Germany is making a fundamental mistake. Instead of learning from their neighbors, they throw billions down the drain [OPINIA]

Politicians themselves often make their task more difficult than necessary. Meanwhile, we only need to look at our European neighbors, who are sometimes a decade or two ahead of us, to see what a successful reform agenda could look like. Let's look at three examples, two of which were discussed in detail in a study conducted for the Friedrich Naumann Foundation.

The first example concerns infrastructure policy. Germany has problems with the development of infrastructure, which is particularly visible in cross-border cooperation. The Swiss have long completed the construction of new Alpine tunnels, while the promised connections on the German side appear with many years of delay. The situation is similar in Austria: the new Brenner-Basistunnel may be underutilized because there are no connections from Bavaria. A road and rail tunnel under the Fehmarn Belt is enthusiastically supported by Denmark, but faces resistance in Germany.

Environmental restrictions

In Germany, infrastructure is blocked not only by extremely restrictive environmental and species protection regulations, but also by numerous opportunities for complaints and objections, for example by environmental organizations and – last but not least – residents who are generally against any change in their surroundings. We could learn a lot from our neighbors in this regard.

The Danes are focusing on more politically binding infrastructure planning. Citizen participation takes place at an early planning stage. All arguments are documented clearly. Whether the project is environmentally friendly is checked by independent experts. After the public consultation phase, the parliament decides. Thanks to this, the project gains political legitimacy — the debate ends and implementation can begin without further blockages.

The Swiss achieve a similar effect through directly democratic decisions on large infrastructure projects. In this way, attention can be diverted from individual NIMBY-type fears[ang. Not In My Backyard — nie na moim podwórku] and focus on the balance of benefits and costs for society as a whole. After this decision, there are usually no further blocking attempts by individual groups.

Billions thrown away

The second example is the digitization of administration. Estonia is a model for Europe in this matter. After gaining independence, the country focused on digitalization in the 1990s. Estonians were early adopters of digital processes, while fears still prevailed in Germany. From the end of 2024, all administrative activities relating to citizens can be completed digitally, without the need to visit an office. This even applies to divorce and voting.

The heart of Estonian digital infrastructure is the so-called X-Road, an architecture to which individual services can connect. It is used by both offices and private suppliers and is considered very safe. The most important thing, however, is that it is open source software, so anyone interested can read it. Any other country could, if it wanted to, adapt the proven Estonian model.

Instead of using such proven solutions, in Germany, billions have been spent over the years to create their own systemswhich ultimately perform worse than those already existing in other countries. The reason behind this is, among others, willingness to provide public procurement to domestic suppliers. However, in the European context, such a national approach makes no sense.

There is no need to reach for a chainsaw

And finally, as a third example, pensions: reforms that would bring immediate results are needed here – such as linking the retirement age with life expectancy. Such a decision was made in Denmark already in 2006. However, long-term reforms are also needed, primarily strengthening the funded pension pillar. In Sweden, such a component was introduced into the state system in 1999. Currently, 2.5 percent. taxable income goes there to the capital pillar.

In this way, Swedes accumulate their own pension capital throughout their working lives. It also reduces wealth inequality, which is often complained about in Germany and which is partly a side effect of the pay-as-you-go pension system.

So there is no need to immediately reach for a chainsaw or look for role models in countries with a completely different political tradition. To create conditions for economic growth and effective reforms, it would be enough to look at our closer European neighbors.

There you can see how problems can be solved pragmatically, without ideological blinders. Pension policy in Denmark also enjoys support from trade unions, and in Sweden even from social democrats. However, pressure for reform also results from limited resources. If the debt brake is loosened and fresh money is added to the budget, the ineffective status quo can be financed for a few more years. However, the problems will not go away — will only grow, and political tasks will become even more difficult in a few years.