## Notes from 17 January 2026 [[2026-01-16|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2026-01-18|Next note →]] ## dbb Annual Conference 2026 The dbb (_Deutscher Beamtenbund und Tarifunion_), Germany's main civil service union representing both *Beamte* (tenured civil servants) and collectively bargained public employees, held its [annual conference from January 11–13, 2026 in Cologne](https://www.dbb.de/veranstaltungen/dbb-jahrestagung/dbb-jahrestagung-2026.html), focused on state modernization. The event brought together union leadership, federal and state politicians, and administrators to debate modernization pathways. [One panel](https://www.dbb.de/artikel/diskussion-staatsmodernisierung-im-fokus.html) featured Karsten Wildberger (CDU), Germany's first Federal Minister for Digital Affairs and Public Sector Modernization; Moritz Heuberger (Greens); Gudrun Grieser from the National Regulatory Control Council (a government body tasked with monitoring regulatory burdens and proposing simplification measures); André Berghegger from the German Association of Towns and Municipalities; and dbb chairman Volker Geyer. The overall tone struck me as notably less partisan than comparable union events in Brazil, even though the union’s positioning throughout clearly reflected advocacy objectives. [Wildberger’s speech](https://www.dbb.de/artikel/wildberger-veraenderungsbereitschaft-ist-2026-der-schluessel-zu-allem.html) emphasized that modernization cannot come at civil servants’ expense and requires sustained investment in training and professional development. He cited survey data showing that nearly 90% of Germans believe the state does not make their lives easier. [Moritz Heuberger](https://moritzheuberger.de/), a Green MP with a doctorate in digital administration coordination, made several points worth tracking. He argued that those who apply laws in practice should be more involved earlier in the legislative process, providing input on feasibility before legal drafting begins inside ministries. He advocated relaxing mandatory waiting periods for leadership roles, arguing that “anyone with the necessary competence and the drive to shape policy should have the opportunity.” He also called for easier switching between public and private sectors to attract people who can bring fresh perspectives into public administration. This is notable coming from a Green politician, as similar positions often encounter union resistance when articulated by center-right reformers. Geyer, the union chairman, made several points that align with standard union positioning but also contain substantive observations. He argued that the potential for efficiency gains is finite and that meaningful savings require a fundamental review of which tasks the state should perform. He pointed to a recurring pattern of enacting new laws and regulations without providing the personnel or digital tools needed for implementation, which ultimately damages citizen trust. He stressed that civil servants must be involved in modernization efforts and criticized the permanent reliance on external consultants for building in-house expertise, particularly in digitalization. Beyond the panels and speeches, the conference also served as the launch platform for the _[Monitor öffentlicher Dienst 2026](https://www.dbb.de/fileadmin/user_upload/globale_elemente/pdfs/2026/Monitor_oeffentlicher_Dienst-2026__5_.pdf)_, the dbb’s flagship annual report on the German public service. ## The Monitor öffentlicher Dienst The report compiles official statistics from Destatis (Germany’s federal statistics office), federal ministries, the OECD, and opinion surveys covering employment structures, demographic dynamics, working conditions and compensation, public perceptions of the state, and European comparisons. Its declared purpose is to organize and systematize data in order to enable descriptive rather than normative assessment. It appears that no German government entity produces a comparable, comprehensive annual assessment of the civil service. I searched for federal or state-level equivalents during broader research on German administrative systems and found none. This represents a striking institutional gap when compared to jurisdictions with Westminster traditions, where public service commissions regularly publish government-produced assessments of workforce capabilities, competencies, engagement, and performance alongside employment statistics. As a result, researchers examining German civil service workforce questions are effectively forced to rely on a union-produced document as the primary integrated data source. The Monitor provides a genuinely useful statistical compilation, but its analytical framing inevitably reflects the union’s institutional perspective. The report emphasizes external pressures on civil servants — violence from citizens, resource constraints, demographic change, workload — while remaining largely silent on internal performance questions. There are no sections on performance management systems, competency frameworks, skills gaps, management capability, or productivity measures, all of which are standard components of government-produced workforce reports elsewhere. The document’s international comparisons of public employment as a share of total employment (Germany 11.53%, Sweden 28.15%, Denmark 27.26%) are technically accurate but lack institutional context. In Germany, health and social services are largely delivered by *Wohlfahrtsverbände* (charitable welfare organizations such as Caritas and Diakonie) or by private providers financed through social insurance, whose employees are not counted as public sector workers in strict statistical terms. Countries with more direct state provision of these services naturally show higher public employment shares. The comparison thus supports a narrative of an undersized state without engaging the question of whether different institutional arrangements achieve similar functions through different employment structures. The survey section on violence against civil servants documents real frontline challenges but frames the issue almost entirely as an external societal problem. It does not explore whether operational deficiencies in service delivery might contribute to citizen frustration that can escalate into conflict. This framing creates advocacy space for security measures and hazard pay, while leaving process improvement largely unexamined. Germany’s federal structure provides a partial explanation for why no central government workforce assessment exists. Most civil servants work for the Länder and municipalities rather than the federal government, and standardizing data across levels poses real coordination challenges. However, financial data are consolidated across federal levels despite comparable complexity. This suggests that the absence of an integrated workforce capability assessment reflects a political choice about what to measure, rather than a technical impossibility.