LEI_F_05 Public Services and Equivalent Living Conditions

Objectives / Research Questions

This project examines from a financial science perspective how public authorities support social cohesion by creating equivalent living conditions.

The project pursues a predominantly empirical-analytical approach, as reflected in all four work packages listed below. It aims to examine the importance of social cohesion from an interregional perspective as well as how corresponding public services develop in relation to it. This entails answering the question of whether public service providers are currently withdrawing from certain areas of services of general interest, as is occasionally alleged, and thus endangering social cohesion. To a minor extent, a conceptual-theoretical contribution is provided towards a more precise definition of the concept of social cohesion, particularly in conjunction with the already established state objective equivalent living conditions. A comparative aspect arises insofar as the research results are to be reported in a spatially differentiated manner (primarily nationally, but also internationally).

The project tackles the topic of social cohesion from an economic perspective, which is a generally under-represented view in RISC. Project outlines are coordinated with numerous other projects within Cluster 2 in the research area “Institutional Structures and Common Goods”. Furthermore, the project cooperates closely with the Leipzig project LEI_F_04, benefiting from the interdisciplinary approach and the content overlaps.

The following core issues are being addressed in four work packages:

1) Is the equivalence of living conditions an empty claim or a serious guideline for administrative and political action? How is this expressed, in particular in financial equalization systems? From this perspective, how are further financial flows within the federal republic and between the federal states and their local authorities to be assessed? What role does the federal government play in the regional provision of goods of general interest? How much inequality in public budgets is tolerable for the community, and which degree of inequality is considered to be conducive?

2) Are governments really, as is often claimed, withdrawing infrastructure and services from rural areas? Which spatial patterns of government activity can be observed (urban-rural, East-West, North-South, economically strong-economically weak, topographically, and traffic axes)? Which steering instruments are available at government levels within the German federal framework, and how have they been applied in the past decades? What consequences for social cohesion result from this analysis?

3) Do public services/common goods necessarily have to be provided by public authorities? Which role do state-owned enterprises play regarding the quality of public services and the perception of it by its citizens and/or entrepreneurs? What does this imply for the ability of politics to take responsibility for social cohesion? What influence does government activity have on the vitality of the labour market and work life itself (state regulation of the labour market and the public sector as employer)?

4) Is the public social and technical infrastructure a desirable but expensive endeavour? Might an efficient economic system also be able to manage with significantly less public infrastructure? Which role does public infrastructure play in terms of perceived quality of life and the realization of opportunities? Is public infrastructure possibly required as a complementary production factor to ensure prosperity (nationally and regionally)? Does existing infrastructure have to be mandatorily maintained, or is there also a case for reducing the level of infrastructure in the wake of changing demands on the state (demographic change and economic development)? How is the state supposed to react towards new types of infrastructure (e.g. digitalization or e-mobility)?

Thematic relation to social cohesion

The concept of social cohesion is not a typical subject of research in economic sciences. The alignment with the research field of social cohesion, however, is accomplished through research on the (in)equality of income, wealth, and material living conditions resulting from economic transactions (Piketty 2015). When comparing the disciplines and approaches, the economic perspective is thus one of those classifying egalitarian social relations as a prerequisite for social cohesion. Differences in living conditions, particularly in the provision of public services, determine the material and perceived quality of life. Given the rising or stagnating inequality in recent decades, distributional issues are once again increasingly central to the debate, both in the academic context and in the context of applied financial and economic policies (Wirtschaftsdienst 2019). Equivalence of living conditions is a central state policy objective in the Federal Republic of Germany (Henneke 2019). This also resonates in two passages of the Basic Law that explicitly mention the postulate (Article 72, paragraph 2, Basic Law, and even “uniformly” in Article 106, paragraph 3, sentence 2, Basic Law). Unlike the neologism of social cohesion, the orientation towards “equivalent living conditions” is not a new concept but has been anchored as a guideline for state action for many decades.

By virtue of their activities, public authorities (territorial authorities, social security institutions, and state-owned enterprises) are guarantors of services of general interest, of the provision of technical and social infrastructure, and of a material equalization between public authorities and between individuals. Increasing inequalities within the federal territory, a regularly claimed withdrawal of the state from certain areas, the enormous neglect of public (especially municipal) infrastructure, and the continued privatization of state service provision are potential sources for divergence of individuals and social groups (Fink et al. 2019; Sixtus 2019). These issues are currently being discussed, especially in connection with the energy system transition (brown coal phase out) or the discrepancies between urban centres and rural areas (Hesse et al. 2019; Hochhuth 2012; Potrafke / Rösel 2019). Since the specific links between financial and regional policy decisions and social cohesion are often partly or entirely unknown, intensive research in Cluster 2: Structures, Spaces, and Milieus of Cohesion is expected to yield profound analytical findings and multiple transfer approaches.

In addition, questions increasingly arise if, on the one hand, the realization of equivalent living conditions is measurable and attainable in concrete terms and whether, on the other hand, equivalent living conditions ensure social cohesion at all. Economic and political conflicts in the debate on equivalent living conditions are multifaceted and sometimes irresolvable, which became apparent with the failure of the Commission for Equal Living Conditions set up by the federal government in 2018 (Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat; Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft; Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend 2019; Deutscher Städtetag 2019).

The research questions and approaches emanating from financial science mentioned above also overlap with perspectives from spatial, sociological, and political sciences, which are to be utilized efficiently within RISC.

Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat; Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft; Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (Hrsg.) 2019: Unser Plan für Deutschland – Gleichwertige Lebensverhältnisse überall. Berlin. Online verfügbar unter www.bmi.bund.de / SharedDocs / downloads / DE / veroeffentlichungen / themen / heimat-integration / gleichwertige-lebensverhaeltnisse / unser-plan-fuer-­deutschland-langversion-kom-gl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4, zuletzt geprüft am 21.08.2019.

Deutscher Städtetag (Hrsg.) 2019: Städtetag zum Kabinettsbeschluss für gleichwertige Lebensverhältnisse, in: Städtetag aktuell, 7 / 19. Online verfügbar unter www.staedtetag.de / imperia / md / content / dst / veroeffentlichungen / dst_aktuell / 2019 / staedtetag_aktuell_7_2019.pdf, zuletzt geprüft am 11.12.2019.

Fink, Philipp; Hennicke, Martin; Tiemann, Heinrich 2019: Ungleiches Deutschland. Sozioökonomischer Disparitätenbericht 2019. Für ein besseres Morgen. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Bonn. Online verfügbar unter www.fes.de / ungleiches-deutschland , zuletzt geprüft am 30.04. 2019.

Henneke, Hans-Günter (Hrsg.) 2019: Gleichwertige Lebensverhältnisse bei veränderter Statik des Bundesstaates?, in: Schriften zum deutschen und europäischen Kommunalrecht 55, Stuttgart.

Hesse, Mario; Starke, Tim; Jänchen, Isabelle, Glinka, Philipp 2019: Prosperierende Städte, abgehängte Regionen? Empirische Untersuchung zu Wirtschafts- und Steuerkraft, in: Wirtschaftsdienst 99:10, 703-710. Online verfügbar unter
jahr / 2019 / 10 / prosperierende-staedte-abgehaengte-regionen-empirische-untersuchung-zu-wirtschafts-und-steuerkraft, zuletzt geprüft am 28.11.2019.

Hochhuth, Martin (Hrsg.) 2012: Rückzug des Staates und Freiheit des Einzelnen. Die Privatisierung existenzieller Infrastrukturen, in: Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen und Reden zur Philosophie, Politik und Geistesgeschichte, Band 69, Berlin.

Piketty, Thomas 2015: The economics of inequality, Cambridge, MA.

Potrafke, Niklas; Rösel, Felix 2019: The Urban-Rural Gap in Health Care Infrastructure – 
Does Government Ideology Matter?, in: ifo Working Papers 300. Online verfügbar unter www.ifo.de / DocDL / wp-2019-300-potrafke-roesel-urban-rural-gap-health-care-infrastructure.pdf, zuletzt geprüft am 11.06.2019.

Sixtus, Frederick; Slupina, Manuel; Sütterlin, Sabine; Amberger, Julia; Klingholz, Reiner 2019: Teilhabeatlas Deutschland. Ungleichwertige Lebensverhältnisse und wie Menschen sie wahrnehmen, Berlin. Online verfügbar unter wuestenrot-stiftung.de / teilhabe-atlas-deutschland, zuletzt geprüft am 10.09.2019.

Wirtschaftsdienst (Hrsg.) 2019: Regionalpolitik neu denken, in: Wirtschaftsdienst, Sonderheft, 99. Jahrgang, Sonderheft 2019. Online verfügbar unter archiv.wirtschaftsdienst.eu /jahr / 2019 / 13, zuletzt geprüft am 05.06.2019.