German social workers as professional politicians: career paths and social advocacy

ABSTRACT

Social workers try to influence the political process in favour of their clients in various ways. The most direct way of doing so, entry into electoral and professional politics, is surprisingly underresearched. In this article, we take a first look at the political careers of (former) social workers on the federal, state and local government level in Germany. Starting from theories of political professionalisation, we illustrate the extent to which they remain in contact with their original occupational field and discuss their capacity for and interest in advocatory interest representation of marginalised and deprived social groups. We conclude that the institutions of professional politics in Germany establish both opportunities and restraints for a meaningful substantive representation of clients’ interests. A more detailed analysis of its effectiveness is still lacking.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Soziale Arbeit beansprucht für sich, die Interessen sozial benachteiligter Bevölkerungsgruppen advokatorisch in politischen Prozessen zu vertreten. Die direkteste Form dieser Interessenvertretung, die Ausübung eines professionellen politischen Mandats durch Sozialarbeiter*innen, ist bislang kaum untersucht. Dieser Aufsatz gibt somit einen ersten Einblick in politische Karrieren deutscher (ehemaliger) Sozialarbeiter*innen auf Bundes-, Landes- und kommunaler Ebene. Ausgehend von Theorien politischer Professionalisierung wird den Fragen nachgegangen, inwiefern diese Abgeordneten den Kontakt zu ihrem ehemaligen Berufsfeld der Sozialen Arbeit weiterhin pflegen und ob sie dem professionsethischen Auftrag der Vertretung von Interessen marginalisierter Gruppen nachkommen. Wir zeigen, dass die Institutionen der deutschen Berufspolitik advokatorische Interessenvertretung sowohl ermöglichen als auch behindern können.

KEYWORDS:

• Social workers
• political carreers
• social advocacy
• Germany

SCHLAGWÖRTER:

• Soziale Arbeit
• politische Karrieren
• advokatorische Interessenvertretung
• Deutschland

Introduction

The interests of social work clients are notoriously underrepresented in the political process. In Germany, this is reflected in the longstanding normative controversy on ‘the political mandate’ of social work, which pits those who argue for an active policy advocacy of social workers in favour of their clients’ interests against those who deny the profession a general political mandate (Merten, 2001). From a functional perspective, social work is always political (Benz & Rieger, 2015). In this sense, advocatory interest representation may be seen as only one among several forms of social workers’ political activities (e.g. policy advice, client empowerment, policy implementation, etc.). In contrast to the American notion of ‘political social work’ (Lane & Pritzker, 2018), one form of political action rarely features in the German debate, namely that of (former) social workers taking up elected political office.

On the one hand, this seems surprising. In lieu of any noteworthy direct descriptive representation of social work client groups in the parliamentary realm, representation by (former) social workers, who have in-depth professional knowledge of their problems, might be seen as the next best solution. By contrast and in addition to lobbying efforts from the outside, being part of the formal policy-making process should increase the capacity of social workers for political intervention on behalf of their clients tremendously – at least theoretically.

On the other hand, today obtaining a parliamentary mandate or even a local government office in larger cities is usually tantamount to a process of political professionalisation. Once social workers – in Max Weber’s famous terms – start to live not only ‘for’ but also ‘off’ politics, they may well also strive ‘to make politics a permanent source of income’ (Weber, 1919/1958, p. 84). Replacing social work with politics, their former occupational background might become increasingly irrelevant. Instead, they have to operate in a new institutional opportunity structure, where the interests of their former clients have to compete not only with the public interest and party interests but also with individual career interests. Taking these oppositional perspectives as our starting point, our study takes a first exploratory look at social workers turned politicians in Germany.

Literature review

Studies on social workers running for or holding political office focus mainly on the number of social workers in politics and their motivation for this career move (Weiss-Gal, 2017, pp. 292–292). The most comprehensive survey has been conducted by Lane (2008). From the responses of 270 social workers in American parliaments and councils, factors leading to political engagement could be identified. Most of them reported previous political activities which, together with their social work education, provided civic skills for political engagement. Social workers also had resources like money and time to become politically engaged and had been actively recruited (Lane & Humphreys, 2011). Interestingly, gender differences between social workers turned out to be irrelevant (Lane & Humphreys, 2015). McLaughlin et al. (2019) explain the political engagement of Canadian social workers with political socialisation in their families of origin, expertise gained from their social work education as well as from professional experience in social work and, last but not least, social and professional networks engaging in politics. Similar findings are documented for the UK (Gwilym, 2017), Israel (Binder & Weiss-Gal, 2022) and Switzerland (Amann & Kindler, 2021). None of these studies look at political career patterns in any detail, and only Gwilym (2017) examines the legislative behaviour of (former) social workers, pointing out that social workers in UK parliaments maintain a strong social work identity and resist neoliberal austerity measures.

While we know little about the political career trajectories of (former) social workers in Germany, we expect them to be conditioned by the same institutional opportunity structures that shape German political careers in general. Access to professional politics in most western democracies has become increasingly dependent on social capital derived from educational merits and occupational status (see Cotta & Best, 2000). In the German Bundestag, a higher education degree has already become an almost indispensable prerequisite for a mandate, with 87% of all members (2018–2021) holding such a degree (Kintz & Cordes, 2019). We thus expect parliamentary recruitment in Germany to include a fair share of professionals from the social sector. This goes particularly for parties of the left, but also for Christian democratic parties who are in favour of the German (conservative) welfare state (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Both are expected to have a keen interest in the specific expertise which professionals of this occupational field would bring to their parliamentary groups and/or governments.

The pathway into professional politics usually follows a pattern of slow progression – a form of political apprenticeship. In order to stand a chance for a professionalised political mandate or office, candidates have to demonstrate their suitability (i.e. political skills and party loyalty) by means of long-term party commitment and extensive political experience in unpaid positions. Scholars have identified four major springboard positions that are often combined: (1) local government office, (2) elected party positions, (3) full-time political staff positions (e.g. party or government advisors) and (4) leading positions in interest groups (cf. Borchert & Stolz, 2003).

Once successful, parliamentary tenure on the state as well as on the federal level is generally rather long. Borchert and Stolz (2003, p. 152) report an average tenure in German state legislatures of 12.4 years (for the year 2000). Schüttemeyer (2019) reports two and a half electoral periods and thus an average tenure of 12 years for the federal parliament. Furthermore, a survey of former state and federal parliamentarians (Edinger & Schwarz, 2009, pp. 21–27) shows that roughly 28% of parliamentarians retire after leaving parliament, 15% continue professional politics in another position, while 20% start a new career and only about 25% return to their former job (Edinger & Schwarz, 2009, pp. 21–27). Taken together, their long average tenure in parliament and the rather low share of parliamentarians returning to their former occupation suggests that entry into the federal or state parliament usually marks the beginning of a new professional career.

Literature on careers in local government is much more sparse. In general, local government positions are perceived as stepping stones to a proper professional political career, at least for some. However, despite their formal amateur character, council mandates in larger cities are very time-consuming. In some cities they also provide councillors (especially those who also fulfil a leadership function) with a fairly generous remuneration (Reiser, 2006).

Research questions

Based on the general knowledge about political careers in Germany, our study sets out to address the research gap with regard to social workers and asks:

• − To what extent and where do we find social workers in professional politics?

• − To what extent are they still attached to their former profession?

• − To what extent are they still willing and able to advocate for their former clients?

Methods

Sampling

In our study, we start from an extensive concept of social work and a broad understanding of professional politics. Our sample contains those parliamentarians and councillors who have either completed a degree in social pedagogy or social work and/or have prior work experience in the occupational field of social work. This means that the following figures include social work or social pedagogy graduates without professional experience as social workers as well as child-care workers and nursery teachers, remedial teachers, or special needs teachers with experience in the field of social work.

We look at professional politics in Germany at three territorial levels. On the national level, we obviously study the federal parliament, the German Bundestag. On the regional level, we chose the Bavarian State Legislature as the parliament of one of the larger German states. Finally, we included Munich City Council as our local parliament. This is due to its location in Bavaria (corresponding with the regional level) and the very high level of professionalisation of its councillors.¹ With regard to recruitment patterns, pre-legislative political experience and legislative behaviour, we studied the members of the most recent legislative period, i.e. the 19th election period of the German Bundestag (2018–2021), the 18th election period of the Bavarian State Legislature (2018–2023) and the 2020–2026 period of the Munich City Council. However, in order to observe the whole career trajectory of former social workers, we have complemented these electoral periods with earlier periods and thus with cohorts of politicians who have already left their legislature and have (mostly) already ended their political career (German Bundestag 2005–2009, Bavarian State Legislature 2003–2008, Munich City Council 2002–2008).

Data collection

In our study, we collect two different types of data that are meant to complement each other. Biographical and career data of former social workers provides hard evidence to analyse career pathways and to identify collective career patterns. This data was largely collected from parliamentary/council handbooks and parliament/council websites and was complemented with information from additional publicly available sources, such as personal websites of MPs, party websites or press reports. Figures are thus based on (self)reported activities and positions and should be interpreted as lower limits rather than accurate values.

In order to get better insight into their ambitions and perceptions, we decided to ask them directly, conducting 14 semi-structured telephone interviews and 11 written surveys, thus covering two-thirds of our original sample. Politicians were free to choose between telephone interview and written survey, both based on three open questions only to improve response rates (a list of interviews can be found in the Appendix).

Data analysis

Biographical data was coded and compiled in an excel sheet, followed by a simple descriptive statistical analysis. Because of our rather small n, frequencies have to be interpreted with caution. Major indicators for the proximity/distance to the profession of social work were prior and concurrent voluntary political positions, parliamentary tenure and membership in social affairs committees and/or corresponding executive positions. In addition to these straightforward measures, we also had a look at their post-parliamentary or post-council careers. Long parliamentary tenure followed by retirement or another position in professional politics suggests a complete change of profession, while a short tenure and a subsequent return to the former job are seen as a reflection of a strong attachment to the profession of social work. Unfortunately, such an analysis is not only time-consuming but also fault-prone, as the activities of professional politicians after leaving political office are sparsely documented and thus difficult to investigate. As a consequence, post-mandate figures show some missing data.

Interview and survey data was interpreted by using qualitative content analysis. Interview transcripts and written surveys were coded according to statements on social advocacy, contacts to social work practice and career ambitions. The analysis distinguished between the national, the federal and the local level. It provided additional insights about how social workers operate, balancing their aspiration of social advocacy with the constraints of the political system.

Findings

Social workers in professional politics

Table 1 identifies 18 MPs in the German Bundestag (3%) (in the following: SW-MP), 8 MPs in the Bavarian State Legislature (4%) (SW-BSL) and 11 councillors of Munich City Council (11%) (SW-MCC) with an educational or occupational background in social work.

Table 1. Social workers in the German Bundestag, the Bavarian State Legislature and the Munich City Council.

Social Workers	German Bundestag (2018–2021)			Bavarian State Legislature (2018–2023)			Munich City Council (2020–2026)
	#	N	%	#	N	%	#	N	%
All	18	709	3	8	205	4	11	81	14
parties
SPD	6	152	4	4	22	18	5	18	28
Greens	6	67	9	3	38	8	6	23	26
CDU/CSU	4	245	2	1	85	1
Left party	2	69	3
Sex
Women	10			6			7
Men	8			2			4

Source: Authors’ compilation.

SPD:  Social Democratic Party; CDU: Christian Democratic Party; CSU:  Christian Social Party.

In all three of these bodies, the share of women is higher than the share of men. The share of female social workers is also much higher than the share of women for the total of all members. On all political levels, social workers are first and foremost, though not exclusively, to be found in parties of the left, i.e. the Greens and the Social Democratic Party (SPD). In Munich City Council, SW-MCCs represent more than a quarter in the respective Green and SPD council groups.

Pathways into professional politics

The route of social workers into the Bavarian state legislature or the German Bundestag clearly reflects the typical pattern of political apprenticeship (see Table 2). In fact, the range and length of their prior political experience is even more extensive than that of their colleagues. Without exception, every single SW-MP and every single SW-BSL in our sample had held either a local government or a party office (and often both) before their election to parliament. In the Bavarian state legislature, all SW-BSL come with prior local government experience. Three quarters have additional experience in an elected party position. In the federal parliament, both career pathways are equally, and quite highly, frequented. A majority of SW-MPs actually combine both forms of experience. Three SW-MPs have moved into the federal parliament via a state legislature. The number of SW-MPs and SW-BSLs following the pathway up from a fully-paid staff position is considerably lower than the number of those who have used an interest group position as their springboard. Roughly one quarter of SW-MPs and at least half of all SW-BSLs had held executive positions in major interest groups on various territorial levels. These positions were mostly held in charities, welfare organisations and lobby groups of the voluntary sector (e.g. church-based organisations, the Workers’ Welfare Association, etc.).

Table 2. Political Experience before Entering Parliament.

Former positions	Bavarian State Legislature (2018–2023)	German Bundestag (2018–2021)
	N = 8 SW-BSL	N = 18 SW-MP
	#	#
Local government office	8	14
Elected party position	6	14
Political staff position	2	2
Interest group office	4	4
Seat in state legislature/government	–	3

Source: Authors’ compilation.

According to our interviews, for most SW-MPs and SW-BSLs the motivation for entering professional politics seems to be related to their occupational background in the social sector, though the linkage mechanism works in rather different ways. Some state a very general interest in social policy as major motivation for their career move:

I came into politics because of my interest in social policy, child care and youth welfare. (I-MP1)

My concern has always been transgenerational poverty, this is what I stand for, and this is why I came into politics. (I-MP4)

Others point out the role of their occupational experience in the field of social work much more directly. The following statements identify quite different spheres of social work as major source of motivation for engaging in politics and thus, in the last instance, for running for a parliamentary mandate:

In my former job, I advised and supported persons with a migration background – especially women, families and youngsters. This occupation brought home to me how much of our social, educational and integration policy is not working well. It was this experience that triggered my political commitment. (I-SL1)

My occupational experience in early education and care was one reason for me to stand as a candidate for the state legislature. I wanted to change and improve the situation, because there is an urgent need for action, and it is about time that the concerns and problems of nurseries are heard. (I-SL3)

As a nursery teacher I moved into politics in order to change our working conditions (I-SL5)

Career pathways into Munich city council are not covered systematically by our dataset due to the lack of data.

Professional political careers and social advocacy

After entering parliament, politics becomes a profession. Table 3 shows both SW-MPs and SW-BSLs as long-term parliamentarians. In both of the observed cohorts the average tenure at the time of leaving the parliament is above 15 years. If we add the duration of the state legislative mandate for those 7 SW-MPs who had held such a mandate before their entry to the Bundestag, the figure rises to almost 17 years. These average numbers are considerably higher than those that are reported for all federal MPs and all state legislators.

Table 3. Tenure and age at time of exit.

Social workers	Munich City Council SW-MCC (2002–2008)	Bavarian State Legislature SW-BSL (2003–2008)	German Bundestag SW-MP (2005–2009)
N1 (= all SWs)	7 (1 still active)	7	30 (3 still active)
N2 (= N1 without SWs still active)	6	7	27
Ø tenure (years) of N1	12.0	15.4	15.4
Ø tenure (+ years in state legislature) of N1	–	–	16.9
Ø years in social work of N1	8.9	11.0	11.4
Ø age at time of exit of N2	53.7	60.6	59.8
Exit before age 60	4	2	11

Source: Authors’ compilation.

Average parliamentary tenure is also quite high compared to the time SW-MPs and SW-BSLs had spent in their social work job before entering parliament. Both groups of parliamentarians enter parliament after an average of 11 years in their social work job. Focussing on average values, however, tends to obscure the immense variance of career pathways to be found among former social workers. On the one hand, there is a considerable number (a total of 11) of former social workers with more than 15 years (some exhibit even more than 20 years) of experience in their original job. On the other, a total of seven have a degree in social work yet have no occupational experience in this field at all. Excluding the latter, the number of those with a longer parliamentary career and those with a longer social work career balance each other out.

In Munich City Council average tenure of SW-MCCs (12 years) and their average age at the time of exit (54 years) are considerably lower than that of SW-MPs and SW-BSLs. In contrast to the latter, SW-MCCs hold their mandate concurrently to their social work job. Each of the SW-MCCs interviewed reported that they remain active in their original social work occupation for about 20 to 25 hours a week, while their employers grant them work leave for the other 15 to 20 hours. They thus combine their job in the social sector with a time-consuming, relatively well-paid and thus at least partly professionalised second occupation in the field of politics.

Several former social workers in our sample have used their council or parliamentary mandate as a stepping stone into more prestigious and powerful executive positions. This group includes long-term Federal Health Minister Ulla Schmidt (Social Democrats, SPD), the Federal Minister for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection Renate Künast (Greens), the Bavarian Minister for Family, Employment and Welfare and later for Housing, Transport and Construction Kerstin Schreyer (Christian Social Union) or Munich deputy mayors Verena Dietl (SPD) and Hep Monatzeder (Greens) who were responsible for Social Affairs, Children and Youth and Health and Hospitals respectively.

Our interviews showed that former social workers on all three political levels consider their experience and expertise in the social work sector as a core competence for their new job in politics, emphasising the similarity of tasks and challenges. One respondent argued that a social work degree almost predestines them for politics (I-MP3) while others stress work experience:

Embracing third-party interests, empathy and paying attention to others – all this helped me and gave focus to my new work. (I-MP8)

Furthermore, their occupational background was reported to give them additional status and thus allowed them to talk with representatives of care providers or welfare organisations ‘on equal terms’ (I-CC1).

To what extent, though, do professional politicians with a social work background see themselves as active lobbyists for their former client groups? As one SW-MP frankly stated:

All MPs are lobbyists in some way. (I-MP4)

However, their opportunity to represent their former clients’ interests seems to depend on their specific position within parliament. In the German Bundestag, MPs, especially newly elected MPs, cannot choose by themselves the committees in which they will sit:

If you are not well-connected, you won’t get a seat in a committee that reflects your occupational background. (I-MP3 and similar I-MP12)

A look at the Bundestag committees shows that ten of the 18 SW-MPs serve in those committees that are concerned mostly with social work issues (‘Labour and Social Affairs’, ‘Health’, ‘Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth’, ‘Human Rights and Development’, ‘Building, Housing, Urban Development and Local Government’). This in turn implies that a considerable share of SW-MPs have to concentrate on issues that have nothing to do with their former clients. This is best reflected in the following statement:

In the Bundestag we work almost exclusively along policy areas (in my case traffic/railroads). I rarely find the time to participate in policy areas like social affairs, care or youth welfare (…). In the course of time, occupational expert knowledge wanes. (I-MP2)

On the state level, five of the eight SW-BSLs are in positions that are related to their former work; on the local level this share increases to 10 out of 11 SW-MCCs.

MPs on the state or the federal level report that they remain in touch with social work issues in the course of their constituency work, but also via voluntary work in welfare organisations or charity projects. Their colleagues in local government, though, state that serving on the council has even extended the range of their contacts in the social work sector. Contacts of elected politicians with social work practitioners seem to work both ways. On the one hand, SW-MPs, SW-BSLs and SW-MCCs are often asked to take care of particular problems. They are often approached with concerns and ideas by former colleagues or new contacts. On the other hand, it is in their own political interest to keep their ‘ear to the ground’ (I-MP3), in order to recognise and take up current developments and requirements. After all, it is in situ that people know best ‘where their problems lie’ (I-BSL1).

On the local level, direct contact with the field of social work can lead to role conflicts, as councillors also remain active in their social work job:

The council mandate creates strong expectations, which cancel out work mate loyalties, for example when dealing with immigration authorities or when lobbying for a youth organisation. As a councillor one fulfils a different role. It is important to know exactly which hat you are wearing. (I-MCC6)

Another conflict may emerge between the institutional interests of welfare organisations in whose employment a councillor is and the advocatory representation of his/her clients’:

The representation of employers’ interests is limited. You cannot always act as your employer wishes. What are institutional interests? What are interests of clients? This has to be separated. As a councillor, I do not lobby on behalf of a particular organisation, but on behalf of a social policy sector. There may be congruence of interests, but there may also be conflict. As I am not in a managerial function, lobbying is not part of my job description and thus role conflicts are rather rare. However, I have deliberately abstained from applying for any executive position, exactly in order to avoid such a role conflict. You just cannot pursue a career in all walks of life. I have opted for politics. (I-MCC3)

Advocatory interest representation in favour of social workers’ client groups is reported to be restricted on all three political levels by the need to find majorities both inside parliament and inside parties:

We have to seek compromises in order to move forward at all. (I-MP1)

Making an impact seems to be particularly difficult in opposition:

As an opposition politician I have learned that it is not easy to influence governing parties. (I-BSL3)

A lack of time and other resources are mentioned as further constraints. Councillors, in particular, complain about the lack of financial means:

We have to weigh up interests carefully, as the budgetary situation deteriorates. Which group deserves more to be supported? If we focus on the homeless, for example, others will get less. This will be negotiated in the committee. We need to find a balance between different groups in need. We may be able to maintain support levels and perhaps add something because of specific problems (Covid 19), but there will be no new projects. (I-MCC2)

Finally, advocatory interest representation on behalf of (former) clients may also find its ideological constraints:

I draw the limits of such advocacy at positions that I cannot share from a professional or political point of view, for example the introduction of an unconditional basic income in order to end poverty. These limits have to be explicitly stated and justified vis-à-vis the affected persons and organisations. (I-MP11)

After professional politics

After their pre-parliamentary occupational periods in social work and a rather long average parliamentary/council tenure, most SW-MPs and SW-BSLs leave their mandate at the age of retirement or not far from it: Average age at the time of exit for both groups is above 60. Those leaving before reaching 60 represent less than a third of SW-MBSLs and more than a third of SW-MPs (see Table 3). SW-MCC, however, leave the Munich City Council on average in the early fifties, with only about one third having already reached their 60th birthday.

Table 4 shows: By the end of 2021, three SW-MPs of the cohort elected in 2005 (N₁=  30) were still holding their Bundestag mandate, while 27 (N₂) had left the federal parliament. Of the latter group, 3 SW-MPs continued their career in professional politics after their exit from parliament in a different position (two moving into executive office, one as business manager of the parliamentary party). Sixteen SW-MPs have been coded as retired. This leaves only eight SW-MPs, and thus less than a third of the cohort, with non-political follow-up jobs. Half of them moved back into the occupational field of social work after leaving parliament: two SW-MPs actually returned to their former job (one university lecturer and one special education teacher), one set up her own business in the field, while another has taken over a management function for a social service provider. The four remaining SW-MPs have parted with both the political profession and their former social work profession in order to take up a job outside of both occupational fields (though a majority of those jobs could still be counted as political in a wider sense, e.g. political advisor, Quango executive/official). A sustained attachment to both politics and social work is also reflected in the continuation of voluntary (unsalaried) positions in local government, political parties, interest groups and charity organisations (especially in organisations of the social sector such as the German Workers’ Welfare Organisation AWO, the leading disability association Lebenshilfe or even the German branch of UNICEF).

Table 4. Post-mandate occupation and activities.

Occupations	Munich City Council (2002–2008)	Bavarian State Legislature (2003–2008)	German Bundestag (2005–2009)
	N = 7 SW-MCC	N= 7 SW-BSL	N = 30 SW-MP
Still active	1	0	3
Death during tenure	0	1	0
No longer active	6	6	27
Retired	0	4	16
Other position in professional politics	3	nd	3
New profession	0	nd	4
Return to professional social work	3	nd	4
Former activity	2	nd	2
Different activity	0	nd	1
Leading position	1	nd	1
Voluntary position in politics or civil society organisations	0	2	16
Party position	0	1	7
Local council mandate	0	2	8
Executive position in civil society organisation	0	1	7

Source: Authors’ compilation.

Nd: no data.

Our findings based on the careers of the 2005 cohort were also backed up in interviews with the 2018 cohort of SW-MPs, most of whom stood again at the 2021 election. A potential return to their original social work career does not occur to them as a viable option. They reported ‘structural obstacles’ as MPs are perceived to have ‘VIP-status’ and are thus no longer seen as one of them by their former colleagues (I-MP4). A widespread prejudice apparently has it that MPs would no longer be able to integrate into their former occupational and employment context:

She would not be able to take orders anymore. (I-MP8)

Voluntary work in the social sector, though, is frequently seen as a possible post-parliamentary occupation.

Data availability problems unfortunately prohibit any detailed analysis of post-parliamentary careers of SW-BSLs. Two-thirds of them left parliament at the age of 60 or beyond with no information on former occupation in the public domain. We expect them to be retired. In addition, there is little valid evidence with regard to the whereabouts of those who leave at a younger age and do continue their working life. For at least a third of former SW-BSLs voluntary political work remains part of their life even after leaving professional politics.

Councillors at Munich City Council are meant to exercise their mandate concurrently to their non-political occupation. We would thus expect most of them to ‘return’ to their day-job after leaving the council. A look at the careers of councillors of the 2002–2008 cohort, however, shows that only two of the six MCCs have taken up their social work career after leaving the council at more or less the same position they held when they were first elected. One other MCC used his degree in social pedagogy and his council mandate as a springboard to an elected full-time executive position in the municipal social service department. After leaving the council he moved on to become executive director of a social service provider (fully owned by the city). The other three MCCs have used their council mandate to get access to a fully professionalised position in politics (two were elected to the state legislature and one took up different full-time executive positions in local government including a social affairs remit).

Discussion

Taking up our first research question on the extent of social workers in politics, we found them as professional politicians on all three levels of the political system. The considerably higher share of former social workers on the local level may be the result of the part-time character of local politics. Another explanation could be seen in the policy competences at this level, which include key policy areas for this occupational group and their client groups (e.g. child and youth welfare, services for the homeless, inclusion of disabled people).

The higher share of women among our sample is hardly surprising, as women also constitute 74% of all the 375,000 graduated social workers in Germany (Bundesagentur für Arbeit, 2019, p. 97). Similarly, Lane and Humphreys (2011, p. 239) have shown for the US that elected social workers are ‘more likely to be female than elected officials in general, likely due to the higher concentration of females in the social work profession’. However, the share of women among our sample still remains lower than the share of women among social workers in general.

As expected, social workers are found only in parties of the left political spectrum and in the Christian Democratic Party, all parties which are classified as promoting the welfare state (Schmidt, 2012). Social workers do not stand for liberal or right-wing parties. It seems that the attachment to questions of social justice and human rights, which are at the core of their professional ethics, guides their party political orientation.

With regard to our second question, the extent of a persisting attachment to (or detachment from) their former social work profession, our findings suggest a twofold answer. On the one hand, most social workers turned politicians embark on a new professional career in politics. In fact, the career pathways of SW-MPs and SW-BSLs seem to deviate only little from the typical career patterns of parliamentarians in Germany in general. Access is granted via a rather long period of voluntary political work in various organisations that can be seen as a functional equivalent for professional apprenticeship. With regard to their life in professional politics, our data shows a rather long average parliamentary tenure (longer than that of their parliamentary colleagues) and some remarkable career promotions for the social workers in our sample. This might suggest that the skills and qualifications gained in the field of social work (e.g. conversation and communication skills, the capacity to establish participative processes, etc.) somehow puts them ahead of their colleagues with other occupational backgrounds. This interpretation ties in both with the claims of some of our interview respondents as well as with findings by Amann and Kindler (2021, pp. 8–9) for Switzerland and Lane and Humphreys (2011) for the US.

Another interpretation, though, would perceive the long tenure of social workers as a reflection of their lack of other career opportunities and their lack of willingness to return to their former job. This interpretation is supported by our findings about life after parliament. Not only did social workers in our sample spend more time in parliament than they did in their former job, they also very rarely returned to this job after leaving parliament (again, less often than their colleagues). While the return rate is lower than that of non-social work parliamentarians, the retirement rate in our sample is much higher. All these indicators clearly point to an image where entry into parliament is synonymous with a change of profession.

This change of professional career, however, does not necessarily entail a complete detachment from social work. Motives given for entering politics as well as the specific positions held (charities, welfare organisations, etc.) during the time of political ‘apprenticeship’ suggest that at least during this stage, the political engagement of social workers is still strongly informed by their professional background in the social sector. Some former social workers remain still recognisable as such even within professional politics. They either serve in corresponding committees and commissions or, if they take up an executive office, it is often in the field of social affairs. Furthermore, contacts into the social sector are maintained via constituency work and concurrent voluntary work in charities and welfare organisations. For a minority this might even facilitate a return back into their former occupational field, usually in a leadership function. Arriving back with their newly won political expertise and contacts, they might, in turn, become a further asset in the ‘traditional’ lobbying efforts by the sector.

Unsurprisingly, councillors in a major German city are shown to remain much closer to their social work profession than state or federal parliamentarians. This is mainly due to the semi-professional character of this mandate, which allows them to remain active in their social work job while serving in the city council. A further link is provided by the distribution of policy competences in the German multi-level system, as local government committees are more often concerned with issues related to social work than committees on the state or the federal level. The much shorter tenure and younger age of exit of SW-MCCs compared to SW-BSLs and SW-MPs may well reflect the flip side of their dual career: the double burden. Post-mandate careers of councillors paint a twofold picture. On the one hand, a city council mandate provides for a more or less frictionless return to the field of social work. On the other hand, though, our data suggests that about half of them use their newly won political expertise and status to ultimately embark on a professional career in politics, moving into fully paid, full-time political positions.

Following up the third question, whether social workers as politicians are advocates for their former clients, different patterns can be distinguished. Firstly, we can assume that those parliamentarians that held executive positions in charities, welfare organisations or lobby groups of the voluntary sector before they were elected had been actively advocating the interests of their client groups even before entering parliament. Such an ambition was also frequently mentioned in our interviews as a major motivation to run for parliament. This finding corresponds with the findings of two recent studies on social workers in political office in Israel (Binder & Weiss-Gal, 2022) and Switzerland (Amann & Kindler, 2021).

But do social workers still advocate for their former clients after they have entered professional politics? As stated above, social policy committees, executive positions, constituency work as well as concurrent voluntary work provide an institutional frame that allows for social advocacy. And indeed, our interviews have shown that social workers clearly perceive themselves as policy advocates who lobby for certain topics and interests based on their social work practice. However, our interviews also revealed restrictions for policy advocacy by former social workers: the lack of majorities for their cause inside parliament or inside their own party, being in opposition, the lack of time and financial resources and, last but not least, ideological constraints. These constant conflicts seem to be most apparent in city councils, as SW-MCCs report about the daily contradictions in balancing their dual roles as social workers and professional politicians and hint at the contradictions they have to deal with.

Thus, the overall picture is mixed: Many former social workers make use of their new opportunities in professional politics, but they also see clear limits to social advocacy.

Conclusion

In this first exploratory investigation, we argue for a comprehensive approach to the study of (former) social workers in professional politics. In addition to the analysis of their motivations and self-conceptions, we thus also take a close look at their career pathways and parliamentary behaviour. This shows that social workers turned professional politicians are first and foremost exactly this: professional politicians whose careers are now pursued within a new structure of opportunity and privilege determined by political parties, parliaments, governments and other administrative bodies. Within this framework, though, many former social workers maintain their aspiration to further the interests of deprived and marginalised client groups. Their specific expertise in the field of social policy also grants them specific opportunities to do so. How effective this mode of substantive interest representation actually is remains a matter for further empirical research that would not only benefit from a larger sample size but should also aim at a more comprehensive analysis of former social workers role in parliamentary (and governmental) decision-making processes.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to David Schlecht und Erik Weißhaar for their support in the process of data collection and to Christin Reuter for editorial and layout support. Special thanks go to Tracy Rammler for brushing up our English.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sigrid Leitner

Sigrid Leitner is a comparative political scientist and Professor of Social Policy at Cologne University of Applied Sciences (Germany). Her research interests include care policies in international comparison as well as the role of social work(ers) in politics. She co-edited the volume ‘Social Work and the Making of Social Policy’ published by Bristol University Press.

Klaus Stolz

Klaus Stolz is a comparative political scientist and Professor of British and American Social and Cultural Studies at Chemnitz University of Technology (Germany). His research interests include political professionalisation and political careers as well as British politics, devolution and territorial politics. His publications have appeared in the European Journal of Political Research, Regional and Federal Studies, British Politics and other international journals.

Notes

1 The monthly allowances for Munich city councillors is at 2.899€ (April 2021). This is in addition to their salary in their actual ‘real’ occupation. Employers are compensated for missed working hours. Self-employed councillors receive additional attendance fees.

Appendix: List of interviews

German Bundestag 19th election period (2018–2021).

Table

Code	Party affiliation	Date of interview	Type of interview
I-MP1	SPD	01.06.2021	Telephone interview
I-MP2	B90/Grüne	19.05.2021	Written survey
I-MP3	SPD	25.05.2021	Telephone interview
I-MP4	CDU	19.05.2021	Telephone interview
I-MP5	CDU	04.06.2021	Telephone interview
I-MP6	B90/Grüne	21.05.2021	Telephone interview
I-MP7	CDU	25.05.2021	Written survey
I-MP8	SPD	23.05.2021	Telephone interview
I-MP9	SPD	09.06.2021	Written survey
I-MP10	SPD	04.06.2021	Telephone interview
I-MP11	Linke	20.05.2021	Written survey
I-MP12	B90/Grüne	07.06.2021	Telephone interview

Bavarian State Legislature 18th election period (2020–2023).

Table

Code	Party affiliation	Date of interview	Type of interview
I-SL1	B90/Grüne	28.05.2021	Written survey
I-SL2	B90/Grüne	20.05.2021	Telephone interview
I-SL3	SPD	28.05.2021	Written survey
I-SL4	CSU	17.06.2021	Written survey
I-SL5	SPD	18.06.2021	Telephone interview
I-SL6	SPD	21.05.2021	Written survey

Munich City Council present period (2020–2026).

Table

Code	Party affiliation	Date of interview	Type of interview
I-CC1	SPD	18.06.2021	Written survey
I-CC2	B90/Die Grünen	09.06.2021	Telephone interview
I-CC3	SPD	14.06.2021	Telephone interview
I-CC4	B90/Die Grünen	08.06.2021	Written survey
I-CC5	SPD	07.06.2021	Written survey
I-CC6	SPD	14.06.2021	Telephone interview
I-CC7	SPD	18.06.2021	Telephone interview