For many self-employed artists, the gap between commissions is not free time, but work without a reliable income: researching, rehearsing, developing ideas, maintaining contacts and looking for the next commission. Social protection does not simply keep pace. On 16 October 2026, the Bundesrat called for additional protection against such gaps in earnings. This is a political signal – but not yet a new benefit.
The resolution does not oblige the Federal Government to introduce a particular model. It calls on it to create a form of protection or present a suitable proposal. Whether this will lead to legislation, how it will be funded and who will be included remain open questions.
What the KSK covers today – and what it does not
The artists’ social insurance scheme (KSK) is not an insurer in its own right, but organises self-employed artists’ and writers’ contributions to statutory health, long-term care and pension insurance. According to the Künstlersozialkasse, insured members pay roughly half of their contributions themselves. The other half comes from a federal subsidy of 20 per cent and the artists’ social insurance levy, which companies pay when they make use of artistic or journalistic services.
Unemployment insurance is not included. This does not mean, however, that artists can never receive unemployment benefit: entitlement may arise, for example, from previous employment subject to compulsory social insurance contributions. But the KSK itself does not insure its self-employed members against this risk. This is precisely where the Bundesrat’s proposal comes in: it targets temporary losses of income that can be associated with self-employed artistic work, rather than simply unemployment as defined by Germany’s Social Code.
From a state initiative to a call for federal action
The political process did not begin in October 2026. North Rhine-Westphalia submitted the motion to the Bundesrat in November 2024; Bremen, Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein joined it. Following committee deliberations, the resolution was adopted by a majority on 16 October 2026. The ball is now in the Federal Government’s court. This comes with neither a timetable for draft legislation nor a federal commitment to introduce the benefit.
The initiative draws on an expert report by Daniel Ulber from 2022, cited in the motion as its technical basis. It proposes an additional pillar within the artists’ social insurance scheme. The Bundesrat resolution itself, however, sets out neither a complete eligibility assessment nor specific contribution rates or benefit levels. Nor are the frequently cited examples – a prolonged period without income or a significant fall from usual earnings – eligibility criteria already in force.
The funding question remains open
The KSK’s existing funding structure offers a possible institutional starting point, but does not yet answer the question of who should pay for a new benefit. Speaking in the plenary session, North Rhine-Westphalia’s Culture Minister Ina Brandes advocated a contribution-funded model that would impose no additional burden on taxpayers. This is the state’s position, not an agreed funding rule. Whether additional contributions would be needed from insured members, users of artistic and journalistic services or the federal government, and how these would be shared, remains to be clarified.
The question of access is equally consequential. The current insurance scheme requires self-employed artistic or journalistic work undertaken for a living; statutory conditions and exceptions apply to the KSK. A new form of protection would need to establish whether it covers only KSK members or also people who alternate between employment and self-employment. It would also have to define when a gap in income exists, what evidence is required and how long support can be paid. Those with very low earnings or who do not meet the KSK’s requirements could be left out despite facing particularly acute uncertainty – this is a design question to be examined, not an outcome already determined.
Protection is not the same as decent pay
A bridging benefit could cushion losses of income. It is no substitute for adequate fees, reliable employment or better remuneration for research, rehearsals and conceptual work. The debate also made this clear: in the Bundesrat, Brandes referred to minimum fees in North Rhine-Westphalia and noted that such a measure alone was not enough. Fee policy and social protection involve different levers – and different areas of responsibility.
The federal states can formulate a shared position and shape cultural funding or fee models within their own remits. A nationwide change to social insurance, by contrast, would have to be developed and enacted in law at federal level. For freelance art, the resolution is therefore above all a starting point: it makes the risk to earnings between commissions a subject of social policy negotiations. Who ultimately bears that risk, and who is protected, will only be decided by rules that have yet to be drawn up.
Original reviewed by the editors · 28 October 2026
