IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/report/rp-21-13.html

German Just Transition: A Review of Public Policies to Assist German Coal Communities in Transition

Author

Listed:
  • Furnaro, Andrea
  • Herpich, Philipp
  • Brauers, Hanna
  • Oei, Pao-Yu
  • Kemfert, Claudia
  • Look, Wesley

    (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

This report examines public initiatives implemented in Germany to support workers and communities impacted by the decline in coal production from the 1960s to the present. The main goal is to present key policy alternatives and lessons from the German case to inform Just Transition (JT) processes in other countries and regions.With the prospect of phasing out coal and sharply cutting use of other fossil fuels in the United States due to greenhouse gas mitigation efforts, it is worth looking at the successes and failures of past transitions. Germany has intentionally steered its coal reduction process since the 1960s to prevent detrimental economic and social consequences. A central characteristic of the German approach to mitigate the impacts of coal decline for workers and regions is the use of integrative policies based on a combination of policy goals and mechanisms.The report examines historical policies (implemented between 1968 and 2019) and present policies. Their main goals can be characterized as (a) economic diversification and reorientation; (b) workforce support; (c) social well-being and quality of life, and (d) environmental remediation and protection. Moreover, these policies have commonly employed three mechanisms: (1) financial support for public organizations, businesses, and workers; (2) service and assistance for public organizations, businesses, and workers; and (3) direct investments.Large public investments in infrastructure and environmental remediation have been central goals of the policies analyzed over time. Providing financial support and assistance for businesses and workers has also been a key component of most policies. These policies especially targeted businesses until the 1980s. In more recent decades, a tendency toward financial support of local governments and nonprofit organizations can be observed.The report also characterizes the implemented policies according to their governance structures, namely their design, implementation, and forms of public participation. From the 1960s through the 1980s, top-down policies predominated; these were designed, implemented, and administered by subnational governments with limited participation of local stakeholders. Since the end of the 1980s, municipal governments have implemented a more regionalized approach with bottom-up policies, including local participation.Beyond the policies that explicitly support coal workers and regions, key “baseline policies” played a large role in JT in Germany. They include the German social security system, the labor system, and the system for regional fiscal equalization.In this report, we highlight the following lessons from the German experience to inform JT policymaking in other contexts:Historical policies implemented in Germany tended to focus on protecting the coal industry and promoting coal production. Since the 2000s, policies began to proactively steer the transition away from coal. This anticipatory and preventive approach had a positive impact on job creation and in the formation of new industries in coal regions (IWH 2020; Bade and Alm 2010; Untiedt et al. 2010). Following a similar approach, the Commission on Growth, Structural Change and Employment (also called the Coal Commission) and subsequent laws have aimed to reduce the risk of economic, social, and environmental problems caused by the decline in coal production. In comparison to the transition in other old industrial regions in Europe, such as the United Kingdom, the reduction of hard coal production in Germany during the 1960s was handled in a more socially compatible way (Brauers et al. 2020), as none of the former coal workers became unemployed directly but instead either entered early retirement or follow-up employment that helped to protect their socioeconomic status.Large-scale government investments and industrial policies have been central aspects of the approach to support coal regions in Germany. In the beginning of the German coal industry crisis, these policies incentivized investments that aimed to restrengthen or conserve the role of traditional industries, which prevented a transition and instead led to high debts and deficits in public budgets. The increasingly proactive role of the public sector in regional economic policy has been important to attract new businesses and promote economic growth. The implemented policies helped to create new economic opportunities and jobs in many of the locations where they have been deployed (IWH 2020; Bade and Alm 2010; Untiedt et al. 2010).Policies to support coal regions have been particularly successful when tailored to the local realities and needs. Including active participation of local stakeholders in the design and implementation of these policies is important not only from a procedural justice perspective but also to create more locally coherent and effective interventions. Incorporating local actors also increases social acceptance and the usage of existing regional knowledge, an important factor in accelerating the transition away from coal. The German experience also shows the importance of providing local governments with enough financial resources to implement these measures themselves. This can reduce the need for coordination between the political levels and hence reduce related transaction costs.Most of the policies implemented in Germany to support coal regions combine multiple policy objectives. Since the 1990s, policies have prioritized the quality of life of local communities through economic, cultural, and environmental interventions. This integrative and holistic approach is important for addressing the transition away from coal as a multidimensional problem and creating synergies between different interventions. This approach contributes to improving the attractiveness of addressed regions and can promote social cohesion.The German social security system, the labor system, and the system of regional fiscal equalization are critical components in Germany’s efforts to assist workers and communities affected by the decline in coal production. Given the relatively strong support that the German social security net provides to coal workers, most of the policies included in this review should be seen as a complement to these baseline policies. Emphasizing that the JT policies exist in addition to these baseline policies is particularly important in order to avoid overestimating their potential replicability in other contexts with weaker social and labor protection systems.These policies may provide valuable examples to inform the design of new JT initiatives in other contexts, although the challenges that lie ahead may require even more holistic and forward-looking initiatives to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels while investing in the future prosperity of workers and communities.To view the full report, click "Download" above.

Suggested Citation

  • Furnaro, Andrea & Herpich, Philipp & Brauers, Hanna & Oei, Pao-Yu & Kemfert, Claudia & Look, Wesley, 2021. "German Just Transition: A Review of Public Policies to Assist German Coal Communities in Transition," RFF Reports 21-13, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:report:rp-21-13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rff.org/documents/3189/21-13-Nov-22.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Masuch, Klaus & Anderton, Robert & Setzer, Ralph & Benalal, Nicholai, 2018. "Structural policies in the euro area," Occasional Paper Series 210, European Central Bank.
    2. Unruh, Gregory C., 2000. "Understanding carbon lock-in," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(12), pages 817-830, October.
    3. Brauers, Hanna & Oei, Pao-Yu & Walk, Paula, 2020. "Comparing coal phase-out pathways: The United Kingdom’s and Germany’s diverging transitions," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 37, pages 238-253.
    4. Gert-Jan Hospers, 2004. "Restructuring Europe’s Rustbelt," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 39(3), pages 147-156, May.
    5. Morton, Tom & Müller, Katja, 2016. "Lusatia and the coal conundrum: The lived experience of the German Energiewende," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 277-287.
    6. Storchmann, Karl, 2005. "The rise and fall of German hard coal subsidies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(11), pages 1469-1492, July.
    7. Zsolt Darvas & Jan Mazza & Catarina Midões, 2019. "How to improve European Union cohesion policy for the next decade," Bruegel Policy Contributions 30670, Bruegel.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthias Kroll & Kjell Kühne, 2024. "“Climate Bailout”: a new tool for central banks to limit the financial risk resulting from climate change," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 217-232, March.
    2. Oei, Pao-Yu & Hermann, Hauke & Herpich, Philipp & Holtemöller, Oliver & Lünenbürger, Benjamin & Schult, Christoph, 2020. "Coal phase-out in Germany – Implications and policies for affected regions," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 196.
    3. Tilmann Rave & Ursula Triebswetter & Johann Wackerbauer, 2013. "Koordination von Innovations-, Energie- und Umweltpolitik," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 61.
    4. Gransaull, Gareth & Rhodes, Ekaterina & Fairbrother, Malcolm, 2023. "Institutions for effective climate policymaking: Lessons from the case of the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    5. Foxon, T. J. & Gross, R. & Chase, A. & Howes, J. & Arnall, A. & Anderson, D., 2005. "UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(16), pages 2123-2137, November.
    6. Piotr Lis & Zuzanna Rataj & Katarzyna Suszyńska, 2022. "Implementation Risk Factors of Collaborative Housing in Poland: The Case of ‘Nowe Żerniki’ in Wrocław," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-12, February.
    7. Natalie Slawinski & Jonatan Pinkse & Timo Busch & Subhabrata Bobby Banerjeed, 2014. "The role of short-termism and uncertainty in organizational inaction on climate change: multilevel framework," Working Papers hal-00961226, HAL.
    8. Stieglitz, Moritz & Setzer, Ralph, 2022. "Firm-level employment, labour market reforms, and bank distress," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "How do electoral competition and special interests shape the stringency of renewable energy standards?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(1), pages 23-34, January.
    10. Curci, Ylenia & Mongeau Ospina, Christian A., 2016. "Investigating biofuels through network analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 60-72.
    11. Bessi, Alessandro & Guidolin, Mariangela & Manfredi, Piero, 2021. "The role of gas on future perspectives of renewable energy diffusion: Bridging technology or lock-in?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    12. Zhang, Hui & Cao, Libin & Zhang, Bing, 2017. "Emissions trading and technology adoption: An adaptive agent-based analysis of thermal power plants in China," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 23-32.
    13. Hellsmark, Hans & Hansen, Teis, 2020. "A new dawn for (oil) incumbents within the bioeconomy? Trade-offs and lessons for policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    14. João Tovar Jalles, 2024. "Financial Crises and Climate Change," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 66(1), pages 166-190, March.
    15. Mander, Sarah. L. & Bows, Alice & Anderson, Kevin. L. & Shackley, Simon & Agnolucci, Paolo & Ekins, Paul, 2008. "The Tyndall decarbonisation scenarios--Part I: Development of a backcasting methodology with stakeholder participation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 3754-3763, October.
    16. Hötte, Kerstin & Pichler, Anton & Lafond, François, 2021. "The rise of science in low-carbon energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    17. Balkrishna C. Rao & Ingo Liefner, 2023. "Frugal Engineering of Advanced Frugal Innovations for Global Sustainability Entrepreneurship," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 32(2_suppl), pages 69-88, November.
    18. Shum, Kwok L. & Watanabe, Chihiro, 2007. "Photovoltaic deployment strategy in Japan and the USA--an institutional appraisal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 1186-1195, February.
    19. Monica Santillan Vera & Lilia Garcia Manrique & Isabel Rodriguez Pena & Angel de la Vega Navarro, 2021. "Drivers of Electricity GHG Emissions and the Role of Natural Gas in Mexican Energy Transition," Working Paper Series 1021, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    20. Marzieh Ronaghi & Michael Reed & Sayed Saghaian, 2020. "The impact of economic factors and governance on greenhouse gas emission," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(2), pages 153-172, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:report:rp-21-13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.