# Institutional Paralysis “Institutional Paralysis” describes the patterns that block government action. It's not about bad ideas. It's about too many rules (procedure fetish), too many vetoes "(vetocracy), and too many patches (kludgeocracy). The goal is fairness and legitimacy. The result is paralysis. ## Entries **[[2025-04-30]]**: _Structural Irresponsibility_, from an interview with Uwe Schneidewind (mayor of Wuppertal): He describes a system where many actors can say “no” to progress with no cost or consequence. Public administration punishes failed attempts but not inaction. The system is full of checks but lacks engines. Structural irresponsibility describes this imbalance, where inertia is safe and initiative is risky. ^structural-irresponsibility **20/02/2025**: “Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress - and How to Bring it Back” by [[Marc Dunkelman]] (via [Vital Center Podcast](https://www.niskanencenter.org/why-nothing-works-with-marc-dunkelman/), [[Niskanen Center]]): Dunkelman traces America's institutional gridlock back to a tension within progressivism: the _Hamiltonian_ impulse to empower centralized institutions to solve collective problems, versus the _Jeffersonian_ impulse to decentralize power and defend individual autonomy. He argues that since the late 1960s the Jeffersonian mindset has dominated, leading to well-intentioned constraints that have made government ineffective. ^why-nothing-works **28/01/2025**: In Chile, the term _“permisología”_ has become a shorthand for the complex web of administrative procedures, institutional overlaps, and regulatory fragmentation involved in obtaining state authorizations for investment projects.. The issue points to structural tensions in the regulatory model: how to balance legal certainty and administrative efficiency with democratic accountability and risk prevention in complex policy domains. In this context, the Chilean government launched a [[Public Sector Reform in Chile#^permisologia-reform-in-chile|Pro-Growth and Employment Pact]] in January 2024, proposing a coordinated set of reforms to address the institutional roots of _permisología_. **10/01/2020**: “[The Procedure Fetish](https://michiganlawreview.org/journal/the-procedure-fetish)” by [[Nicholas Bagley]] (Michigan Law Review): Progressives want government to advance justice and equality. But they place legitimacy in process, not results. The layers of procedure block the outcomes they seek. Bagley calls this the “procedure fetish.” ^the-procedure-fetish **26/10/2016**: “[Francis Fukuyama: America is in ‘one of the most severe political crises I have experienced’](https://www.vox.com/2016/10/26/13409956/francis-fukuyama-election-2016-trump)” by [[Ezra Klein]] (Vox, podcast interview): Fukuyama explains that the U.S. system gives too many actors veto power. He calls this “vetocracy” — rule by veto. The system makes it easy to block, but hard to act. **27/09/2013**: “[Kludgeocracy in America](https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/kludgeocracy-in-america)” by [[Steven Teles]] (National Affairs): American public policy is full of workarounds. Instead of fixing the core, new fixes pile up. Teles calls this “Kludgeocracy.” The system becomes too messy to reform. ^kludgeocracy-in-america ### Apagão das Canetas The term *[apagão das canetas](https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/blog/why-public-managers-brazil-are-feeling-paralysed)* ("pen paralysis") is used in Brazil to describe a pattern where public servants, particularly in leadership roles, avoid making administrative decisions due to fear of legal or disciplinary consequences. The phenomenon stems from the perception that civil servants face high [personal risk when exercising discretionary powers](https://www.scielo.br/j/rap/a/v8Sfv3rxJfvM6dsDNKCqy5h/?lang=en&format=pdf). Even when acting in good faith, they may later be subject to investigations by audit bodies, prosecution by the Public Ministry, or judicial review. As a result, many opt for inaction or delay to protect themselves. This issue is especially visible in areas involving procurement, public contracts, or decisions with economic implications. Managers may demand additional legal opinions or repeatedly escalate decisions to higher levels, creating bottlenecks in administration. Critics argue this has led to inefficiency and a loss of managerial capacity in the public sector.