## Notes from 15 April 2025 [[2025-04-14|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2025-04-16|Next note →]] Today I came across several interesting pieces. One was an [interview](https://www.civilserviceworld.com/in-depth/article/be-humble-why-academics-need-to-change-their-approach-to-the-civil-service) with Michael Sanders, the new director of the School for Government at King's College London. The piece explores the relationship between academia and the civil service. It builds on his recent article titled [_What can academia contribute to public administration?_](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09540962.2024.2445397#d1e98), where he argues that academics should spend more time talking to civil servants, be humbler, and seek more meaningful collaboration. He points out how much academic work still lacks practical relevance or clear routes to impact. Many researchers approach government only after finishing their studies, without having considered how their work might actually help. Sanders also criticizes the academic culture for not valuing public sector experience and calls for more porous boundaries between universities and government. I could relate to much of what he said... at my alma mater, very few professors had held leadership positions in the public sector. Sanders also points out that while some civil servants do try to bring in academic expertise, good secondment programs remain rare and poorly designed. One thing I missed in his reflections, though, was the idea that the civil service also needs to be clearer about what it wants to learn. That’s key to aligning government needs with research efforts. So far, the only structured example I know of is the [[U.S. Learning Agendas]](https://www.evaluation.gov/evidence-plans/learning-agenda/) (I wonder if similar mechanisms exist elsewhere). In Germany, commentary continues on the new Ministry for Digital Affairs and Modernization of the State. As usual, the tone is sharp. In _Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung_ (FAZ), the main critique is that the creation of a new ministry should have come with [consolidation or closure of others](https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/ein-schlechtes-zeugnis-fuer-merz-110421384.html). Avoiding overlap is important, but that can still be done by clearly defining responsibilities later. At _netzpolitik.org_, the article raises some important (even if common-sense) points — like the future ministry needing real decision-making power, not just an advisory role. But this is easier said than done, as it depends on how other ministries react, given the cross-cutting nature of digital and modernization policies. The piece also stresses that digitalizing a process doesn’t automatically improve it. Without process redesign, Germany risks digitizing bad bureaucracy. Simplification and digitalization must go hand in hand. Unfortunately, the article ends with a strong call for '[[Every policy objective, all the time, all at once|everythingism]]', arguing that the government's digital agenda should include participation, culture, education... these are noble goals, but at the end of the day they might compete with more urgent priorities. It’s a reminder that government reform strategies often try to be too many things at once — when what’s really needed is focus and prioritization. Without that, Germany risks confusing activity with progress.