Is Germany about to lose its dedicated ministry for international development? A guest post by Pascal Corbé

As a brand new book on The Rise and Fall of the Department for International Development hits virtual & physical bookshelves these days, my colleague Pascal Corbé of CorbeComs shares some interesting reflections about the future of the German aid structure that I am re-posting here as a guest post.

Will the last OECD-DAC member lose its independent ministry for development cooperation as discussions of a merger with the Foreign Office gain momentum?
Or will the ministry weather yet another storm as it may be needed as a political bargain chip after the next federal elections in 2025?

Well, things can't possibly be turn as bad as under the leadership of Dirk Niebel, the only minister for development cooperation who was featured twice here on the blog in 2011 when I wrote his endorsement of an arms deal with Saudi-Arabia and the broader militaristic mindset during his tenure...

The BMZ still has its official headquarters in Bonn, in the building of the former West German chancellery

The current discourse around merging two German ministries rests heavily on one fundamental argument: efficiency. It’s an argument that resonates with the German public's self-image, where efficiency is highly valued. Additionally, it plays into an age-old stereotype that development cooperation, as it stands, is inefficient. But is this really the point of the matter?

From my perspective, the discussion around merging the two ministries—particularly as proposed by the liberal Free Democrats (FDP)—goes beyond mere organizational efficiency. Efficiency may be the publicly stated reason, but history tells us that such moves are often motivated by more complex political objectives.

Lessons from the Past: The GTZ-GIZ Case
Let’s take a quick look back at the merger that led to the formation of GIZ over a decade ago. At the time, GTZ was the dominant player in the field of government-driven development cooperation in Germany, and it was merged with a few smaller organizations to form GIZ. In reality, it was more of an absorption than a true merger. GTZ, as the "big kid on the block," essentially pulled in the smaller agencies, retaining much of its business model and operational approach.

To soften the appearance of this consolidation, the newly formed organization adopted the name GIZ, stepping away from the more technical-sounding GTZ (with the “T” standing for "Technical Cooperation"). The shift to GIZ, where the “I” stands for "International," was meant to signal a move toward a broader mandate—less focused on purely technical assistance and more on international and political dimensions of cooperation. This subtle rebranding allowed the merger to appear more progressive, but the underlying power dynamics and operational continuity of GTZ remained largely intact.

This historical context is important because it parallels what we might be seeing now with the proposed merger of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation & Development (BMZ) with the foreign ministry (AA). The plan is not just about improving efficiency but is likely driven by political motivations to bring BMZ’s development agenda more in line with broader foreign policy.

What’s Really at Stake Is Control, Bureaucracy, and Alignment
Development cooperation, in recent years, has increasingly been framed within the context of Germany’s national interest. The repeated public assertions by the BMZ minister that Germany’s development efforts serve its national interests point to a deeper underlying anxiety: BMZ is being called out for operating with a different set of objectives than other ministries.

Merging BMZ "into" the foreign ministry would bring BMZ’s leadership and its often-contradictory ideas under tighter political control. The foreign ministry, widely seen as a more bureaucratic, protocol-driven, and more rigid institution, would likely impose a more stringent and uniform approach to development cooperation, one more easily governed by political leadership. While BMZ’s current structure allows for more flexibility and divergence in policy direction, folding it into the foreign ministry could probably substantially curtail its relative independence.

It’s not just about aligning development cooperation with foreign policy; it’s also about creating an institutional environment where political leadership can exert more direct control. In other words, merging BMZ into the foreign ministry would make it easier for politicians to steer the agenda, as the foreign ministry’s culture of bureaucracy and protocols is less resistant to top-down directives. What’s at risk here is BMZ’s unique role as a ministry that can drive innovative and sometimes controversial development policies that don’t always align with short-term national interests—or the narrow perceptions thereof.

Some Historical Irony with the FDP and Cooperation
What’s particularly interesting in this debate is the historical role Germany's Liberal Party, the FDP, has played. It was, in fact, the FDP that was instrumental in founding BMZ. The ministry originally began as an economic cooperation ministry, driven by the FDP’s own initiatives.

Now, decades later, the same party is at the forefront of efforts to "dissolve and merge" this institution, again. There’s an irony in the fact that the very party that helped bring BMZ into existence is now the one pushing to "effectively" eliminate it (pun intended). This reversal in stance raises important questions about the evolving political motivations behind the ministry's existence and the value placed on development cooperation in contemporary Germany.

The Problem with “Development”
Perhaps this shift in focus also opens up a broader discussion about the notion of development itself. There have long been criticisms, particularly from so-called developing countries, about the term "development" being condescending and colonial in nature. These countries have argued that the term frames them in a way that is not reflective of their aspirations or realities. In this context, could it be time to consider removing "development" from the ministry’s name entirely? (It was not part of the ministry's original name, by the way.)

This isn’t just an abstract debate. GIZ itself has encountered similar branding issues when trying to position itself as a consulting agency rather than a development organization. For instance, in certain northern countries where GIZ sought to operate, it faced reluctance due to its association with development—a connotation that would not go down well with certain clients in the North. This pushback highlights the broader discomfort with the concept of "development" in both hemispheres and suggests that rethinking the language around this work could be a constructive step forward.

Mergers Are Always a Political Game
We’ve seen similar mergers take place in other OECD-DAC (Development Assistance Committee) countries, and many of these were also justified under the guise of efficiency. However, in reality, these were often behind-the-scenes political moves aimed at consolidating power and aligning ministries with current government objectives. The process of merging was swift and often cloaked in bureaucratic language, but it was fundamentally about politics, not efficiency.

A Misleading Argument
This brings me to my second point. When analyzing political moves, it’s both critical and standard to separate what is said from what is actually intended. The claim that a merger will increase efficiency is, at best, a distraction. The real intention is to neutralize BMZ’s leadership and ideas, which are seen as incompatible with other policy areas by those pushing for a merger. It's a way of exerting control over a ministry that has historically been able to operate with relative independence.

What’s being proposed here is not a merger in the true sense of the word. It’s more like an asymmetrical absorption, where one ministry will be pulled into another without any real blending of ideas or goals or its most senior staff. The resources, and perhaps the remnants of BMZ, will be folded into a larger structure, but the unique policy perspectives it represents will be silenced.

Efficiency as a Cover for Power Consolidation
In sum, efficiency may be the stated reason for this proposed merger, but it’s merely a convenient argument to justify a move that is far more political in nature. This is about consolidating power, aligning policies, and eliminating divergence in ideas. If we only focus on the narrative of efficiency, we risk missing the true intent behind these changes. And, perhaps as a first step toward a more genuine conversation, we should consider the language we use, especially when it comes to "development." The term itself might need to be rethought to better reflect the realities and aspirations of the world today.

To make it clear here, I am not against change, even in the form of a merger into the Foreign Office. I can even see some good opportunities in this, as it is almost impossible to reform institutions from within (Niklas Luhmann’s point). But I believe political commentary’s job is to talk about the unmentioned possible political motivations—on both sides of the debate.