## Notes from 30 April 2025 [[2025-04-29|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2025-05-01|Next note →]] I finally got around to [reading an interview](https://taz.de/Wuppertal-OB-Schneidewind-im-Gespraech/!vn5998795/) with [Uwe Schneidewind](https://www.linkedin.com/in/uwe-schneidewind-86b86520/), the mayor of Wuppertal (a great recommendation from [[Oliver Bott]]), and there’s a lot to unpack. Schneidewind’s journey from academia to city hall highlights a universal governance dilemma: turning ideas into action. Reflecting on his experience, he immediately points to what he calls the overwhelming "power of no," referring to how easily progress in public administration can be stalled by groups that simply veto it. This isn’t a uniquely German problem. It reflects a distortion increasingly common across democracies. [Why can't we build?](https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228469/marc-andreessen-build-government-coronavirus) Because what one person calls bureaucracy, another calls accountability. The result is a stalemate, especially when we stop acknowledging trade-offs and get trapped in a consultative democracy that lacks the capacity for decisive action. This often occurs when leaders shy away from the political cost of taking risks. Schneidewind elaborates on this and introduces a powerful concept: **_[[Institutional Paralysis|structural irresponsibility]]_**. What does he mean by that? It’s the idea that multiple actors can block projects with near impunity because there’s virtually no personal cost to saying "no". Public administration, he argues, is caught in a perverse incentive structure. Institutions penalize agency but not inertia. It’s easier to punish initiatives that go wrong than to recognize the cost of doing nothing. There are plenty of "checks and balances" in place, but no mechanisms that provide the energy needed to overcome blockage. So how do we overcome _structural irresponsibility_? Our systems struggle to promote necessary action, and as a result, we all fall behind. What we need is an institutional engine to counter procrastination, timidity and excessive caution. What might that look like? Let’s call them **_[[Progress Protocols|progress protocols]]_**: measures such as defined decision deadlines, automatic project progress triggers, accountability for omissions, and recognition systems for initiative. We should complement _checks and balances_ with _engines and accelerators_, ensuring not only limits to power but also the drive to implement policy. That’s how we begin to dismantle structural irresponsibility. Schneidewind also offers a critical (though subtle) view of insiders. As someone transplanted into local politics, he exposes how closed systems foster groupthink and patronage. He observes that different factions specialize in blocking initiatives because it becomes a bargaining chip for handing out board seats or sinecures. This creates what he calls _networks of mediocrity_. What resonates most, however, is his experience of building _go-energy_. He argues that successful reform depends on cultivating a proactive culture rooted in trust. Plans are important, but not enough. Creating compelling narratives, he insists, is essential to reform success. Above all, Schneidewind underscores that turning the tide requires a strong leadership core. He calls it a "board of directors" (_verwaltungsvorstand_): a team empowered to set common goals, coordinate cross-departmental work, and maintain momentum even when external politics get messy. It is a vivid reminder that every ambition, from delivering affordable housing to deploying green infrastructure, depends on equipping a capable leadership team to carry projects across the finish line. Reading this, I’m convinced that diagnosing veto points and procedural confusion is only half the battle. The real challenge is building _[[Progress Protocols|progress protocols]]_, the cultural and structural muscle to say "yes" more often. That means recruiting from diverse pathways, building cognitive diversity, empowering a cohesive senior team, and telling a compelling story. Schneidewind’s experience offers a roadmap for anyone wrestling with institutional inertia: name the blockers, craft the narrative, open the doors, and trust bold leadership to make progress possible.