On 18 May 2026, the AGF organised a symposium in Berlin entitled ‘The Social State Commission’s Reform Proposals and Their Impact on Families’ . The focus was on the proposals of a Governmental ommission for reforming tax-funded social benefits and their potential impact on families, different family structures and the balance between paid work and care work.
When the Social State Commission’s report was published in early 2026, it was initially received by many with an interest in social policy with a mixture of hope, scepticism and, indeed, recognition. It was particularly noteworthy that a commission comprising representatives from the federal government, the Länder and local authorities was able to agree on a joint and largely coherent reform agenda within a comparatively short period of time. Particularly against the backdrop of often contentious debates surrounding the further development of the welfare state and the sharing of burdens between the federal government, the Länder and local authorities, the report was widely perceived as unexpectedly ‘coherent’. It was also highlighted positively that the commission had expressly not linked its mandate to the aim of cutting benefits or lowering the level of social protection. Rather, the aim was to organise benefits in a way that is more comprehensible, transparent and citizen-friendly.
At the same time, it quickly became clear in the discussions surrounding the report that many of the proposals are still formulated in relatively open terms and that their specific consequences will depend heavily on how they are shaped politically and implemented administratively in the coming months and years. From the perspective of family organisations in particular, it will be crucial to see how the announced reforms are shaped in detail and what unintended side effects they may have for different family arrangements.
In their opening remarks, Almut Enderlein, Head of the ‘Family’ Department at the Federal Ministry of Education, Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, and Albrecht Funk, Head of the Sub-department ‘Future of the Social Market Economy and the Welfare State’ at the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, made it clear that the work of the Welfare State Commission had been characterised by an exceptionally constructive and cooperative atmosphere. Despite the differing institutional interests of the federal government, the Länder and local authorities, there was a shared awareness of the problem that the existing welfare state structures were, in many areas, too complex, difficult to access and administratively overburdened..
At the same time, it became clear during the discussion that the pressure for reform had increased considerably, particularly on the part of local authorities and the federal states. The increasingly strained budgetary situation of many local authorities and the growing burdens on social services administrations had heightened the willingness to to consider fundamental structural reforms. Even though the Commission had expressly not regarded its remit as that of a cost-cutting commission, the discussion was nevertheless heavily influenced by questions of improving efficiency through administrative simplification and digitalisation.
In her welcoming address, Almut Enderlein particularly emphasised the great importance of welfare state benefits for families in their everyday lives. Transparent, comprehensible and easily accessible benefits are of particular importance to families, as they are often confronted with a multitude of different responsibilities, application procedures and points of contact. The significance of the proposals put forward by the Commission on the Welfare State is, a. because the proportion of households with children amongst the recipients of the tax-funded benefits under consideration is very high.
At the same time, she pointed out that social transfer payments alone were not sufficient. Equally important are the “supporting infrastructure” for families – such as nurseries, all-day provision at schools or support services within the local community. Even though these areas had not been part of the Social State Commission’s actual remit, family policy could not be conceived of solely in terms of cash benefits. Families rely on a combination of material security, time resources and reliable infrastructure. In this regard, the BMBFSFJ is planning improvements through the Quality Development Act (QEG) for childcare. Planned changes to parental allowance are intended to support partnership-based approaches in early parental childcare.
Albrecht Funk then presented the remit and key recommendations of the Social State Commission. He referred to the Commission’s remit, which focused primarily on tax-funded benefits. Social insurance schemes – such as pension, health or long-term care insurance – were not part of its core remit. The Commission’s proposals were subject to a general funding reservation and did not envisage any fundamental changes to the distribution of financial burdens between the federal government, the Länder and local authorities.
The starting point was the diagnosis that the existing system of tax-funded social benefits was highly fragmented and posed considerable problems for both citizens and public authorities. Many benefits were not sufficiently coordinated, application procedures were complicated and responsibilities were unclear. The Commission’s aim had therefore been to integrate benefits more closely, simplify administrative processes and drive forward the digitalisation of the welfare state.
Central to this was the recommendation to eventually bring together key tax-funded benefits – including the citizen’s income, housing benefit, child supplement and parts of social assistance – within a unified social benefits system. The aim was to create a more transparent and highly digitised ‘one-stop’ system. At the same time, Funk emphasised that the Commission had expressly sought to maintain the level of social protection. Any systematic disadvantage to existing benefit recipients – particularly families and pensioners – should be avoided.
He also addressed the Commission’s challenges and proposals in the area of digitalisation. In doing so, he made it clear that, from the Commission’s perspective, digitalisation does not merely mean transferring existing analogue procedures into digital forms. Rather, the welfare state must be reimagined in terms of its administrative processes. The Commission therefore proposes to digitalise social benefits more extensively, to collect data only once and to make better use of existing data. The aim is to relieve citizens of the burden of having to provide repeated proof and submit multiple applications, whilst at the same time enabling public authorities to act more effectively. A central digital access portal and more standardised legal terms could help to make entitlements easier to understand, speed up procedures and reduce barriers between authorities.
Furthermore, Funk outlined the Commission’s considerations regarding the improvement of incentives to work. He explained that, in some cases, the existing systems meant that increasing the amount of paid work was only of limited financial benefit. The Commission had therefore proposed restructuring the benefit withdrawal rates and creating stronger incentives for employment subject to social insurance contributions with higher weekly working hours, as opposed to marginal employment.
Consolidating welfare state benefits and improving financial incentives to work: levers for adjustment, conflicting objectives and side effects
Dr. Kerstin Bruckmeier, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB)
You will fnd her presentation here.
In her presentation, Dr Kerstin Bruckmeier from the Institute for Employment Research analysed the consolidation of welfare benefits, as well as potential conflicting objectives and side effects of the reform proposals, particularly with regard to the work incentives mentioned by Albrecht Funk. The starting point for her presentation was the observation that the existing systems comprising the citizen’s income, housing benefit and child supplement are not only complex but also, in some cases, exhibit high rates of non-take-up. Many eligible households did not apply for benefits because the systems were difficult to understand or the procedures were perceived as too cumbersome.
At the same time, she made it clear that, despite many shortcomings, the existing basic income support system largely ensures access to key forms of basic material provision. Problems, however, arose in relation to social inclusion, unexpected expenses or opportunities for social participation. Families receiving social security benefits were significantly less likely to have the financial leeway for cultural participation, building up savings, securing adequate housing or going on holiday.
Ms Bruckmeier demonstrated that the debate on incentives to work involves significant conflicting objectives. Whilst reducing the amount of income from near-full-time employment that is taken into account could improve incentives to work, it is often accompanied by higher fiscal costs or an expansion of the group of benefit recipients. Conversely, whilst stricter restrictions on low incomes could reduce costs, they would simultaneously create new burdens for particularly vulnerable households. A simulation of various scenarios for benefit withdrawal rates made it clear that families would be affected differently by such changes depending on their income situation..
Looking beyond the Social State Commission: A new balance between the welfare state, paid work and care work
Dr. Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn, Institut für Sozialökologie
Download his presentation here.
IIn his presentation, Dr Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn from the Institute for Social Ecology broadened the perspective beyond the immediate proposals of the Commission on the Welfare State. The starting point for his presentation was the question of how a new balance could be struck between the welfare state, paid work and care work. To this end, he presented his own version of an integrated tax-and-transfer system. He argued that the current systems often place families in contradictory situations: on the one hand, paid work is to be expanded; on the other hand, families continue to rely to a considerable extent on unpaid care work. Furthermore, many families find themselves in the dual role of being both taxpayers and recipients of social benefits.
Strengmann-Kuhn pointed out that child and family poverty remains high despite people being in work, and that many families are caught between the risk of poverty and limited employment opportunities. Single parents and couples with a strongly gender-segregated division of labour are particularly affected. At the same time, the existing systems often meant that taking on additional paid work offered only limited financial gain, as additional income was in some cases heavily offset against social security benefits.
Against this backdrop, he presented ideas for an integrated tax and benefit system designed to make benefits more automated, less stigmatising and better integrated with the tax system. The aim is a system that reduces poverty more effectively, enables people to take up paid work and, at the same time, creates greater freedom of choice regarding care work. These included, amongst other things, proposals for a basic income, a basic child allowance and more automated support payments
Discussion
During the discussions, it became clear that many participants fundamentally recognised the need for reform. In particular, efforts to simplify administration, improve access to benefits and increase digitalisation were highlighted positively. At the same time, numerous critical questions were raised which, from a family policy perspective, would need to be discussed in greater detail in the further reform process.
Among other things, it was asked whether the strong focus on incentives to work might not run the risk of devaluing care work and family care responsibilities. Several contributions to the discussion pointed out that single parents and families with young children, in particular, often have only limited opportunities to increase their hours of paid work. Concerns were also expressed that, as a result of the greater consolidation of benefits, families might in future become more closely linked to the basic income support system and job centres, which could trigger new stigmatising effects.
Further discussions centred on how digitalisation could be shaped in a socially equitable manner, and what role face-to-face advice would continue to play in the future. For implementation, it will be crucial to to design digital processes in such a way that they facilitate access rather than creating new barriers. It became clear that digitalisation cannot replace face-to-face counselling. Families in particularly complex life situations, in particular, continue to rely on accessible points of contact, clear notifications and supportive guidance. Furthermore, the ‘socially accepted’ reasons for seeking advice on financial matters and applications at family advice centres offer families and advisers the opportunity to also address other counselling needs, such as parenting issues, family conflicts or access to further support systems, for which help might otherwise not have been sought.
There was also debate over whether the targeted administrative savings would in fact be sufficient to financially offset higher uptake rates of services that have so far been little used. Several participants expressed doubts as to whether the goal of broad cost neutrality could be achieved if simplified and low-threshold procedures actually led to significantly more eligible families to claim benefits such as the child supplement..
urthermore, it was emphasised that meaningful digitalisation could not consist solely of the technical conversion of existing procedures. Rather, for digitalisation to work effectively, the procedures for granting benefits themselves would also need to be simplified and standardised to a greater extent. Otherwise, there was a risk that the complexity of the existing system would simply be replicated in digital form.
Discussions also centred on how local authorities and different levels of government could be encouraged to agree to common digital standards and greater standardisation of local social benefits. Several contributions pointed out that the wide variety of local responsibilities and procedures represents one of the key challenges to effective digitalisation..
The proposed greater standardisation of legal terms across different social security codes – for example, the term ‘single parent’ – was generally regarded as sensible and practical. At the same time, however, concerns were also raised that such standardisation could, in practice, lead to a material deterioration in the situation of single parents if existing specific protection or support schemes were thereby weakened.
Whether the planned simplifications would actually ease the burden on families or give rise to new uncertainties was the subject of heated debate. Particularly from a family policy perspective, it was emphasised on several occasions that the actual consequences of the reform will only become clear once the specific legal provisions have been finalised..
Programm (in German)
| 13:00 – 13:10 Uhr | Begrüßung durch AGF |
| 13:10 – 13:25 Uhr | Grußwort des Bundesministeriums für Bildung, Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend Almut Enderlein, Abteilungsleiterin im BMBFSFJ |
| 13:25 – 14:30 Uhr | Empfehlungen der Kommission zur Sozialstaatsreform und ihr familienpolitischer Bezug Albrecht Funk, Unterabteilungsleiter im Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales |
| 14:30 – 15:00 Uhr | Pause |
| 15:00 – 16:00 Uhr | Zusammenführung sozialstaatlicher Leistungen und Verbesserung finanzieller Arbeitsanreize: Stellschrauben, Zielkonflikte und Nebenwirkungen Dr. Kerstin Bruckmeier, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB) |
| 16:00 – 17:00 Uhr | Blick über die Sozialstaatskommission hinaus: Ein neues Gleichgewicht zwischen Wohlfahrtsstaat, Erwerbs- und Care-Arbeit für Familien durch ein integriertes Steuer-Transfersystem Dr. Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn, Institut für Sozialökologie |
| 17:00 – 17:15 Uhr | Abschluss |