Sensemaking
#10Key Findings
In the category of sensemaking, Germany falls into the sample’s upper-middle ranks (rank 10).
Strategic foresight has gained importance via a strategic foresight group in the Federal Chancellery and a separate center supporting the government more broadly. This has increased attention to long-term trends.
Regulatory impact assessments are mandatory for all laws and regulations, even in emergencies. The primary focus has been on costs, with less attention given to potential benefits. Stakeholders are often integrated into the assessment process. Sustainability issues are included, and the country has a formal sustainability strategy in place.
Any law or regulation entailing significant aggregate compliance costs must be evaluated after three to five years. Ministries have flexibility in how they conduct these evaluations, leading to varied approaches. Stakeholders are often involved, but this is not legally required.
Strategic foresight has gained importance via a strategic foresight group in the Federal Chancellery and a separate center supporting the government more broadly. This has increased attention to long-term trends.
Regulatory impact assessments are mandatory for all laws and regulations, even in emergencies. The primary focus has been on costs, with less attention given to potential benefits. Stakeholders are often integrated into the assessment process. Sustainability issues are included, and the country has a formal sustainability strategy in place.
Any law or regulation entailing significant aggregate compliance costs must be evaluated after three to five years. Ministries have flexibility in how they conduct these evaluations, leading to varied approaches. Stakeholders are often involved, but this is not legally required.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent can the central government foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization?
10
9
9
The central government can foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the central government can foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
5
4
3
4
3
The central government is rarely capable of fostering the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
2
1
1
The central government is not capable of fostering the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
Strategic foresight approaches have been strengthened in the German government over the past few years. The Bundesakademie für Sicherheitspolitik has established a Strategic Foresight Competence Center, which supports federal ministries and authorities in incorporating and expanding the concepts and methods of strategic foresight in their work. In particular, the BAKS offers the Strategic Foresight methodology seminar and other event formats (Bundesakademie für Sicherheitspolitik, 2024). The BAKS provides information about the broad arsenal of foresight methods, including most that are mentioned in the question.
The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) plays a coordinating role with its “Vorausschau” (Foresight) initiative. A mid-term conference of this initiative gathered contributions from various ministries, each of which has increasingly devoted resources to strategic foresight over the past ten years. Consequently, attention to long-term trends has grown. Structures also include a strategic foresight group in the Federal Chancellery. Experts see some impact of these increasing foresight analyses on government policies (Bovenschulte et al. 2021).
Currently, the BMBF Vorausschau initiative is ongoing, with trends and topics continuously being developed for discussion within and outside the BMBF. A future office has been established to systematically search for and briefly describe new developments using scientific methods. Every six months from 2019 to mid-2022, 50 to 60 topics were identified, updated, and then discussed with the Zukunftskreis (Future Circle), a committee of experts from science, business, and culture.
Finally, the Future Circle identifies topics that it believes could be important for future developments and should be further investigated. The initial focus – in a first detailed study – is on the social values of people and how they are changing. The Chancellor’s Council for the Future (“Zukunftsrat”) primarily advises the federal government on new developments in science and technology.
Other scientific institutions advising the government also apply strategic foresight tools. The German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) integrates strategic foresight into its policy advisory processes. Specialists aim to assist policymakers in making sophisticated, long-term decisions within a dynamic global context by applying foresight methodology. This adaptable methodology allows for customization to address specific circumstances in areas of interest (DGAP, 2024).
Information on whether strategic foresight know-how plays a significant role in the recruitment of top civil servants is not available. It is also unclear whether this forward-looking approach has already had a significant impact on policy reflections. The prevailing impression is that the German government often responds reactively to major upheavals and crises. For example, events such as the Russian aggression against Ukraine or the sudden halt of Russian gas imports were not systematically analyzed as potential scenarios beforehand.
Citations:
Bovenschulte, Marc, Simone Ehrenberg-Silies, Kerstin Goluchowicz, and Christoph Bogenstahl. 2021. “Regierungs-Foresight – Stand und Perspektiven.” Working Paper des Instituts für Innovation und Technik in der VDI/VDE-IT, Nr. 59.
Bundesakademie für Sicherheitspolitik. 2024. “Über uns.” www.baks.bund.de/de/die-baks/auftrag-und-aufgaben-der-bundesakademie-fuer-sicherheitspolitik
DGAP. 2024. “Strategic Foresight, Programs, Alfred von Oppenheim Center for the Future of Europe.” https://dgap.org/en/research/programs/alfred-von-oppenheim-center-future-europe/strategic-foresight
The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) plays a coordinating role with its “Vorausschau” (Foresight) initiative. A mid-term conference of this initiative gathered contributions from various ministries, each of which has increasingly devoted resources to strategic foresight over the past ten years. Consequently, attention to long-term trends has grown. Structures also include a strategic foresight group in the Federal Chancellery. Experts see some impact of these increasing foresight analyses on government policies (Bovenschulte et al. 2021).
Currently, the BMBF Vorausschau initiative is ongoing, with trends and topics continuously being developed for discussion within and outside the BMBF. A future office has been established to systematically search for and briefly describe new developments using scientific methods. Every six months from 2019 to mid-2022, 50 to 60 topics were identified, updated, and then discussed with the Zukunftskreis (Future Circle), a committee of experts from science, business, and culture.
Finally, the Future Circle identifies topics that it believes could be important for future developments and should be further investigated. The initial focus – in a first detailed study – is on the social values of people and how they are changing. The Chancellor’s Council for the Future (“Zukunftsrat”) primarily advises the federal government on new developments in science and technology.
Other scientific institutions advising the government also apply strategic foresight tools. The German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) integrates strategic foresight into its policy advisory processes. Specialists aim to assist policymakers in making sophisticated, long-term decisions within a dynamic global context by applying foresight methodology. This adaptable methodology allows for customization to address specific circumstances in areas of interest (DGAP, 2024).
Information on whether strategic foresight know-how plays a significant role in the recruitment of top civil servants is not available. It is also unclear whether this forward-looking approach has already had a significant impact on policy reflections. The prevailing impression is that the German government often responds reactively to major upheavals and crises. For example, events such as the Russian aggression against Ukraine or the sudden halt of Russian gas imports were not systematically analyzed as potential scenarios beforehand.
Citations:
Bovenschulte, Marc, Simone Ehrenberg-Silies, Kerstin Goluchowicz, and Christoph Bogenstahl. 2021. “Regierungs-Foresight – Stand und Perspektiven.” Working Paper des Instituts für Innovation und Technik in der VDI/VDE-IT, Nr. 59.
Bundesakademie für Sicherheitspolitik. 2024. “Über uns.” www.baks.bund.de/de/die-baks/auftrag-und-aufgaben-der-bundesakademie-fuer-sicherheitspolitik
DGAP. 2024. “Strategic Foresight, Programs, Alfred von Oppenheim Center for the Future of Europe.” https://dgap.org/en/research/programs/alfred-von-oppenheim-center-future-europe/strategic-foresight
Graph View
To what extent does the government conduct high-quality impact assessments to evaluate the potential effects of prepared legislation before implementation?
10
9
9
The government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
2
1
1
The government does not draw on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
Germany’s Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) system has received commendable scores from the OECD, according to their most recent assessment (OECD, 2022). The OECD evaluates RIA based on criteria such as systematic adoption, transparency, methodology, and oversight. In 2018, Germany, alongside Estonia and the Czech Republic, held a top position based on the combined score, marking an improvement from 2015 to 2018.
In Germany, RIAs are mandatory for all primary laws and subordinate regulations prepared by the federal government, with no exceptions. Even in emergency cases, legislative initiatives undergo a proportional impact assessment that analyzes the resulting compliance costs.
In terms of methodological rigor, a principle of proportionality is applied. Proposals with low compliance costs or those expected to bring about minor changes are exempt from detailed quantitative assessments, including compliance costs and other regulatory impacts. The decision to skip quantitative assessment requires approval from the National Regulatory Control Council (NKR), based on an estimation of regulatory compliance costs.
The focus of RIAs has largely been on the cost side of regulation, with less attention given to potential benefits.
Stakeholders participate in impact assessments through avenues such as parliamentary expert hearings during the legislative process. The Better Regulation Unit (BRU) in the Federal Chancellery serves as the central coordinating and monitoring body for the federal government’s program on better regulation and bureaucracy reduction. Its mandate has expanded to include the evaluation and enhancement of the ex ante procedure, assessing early-stage compliance costs for Germany in planned EU legislation.
Operating independently from the government, the National Regulatory Control Council (NKR) reviews the quality of all RIAs, provides advice throughout the rulemaking stages, and holds responsibilities in administrative simplification and burden reduction. In November 2019, the German government introduced additional requirements for independent quality control of ex post evaluations, a task also managed by the NKR.
Since 2018, Germany has centralized all ongoing public consultations on a government website in alignment with the federal government’s commitment to enhancing transparency in the legislative process.
Citations:
OECD. 2022. Better Regulation Practices across the European Union. Paris: OECD Publishing.
In Germany, RIAs are mandatory for all primary laws and subordinate regulations prepared by the federal government, with no exceptions. Even in emergency cases, legislative initiatives undergo a proportional impact assessment that analyzes the resulting compliance costs.
In terms of methodological rigor, a principle of proportionality is applied. Proposals with low compliance costs or those expected to bring about minor changes are exempt from detailed quantitative assessments, including compliance costs and other regulatory impacts. The decision to skip quantitative assessment requires approval from the National Regulatory Control Council (NKR), based on an estimation of regulatory compliance costs.
The focus of RIAs has largely been on the cost side of regulation, with less attention given to potential benefits.
Stakeholders participate in impact assessments through avenues such as parliamentary expert hearings during the legislative process. The Better Regulation Unit (BRU) in the Federal Chancellery serves as the central coordinating and monitoring body for the federal government’s program on better regulation and bureaucracy reduction. Its mandate has expanded to include the evaluation and enhancement of the ex ante procedure, assessing early-stage compliance costs for Germany in planned EU legislation.
Operating independently from the government, the National Regulatory Control Council (NKR) reviews the quality of all RIAs, provides advice throughout the rulemaking stages, and holds responsibilities in administrative simplification and burden reduction. In November 2019, the German government introduced additional requirements for independent quality control of ex post evaluations, a task also managed by the NKR.
Since 2018, Germany has centralized all ongoing public consultations on a government website in alignment with the federal government’s commitment to enhancing transparency in the legislative process.
Citations:
OECD. 2022. Better Regulation Practices across the European Union. Paris: OECD Publishing.
To what extent does the government effectively incorporate sustainability assessments within the framework of RIAs?
10
9
9
High-quality sustainability assessments are incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
8
7
6
7
6
High-quality sustainability assessments are, for the most part, incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
5
4
3
4
3
High-quality sustainability assessments are rarely incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
2
1
1
Sustainability assessments are not incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
Germany has committed to a formal sustainability strategy since 2002 and has continuously developed this strategy, now aligning with the SDGs. The last update of the strategy occurred in 2021 (Bundesregierung, 2021), and the next revision is ongoing, with a further update expected in 2024 (Bundesregierung, 2023).
There are no explicit SDG-related action plans, but the ministries are bound by this strategy when developing their policies. The Federal Chancellery leads on sustainability issues, and oversight, advisory, consultative, and cross-government coordination mechanisms are in place. A system of SDG-related indicators is used to define targets and check for compliance.
Since 2009, the Joint Rules of Procedure of the Federal Ministries (GGO) have stipulated that impact assessments must demonstrate whether the effects of a project align with sustainable development (Section 44 (1) sentence 4 GGO). This requirement entails examining the effects on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their specific targets, as well as the goals and indicators of the German Sustainable Development Strategy, in detail. The GGO explicitly requires consideration of the long-term consequences of the measure. To facilitate this assessment, a web-based tool for electronic sustainability assessment (eNAP) is available (BMJ, 2023).
In the German Bundestag, the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Sustainable Development monitors German sustainability policy. One of its tasks is to oversee the sustainability assessments conducted by the ministries as part of the legislative impact assessment.
The capacity to measure progress is generally strong. Germany’s statistical agencies, both at the federal and state levels, possess substantial capabilities, high expertise, and integrity, ensuring they provide reliable data on progress concerning the SDGs.
Citations:
Bundesregierung. 2021. Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie, Weiterentwicklung 2021. Berlin.
Bundesregierung. 2023. “Die Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie, Ein Kompass für die Zukunft.” www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/nachhaltigkeitspolitik/deutsche-nachhaltigkeitsstrategie-318846
Bundesministerium der Justiz. 2023. “Nachhaltige Gesetzgebung.” www.bmj.de/DE/ministerium/nachhaltigkeit/gesetzgebung/gesetzgebung_node.html
There are no explicit SDG-related action plans, but the ministries are bound by this strategy when developing their policies. The Federal Chancellery leads on sustainability issues, and oversight, advisory, consultative, and cross-government coordination mechanisms are in place. A system of SDG-related indicators is used to define targets and check for compliance.
Since 2009, the Joint Rules of Procedure of the Federal Ministries (GGO) have stipulated that impact assessments must demonstrate whether the effects of a project align with sustainable development (Section 44 (1) sentence 4 GGO). This requirement entails examining the effects on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their specific targets, as well as the goals and indicators of the German Sustainable Development Strategy, in detail. The GGO explicitly requires consideration of the long-term consequences of the measure. To facilitate this assessment, a web-based tool for electronic sustainability assessment (eNAP) is available (BMJ, 2023).
In the German Bundestag, the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Sustainable Development monitors German sustainability policy. One of its tasks is to oversee the sustainability assessments conducted by the ministries as part of the legislative impact assessment.
The capacity to measure progress is generally strong. Germany’s statistical agencies, both at the federal and state levels, possess substantial capabilities, high expertise, and integrity, ensuring they provide reliable data on progress concerning the SDGs.
Citations:
Bundesregierung. 2021. Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie, Weiterentwicklung 2021. Berlin.
Bundesregierung. 2023. “Die Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie, Ein Kompass für die Zukunft.” www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/nachhaltigkeitspolitik/deutsche-nachhaltigkeitsstrategie-318846
Bundesministerium der Justiz. 2023. “Nachhaltige Gesetzgebung.” www.bmj.de/DE/ministerium/nachhaltigkeit/gesetzgebung/gesetzgebung_node.html
To what extent do government ministries utilize ex post evaluations to improve existing policies?
10
9
9
High-quality ex post evaluations serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
High-quality ex post evaluations frequently serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
High-quality ex post evaluations rarely serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
2
1
1
High-quality ex post evaluations are not utilized to make adjustments to public policies.
The obligation to conduct efficiency studies and performance reviews in accordance with Section 7 (2) of the Federal Budget Code (BHO) includes an examination of the achievement of objectives, effectiveness, and efficiency (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz, 2023).
In 2013, the State Secretaries’ Committee on Bureaucracy Reduction and Better Regulation adopted the “Concept for the Evaluation of New Regulatory Projects” (Bundeskanzleramt, 2021). This policy mandates a mandatory evaluation of every significant law or regulation after three to five years. A regulatory project is considered significant if the annual compliance costs amount to €1 million, or if the costs incurred by citizens exceed €1 million or 100,000 hours (Deutscher Bundestag, 2020).
There is no legal requirement to involve stakeholders in evaluations, but evaluation methods often include the involvement of stakeholders, such as through interviews.
The government aims to publish all evaluations on a central platform, but this announcement has not yet been realized, thus the lack of transparency on evaluations remains an issue.
Line ministries determine the practicalities of evaluations themselves, resulting in heterogeneous methods across different ministries. A frontrunner in this regard is the Ministry for Development Cooperation, which has established an external evaluation agency to provide expertise and independence. However, some ministries still adhere to a rather formalistic approach to evaluations.
Particularly when evaluations are commissioned to external service providers from universities or research institutes, the methodological quality is high. However, internal evaluations remain common and frequently tend to be more descriptive and qualitative.
The impact of evaluations on actual policy decisions is difficult to measure. Too often, political decision makers are still characterized by an input-oriented mindset, focusing more on the amount of money spent on a policy rather than on the impact achieved.
Citations:
Bundeskanzleramt. 2021. Bessere Rechtsetzung: Beschlüsse zu Verfahrens- und Methodenfragen im Bereich Besserer Rechtsetzung und Bürokratieabbau – Staatssekretärausschuss Bessere Rechtsetzung und Bürokratieabbau – Staatssekretärausschuss Europäische Union.
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz. 2023. “Evaluation von Fördermaßnahmen.” https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Artikel/Ministerium/evaluation-von-foerdermassnahmen.html
Deutscher Bundestag. 2020. Zur praktischen Umsetzung und Evaluierung von Gesetzen, Sachstand, Wissenschaftliche Dienste, WD 3 - 3000 - 298/19.
In 2013, the State Secretaries’ Committee on Bureaucracy Reduction and Better Regulation adopted the “Concept for the Evaluation of New Regulatory Projects” (Bundeskanzleramt, 2021). This policy mandates a mandatory evaluation of every significant law or regulation after three to five years. A regulatory project is considered significant if the annual compliance costs amount to €1 million, or if the costs incurred by citizens exceed €1 million or 100,000 hours (Deutscher Bundestag, 2020).
There is no legal requirement to involve stakeholders in evaluations, but evaluation methods often include the involvement of stakeholders, such as through interviews.
The government aims to publish all evaluations on a central platform, but this announcement has not yet been realized, thus the lack of transparency on evaluations remains an issue.
Line ministries determine the practicalities of evaluations themselves, resulting in heterogeneous methods across different ministries. A frontrunner in this regard is the Ministry for Development Cooperation, which has established an external evaluation agency to provide expertise and independence. However, some ministries still adhere to a rather formalistic approach to evaluations.
Particularly when evaluations are commissioned to external service providers from universities or research institutes, the methodological quality is high. However, internal evaluations remain common and frequently tend to be more descriptive and qualitative.
The impact of evaluations on actual policy decisions is difficult to measure. Too often, political decision makers are still characterized by an input-oriented mindset, focusing more on the amount of money spent on a policy rather than on the impact achieved.
Citations:
Bundeskanzleramt. 2021. Bessere Rechtsetzung: Beschlüsse zu Verfahrens- und Methodenfragen im Bereich Besserer Rechtsetzung und Bürokratieabbau – Staatssekretärausschuss Bessere Rechtsetzung und Bürokratieabbau – Staatssekretärausschuss Europäische Union.
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz. 2023. “Evaluation von Fördermaßnahmen.” https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Artikel/Ministerium/evaluation-von-foerdermassnahmen.html
Deutscher Bundestag. 2020. Zur praktischen Umsetzung und Evaluierung von Gesetzen, Sachstand, Wissenschaftliche Dienste, WD 3 - 3000 - 298/19.