## Notes from 16 April 2025 [[2025-04-15|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2025-04-17|Next note →]] A lot on my plate today. I had a fascinating reading list. The most [stimulating piece](https://www.themandarin.com.au/290654-a-key-us-lesson-merit-really-is-the-most-important-public-service-value/) was by Andrew Podger, former Public Service Commissioner of Australia, writing in _[[Gov Curiosity Chronicle|The Mandarin]]_ about a panel titled _“Keeping Public Servants and Protecting Merit in Public Service”_ at the 2025 ASPA Conference. I appreciated how he unpacked the idea of a merit system into four parts: merit-based appointments, merit-based promotions, job security and political neutrality. I agree these are key principles, but I’m not sure they apply equally across the board. In my view, public administration should be flexible enough to accommodate different types of roles with different degrees of protection. Some roles need more agility and responsiveness — even if that comes with a bit more insecurity or risk of politicization. It’s not easy to “square the circle” but pretending one model fits all just doesn’t work. Podger also mentioned the weakening of the [[U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)]] under Trump 2. I disagree. In Trump’s first term, yes, there were attempts to [dismantle or sideline](https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/10/opm-quietly-abandons-proposed-merger-gsa/169692/) the OPM. But today, as the DOGE takeover moves forward, OPM has gained significant power - even the ability to fire civil servants in other agencies, which was unthinkable before. He also noted that the U.S. lacks a civil service leader like in Westminster systems. I don’t have a strong position on this, but it's worth remembering that, in the U.S., the Merit Systems Protection Board is supposed to play a balancing role - though Trump previously tried to disable it by [leaving it without quorum](https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2024/09/mspb-update-rules-make-operations-smoother-without-quorum/399344/). Different institutional architectures. Then I read a lovely piece by James Plunkett called _[The Energy at the Edges](https://endstate.substack.com/p/the-energy-at-the-edges)_. He argues that while the center of government is decaying, vitality is emerging at the margins. He brings together examples of innovations in all places: [[Deliberative Democracy|citizens' assemblies]], [[Relational Public Services|relational public services]], mission economy, etc. It’s a good read. But, of course, it’s all centered on the UK and the US. That reminded me of Bong Joon-ho's quote: “Once you overcome the one-inch tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films”. Same goes for public innovation — so many great things are happening outside the Anglosphere. Also amusing that he didn’t mention the [[Abundance Agenda - Progress Studies]], which I think is one of the most exciting currents in US policy thinking today. Another surprise was a piece by Mariana Mazzucato titled _[Governments Are Not Startups](https://www.socialeurope.eu/governments-are-not-startups)_. It’s full of strawman arguments, to be honest. She compares the US and Argentina, but anyone familiar with [[Sturzenegger’s reforms]] knows they’re quite different, even if the narratives sometimes overlap. Her main point is that the government is not a company - fair enough. But no one serious is arguing that it is. The goal is to bring more agility to government by adopting methods that originated in tech startups, like agile workflows. These are just ways of working, not a business model! Ironically, she cites Jennifer Pahlka, who’s been championing this idea all along. Back to Germany, a [short article](https://www.cdu.de/aktuelles/funktionierender-staat/koalitionsvertrag-2025-staat-modernisieren/) about the new Ministry of Digital Affairs has been published by the CDU. What struck me is that the text focuses very little on digitalization (which is actually really good). It talks about reducing and consolidating bureaucracies, streamlining procedures (especially to speed up housing construction) and writing laws that leave room for experimentation. All of that sounds promising. But simplification doesn't always need digital tools, it mostly takes political will to cut through regulatory clutter. And on housing, I’m skeptical. Land-use rules are local, and [[Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY)|NIMBYs]] are powerful here. Unless the federal government links funding to pro-YIMBY reforms, I don’t see much changing. I also liked the emphasis on experimentation, but it will take more than better laws to encourage public servants to actually try new ways of solving problems. It's also a cultural issue: promoting the right to [[Experimentation and the Right to Fail|experiment AND to fail]], which will be particularly difficult in a civil service so heavily dominated by lawyers. Finally, I read an [op-ed by three former Trump officials](https://www.govexec.com/management/2025/04/trump-officials-explain-his-plan-make-government-acquisition-great-once/404593/) in _[[Gov Curiosity Chronicle|Government Executive]]_, laying out their vision for [[Public Procurement Reform|procurement reform]] in a second Trump term. They correctly point out how overregulated the current system is. Too much red tape keeps out smaller vendors and newcomers. But beyond that, the article offers very little. None of the authors have actual experience with procurement reform. Disappointed, but not surprised.