## Notes from 10 June 2025 [[2025-06-09|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2025-06-11|Next note →]] I respect Francisco Gaetani a lot, but I’m not sure I agree with his [insight here](https://www.jota.info/opiniao-e-analise/artigos/duas-novidades-que-passaram-despercebidas). I read his piece with interest, yet I’m not convinced that creating new transversal corps for Socioeconomic Development and Justice/Defense truly improves the Brazilian federal civil service. The mistake is still organizing state “careers” (corps) by policy area instead of by function. We should group those corps into functional streams - policy, procurement, HR, data, legal, delivery, product, etc - not by subject matter (like in the [UK](https://www.civil-service-careers.gov.uk/professions/), [Australia](https://www.apsc.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/aps-professions), etc). The only real difference between a defense policy analyst and a social-security policy analyst is their subject-matter expertise, not their core skillset. This is where we sharply diverge: Brazil needs consolidation, not complexity. Those two new corps may absorb staff from fading tracks, but they still expand the total number of silos. France’s reform under Macron ([dismantling the old “grands corps” and unifying senior civil servants around broad functions](https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2021/04/22/apres-l-ena-emmanuel-macron-s-attaque-aux-grands-corps_6077618_823448.html)) proves that breaking silos builds cohesion and agility. True reform means collapsing career tracks into a handful of core functions, not multiplying them.