The Traffic Light Coalition (Ampelkoalition) struggled to design new policies in the domain of energy policy. Heated debates, such as on the Buildings Energy Act (Gebäudeenergiegesetz), exposed difficulties in finding common ground among the political parties in the German Bundestag and among members of the coalition government. How did the parties enforce their positions on energy policy in the coalition agreement? To what extent did the coalition government adopt these energy policies from the coalition agreement? The Russian aggression against Ukraine aggravated the energy crisis and put further strain on the coalition government. How did this exogenous shock affect the adoption of the energy-specific elements of the coalition agreement and actual energy policy-making? While we would expect the crisis to serve as a catalyst for more ambitious and unified policy-making, this has not always been the case. Through content analysis of election manifestos, the coalition agreement, policy documents, and additional interview material, we review the energy policy-making process and its adoption by the former Traffic Light Coalition. The results provide us with important insights into developing resilient policy-making within uncommon coalitions in times of crisis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heinz-Fischer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: