The part-time trick: How Germany's public authorities could solve their staffing problem immediately

Staffing collapse at schools and daycare centers? A new calculation exposes the excuse

Secret IW study shows: The German state doesn't need any new personnel

The shortage of skilled workers in the German public sector is considered an undeniable fact – but what if the state is structurally exacerbating its own staffing problem? While the German Civil Service Federation (dbb) is sounding the alarm, lamenting a nationwide shortage of 631,000 employees by 2026, a new, explosive study by the German Economic Institute (IW) offers a startling counter-calculation. According to the study, the extremely high rate of part-time work means that exactly 634,000 full-time equivalent positions are lying dormant in government offices, schools, and daycare centers. At first glance, this seems like a mathematical bullseye: theoretically, the gap could be closed solely by existing staff. However, the equation is not quite so simple in practice. The following text examines the findings of the IW study, questions the convenient narrative of a chronically understaffed public sector, and demonstrates why intelligent working time management, genuine incentives for overtime, and, above all, a radical reduction in bureaucracy are the real solution to the staffing crisis.

The hidden talent pool in the German state apparatus: When complaints about staff shortages become a political excuse

For years, the German state has portrayed itself as chronically understaffed. From the police to schools to local government, a narrative is repeated that hardly anyone seriously questions: there simply isn't enough people to handle the growing workload. The German Civil Service Federation (dbb) has reinforced this narrative with an annual survey of its 41 member unions, arriving at a projected shortfall of 631,000 public sector employees for 2026, an increase from the 600,000 of the previous year. This figure is politically effective because it suggests a simple, almost intuitive chain of cause and effect: more tasks, more bureaucracy, a greater need for new personnel, consequently more expenditures and more hiring. A new, as yet unpublished study by the German Economic Institute (IW) now presents an uncomfortable counter-argument to this narrative, which BILD has exclusively obtained. The study's author, Björn Kauder, Senior Economist at the IW and a recognized expert in public finance, calculated the amount of working time that could be generated by existing staff if they were simply deployed more consistently. The result is strikingly similar to the much-discussed skills gap and sheds new light on the debate surrounding the supposed shortage of skilled workers in the public sector.

The surprising calculation: Almost a perfect match between the gap and the reserve

The core message of the IW calculation can be summarized in one sentence: If all part-time employees at the federal, state, and local levels were to increase their working hours to full-time, this would result in a calculated additional workload of 634,000 full-time equivalents. This figure is almost exactly the same as the 631,000 employees that the German Civil Service Federation (DBB) estimates the public sector is lacking. At first glance, this seems like a mathematical bullseye, suggesting that the government could solve its self-diagnosed problem entirely on its own, without recruiting a single new employee from outside the public sector. The calculation is based on personnel statistics from the Federal Statistical Office, from which the difference between the actual working hours of part-time employees and the hypothetical working hours of a full-time position can be derived. What is remarkable about this model calculation is that it works exclusively with existing personnel. It is therefore not about creating new positions, but about making better use of existing employment contracts. The IW itself explicitly describes this maximum scenario as a theoretical upper limit and not as a realistic recommendation for action. A mandatory transition of all part-time employees to full-time work would be virtually impossible to enforce under labor law and would also be thwarted by personal circumstances such as childcare, caregiving responsibilities, or health limitations. Nevertheless, the figure provides an important reference point for assessing the actual scale of unused working time reserves.

Saxony-Anhalt as a benchmark: What a realistic scenario would mean

Because a complete transition to full-time work is considered unrealistic, the IW (German Economic Institute) has calculated a second, significantly more moderate scenario. The basic idea behind it is simple and methodologically elegant: The model takes the federal state that already has the highest average working hours in the public sector and calculates what would happen if all other states and municipalities reached this level. This reference state is Saxony-Anhalt. Even in this more conservative model, there would still be 294,000 additional full-time equivalents nationwide. This corresponds to just under half of the theoretical maximum reserve, but is still a substantial figure that would cover almost half of the total personnel shortage claimed by the German Civil Service Federation. This calculation is methodologically more convincing because it does not assume a utopian ideal state, but rather a working time model that has already proven to function in practice. If a federal state manages to have its employees work longer hours on average without its system collapsing, it can be argued that other states approaching this level is fundamentally feasible. At the same time, the comparison also shows how heterogeneous the working time cultures actually are between the federal states, which in turn is due to different family policy frameworks, tariff structures and historically developed employment patterns, especially in the East-West comparison.

Where the greatest reserves lie specifically: Schools, daycare centers and administrations in focus

The study becomes particularly revealing when broken down by area of ​​responsibility, as this is where a bitter irony emerges. The largest unused reserves of working time are found precisely in those sectors where staff shortages are most loudly lamented in public. Kauder estimates the theoretical potential at 153,000 full-time equivalents in schools, which would correspond to a possible increase in workload of almost 20 percent. In daycare centers, the reserve is 54,400 full-time equivalents, and in local government, 41,800. At universities, this translates to 16,000 additional full-time positions, and in the police force, still 10,800. These figures are so significant because the German Civil Service Federation (dbb), in its own survey, classifies precisely these same areas as particularly understaffed: The dbb is calling for an additional 120,000 positions in schools, 112,000 in local government, and 97,000 in daycare centers. A comparison of the two studies suggests that a significant portion of the perceived staff shortage in these areas is not primarily due to a lack of personnel, but rather to the distribution of available working hours across many part-time positions. Teachers, educators, and administrative staff in Germany traditionally work part-time at a disproportionately high rate, often for family reasons, but also because certain job profiles, such as those in teaching, are structurally designed for part-time models. This structural predisposition means that while a sector may have a large number of employees on paper, the actual workload is considerably lower than the sheer number of employees would suggest.

Bavaria, North Rhine-Westphalia and Baden-Württemberg lead the federal states

The regional distribution of the part-time reserve also provides interesting insights into the federal structure of the public service. In absolute terms, Bavaria leads the ranking: If all part-time employees of the state and municipalities there were converted to full-time positions, this would correspond to 129,800 additional full-time employees. North Rhine-Westphalia follows with 115,100 and Baden-Württemberg with 111,300 additional full-time equivalents. This order is hardly surprising, as these are the three most populous and economically strongest federal states, whose public services are correspondingly large. More interesting is the view of the relative magnitude in relation to the existing workload. In Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, and Rhineland-Palatinate, the workload could theoretically increase by about 19 to 21 percent if all part-time positions were expanded. The situation is quite different in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, where the theoretical increase would amount to only around eight percent. This significant East-West discrepancy reflects structural differences in labor force participation that have developed historically. In the eastern German states, full-time employment among women has traditionally been more widespread than in large parts of western Germany, where part-time work, particularly for women with children, is more deeply rooted culturally. This differing starting point also means that a nationwide alignment with the level in Saxony-Anhalt is likely to encounter considerably more resistance in wealthier western states than in states that are already closer to this benchmark.

Two numbers, two perspectives: Why 634,000 doesn't simply balance out 631,000

Despite the fascination with the almost identical magnitude of the two figures, caution is advised, as they are not readily interchangeable methodologically. The German Civil Service Federation's (dbb) figure is based on a subjective survey of its member unions, which captures the actual structural need for a perceived adequate performance of duties, not merely the number of formally vacant positions. The IW figure, on the other hand, is a purely mathematical derivation from official working time statistics, without any normative evaluation of whether this additional working time is actually needed or could even be used effectively. Furthermore, the two figures are not distributed equally across sectors. The dbb identifies the greatest need in nursing and elderly care, with 125,200 missing positions—an area that is not even shown separately in the IW's calculation of the part-time reserve in the public sector, since large parts of the care sector in Germany are not organized within the traditional public service, but rather with independent, church-affiliated, or private providers. Similarly, the police and armed forces together report a need for 92,000 additional personnel, while the IW study identifies a part-time reserve of only 10,800 for the police. This discrepancy shows that while the two figures are almost identical in total, their underlying structure differs considerably. Simply comparing 634,000 against 631,000 would therefore be a misleading oversimplification, suggesting that the personnel shortage can be solved sector-specifically through internal redistribution. In reality, increasing part-time positions in schools or daycare centers would not automatically compensate for the urgent personnel needs in nursing or the police, as employees generally cannot or do not want to switch between these sectors.

The economic logic behind the part-time quota in the civil service

To properly assess the relevance of the IW study, it's worth examining the structural causes of the high rate of part-time work in the public sector. In Germany, the state has traditionally been a particularly family-friendly employer, offering flexible working hours, parental leave arrangements, and part-time options to an extent that is often not available in the private sector, especially in small and medium-sized enterprises. This offer is particularly popular with women, who are already disproportionately represented in many occupational fields within the public sector, such as education. From a labor economics perspective, this leads to a paradox: the public sector attracts a large number of people due to its appeal for part-time work, but simultaneously exacerbates the structural problem of insufficient working hours, because a high number of employees does not automatically translate into a correspondingly high number of hours worked. Economically speaking, this is a classic problem of factor allocation. While the production factor of labor is available in sufficient numbers, it is not utilized for a sufficient amount of time. Increasing the average working hours of existing employees would be more economically efficient in many respects than hiring new staff, because already trained and qualified personnel could be more productive without additional recruitment, onboarding, and training costs. This is precisely the core of the IW's economic argument: Before the government competes for additional skilled workers in an already strained labor market, it should first examine whether it is fully utilizing its existing human capital.

Why the IW advises against recruiting from the private sector

A central and quite controversial point of the study concerns the economic evaluation of recruitment strategies. The IW (German Economic Institute) concludes that it is not economically sound to deliberately poach additional workers from the private sector for the civil service. This position is noteworthy because it contradicts a widespread political knee-jerk demand that higher salaries and more attractive working conditions in the public sector could solve the staffing problem. From a macroeconomic perspective, however, such poaching is a zero-sum game that does not increase overall labor productivity but merely redistributes workers from one sector to another. In a country already suffering from a demographically driven shortage of skilled workers, every additional position in the civil service would potentially leave a position vacant in the private sector, be it in industry, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), or export-oriented sectors that are crucial for Germany's overall economic value creation and prosperity. When the state competes for the same limited labor supply with better conditions, the competition for personnel intensifies without ultimately resulting in more overall work output. This line of reasoning fits with a more fundamental economic liberal school of thought, which views the public sector primarily as a necessary but potentially unproductive cost factor, whose growth weakens the private sector responsible for innovation and value creation if it comes at the expense of the same limited labor resource.

The best solution: Streamlined laws instead of more staff

Perhaps the most important strategic message of the study, however, lies not in the calculation of part-time employment itself, but in a fundamental systemic question raised by the IW (German Economic Institute). Instead of asking whether there is too little staff for existing tasks, the institute reverses the perspective and asks whether there are simply too many tasks for the existing staff. This reversal of the question is conceptually crucial because it shifts the focus from the supply side, i.e., recruitment, to the demand side, i.e., the quantity and complexity of government tasks themselves. The IW identifies streamlined legislation, requiring less staff for its implementation, as the true solution to the staffing problem. Interestingly, this position also aligns with demands from the trade union camp. Volker Geyer, the federal chairman of the dbb (German Civil Service Federation), himself calls for a comprehensive review of government tasks and thorough digitalization that should relieve the burden on both the public and employees. Both sides, the economically liberal institute and the unionized civil service lobby, independently acknowledge that simply increasing staff is not a sustainable solution as long as the underlying bureaucratic burden remains unchanged or continues to grow. The difference lies more in the prioritization of instruments: While the dbb (German Civil Service Federation) also focuses on increased staffing levels and more competitive working conditions, the IW (German Economic Institute) places greater emphasis on improving internal efficiency through time management and task reduction.

Reducing bureaucracy as a perpetual political promise without substance

The demand for less bureaucracy is anything but new in German politics. For decades, successive federal governments have announced relief legislation, laws aimed at reducing bureaucracy, and administrative simplifications, while the actual density of regulations in many areas, such as construction, environmental, and social law, continues to increase. This structural discrepancy between political rhetoric and actual implementation explains why the IW's demand for leaner laws, while economically convincing, is politically difficult to enforce. Every single law, regulation, and administrative process typically has its own interest group that benefits from the existing regulations or at least derives security from them, while the aggregated costs of bureaucracy are diffusely distributed across the entire economy and administration. From an administrative science perspective, this is a classic public goods problem, in which concentrated particular interests prevail over a diffuse general interest in streamlined processes. Anyone who truly wants to reduce the state's personnel requirements would therefore not only have to digitize individual forms, but fundamentally question which approval procedures, documentation requirements, and control mechanisms are actually still up-to-date. This applies particularly to areas such as building law, where complex approval procedures tie up considerable personnel resources in local government administrations—one of the sectors in which both the dbb (German Civil Service Federation) and the IW (German Economic Institute) have identified significant personnel needs or considerable untapped resources.

The societal dimension: reconciling family and full-time work

Despite the economic rationality of the IW's calculations, the socio-political dimension of the part-time quota must not be ignored. A significant portion of part-time employment in the public sector, particularly among teachers and childcare workers, stems from the need to reconcile paid work with family responsibilities. A blanket increase of all part-time positions to full-time, as assumed by the study's theoretical upper limit, would trigger massive resistance in society and would be hardly compatible with the right to part-time employment enshrined in German labor law. Furthermore, a enforced full-time quota in predominantly female professions such as childcare or primary education, without a corresponding expansion of childcare services, would directly exacerbate the work-life balance problem and could paradoxically even lead to a decline in overall female labor force participation if women withdraw from the labor market altogether due to a lack of part-time opportunities. The more realistic message of the study therefore lies less in the spectacular figure of 634,000 than in the more moderate calculation for Saxony-Anhalt with its 294,000 additional full-time equivalents. This figure signals that even a cautious, voluntary approach to an already existing higher level of working hours could achieve significant effects without having to drastically alter part-time work regulations. More politically viable would therefore be incentive models, such as financial bonuses for increasing from part-time to full-time work, improved childcare infrastructure in schools and municipalities, and targeted outreach to those part-time workers who would like to work more hours but are prevented from doing so by structural barriers, such as a lack of childcare places.

What the study actually means for the political debate

The IW study doesn't offer a ready-made solution, but rather an important corrective to an often overly uncritical debate about the alleged shortage of skilled workers in the public sector. Using robust statistical methods, it demonstrates that a significant portion of the perceived staffing problem is self-inflicted and could be at least partially solved through more intelligent use of existing personnel before considering costly new hires or poaching from the private sector. At the same time, the comparison with the dbb figure makes it clear that, despite their striking numerical similarity, the two indicators measure different things and cannot simply be offset against each other. This leads to a nuanced recommendation for policymakers: Instead of demanding more staff across the board, a sector-specific assessment should first be conducted to determine in which areas increasing part-time positions is realistic, socially acceptable, and economically sound, and in which areas, such as nursing or the police, additional external staff will indeed remain necessary because the available part-time resources are simply too small. At the same time, the demand for a fundamental review of government tasks and a consistent reduction of bureaucracy remains, a demand voiced equally by economists and trade unions. The real challenge for the coming years will be whether German politicians have the courage to actually eliminate tasks and simplify laws, instead of reflexively calling for new personnel at every new societal problem. The IW figures at least provide a solid, evidence-based foundation for this argument.