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.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

DW

3 hours ago

• DW

NATO summit in The Hague: A big win for Donald Trump? – DW – 06/23/2025

The NATO summit is set to be all about the money. NATO countries are expected to commit to a massive increase in defense spending — to deter Russia and please US President Donald Trump. Ramping up Europe's defense spending has been a major demand by US President Donald Trump and his administration since day one. This goal has become potentially acceptable to almost all NATO countries thanks to Secretary-General Mark Rutte's persuasive power, particularly after Germany, the biggest European economy, threw its weight behind it. Officials at NATO told DW that it's about giving Trump a win but also "about rebalancing in the alliance," as one senior diplomat put it, stressing that if that's achieved, the summit would be a resounding success. "Hopefully, Trump is not going to leave early like he did from the recent G7 meeting in Canada," Jamie Shea, a former NATO official, told DW. This worst-case scenario is a big concern for some NATO allies and something they want to avoid at any price. Shea said he thinks "it's important for Trump to be there to learn about all of the good things that NATO is doing at the moment, which help America's security and not just Europe's security." The goal of spending 5% of GDP on defense is highly ambitious, and has the potential to transform societies in Europe: While in many EU countries, social justice and economic stability were the clear priorities for national governments for decades, in the future they might concentrate on strengthening military power and becoming more independent from the United States. This scenario has led to growing resistance in some parts of Europe. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Asked about how he would explain his plan to citizens in Europe who are against social cuts in favor of new weapons, Rutte recently said that leaders need to act now because "otherwise, four or five years from now, we are really under threat and then you have to get your Russian language course or go to New Zeeland." Rutte's idea is to cut the cake into two pieces and to allocate 3.5% of GDP to core defense needs and 1.5% to security-related investments. These investments include building broader roads and bridges that could carry heavy weaponry but also cybersecurity, measures against hybrid attacks, civil protection and aid for Ukraine. Members of the alliance will try to factor in what they are already spending, for instance, on infrastructure, diplomats at NATO acknowledge. But they also stress that the fact that allies were able to agree on the exact definition of the 1.5% target is already a significant success. The biggest challenge is getting everyone on board with the 3.5% target for core military spending. Spain, which has the lowest military spending in the alliance, has signaled it wants a carve-out. Other nations, like Italy, are demanding more time than the proposed seven years to meet the obligation. Many NATO members are ready to spend more but refuse to commit to yearly plans — a kind of control mechanism — also proposed by Rutte. In the end, it comes down to NATO's credibility, Lithuania's former foreign minister, Gabrielius Landsbergis, told DW. The alliance "is moving in the right direction," he said. But like many representatives of the countries on NATO's Eastern flank in proximity to Russia, he warns against not being serious about fulfilling the new spending pledge. "What if it is just to have a nice summit and everyone leaves happy, and then nothing really happens?" In addition, many Europeans are unhappy about the apparent lack of any ambition when it comes to Ukraine. While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been invited to the summit, his aspirations to join NATO are unlikely to take center stage at the summit. There seems to be a zero chance for Ukraine's NATO aspirations to be prominently featured in the summit's final declaration. "Clearly, the United States in particular has wanted to play it down," former NATO official Jamie Shea explained. "So, for Ukraine, it is going to be a rather disappointing NATO summit." There will be a sentence or two as a reference to Russia as a threat in the final document, NATO sources told DW, but no new tough language, given the ongoing US attempts to get both countries to the negotiating table. Kristine Berzina, a NATO expert with the German Marshall Fund think tank, says it's important to look at the bigger picture. "We get so obsessed with the little declarations and paragraphs about such and such," she told DW. What really matters is that "NATO is a strong political alliance and the people at the table believe in each other." That is what she expects to be the summit's strong message. "Of course, it is about Russia. Talking about the ambitious new steps they're going to take is a signal to Russia," Berzina said. Still, the summit declaration is expected to be "short and crisp," as one diplomat put it, and the event is deliberately planned as a brief exchange not to bore Trump, who's known for not being a fan of long speeches by others and of multilateral organizations in general. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The big risk is that should the conflict in the Middle East escalate, Trump may not travel to The Hague at all, according to media reports in the US. At NATO HQ in Brussels, diplomats say they do not have any indication that Trump won't be there. So, is the NATO summit just about pleasing Trump, as the program, including a dinner with the Dutch king, an invitation to play golf in the Netherlands, and the expected big spending splash, indicates? In the end, it is about the Europeans, Jamie Shea said. "The 5% of GDP for defense spending is to deter Russia, to keep Europe and NATO citizens safe, sleeping soundly in their beds at night." But he also admitted that "provided the decision on the 5% is taken, Trump should go back to Washington a happy man."To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Int'l Business Times

3 days ago

• Int'l Business Times

Can NATO Keep Trump On-message About Russia Threat?

When leaders from NATO's 32 countries gather for a summit in The Hague next week, most want to send a clear message: Russia is the main threat to their alliance. But the loudest voice in the room likely won't be on the same page. Since coming back to office, US President Donald Trump has upended the West's approach towards Russia's war on Ukraine by undercutting Kyiv and opening the door to closer ties with Moscow. While the volatile leader has expressed some frustration with Russia's Vladimir Putin for refusing a ceasefire, he has steered clear of punishing the Kremlin. At a G7 summit this week Trump made waves by saying the group of industrialised countries should never have expelled Russia. Ahead of the Hague gathering, diplomats at NATO have been wrangling over a five-paragraph summit statement, with many countries pressing for a full-throated assertion of the menace from Moscow. That, they say, will help explain the main thrust of the meeting: an agreement for countries to ramp up defence spending to satisfy Trump's demand for it to reach five percent of GDP. Since the Kremlin launched its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the alliance has called Russia "the most significant and direct threat to allies' security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area". But this time around the United States -- backed up by Moscow-friendly Hungary and Slovakia -- has been intent on watering that down. Diplomats have been juggling with variants such as referring to "threats, including Russia" or mentioning "the long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security". The verbal nuances may seem slight, but they mean a lot to those countries being asked to massively ramp up spending and those on NATO's eastern flank most threatened by the Kremlin. NATO has warned that Russia could be ready to attack an alliance country within five years. "If we can get Trump to sign off on calling Russia a long-term threat then that would be a good result," a senior European diplomat told AFP. As US peace efforts between Russia and Ukraine have stalled, the diplomat said that Washington appeared to have "moved a centimetre in our direction" on taking a stronger stance on Russia. "Of course more hawkish countries want to go further -- but just getting Trump to agree that would still be fine," the diplomat said. Part of the US reasoning is that Washington is more worried about the threat China poses worldwide -- and that Russia is more a problem just in Europe. "Russia is the near threat," said US ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker. "But China is obviously a big challenge for all of us, and we need to be allied and address those threats as well." Camille Grand of the European Council on Foreign Relations said that beneath the diplomatic fine-tuning, NATO was being confronted by a "fundamental question". "How does the United States view Russia?" he said. "So far we haven't really got an answer." Even if NATO does opt for stronger wording on Moscow, there is always the possibility that Trump could show up in The Hague and directly contradict it. But the debate could come into sharper focus in the months after the summit when the United States could announce a pull-back of forces in Europe as part of a review of its global deployments. One area where Washington appears clearly not on board with most other allies is on backing Ukraine. Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky is set to attend on the sidelines of the summit but his involvement is being kept to a minimum to avoid a bust-up with Trump. Diplomats said there should be a reference in the summit statement linking new defence spending to helping Ukraine -- but there will be no talk of Kyiv's long-term push to join NATO. "The US does not see Ukrainian security as essential to European security," said Kurt Volker, a former US ambassador to NATO. "Our European allies do, so they feel that if Putin is allowed to prevail in Ukraine, or if Ukraine does not survive as a sovereign, independent state, they are at risk." The Hague is preparing to host NATO leaders for a summit focused on ramping up the alliance's defences against the threat from Russia AFP

DW

4 days ago

• DW

Indonesia inks strategic partnership with Russia – DW – 06/19/2025

The leaders of Russia and Indonesia met in St Petersburg, where they lauded strong bilateral ties and Jakarta's new role in the BRICS grouping. Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto signed a strategic partnership agreement with Russia on Thursday following talks in St Petersburg with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The agreement comes as Indonesia enters the BRICS grouping as a full member, and Prabowo on Thursday thanked Putin for his support on Indonesia's BRICS bid. "Today we have met and our relationship is getting stronger again," Prabowo said in a statement. "My meeting with President Putin today was intense, warm and productive. In all fields of economics, technical cooperation, trade, investment, agriculture, they all have experienced significant improvements," the statement said. Putin called Indonesia one of Russia's "key partners" in the Asia Pacific. "Our relations are mutually beneficial and are steadily developing on the basis of long-standing traditions of friendship and mutual assistance," he said. Another BRIC in the wall The BRICS grouping was conceived as a counter to Western-led forums like the G7, and has provided Putin with an avenue out of international diplomatic isolation over his full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Moscow's deepening of ties with Indonesia is seen as part of a bid to partner with more global south countries. During the meeting Thursday at St Petersburg's Constantine Palace, Putin said he was confident Indonesia would make a significant contribution to the BRICS grouping, whose other members include Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Russia has also proposed deepening military, security, trade and nuclear ties with Indonesia. During the meeting, sovereign wealth fund Danantara Indonesia and the Russian Direct Investment Fund agreed to create an investment fund worth $2.29 billion (€2 billion). Indonesia's non-alignment Indonesia's president maintains a non-aligned foreign policy, vowing to share close ties with any country, including Russia and the United States. Prabowo's government has already announced trade concessions to avert the threat of tariffs from US President Donald Trump. He also insists Indonesia will not join any military bloc, although it conducted joint naval exercises with Russia in the Java Sea last November. In 2023, it upgraded its relationship with the US to a comprehensive strategic partnership. And Prabowo's government has already announced trade concessions to avert the threat of tariffs from US President Donald Trump. What is BRICS and what does it want? To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Nevertheless, Jakarta's close ties with Russia have caused concern among Indonesia's Western allies. Prabowo skipped the G7 summit in Canada this week in favor of meeting Putin in Russia. His last visit to Russia was in August 2024, as Indonesian defense minister and president-elect. At the time he described Russia as a "great friend." Edited by: Zac Crellin