On 4 November, the book trade and publishing industry are on the agenda of the Bundestag Committee on Culture and Media. The public expert discussion at the Paul-Löbe-Haus offers an opportunity to revisit a longstanding question: should the state strengthen the book market as an industry — or safeguard the cultural diversity that the market alone may not produce? At the time of research, no outcomes of the discussion have been verified. The aim, then, is not to pre-empt recommendations, but to map out the points of contention.
The scale of the sector is considerable. According to figures from the German Publishers and Booksellers Association, Germany has around 3,000 book publishers and approximately 4,400 bookshops, including branches. The association puts publishing revenue for 2025 at around €6.09 billion; at the same time, around two-thirds of revenue was generated by approximately two per cent of publishers. These are industry figures from a trade association, not an independent assessment. Nevertheless, they point to an important distinction: high overall market revenue does not automatically demonstrate that small publishers, niche literary genres or bookshops in smaller towns can be commercially viable.
Diversity is not the same as market size
Books are commodities, but not only commodities. A publisher decides which manuscripts are edited and produced; bookshops select what they display prominently and recommend. These decisions create access to literature, knowledge and different perspectives. In cultural policy debates, this is often described as publishing diversity: the term refers not simply to a large number of titles in print, but also to the possibility for different publishing lists and voices to emerge and reach readers.
It does not follow, however, that every financial difficulty a publisher faces is a cultural policy problem. Printing, staffing and rental costs, sales risks and competition for attention are, in the first instance, matters of business models. State funding can also create perverse incentives if it permanently shields companies from commercial decisions or gives political bodies indirect influence over publishing lists. The more directly funding is tied to content, the more carefully its criteria, procedures and the independence of juries must be safeguarded.
A current party-political initiative gives these questions concrete form. In its motion “Buchhandel und Verlage in Deutschland stärken” (Strengthening Germany’s Book Trade and Publishers), the Green parliamentary group calls for structural funding for certain small and independent publishers. It also calls for transparent, legally sound procedures for bookshop and publishing awards, and protection for authors in their dealings with platforms and AI providers. This is a political demand, not an adopted decision. The Bundestag is due to debate the motion for the first time on 6 November. The call for funding thus sits alongside an institutional question: who decides, under which rules, what cultural contribution deserves public support?
Three tiers, different levers
The federal government can establish awards and funding programmes, help shape copyright law and work towards a nationwide framework. But it cannot solve every problem facing book culture centrally. Schools and educational pathways are largely the responsibility of the federal states, which also organise reading promotion and many libraries. Local authorities support a large part of the public library network and decide on its resources. An accessible network of public libraries, literacy and local cultural infrastructure therefore require coordinated responsibilities rather than a single federal programme.
Interests within the industry do not fully align either. Small publishers may benefit from funding that enables them to develop their lists over the long term; bookshops are more likely to need sustainable margins, reliable supply and local customers. The German Publishers and Booksellers Association reports revenue of around €3.93 billion for bricks-and-mortar bookselling in 2025. Its comparative business survey for 2024 also reports that rising costs can put pressure on profitability even when revenue grows. Funding through awards or bonuses addresses a different aspect of this situation from investment in libraries or reading promotion.
Authors, in turn, cannot simply be equated with publishers: they negotiate fees, rights and uses of their work. With the spread of generative AI, further questions arise about the conditions under which books or other texts are used to train systems, and how rights can be enforced effectively. This is not solely a matter of cultural funding, but also of copyright, bargaining power and technology regulation.
Providing support without steering publishing lists
The central question, then, is not: state or market? It is: what specific gap should a measure fill, who benefits from it, and can the funding be organised transparently and at arm’s length from the state? An award can attract attention, but it is no substitute for reliable financing. A reading strategy can coordinate educational institutions, but cannot lower a publisher’s costs. And a general structural funding scheme must justify how it safeguards cultural diversity rather than merely taking on business risks.
The committee’s expert discussion can bring these different levels into focus; its outcome remains open. Political decisions will depend on ensuring that the problems are not lost within an umbrella term such as “book culture”. Whether the federal government wants to safeguard independent publishing lists, fair rights arrangements or access to books, each objective requires different responsibilities, criteria and resources. The test is not whether the state considers books important. It is whether its measures protect a clearly identified cultural good without curtailing the freedom of those who make books.
Original reviewed by the editors · 4 November 2026
