Abstract
In Germany, at first glance there is general political agreement between the green-progressive camp and the capitalist-industrial centre-right on the need for the eco-social transformation. However, there are considerable gaps between ambitions to implement policies towards an eco-social transformation and its actual implementation. As this Special Issue (SI) shows, the acceptance of green welfare systems or adding social policies to the green transition projects is not matched by substantial policies. The Special Issue offers eight original research papers on ideas, actors and conflicts and multi-level governance of the “Politics of Germany’s eco-social transformation”. Current trends point to a deepening marketization of green policies, a reluctance in lifestyle changes and dissonance in the design of concrete eco-social policies. The authors contribute to a better understanding of the political affordances and challenges of the eco-social transformation in Germany.
Zusammenfassung
In Deutschland herrscht eine prinzipielle politische Einigkeit zwischen dem grün-progressiven Lager und der kapitalistisch-industriellen Mitte über die Notwendigkeit einer öko-sozialen Transformation. Es bestehen jedoch erhebliche Lücken zwischen den Ambitionen um eine öko-soziale Transformation und konkreten politischen Maßnahmen, die dort hinführen könnten. Wie in diesem Sonderheft gezeigt wird, geht die Akzeptanz grüner Wohlfahrtssysteme oder flankierender sozialpolitischer Politiken zur grünen Transformationsprojekten nicht mit substanziellen politischen Maßnahmen einher. Das Sonderheft bietet acht Beiträge zu Ideen, Akteuren und Konflikten sowie zur Multi-Level-Governance der „Politik der öko-sozialen Transformation Deutschlands“. Aktuelle Trends wie die Vermarktlichung grüner Politik oder die Zurückhaltung gegenüber nachhaltigen Lebensstiländerungen unterlaufen teilweise die Verwirklichung öko-sozialer Politik. Die Autorinnen und Autoren tragen mit ihren Beiträgen zu einem besseren Verständnis der politischen Möglichkeiten und Herausforderungen der öko-sozialen Transformation in Deutschland bei.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Recent years have seen some of the most dramatic floods, heat waves and extreme weather events in history. After decades of inaction and delay, governments and political leaders (except for the far-right) around the world seem to be waking up to the threat of climate collapse and its social, economic and political consequences.
Political actors in Germany have addressed the climate crisis in important respects. The call to update the German economic system for the 21st century has been discussed widely over the last years. The “traffic light coalition” between the Social Democrats, Greens and Free Democrats called for “climate protection in a social-ecological market economy” as one of the core pillars of their mandate that started in 2021 (SPD, Greens and FDP 2021). An overarching political ambition is the combination of market instruments and climate policy. Concerns about the climate crisis and the need for comprehensive action feature prominently in recent opinion polls (ARD 2022; Tyson et al. 2022; Weckroth and Ala-Mantila 2022). While the need for climate change mitigation and adaptation policies is thus uncontested by a majority of citizens and political actors, there still remains an ambition gap and an implementation gap in climate policy. The implementation of policies to close these gaps seems to become more conflictual in the context of the current polycrisis marked by higher costs of living, the threats of violent escalation and climate change, among others.
The recent political debates on the German heating law (“Heizungsgesetz”), the introduction of a climate dividend (“Klimageld”) or the farmers’ protests show the immense politicisation of climate policy not only as an ecological issue, but also as a new and burning social question. Conflicts over the distribution and costs of the eco-social transformation are centre stage including generational and distributional conflicts (Gough 2016). Homeownership is politized as regulation for private heating systems changed. Workers in the energy-intensive sector worry about their future in the face of de-carbonisation policies such as the Coal-Phase Out Act of 2022. Young activists are referring to the current generation as the “Last Generation” in the face of climate collapse and block runways and streets. Dealing with societal conflicts over resources also exposes the inherent injustices of fossil fuel-based capitalism upon which the welfare state was built: Those who emit less are hit harder by the climate crisis and are less able to deal with the negative social consequences of these developments, while carrying the larger share of transformation efforts (Rehm et al. 2023).
The issues around the eco-social transformation have great overlap with political science and socio-political issues. Nonetheless, research on the political conditions for the success of eco-social transformation, political ideas that accompany eco-social transformation, emerging political conflicts and political alliances for or against eco-social policies, and the role of decision-making and implementation have only recently become the focus of research (e.g., Cotta 2024).
In this Special Issue, we contribute to understanding, scrutinizing, and governing eco-social transformation efforts in Germany. Germany is a critical case for understanding the politics of eco-social transformation in several respects: it is the most important economic power in the European Union (EU), its growth model relies heavily on neoliberal globalisation (e.g. Kundnani 2017) and the Green party, as well as ecological social movements (e.g. Fridays for Future, Last Generation), have become important political actors reshaping political and social conflicts (Haunss and Sommer 2020). Zimmermann and Graziano (2020) locate Germany in a cluster with countries like the United Kingdom (UK), Poland and France that show a good employment and social performance, but rather weak performance on the eco-social dimension. Germany is also known as a coordinating market economy and consensus democracy that relies heavily on long-standing coordination between social, economic and state actors (Hall and Soskice 2001; Kritikos et al. 2018). The German economy is characterised by a strong export orientation and a strong industrial base—especially in the automotive and chemical industries. Therefore, Germany offers several enabling and constraining structural factors to implement an eco-social transformation.
The Special Issue starts from a decidedly political science perspective on the eco-social transformation based on the understanding that: ‘[t]ransitions are inherently political processes, in the sense that different individuals and groups will disagree about desirable directions of transitions, about appropriate ways to steer such processes and in the sense that transitions potentially lead to winners and losers’ (Köhler et al. 2019, p. 6). While research on German eco-social transformation has been extensive and nuanced (Fritz and Eversberg 2023), the focus has been on transitions in individual sectors (Energiewende, Mobilitätswende, etc.). The articles of this Special Issue share a joint perspective on the ecological crisis as a social crisis—not only in terms of the consequences on climate change and other ecological risks, but also as ecological crises being phenomena of social conflict resolutions, power struggles and the emergent consequences of the current socio-economic model. As a consequence, the “social dimension” of eco-social transformations alludes not only to generating “acceptance” of the ecological transformation but understanding, scrutinizing, and reshaping the social mechanisms and welfare systems of society. The articles are taking a multi-theoretical and multi-methodological approach and thereby allow for a multifaceted analysis of the eco-social transformation.
The rest of this editorial is organised as follows: in the next section, we conceptualise the politics dimension of the eco-social transformation and present the central research questions guiding the Special Issue. We then discuss the eight contributions along the three dimensions of ideas, actor conflicts and modes of interaction and coordination in the German multi-level-political system. In the concluding section we summarize the central findings of the Special Issue and discuss further avenues for research.
2 The Politics dimension of the eco-social transformation in Germany
In essence, the eco-social transformation is about the transformation of the economy and society towards an ecologically sustainable and socially just society. This enormous transformation presupposes the willingness and ability to transform societies at all levels: citizens, businesses, and the state. To achieve this goal, integrative eco-social policies aim at preventing adverse effects of social policy on environmental targets and vice versa as the lowest common denominator.
Ideally, even synergetic effects between ecological and social policies are created through integrated policy approaches.Footnote 1 There is a shared basic understanding of eco-social policies integrating ecological and social concerns (Mandelli 2022) and agreement on the multiple challenges of balancing the ecological and welfare objectives (Laurent 2021).
In this Special Issue we address both political processes (politics) as well as the substance (policies) of eco-social transformation efforts. Although political science debates still struggle to agree on the conceptual core of the term eco-social policy (Brand and Brad 2019; Hirvilammi et al. 2023), interdisciplinary social science approaches are outlining what eco-social policies should look like and what they should achieve. Thus, there are increasingly conceptual answers provided for formulating concrete eco-social policy instruments, like universal basic services (e.g. Büchs and Koch 2017). Eco-social policies differ from classic social policies in two aspects: First, they recalibrate the focus to policies that were previously on the fringes of the welfare state (Bohnenberger 2022) including energy policy, public transport policy, housing, or food policy. Second, by linking the policy goals of social welfare (in a broad sense) and environmental protection, these policies have an even greater potential for variance, complexity and trade-offs creating room for readjustments on established lines of compromise and conflict between political actors and opens up new opportunities for synergies and alliances.
Gough (2016) in his comparative analysis of welfare states and environmental states identifies several key categories of analysis: ideas and ideologies, industrial structures, political interests and institutions as well as international influences. To unpack and map eco-social politics in Germany, in this Special Issue we focus on three dimensions that we consider most relevant:
-
1.
Changes in ideas, perceptions and basic convictions that shape the positions of political actors regarding the goals of eco-social transformation and ways to achieve it.
-
2.
Actor interests, actor constellations and power relations that structure conflicts over eco-social policies.
-
3.
Modes of coordination and decision-making in different governance settings that enable or prevent formulation and implementation of eco-social policies.
By the first dimension, we understand the underlying ideological and normative ideas that shape actors’ position on the eco-social transformation. This includes how political problems are perceived and which political goals are of interest and relevance. Eco-social ideas are often interpreted very differently from different actors.
The second dimension refers to the constellations and power structures that determine the interactions and conflicts between state actors, political parties, social partners and non-state actors in the eco-social transformation. The research focus lies on the strategies of alliance-building and policymaking of the various actors. The need for new eco-social alliances and the break-away from silo logics is emphasised by political practitioners and scientists alike (Sharp et al. 2020).
The third dimension deals with the institutional setting of decision-making which influences the actors’ ability to govern, the arena in which actors are going to interact as well as the modes of interaction. This includes analysing multi-level governance (local, national, supra- and international), inter-sectoral coordination (governments, NGOs, private sector), asking how different institutional settings and multi-level-governance structures enable or prevent the formulation and implementation of eco-social policy.
The following sections present the eight contributing articles of the Special Issues and discuss their central findings for the respective research dimension.
2.1 Ideas: Ecological modernization and the eco-social market economy
Political ideas shape positions of political actors. In turn, political actors can also change ideas in important ways. Changes in ideas, perceptions and basic convictions are necessary for transformations. The “ideational turn” found ideas to have an important role in political change (Béland 2010; Blyth 2002): They may function as cognitive lock-ins to stabilize and reproduce existing institutional decision-making, guide reforms as role-models and blueprints, or be essential tools for challenging and transforming existing political structures. Ideas can take multiple forms such as heuristics that help to make sense of the complex world, strategic tools to shape a political discourse, and institutional frameworks that organize collective political activity.
In the German political context, ideas around the proper combination of social and ecological demands had their ebbs and flows over the past four decades. The Greens spoke out in favour of an socio-ecological transformation in their first party program in 1980 referring to many elements which have been central to degrowth and sustainable welfare discourses such as reducing of working time, circular economy, a critique of quantitative (economic) towards (social and ecological) well-being concepts, and democratization of the workplace (Die Grünen 1980). While the first red-green coalition under Chancellor Gerhard Schröder referred to a renewal of the “social and ecological market economy” (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen 1998), the coalition agreement rather followed a combined significant ecological reforms (nuclear phase out, eco-social tax reform) with neoliberal policies such as labour market deregulation. The contributions in this volume deal with the contemporary mental infrastructures shaping the politics of eco-social transformation.
Anne Gerstenberg argues in “Ideas in transition? Policymakers’ ideas of the social dimension of the green transition” that the Green Economy paradigm is the main ideational frame through which eco-social transitions are put in action on the German and European levels. The article is informed by semi-structured interviews with German and EU policymakers. Gerstenberg shows that the Green Economy frame that is pushed most forcefully by liberal policy-makers is the most dominant one. Studying the role of the European Commission (EC), Gerstenberg identifies two main characteristics of the EC’s approach to eco-social policy. First, the Commission expands market logics to climate policy. The flagship policy for climate protection is the carbon credit system that renders emission certificates tradable. Second, social policy from the dominant Green Economy perspective is seen as an “appeasement mechanism” so that climate protection measures become better accepted. The Green Keynesianism narrative is mostly embraced by labour unions and social democrats advocating to balance social and ecological ideas. Their aim is to protect workers from adverse transition effects like lay-offs. The degrowth perspective sees both paradigms as falling short as they would both sustain unsustainable growth. However, this perspective remains rather at the fringes of political debate on socio-ecological policy among policymakers.
Tobias Haas and Dorothea Schoppek in their article entitled “Next stop carbon dioxide removal? German climate policies and the risky road to negative emission technologies” trace how historically climate policy became more and more seen as an innovative and profitable update of German capitalism. Drawing on regulation theory, their analysis portrays Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) as an idea to keep up the pace of economic growth while also achieving international climate targets. The technology is also linked to hopes that societal conflicts over economic growth can be displaced. However, there is also the risk that CDR might delay or slow down climate policy. The level of uncertainty that is still linked to CDR technology is often strategically under-emphasized by proponents as the authors show.
Put together, the mental infrastructure of the actually existing eco-social transformation is crucially shaped by market logics and “greening” the German capitalist model. Political actors such as the German government and the European Commission have multiple roles in this context. They ensure the proper functioning of markets by setting rules, guarantee social protection measures, and help green technologies to be competitive on the market. It therefore indicates a largely path-dependent and incremental change of eco-social ideas and programs over the last decade. However, Anne Gerstenberg observes a gradual shift from a technocratic understanding of policymakers’ perception of the eco-social transformation to an increasingly political one.
2.2 Actors and conflicts: The search for eco-social alliances and a quest for greener corporatism
Political actors such as governments, political parties or social partners are bread-and-butter categories in political science. The willingness and success of political actors to form alliances toward an eco-social transformation is the focus of this section. On actors, Cotta (2024) differentiates between identifying the actors driving the promotion of eco-social policies (and likewise the actors slowing these policies) and the actor coalitions and conflicts that create winners and losers of the eco-social transformation. Similarly, Pichler (2023, p. 6) describes the politics dimension of eco-social transformation as conflictual and shaped by power asymmetries. At first glance, the politics of eco-social transformation can thus be understood by looking at conflicting interests between different actors in favour or against transformation. Struggles over power can be overt or covert. Actors might have the interest to undermine transformation efforts without opposing transformation openly or launch open campaigns to stop transformation processes (e.g. to stop the coal exit) (Lamb et al. 2020). Power relations become particularly visible in a “conjunctural crisis” that can potentially precipitate in a “crisis of a social order” (Pichler 2023, p. 6, italics in original). Crises of greater magnitudes can thus lead to substantive political changes including transformative reforms or regressive politics (e.g. climate policy). But the political dimension also includes how different actors within the eco-social camp fight over the best possible direction to organise a transition. Martin Fritz and Dennis Eversberg (2023, p. 488) liken the political struggles over the eco-social transformation to workers’ fights for social security: “Similarly, we can assume that eco-social policy can only be established if there is a political class that fights for it.”
For a long time, Germany has been characterized as classic example of corporatism and prototype of a coordinated market economy with a strong incorporation of social partners and non-state actors into the process of policy formulation and implementation (Hall and Soskice 2001). The turn towards global financial capitalism put especially trade unions and the position of welfare associations under pressure, resulting in a kind of “crisis corporatism” (Urban 2012). Despite their relative loss in influence and the rise of new social, especially environmental movements as pivotal actors, research has pointed to the divergent interests of social and environmental actors resulting for instance in close ties of industry and labour unions in the German coal sector (e.g. Bößner 2020). This points to a well-established research strand on the ambiguous role of trade-unions in the eco-social transformation (Brand and Niedermoser 2019).
The contributions in this second theme centre on key actors involved in the policy-making process take a deep dive into their positions, power relations as well as (potential) conflicts and alliances among them. A central question in all three contributions is how those actors are interconnected and in what way they influence ongoing processes in the realm of the socio-ecological transformation. Each contribution looks at a specific aspect of the transformation and provides unique insights into how different actors navigate and influence complex policy landscapes, including governmental policies, with a particular focus on eco-social policies and their implications.
Julia C. Cremer’s article entitled “Collective actors and potential alliances for eco-social policies in Germany” delves into the role of non-state actors in Germany, analyzing how trade unions, social and environmental NGOs, and social movements position themselves and build alliances around eco-social policies. By categorizing these actors into four distinct clusters, the paper sheds light on their varying potentials for promoting the eco-social transformation and highlights the crucial bridging role played by service sector unions and social NGOs. This analysis underscores the importance of understanding the strategic interactions and alliances among actors to foster effective eco-social change.
Silke Ötsch in her article on “Climate financing by the German government: a win-win strategy?” turns to the German government’s policies and strategies in the area of climate financing. Based on a cultural political economy approach, such policies and strategies are evaluated from the relevant but so far rather under-represented perspectives of trade unions, environmental associations, and civil society actors. It reveals a significant gap between the government’s limited approach to climate finance and the broader, more comprehensive measures supported within civil society. The analysis suggests that current policies, perceived as socially unbalanced, lack sufficient political support and calls for a new conceptual framework to achieve a genuine social-ecological win-win situation.
The article by Julia Teebken “Opportunities and limitations for social justice in Germany’s climate adaptation policy” investigates the incorporation of justice into climate change adaptation policies. Applying historical materialist policy analysis, it highlights the involvement of various actors, including key federal ministries such as Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and core regulation measures such as the Federal Climate Adaptation Law in addressing the needs of vulnerable populations. The paper identifies some promising shifts towards a greater focus on vulnerable populations, but also highlights missing efforts to tackle the structural root causes of peoples’ vulnerabilities as policy instruments remain largely shallow.
In sum, despite the widely shared consensus among political actors on the need for eco-social transformation, the contributions show diverging positions of government actors, administrations and civil society with regard to eco-social policy in terms of transformation ambition, balancing environmental and social objectives and the fundamental goal of such policies. While the established channels of political cooperation in the German political system and its protagonists (e.g. Social Partnership) continue to lead the way, the contributions also highlight the potentials and obstacles for (new) political alliances that arise in the eco-social transformation.
2.3 Modes of coordination and decision-making in different governance settings: ambiguous bottom-up legitimacy and inward-looking interaction with EU policies
Policy-making in Germany takes place in a “German-European multi-level system” (Mannewitz and Rudzio 2023, p. 572) with the EU playing a central role. The formulation of ecological efficient and socially just policies is not a solely national task but is largely shaped at EU level. This shows with the European Green Deal or the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS I + II) and its social backing through the recently established Just Transition and Social Climate Funds. The vast literature on Europeanization highlights the different modes of interaction and coordination between Germany, the EU and other member states reaching from being a frontrunner in supporting renewable energies (Vogelpohl et al. 2017) to being a foot dragger on expanding the EU’s fiscal capacity (Howarth and Schild 2021), thereby focusing on different aspects of policy-making (e.g., ideas, policy programmes or instruments) and the degree of influence the EU has on German politics and vice versa.
Starting from the other end of the multi-level system, eco-social politics is linked to specific questions and challenges of citizen-state-legitimacy. Especially disruptive phases such as the eco-social transformation have a need for legitimisation among citizens. This includes the compliance of citizens towards policies at the various levels of the multi-level system as well as the need of securing legitimacy for these policies by political actors, especially national governments (Scharpf 2009). A recent survey shows that most Germans want more climate protection, but almost half of those surveyed have no confidence in the political system and its actors to solve the climate crisis (Hagemeyer et al. 2024). Another survey highlights that more than 60% of Germans think that the state could do more to help its citizens in social or economic problems (Steckermeier and Delhey 2024, p. 490).
In addition to the question of (supra)state power relations and their legitimacy, horizontal modes of coordination and interaction with and between non-state and private sector actors play a central role for politics in the eco-social transformation. Especially, private sector actors are of crucial relevance: Firstly, because the huge innovation and transformation costs cannot be covered by the state alone, and secondly, because private actors are central players involved in the policy implementation of the eco-social transformation.
The third strand of contributions in this Special Issue focuses on these different dimensions of political coordination and interaction within the institutional structures and governance mechanisms that influence the design and implementation of eco-social policies in Germany.
The article “Eco-social policies in a multilevel setup: from Brussels to Berlin” by Katharina Zimmermann, Matteo Mandelli, and Anne Gerstenberg sheds light on political dimensions of German eco-social policy in the context of EU Multi-Level-Governance. In a detailed analysis of the usages of the European Green Deal (EGD) within in the German policy arena they illuminate the underlying contestations and dynamics of multilevel eco-social policy by showing that German stakeholders with different party-political backgrounds make different use of the EGD to bolster their very own policy arguments and strategies. These findings underscore the EGD’s character as a flexible framework for policy deliberation and for ideological contestation. By situating the EGD within Germany’s broader eco-social political landscape and examining its politicization, their study contributes to a deeper understanding of how EU initiatives on eco-social policies are tied into national policy debates.
Halliki Kreinin, Pia Mamut, and Doris Fuchs investigate in their article titled “The ‘glass ceiling’ of Germany’s socio-ecological transformation: Citizen, expert, and local stakeholder perspectives on responsibility for change” the vertical bottom-up dimension between citizens and the state towards the eco-social transformation. The authors use innovative empirical methods including expert interviews, a gamified workshop, and a local stakeholder workshop to explore the transformation readiness and perspectives of German citizens, experts, and stakeholders. The study suggests that despite acknowledging the need for an eco-ecological transformation, there is a pervasive reluctance among citizens and stakeholders to take responsibility and make necessary lifestyle changes. The conflicting role attributed to the German state further complicates policy efforts. These insights indicate that political strategies must address these attitudes and promote shared responsibility to overcome the existing barriers and facilitate meaningful transformation.
Finally, Tia Levi, Emil Israel, and Max Grubman focus their article “Power (re)distribution: How dominant capital regained control of the Energiewende” on the political economy of the German transition (“Energiewende”) in the electric sector on horizontal governance interactions between political and economic sectors of the eco-social dimension. Using a capital-as-power approach they assess the industrial path-dependency and innovation in the German Energiewende and the German electric sector. Their findings suggest that despite policy approaches aimed at promoting renewable energy, dominant conventional firms have managed to regain and consolidate their power. This centralization and profit-driven strategy, which in the end was facilitated by the German political economy may hinder broader energy transition goals and lead to stabilised political influence of these firms, potentially shaping future energy policies to favor their interests over a more distributed, decentralised and socially fairer and renewable-focused energy systems.
The three contributions show that the eco-social transformation in Germany faces different challenges at the various governance levels, which require diverse policy solutions. Eco-social transformation policies have significantly been undermined or blocked by structural power inequalities in the horizontal governance dimension, e.g. between different economic and private actors, but also by lackluster bottom-up support from citizens and stakeholders reluctant to adapt their personal lifestyles towards a sustainable path. Also, the understanding of agreed supranational eco-social policies such as the EGD varies among German political actors and are selectively adapted for domestic political circumstances.
3 Conclusion
The results of the Special Issue on the politics of the eco-social transformation in Germany initially highlight a significant discrepancy between the claim of far-reaching change and political incrementalism, resistance and bottlenecks at the political level. These reservations to transformative change are pronounced in all three dimensions analysed: political ideas, actor coalitions, and governance institutions. The results show that although adjustments were possible, fundamental changes have—so far—not (or only marginally) materialised.
Emanating from the Special Issue we find the ideological persistence of the green economy as a potential update of the German economic model. Degrowth or other post-growth concepts remain at the margin for most political actors at the national and EU levels. The political centre rather discusses the degree of including green and social elements to update the status quo of the German social market economy. This does not apply to the ideological fringes: the AfD promotes climate denial from the far-right. Some ecological and new social movements such as “Fridays for Future” or “Last Generation” put a stronger focus on sustainable welfare.
Regarding conflicts and interests the SI indicates a certain potential on giving up some of the long-established silo mentalities for creating new eco-social alliances, on the other hand industry and trade unions also join forces in pushing narratives such as “jobs vs. environment” that undermine transition efforts. This can also be interpreted as a precautionary attempt not to be perceived to put jobs, welfare and people’s living standards at risk. The eco-social transformation much like other transformative changes generate new or adjusted lines of conflict and cooperation. The contributions highlight a potential general conflict structure on eco-social policies in Germany, where we might observe a dual conflict line putting the far-right AfD against the political mainstream which generally supports eco-social change on the one hand, and a divide within the political mainstream between the green progressive camp and the political and economic centre-right regarding concrete eco-social policies.
The eco-social transformation takes place in a multi-level governance setting. Transformation efforts are significantly shaped at the EU level and extend across different policy areas, economic sectors and different parts of the German society. Here, the contributions show that the politics of eco-social transformation require an increasing need for political coordination, political steering capability and political legitimacy at and between the various governance levels. This is a difficult undertaking in a time of polycrisis including the rise of far right and anti-EU populist forces, as well as geopolitical conflicts and looming economic crises.
Overall, this Special Issue provides a first comprehensive overview of the political aspects of the eco-social transformation in Germany along the three dimensions of ideas, actor positions and constellations, and modes political coordination and governance. These analyses provide valuable starting points for future research, particularly with regard to the role of specific actors such as political parties, federal and state governments, supranational and international organizations, as well as industry and trade unions. Drawing on this research a comparative perspective looking at countries with different welfare state or growth models could be valuable to generate more valid findings on the issues and questions raised in the contributions assembled here. Finally, there should be a stronger focus on the implementation dimension in order to assess the impact of political structures and processes on the actual “performance” of eco-social policies. These aspects play a crucial role for a better understanding what is needed for the design and implementation of policies towards a just and sustainable society.
Notes
Basically, three research perspectives can be distinguished for integration environmental and social perspectives (Bohnenberger 2022): Firstly, one can analyse the effects of climate and environmental policy on social objectives. This includes examining the social consequences of climate policy measures and the ways in which the climate crisis exacerbates social risks. Secondly, it is possible to analyse the various strategies for how social policy can support climate policy goals, as well as the influence of welfare state activities on environmental targets. This may involve studying the impact of labour market policies and distribution policies on consumption and production patterns, and their ecological footprints. Thirdly, a comprehensive perspective can be adopted that considers both policy domains, their objectives, and the instruments jointly. This allows for a holistic understanding of the interplay between environmental and social policy. While there is already a comprehensive body of research on the first perspective, the second perspective has hardly been adopted by researchers so far. In the third perspective, there has been increasing research activity in recent years under the English terms “eco-social policy”, “sustainable welfare”, “eco-social welfare”, “eco-welfare” and the German terms “Ökosozialpolitik”, “Klimasozialpolitik”, “Nachhaltige Sozialpolitik”, “Ökologische Sozialpolitik”.
References
ARD. 2022. ARD-DeutschlandTREND Dezember 2022. https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlandtrend-pdf-105.pdf.
Béland, Daniel. 2010. The idea of power and the role of ideas. Political Studies Review 8(2):145–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9302.2009.00199.x.
Blyth, Mark. 2002. Great transformations: economic ideas and institutional change in the twentieth century. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bohnenberger, Katharina. 2022. Klimasozialpolitik. Ein Forschungsstandbericht Zur Verbindung von Klimapolitik Und Sozialpolitik. DIFIS Studie 2022/3. Deutsches Institut für Interdisziplinäre Sozialpolitikforschung (DIFIS). https://difis.org/f/7f9566f4c3.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2023.
Bößner, Stefan. 2020. The role of German regime actors and trade unions in the energy transition: agency and power. In The Palgrave handbook of managing fossil fuels and energy transitions, ed. Geoffrey Wood, Keith Baker, 341–369. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28076-5_12.
Brand, Ulrich, and Alina Brad. 2019. Sozial-Ökologische Transformation. In Wörterbuch Land- Und Rohstoffkonflikte, 279–285. Bielefeld: transcript. https://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-4433-3/woerterbuch-land-und-rohstoffkonflikte/.
Brand, Ulrich, and Kathrin Niedermoser. 2019. The role of trade unions in social-ecological transformation: overcoming the impasse of the current growth model and the imperial mode of living. Journal of Cleaner Production https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.284.
Büchs, Milena, and Max Koch. 2017. Postgrowth and wellbeing: challenges to sustainable welfare. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59903-8.
Cotta, Benedetta. 2024. Unpacking the eco-social perspective in European policy, politics, and polity dimensions. European Political Science 23(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-023-00453-6.
Die Grünen. 1980. Das Bundesprogramm. https://cms.gruene.de/uploads/assets/1980_Grundsatzprogramm_Die_Gruenen.pdf.
Fritz, Martin, and Dennis Eversberg. 2023. Support for eco-social policy from a class perspective: responsibilities, redistribution, regulation and rights. European Journal of Social Security 25(4):484–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/13882627231208929.
Gough, Ian. 2016. Welfare states and environmental states: a comparative analysis. Environmental Politics 25(1):24–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1074382.
Hagemeyer, Lukas, Rainer Faus, and Lukas Bernhard. 2024. Vertrauensfrage Klimaschutz. Mehrheiten Für Eine Ambitionierte Klimapolitik Gewinnen. FES Diskurs. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Hall, Peter A., and David Soskice (eds.). 2001. Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haunss, Sebastian, and Moritz Sommer (eds.). 2020. Fridays for Future – Die Jugend gegen den Klimawandel: Konturen der weltweiten Protestbewegung. X‑Texte zu Kultur und Gesellschaft. Bielefeld: transcript. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839453476.
Hirvilammi, Tuuli, Liisa Häikiö, Håkan Johansson, Max Koch, and Johanna Perkiö. 2023. Social policy in a climate emergency context: towards an ecosocial research agenda. Journal of Social Policy 52(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279422000721.
Howarth, David, and Joachim Schild. 2021. Nein to ‘Transfer Union’: the German brake on the construction of a European Union fiscal capacity. Journal of European Integration 43(2):209–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2021.1877690.
Köhler, Jonathan, Frank W. Geels, Florian Kern, Jochen Markard, Elsie Onsongo, Anna Wieczorek, Floortje Alkemade, et al, 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31:1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.
Kritikos, Alexander S., Anselm Mattes, Lars Handrich, and Franziska Neumann. 2018. The social-ecological market economy in Germany. Hamburg: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. https://www.governance-fonds.de/infothek/publikationsempfehlungen/publikationen-details, https://www.governance-fonds.de/infothek/publikationsempfehlungen/publikationen-details/the-social-ecological-market-economy-in-germany.
Kundnani, Hans. 2017. The paradox of German power. Oxford University Press.
Lamb, William F., Giulio Mattioli, Sebastian Levi, J. Roberts Timmons, Stuart Capstick, Felix Creutzig, Jan C. Minx, Finn Müller-Hansen, Trevor Culhane, and Julia K. Steinberger. 2020. Discourses of climate delay. Global Sustainability 3:e17. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13.
Laurent, Eloi. 2021. From welfare to farewell. Brussels: European Trade Union Institute. https://www.etui.org/publications/welfare-farewell.
Mandelli, Matteo. 2022. Understanding eco-social policies: a proposed definition and typology. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 28(3):333–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/10242589221125083.
Mannewitz, Tom, and Wolfgang Rudzio. 2023. The political system of Germany. Springer.
Pichler, Melanie. 2023. Political dimensions of social-ecological transformations: polity, politics, policy. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 19(1):2222612. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2023.2222612.
Rehm, Miriam, Vera Huwe, and Katharina Bohnenberger. 2023. Klimasoziale Transformation – Klimaschutz Und Ungleichheitsreduktion wirken Hand in Hand
Scharpf, Fritz W. 2009. Legitimacy in the multilevel European polity. European Political Science Review 1(2):173–204.
Sharp, Helen, Ulrich Petschow, Hans-Jürgen Arlt, Klaus Jakob, Giulia Kalt, and Michael Schipperges. 2020. Neue Allianzen für sozial-ökologische Transformationen. Bericht Umweltbundesamt, Vol. 11/2020. Dessau: Umweltbundesamt.
Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD), and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. 1998. Aufbruch Und Erneuerung – Deutschlands Weg ins 21. Jahrhundert. Koalitionsvereinbarung. spd.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Beschluesse/Bundesparteitag/koalitionsvertrag_bundesparteitag_bonn_1998.pdf.
SPD, Grüne, FPD. 2021. Mehr Fortschritt wagen. Bündnis für Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit und Nachhaltigkeit. https://www.spd.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Koalitionsvertrag/Koalitionsvertrag_2021-2025.pdf.
Steckermeier, Leonie C., and Jan Delhey. 2024. Die Deutschen und ihr Sozialstaat – was die Umfragen sagen. In Deutschland und sein Sozialstaat – Erfolgsgeschichte mit Zukunft?, ed. Jens Bullerjahn, Thomas Kralinski, Matthias Platzeck, and Ringo Wagner, 486–495. Magdeburg: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Landesbüro Sachsen-Anhalt.
Tyson, Alec, Cary Funk, and Brian Kennedy. 2022. Americans largely favor U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050: but just 31 % want to phase out use of fossil fuels completely. Pew Research Center. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep57332.
Urban, Hans-Jürgen. 2012. Between crisis corporatism and revitalisation: trade union policy in the era of European financial market capitalism. In Divisive integration: the triumph of failed ideas in Europe – revisited, ed. Steffen Lehndorff, 269–294. Brussels: European Trade Union Institute (ETUI). https://www.etui.org/publications/books/divisive-integration-the-triumph-of-failed-ideas-in-europe-revisited.
Vogelpohl, T., D. Ohlhorst, M. Bechberger, and B. Hirschl. 2017. ‘German renewable energy policy: independent pioneering versus creeping Europeanization? In A guide to EU renewable energy policy: Comparing Europeanization and domestic policy change in EU member states, ed. I. Solorio Sandoval, H. Jörgens. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Weckroth, Mikko, and Sanna Ala-Mantila. 2022. Socioeconomic geography of climate change views in Europe. Global Environmental Change 72:102453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102453.
Zimmermann, Katharina, and Paolo Graziano. 2020. Mapping different worlds of eco-welfare states. Sustainability 12:1819. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051819.
Acknowledgements
The SI has benefited from the editorial support of ZPol, especially Karsten Schäfer, whom we would like to thank for his precious encouragement and sustained cooperation. We would also like to thank the many anonymous reviewers who have contributed with their expertise to the SI. Finally, we would like to thank all the contributors to the Special Issue for their important and insightful work bringing this SI to life. Special thanks also goes to Ann-Christin Dieker for editorial assistance in the process of finalizing the editorial.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Jasper Finkeldey, Torben Fischer, Hendrik Theine, Katharina Bohnenberger are guest editors.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Finkeldey, J., Fischer, T., Theine, H. et al. The Politics of Germany’s eco-social transformation. Z Politikwiss (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41358-024-00389-3
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41358-024-00389-3