Everyone actually complains about too much bureaucracy. But why is it so difficult to limit them? This is shown by the example of the “one in, one out” rule, which is intended as a brake on bureaucracy.
Anyone who is sinking into more and more chaos at home may know this tip: You should only buy new things when the old ones are gone. Otherwise the wardrobe will overflow and unread books will pile up on the shelves. “One in, one out”: This is the name of this rule, which has also found its way into politics. Here it is supposed to protect against more and more bureaucratic chaos.
The suggestion to introduce this rule in Germany came in particular from the Regulatory Control Council, an independent body that advises the federal government on reducing bureaucracy. It was introduced in 2015 by the then grand coalition. The rule stipulates that any legal measure that puts a strain on the economy must be offset elsewhere.
Balance burdens with relief
In concrete terms, this means that ministries that initiate legislative projects estimate the costs associated with new laws – this is the so-called “compliance effort”. These costs are then compared with relief elsewhere due to the omission of state requirements.
From the point of view of the Regulatory Control Council, the balance of the rule was somewhat satisfactory up to 2020: the relief was initially even higher than the additional burden. That changed – at the end of the grand coalition’s term of office and then even more so when the traffic light coalition took office. In figures: The burdens of around 530 million euros in the period 2021/22 were only offset by relief of around 125 million euros.
The rule works…
Lutz Goebel, the current chairman of the Regulatory Control Council, does not want to underestimate the effect of the “one in, one out” rule. A state secretary once told him in confidence that without this brake on bureaucracy, no bureaucracy would have been abolished at all. Just because the rule is in place, the obligation to estimate the “compliance effort” and the regular reports, the focus is repeatedly drawn to the topic.
But why isn’t more happening? When practically not a day goes by when politicians talk about reducing bureaucracy. For example, the federal government has also promised a “moratorium on burdens” as part of the energy price brakes. In the words of Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP): “During the time of the crisis and while we have this protective shield, this federal government will not support or initiate any measures that involve a disproportionate amount of additional bureaucracy for medium-sized companies, trade or industry. ”
And just recently, as part of its “immediate program” for the economy, the CDU called for all new laws that cause bureaucracy to be stopped.
…but has limits
The fact that bureaucracy brakes such as the “one in, one out” rule are not so easy is partly due to the exceptions. The requirement does not apply, for example, if decisions of the highest court are implemented or if laws are based on specifications from Brussels. Although EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has set the “One in, one out” rule as a goal, she is not making any progress with its implementation – on the contrary.
For the past year 2022, as Rainer Kirchdörfer from the Foundation for Family Businesses and Politics pointed out, the EU database has more than 2,000 adopted legal acts. This is opposed to the omission of only 534 legal acts.
Companies are complaining more and more reporting requirements
In concrete terms, the problem is reflected in the ever-increasing reporting requirements. There may be good reasons for this in each individual case, but overall they cause major problems in the economy. Due to requirements from Brussels, medium-sized companies will also have to submit reports on ecological and social risks in the future – and use employees and money to do so.
Achim Dercks, Deputy General Manager of the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce (DIHK), says: “Especially when you have too few skilled workers anyway, the frustration is great when you see that these employees cannot be used to serve customers, but have to meet official requirements, sometimes even on paper.” From the point of view of Lutz Goebel, the chairman of the Regulatory Control Council, who himself worked as an entrepreneur for a long time, the topic of reducing bureaucracy should be put on the political agenda from scratch in a comprehensive sense: “We have to ask how we can make laws simpler and how we can Enforcement of the law relieves bureaucracy.”
Above all, decisions in planning and approval procedures would have to be made much more quickly – “otherwise our country will end up in a dead end,” as Goebel said in an interview with the ARD Capital Studio says.
In itself, all of this corresponds to the ambitions of the federal government. But there is a gap between the political promises to reduce bureaucracy and concrete action. For example, the Regulatory Control Council has established that the costs associated with state requirements have continued to rise in recent years – despite all attempts to counteract this.