## Notes from 06 January 2025 [[2025-01-05|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2025-01-07|Next note →]] [Arne Schneider](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/arneschneiderhh_ende-2027-will-sich-die-spd-ein-neues-grundsatzprogramm-activity-7413690996200460289-jM8d/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAABJfvIUBLMnEUSA-EbpMEBKTnb3K9do__SQ) posted about the SPD's upcoming [Grundsatzprogramm](https://www.spd.de/programm/grundsatzprogramm) (expected 2027) and linked the [[Arbeitskreis Staatsreform]]'s recent document, "Unnaer Impulse zur Verwaltungspolitik". The [1978 SPD](https://library.fes.de/fulltext/bibliothek/chronik/band3/e235g2106.html) quote Arne shares is remarkable: > _"Society's growing demands on the state carry the risk of overburdening the state's capacity and creating a bureaucratic expansion of the state apparatus, whose costs are growing unbearably and whose effectiveness still lags far behind society's demands"._ Nearly 50 years later, this diagnosis remains accurate — perhaps more so. The Unnaer Impulse document moves in the right direction: outcome-orientation, digital transformation, mission-driven government. But it stays safely in the realm of aspirations. --- ### What the document doesn't say **1. Performance management means consequences.** The document calls for "_Wirkungsorientierung_" (outcome-orientation) and a "new culture of responsibility." But who gets fired when outcomes aren't delivered? Empowering middle managers means giving them real authority to build teams - hiring flexibly, removing underperformers, differentiating rewards. Without this, "outcome orientation" is vocabulary. **2. "Results over rules" requires naming which rules go.** Every call for _Ergebnisorientierung_ (focus on results) must specify which regulations become flexible. Procurement? Hiring? Permitting timelines? **3. The permanent workforce model is a constraint.** Agile government needs goal-limited contracts. The document mentions "_flexibel einsetzbare Teams_", but doesn't confront the core tension: a civil service built on lifetime tenure vs. an administration that can surge capacity, bring in outside expertise, and wind down when missions end. **4. Golden handcuffs block talent circulation.** The document says nothing about the pension and healthcare differentials between public and private sectors. Separate retirement systems and benefits packages create lock-in effects that prevent talent from flowing between sectors. If you want people moving between government, private sector, and civil society throughout their careers, you need portable benefits and pension parity. Otherwise "bringing in outside expertise" means asking people to sacrifice decades of accumulated entitlements. **5. Weakening Ressortprinzip requires saying what replaces it.** The document mentions centralizing HR and cross-cutting functions, and "sukzessive überwindung" (gradual overcoming) of the Ressortprinzip (ministers run their departments independently). Fine, but what's the institutional design? A central civil service commission? An OPM-equivalent? Shared services centers with what governance? The UK has the Civil Service Commission and Cabinet Office. The US has OPM (with all its problems). Canada has the INSP and DIESE. "Centralize HR" is a direction, not a design. --- Credit where due: this is ahead of where much of the Latin American left is on state reform. The SPD's willingness to engage seriously with administrative modernization (rather than treating the state as a jobs program or ideological battleground) is refreshing. Comparing this to [[Partido dos Trabalhadores|PT]]'s programmatic documents, the difference in analytical sophistication is visible. In Brazil, a dichotomy exists: the PT's pragmatic cadres typically take on the actual management of the state machinery, while the party apparatus remains in the hands of more ideological wings. As a result, the task of drafting doctrine falls to the ideologues, producing documents that are significantly less sophisticated than the party's practical governance. None of the critique above means abandoning workers. Flexicurity isn't new - the same SPD tradition that produced the 1978 quote understands that flexibility to restructure and strong support for workers finding new roles aren't contradictions. But the world is moving fast. The abundance agenda, state capacity debates, and govtech movements elsewhere are pushing harder questions. If the 2027 _Grundsatzprogramm_ wants to matter, it should engage with them.