgrade of the permanent in-house capacities of the federal government? Or is it more for the ‘frontstage’ of public debates?

Reform policy, planning and political administrative capacities: a short history since the mid-1960s

According to this, policy-making and policy analysis are core functions of the modern state. They are situated institutionally in governments, administration, parliament and the public. Time-wise policy-making moves along the policy cycle, from agenda-setting, formulation and decision-making about policies to their evaluation. Lastly, there is a functional dimension, a differentiation along policy areas or sub-systems, and that means mostly according to the respective ministries (Grunow, 2003; Howlett and Ramesh, 2003).

We are dealing with a complex set of issues that are difficult to be reflected analytically and where a considerable amount of variance occurs. This makes it particularly difficult to establish ‘large’ theories or to develop recommendations for action that can be generalised.