Federalism: Slow and Hindering Innovation, or Modern and Good for Democracy?
The pros and cons of federalism, using the example of Reerdigung
In an office in Berlin-Neukölln, a small start-up is fighting for a vision that matters to all of us, but that is not yet allowed everywhere in Germany. The company Meine Erde offers an alternative, sustainable form of burial called “Reerdigung” (often called human composting in English), in which the body turns into soil in a completely natural way within forty days.
Pablo Metz, co-founder of the company, explains the method: “For forty days, the body lies on a bed of straw and flowers in an above-ground cocoon. This coffin is insulated, and its air and moisture are controlled, which allows the conditions to be optimized. Unlike a traditional burial, it is also not two meters underground, where the lack of oxygen slows down the process. In the end, tropical conditions are created inside the cocoon. This speeds up decomposition.” The process produces valuable soil, and the person remains part of the cycle of life in this form. As with a traditional burial, the soil is then buried in a grave.
How do you come up with a business idea like this? Pablo Metz talks about his children, who came home from Fridays for Future protests and told him he should do “something sensible.” “When you talk to these young people, you understand how much fear and pressure they feel because of the climate crisis.” For Metz, the basic point was clear: we have to stop burning carbon and using fossil fuels. As a business economist, he thought about where to find a lever that would have the biggest possible impact, be simple and fit our culture.
Separately, he had talked to his grandmother about the end of her life. She told him that she could not really warm to either of the two burial options allowed in Germany. “Only then did I realize that, on a matter that affects everyone, we only have two options. On top of that, the newer of the two methods is 150 years old. It goes without saying that it no longer answers today’s questions. There are more of us, we have different environmental problems, and our mindset is different from back then.” He then learned that 80% of people choose cremation, a process that uses a lot of natural gas and that most people do not find beautiful, but which is the cheaper option. “That means they make a rational decision, even though this step should really be purely emotional. One thing led to another. It’s not just another product we’re bringing to market. It’s a change in our culture without betraying it.”
“An organ donation for nature”
The many supporters of Reerdigung show that this statement is true. All relevant civil society and business actors have already spoken out in favor of it. The two major Christian churches and church leaders, welfare associations, various cemetery operators, and funeral directors and their associations want Reerdigung as a real alternative. It is meant to develop burial and cemetery culture carefully and with the climate in mind, without contradicting traditions or legal requirements.
The business concept works, as shown by the number of inquiries Meine Erde receives every day, not only from Germany but from all over Europe and beyond. Pablo Metz: “We talk more about life than about death. That’s what people associate with Reerdigung. The body returns to the cycle of nature, and at the same time you do something good for the world. Someone said it’s like an organ donation for nature.”
Reerdigung is therefore a beautiful, dignified, affordable and sustainable burial option. It is in high demand, is supported by the relevant organizations and industries, and its method can be seen as an updated version of the existing traditional burial. So why is it only offered in two of the sixteen federal states?
Federalism: curse or blessing?
The simple answer: it’s because of federalism. This division of power is set out in Germany’s Basic Law and protected by the “eternity clause.”
Like any other form of government, federalism has advantages and disadvantages. The federal states can help shape federal legislation through the Bundesrat. At the same time, dividing power prevents abuse, since the different levels check each other.
But federalism also creates political and legal differences between the states, some of them significant. During the COVID-19 pandemic in particular, it was clear how differently the states implemented measures to contain the pandemic. In times of crisis, when quick and uniform action is needed, slow-moving federalism reaches its limits. The same is true when introducing a new form of burial.
“A matter for the states”
In Germany, burial law is a matter for the states. This means there are sixteen burial laws, and therefore sixteen state parliaments and state governments that each have to decide separately on whether to introduce Reerdigung.
Cemetery and burial laws regulate everything needed for a burial that is dignified and safe for people and the environment. Criminal law questions also play a role. The question of dignity is also answered independently by the public and by other moral and ethical bodies, most of which already support Reerdigung. What remains are questions about risks to people and the environment. To answer them, Meine Erde carries out air and soil analyses and can show that no hazardous substances are produced during Reerdigung. The question of the second post-mortem examination can be handled the same way as for cremation. The key points of the burial laws are therefore addressed.
So do the existing laws have to be changed for Reerdigung, or does it already fit within them? There are different ways to read a law. Historically: what did the authors intend at the time? Grammatically: what does the text literally say? Or teleologically: how would the law be understood if it had been written with today’s knowledge?
Read strictly historically or grammatically, the existing laws rule out a new, third form of burial. Read teleologically, however, Reerdigung would be possible, since it complies with the laws. “This has been confirmed by various experts, and this view is legally defensible,” says Metz. Lawmakers can therefore choose which interpretation to follow. Metz adds: “That can also be politically motivated.”
Schleswig-Holstein was the first state to examine Reerdigung with various experts. It concluded that it is possible under the existing law. Since there was also political will, a first pilot project could be carried out.
The longer route is to change the law, often through an amendment. In this case, it is important to make sure early on that all questions have been answered in time and that the political will is there.
Politically, Reerdigung should appeal to all camps. It is ecological, (market-)liberal and supported by the churches. Still, it happens again and again that a party supports Reerdigung in one state while hesitating in another. Exchange between parties and between the relevant government departments across states helps here. Pablo Metz: “I think in the end it comes down to what decision-makers get out of supporting a specific project. But I’m convinced there’s a good answer to that. Reerdigung is a cross-party topic that appeals to the general public. Sometimes, though, I feel that people only act when the signal comes from the very top.” Of course, there are also critics, and this creates uncertainty. Metz hopes that states will not only exchange views with each other, but also come directly to the experts at Meine Erde with their questions. In federal Germany, however, this means having to make the case sixteen times.
Does federalism hinder innovation?
“Of course I’d like there to be an open and innovative ‘minister for burials’ who would introduce Reerdigung nationwide,” says Metz. “There are good reasons for federalism, but when it comes to pushing new topics, it makes the system much slower and more complicated and holds back innovation. If you look from a German perspective at the most innovative countries in Europe, they tend not to be federal states.”
The risk in a centralized system would be that a single rejection applies permanently and nationwide, while in a federal system, if one state says no, there are still fifteen others to hope for. Metz counters: “But if you’re convinced there’s no reason to reject it, because people want Reerdigung and it’s legal and practical, then a central decision-maker is the faster option.”
On the other hand, one can argue that federalism allows progress to happen faster in at least some states, for example because certain states want to show a spirit of innovation. In this sense, Reerdigung benefited from Schleswig-Holstein’s willingness to experiment rather than wait for the other states. This, too, is an advantage of federalism. One state’s decision in favor of Reerdigung can encourage other states to follow. Thanks to the federal system, there are also local structures that can support implementation better than would be the case in a centralized state. At the same time, individual states are too small as test markets for long-term scaling. To become interesting for investors, other states need to follow quickly.
Conclusion
The efforts to offer Reerdigung across Germany clearly show the pros and cons of federalism. A centralized state would certainly allow faster and more uniform decisions, which would no doubt help Germany become more open to innovation. On the other hand, federalism can also support innovation when individual states push new ideas forward.
A centralized system would also not do justice to the country’s diversity. Federalism ensures that regional matters are dealt with regionally, because decision-makers can respond to the different needs of each state. It also makes political participation easier, since decisions are made not only in distant Berlin but close to citizens. For a democracy, this can only be a gain.
Disclaimer: Bernstein Public Policy has provided political advice to Meine Erde.
People love talking about people. So it is hardly surprising that the media is currently fixated on the question of who might replace Chancellor Friedrich…
Can a multi-billion-euro transport project, backed by two state governments and the federal government, fail because of the Dahme-Spreewald district administration? It can, as the…