Germany's 'debt brake' at centre of economic debate
The rule, which strictly limits government borrowing, now finds itself at the centre of debate over Europe's ailing top economy, a key election battleground.
Critics blame it for years of chronic underinvestment that has caused infrastructure to deteriorate, kept defence spending low and hit education standards. Its defenders insist it has helped keep the country's finances stable.
Here are some questions and answers about the controversial rule:
What is the debt brake?
The constitutionally enshrined measure prevents the central government from running a deficit of more than 0.35 percent of annual GDP, except in emergencies.
It was introduced in 2009 by the government of then-chancellor Angela Merkel, at a time of debate about national debt levels during the global financial crisis.
More than two-thirds of the upper and lower houses of parliament voted for the rule, as it required a change to the constitution. It came into force for the federal government in 2016.
It was suspended for four years to permit extra spending during the coronavirus pandemic and then the energy crisis triggered by Russia's war in Ukraine, but it came back into force in 2024.
What do its supporters say?
They say it has helped keep spending levels under control in Europe's top economy -- Germany's public debt is around 60 percent of GDP compared to around 100 percent or more for most other G7 countries.
One of its key political backers is the pro-business Free Democratic Party, part of Scholz's coalition. It argues that the brake ensures that future generations are not burdened with the debts taken on by their forebears.
"Every euro of debt taken on today will have to be repaid by future generations," the party says.
But the refusal of party leader Christian Lindner to countenance any easing of the rule when he was finance minister under Scholz left him at loggerheads with his coalition partners, and contributed to the government's implosion.
What about criticism?
Critics blame the brake for preventing investment in areas such as defence, as US President Donald Trump pressures Europe to boost funding, and for infrastructure problems, from late trains to patchy internet.
Other challenges, such as decarbonising the economy, also need vast public outlays.
Meeting them will require an additional 782 billion euros ($811 billion) of government spending between now and 2030, according to the Dezernat Zukunft think tank.
"It is almost certain (that the country) will take on more debt in the future for public infrastructure and defence," said Klaus Baader, the chief economist with France's Societe Generale bank.
The government created off-budget funds for spending in certain areas such as defence and climate, drawing accusations they had engaged in accounting trickery to circumvent the rules.
The constitutional court ruled in November that the government had indeed broken the debt rules, specifically over a manoeuvre where they transferred money from a coronavirus support fund into climate change investments.
The ruling blew a hole in the coalition's budget, ratcheting up tensions over the brake.
What happens after the election?
Leader of the centre-right opposition and favourite to be the next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has sent mixed signals about the brake.
His CDU party's position is that it should remain but he has occasionally indicated an openness to reforming it in certain circumstances.
In a recent television debate with centre-left leader Scholz, he gave vague answers when asked about the subject: "One can discuss anything, but certainly not at first."
Scholz's SPD -- whom some speculate could end up in coalition with the CDU -- backs loosening the strict rules to boost investment, a position shared by the Greens.
Much will however depend on the shape of the new ruling coalition after the February 23 election.
If fringe parties, such as the far-right AfD and far-left BSW do well, it could inhibit the ability of the mainstream parties to push reform of the brake through parliament, as that would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
3 days ago
- DW
Why Germany's former chancellor has triggered fresh outrage – DW – 06/24/2025
Ex-Chancellor Olaf Scholz is to receive a state-paid office with a staff of eight. Opposition parties say this is too much. Parties of the far-left and far-right in Germany are criticizing the decision to afford former Chancellor Olaf Scholz his own office with a staff of eight — on top of his regular office as a member of the Bundestag. Stephan Brandner, parliamentary whip for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), said he could understand former chancellors receiving a staff of three as well as a driver. "But what eight employees are supposed to do for an ex-chancellor who has not completed a full term of office remains completely unclear and is nothing more than a waste of tax money," he told newspaper. Christian Görke of the socialist Left Party took a similar line, arguing that the entire idea of giving former chancellors offices to work from should be scrapped, "They don't need their own court for life," he said. "The offices must be dissolved." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Former German chancellors and presidents are traditionally given their own offices for life after their terms end on the grounds that they can never simply retire and become private citizens again and are considered to still have responsibilities to the state. In Scholz's case, the Finance Ministry has said that the former chancellor's work is likely to be especially vital because Russia's all-out war in Ukraine began during his tenure. Government spokesperson Stefan Kornelius told reporters that the Social Democrat's expertise would still be required, as the war in Ukraine was "still a really central foreign policy and security policy issue." He added that Scholz's successor and opponent in the last federal election, Friedrich Merz of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), considered Scholz's planned staffing appropriate. Scholz's eight employees is one fewer than his predecessor Angela Merkel was afforded when she left office in 2021, but it is four more than the parliamentary budget committee recommended in a 2019 review. The committee proposed that former chancellors be allotted one office manager, two advisors, an office assistant or typist and a driver. The tradition of giving former German leaders offices and staff has come under increased scrutiny following various controversies. In 2012, the Bundestag afforded the former President Christian Wulff was also afforded an office with a staff of three even though he was still under investigation by state prosecutors for allegedly accepting bribes. The scandal, among other things involving a film producer who allegedly paid for his holidays, prematurely ended Wulff's brief tenure as the German head of state, though he was later cleared of any wrongdoing. More recently, in 2022, the Bundestag wound down the office of former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, with a staff of five, after Russia's all-out invasion of Ukraine. Though the Bundestag argued that the decision was made because Schröder no longer had any important tasks to fulfill, it was widely believed — and Schröder argued — that the decision was made because of the former chancellor's close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Schröder sued the Bundestag over the decision in state courts before a federal court decided that the administrative courts had no authority to rule on the case in the first place. Schröder, now aged 81, then decided to drop the case altogether. But the Schröder case did have an effect, according to Klaus Herrmann, a specialist in administrative law at the legal firm Dombert in Potsdam. During the legal wrangling, the courts established that former chancellors and presidents (or indeed any government office holders) don't automatically have a legal claim to an office and staff on the state's costs. All they are entitled to is a pension. Nevertheless, Herrmann thinks the costs of financing an office for former chancellors are justified, as former heads of state and government are vital resources for their successors, as well as journalists and historians. "They have networks, they have telephone numbers," he told DW. "They can be asked for advice, and if they have an office, they are reachable. They don't sit around at home and look after their roses. They can be called upon to help with state business, in order to support the parliamentary government — with ideas, with contacts, and so on."While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter, Berlin Briefing.
DW
3 days ago
- DW
Trump's dealmaker claims up tension between India, US – DW – 06/23/2025
There is new friction in the India-US relationship after Washington claimed that it helped broker a ceasefire between India and Pakistan by leveraging trade talks. US President Donald Trump's claim that he personally brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan during May's conflict has caused some diplomatic friction. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Trump in a telephone call that the ceasefire was achieved through talks between the Indian and Pakistani militaries and not US mediation, India's foreign secretary, Vikram Misri, said in a statement following the call. "PM Modi told President Trump clearly that during this period, there was no talk at any stage on subjects like India-US trade deal or US mediation between India and Pakistan," Misri said. "Prime Minister Modi emphasized that India has not accepted mediation in the past and never will," Misri added. There was no separate readout of the call from the White House. Modi and Trump were scheduled to meet on the sidelines of the Group of Seven (G7) Summit in Canada, but didn't because of the US president's hasty departure due to the situation in the Middle East. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Although Modi and Trump enjoy a personal rapport, there is a belief that Trump's unpredictability and transactional approach to foreign policy matters may be straining the relationship. India is currently negotiating a trade deal with the United States, but talks have encountered hurdles as the July 9 deadline approaches for the end of a 90-day pause on most tariffs threatened by the Trump administration against US trade partners. Ajay Bisaria, a former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, told DW that India has so far handled Trump with strategic composure. "But, when the US president repeatedly and publicly claims an outsize role in mediating the recent India-Pakistan conflict, expect public corrections from India," Bisaria said. "Public opinion in India now tends to see the US as an unreliable partner," he added. Though Delhi understands that the India-US relationship is deeper than White House pronouncements, Bisaria said, Indian officials cannot ignore public diplomacy challenges. "Each time Washington indulges Pakistan's military, like President Trump's recent lunch with its army chief, General Asim Munir, it sends the wrong signal," Bisaria said. India has accused Pakistan of "supporting terrorism" from across the border after the April 22 attack on civilians in India-administered Kashmir that killed 26 people. The attack was claimed by a group calling itself the Kashmir Resistance, which India says is also known as The Resistance Front and is linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a UN-designated terrorist organization. New Delhi blamed Islamabad for backing the attack, an allegation Pakistan has denied. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The lunch meeting between Trump and General Munir, which took place at the White House last week, was a unique event as it marked the first time a sitting US president officially hosted a Pakistani army chief who was not also serving as the head of state. Many viewed it as provocative given the recent tensions. "India's diplomatic message to the US will remain clear: Sanction — don't embrace — Pakistan's generals," Bisaria said. Meera Shankar, a former Indian envoy to the United States, had a different take. She told DW that it was perhaps somewhat clumsy to rebut Trump's claims of having brokered an end to the recent India-Pakistan conflict, since India did not seek a full-scale conflict. She said it was possible that the Trump administration had helped persuade Pakistan to pull back. "The Indian government was facing domestic criticism for allowing foreign intervention," Shankar said, "and I think the rebuttal was responding to this." "The feting of Asim Munir in the US must be seen in the context of the US military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities," she said. "It is likely that the US was seeking some facilities from Pakistan in this context." Shankar said there was concern that the India-US strategic partnership could be coming under stress because of missteps from the Trump administration. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video "There is a need to show sensitivity to each other's concerns and to strengthen communication," Shankar said. The United States cannot afford to isolate India in countering China's rise in the Indo-Pacific region. India will host the 2025 Quad Summit in September, with Trump expected to attend. The group — made up of the United States, Japan, Australia and India — focuses on promoting stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region, particularly in response to China's assertiveness. The last time the Indian and US leaders met was in February after Trump was sworn in for his second presidential term, with the visit underscoring the importance both men placed on their relationship. Amitabh Mattoo, dean of the School of International Studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University, told DW that the recent developments have introduced friction and mistrust into the relationship. "The US has pursued short-term and deal-based diplomacy," Mattoo said, "and this transactional approach has undermined mutual trust and fostered a sense of unpredictability." "This raises concerns about India's relations with the Trump administration … but the partnership can overcome challenges and shape a better, durable future — and also offer an opportunity for renewal," Mattoo said.
DW
3 days ago
- DW
Germany's Ex-Chancellor Olaf Scholz triggers outrage – DW – 06/24/2025
Ex-Chancellor Olaf Scholz is to receive a state-paid office with a staff of eight. Opposition parties say this is too much. Parties of the far-left and far-right in Germany are criticizing the decision to afford former Chancellor Olaf Scholz his own office with a staff of eight — on top of his regular office as a member of the Bundestag. Stephan Brandner, parliamentary whip for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), said he could understand former chancellors receiving a staff of three as well as a driver. "But what eight employees are supposed to do for an ex-chancellor who has not completed a full term of office remains completely unclear and is nothing more than a waste of tax money," he told newspaper. Christian Görke of the socialist Left Party took a similar line, arguing that the entire idea of giving former chancellors offices to work from should be scrapped: "They don't need their own court for life," he said. "The offices must be dissolved." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Former German chancellors and presidents are traditionally given their own offices for life after their terms end, on the grounds that they can never simply retire and become private citizens again and are considered to still have responsibilities to the state. In Scholz's case, the Finance Ministry has said that the former chancellor's work is likely to be especially vital because Russia's all-out war in Ukraine began during his tenure. Government spokesperson Stefan Kornelius told reporters that the Social Democrat's expertise would still be required, as the war in Ukraine was "still a really central foreign policy and security policy issue." He added that Scholz's successor and opponent in the last federal election, Friedrich Merz of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), considered Scholz's planned staffing appropriate. Scholz's eight employees is one fewer than his predecessor Angela Merkel was afforded when she left office in 2021, but it is four more than the parliamentary budget committee recommended in a 2019 review, which proposed that former chancellors be allotted one office manager, two advisors, an office assistant or typist and a driver. The tradition of giving former German leaders offices and staff has come under increased scrutiny following various controversies. In 2012, the former President Christian Wulff was also afforded an office with a staff of three by the Bundestag, even though he was still under investigation by state prosecutors for allegedly accepting bribes. The scandal — among other things involving a film producer who allegedly paid for his holidays — prematurely ended Wulff's brief tenure as the German head of state, though he was later cleared of any wrongdoing. More recently, in 2022, the Bundestag wound down the office of former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, with a staff of five, after Russia's all-out invasion of Ukraine. Though the Bundestag argued that the decision was made because Schröder no longer had any important tasks to fulfill, it was widely believed — and Schröder argued — that the decision was made because of the former chancellor's close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Schröder sued the Bundestag over the decision in state courts — before a federal court decided that the administrative courts had no authority to rule on the case in the first place. Schröder, now aged 81, then decided to drop the case altogether. But the Schröder case did have an effect, according to Klaus Herrmann, a specialist in administrative law at the legal firm Dombert in Potsdam. During the legal wrangling, the courts established that former chancellors and presidents (or indeed any government office holders) don't automatically have a legal claim to an office and staff on the state's costs. All they are entitled to is a pension. Nevertheless, Herrmann thinks the costs of financing an office for former chancellors are justified, as former heads of state and government are vital resources for their successors, as well as journalists and historians. "They have networks, they have telephone numbers," he told DW. "They can be asked for advice, and if they have an office, they are reachable. They don't sit around at home and look after their roses. They can be called upon to help with state business, in order to support the parliamentary government — with ideas, with contacts, and so on."While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter, Berlin Briefing.
