Reevaluating Government Efficiency: A Comparative Analysis
Initially, the appointment of Elon Musk by Donald Trump to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) in the United States appeared perplexing—a blatant conflict of interest and a publicity stunt. However, as time has progressed, it has become evident that there was a significant purpose behind this decision. The federal government, analogous to our Civil Service, employed approximately three million individuals at the beginning of the year, and Musk has swiftly initiated a campaign to reduce departments and personnel, aiming for an astonishing 75 percent cut in payroll.
Across the Western world, the post-COVID-19 era has seen a substantial rise in public spending and an expansion of the public sector workforce. The UK is no exception to this trend. The number of full-time employees in central government surged from a low of 380,000 in 2016 to an impressive 513,000 in 2024, marking a 35 percent increase without any noticeable enhancement in output or public service quality.
Both the Conservative and Labour parties have acknowledged this issue and have made attempts to address it in recent years. In fact, in a recent piece for The Daily Telegraph, Sir Keir Starmer reiterated his commitment to reforming the Civil Service to make the state more robust and dynamic.
It’s worth noting that during the Conservative government, where I served as a minister, we had our own version of Musk in the somewhat unlikely figure of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, known for holding the title of “Minister of Government Efficiency” in the Cabinet Office. A little over two years ago, Rees-Mogg set a target to eliminate 66,000 jobs, yet this ambitious goal was never achieved and was later abandoned by Labour. In December, Alex Thomas, the program director at the Institute for Government, remarked to The Guardian that reducing headcount was not an efficient means of reforming the Civil Service: “The problem with a headcount target is that it creates a lot of perverse incentives in the system, usually to get rid of larger numbers of cheaper people who are easier to lose.”
Nonetheless, the current government remains committed to some form of reduction in the size of governmental machinery, although it remains uncertain how they will accomplish this—focusing more on budget cuts rather than actual headcount reductions. Budgetary figures are often easier to manipulate and, as a result, more opaque and contentious. While funding may be reduced, the lack of clarity on employee numbers leaves voters questioning the long-term savings, if any, that will truly be realized.
I believe establishing a target for headcount reduction is reasonable and easier to communicate than budget cuts. Although it is a crude metric, it possesses the advantage of being tangible and easily understood. Furthermore, addressing the original issue that stemmed from the dramatic increase in civil servant numbers warrants a direct focus on this figure.
Margaret Thatcher famously implemented a hiring freeze on civil servants upon taking office in May 1979. When faced with resistance from ministers, she posed a straightforward question: “What are we doing with 566,000 that can’t be done with 500,000?” Her initial target aimed for at least a 5 percent reduction in headcount, ideally striving for 20 percent.
I believe Starmer should find a middle ground by targeting a 10 percent reduction in headcount. The Ministry of Defence and the National Health Service are prime candidates for scrutiny, as excess funds are often allocated to middle management and their inflated salaries. A significant reduction in these areas would allow for the reallocation of resources toward frontline services.
Future Directions
That said, I do not advocate for the Prime Minister to adopt a full Musk approach. While I appreciate Musk’s strategies and goals, they are more suited for the business realm than for public office. Just six months after finalizing his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter in October 2022, Musk boasted to the BBC about slashing the company’s workforce from 7,500 to 1,500. He has applied a similar method in government.
Musk has audaciously declared that the U.S. should “delete entire agencies,” akin to an author removing paragraphs from a draft. “If you don’t remove the roots of the weed, then it’s easy for the weed to grow back,” he stated. Yet, he finds himself compelled to backtrack, with some government agencies rehiring those he previously let go.
This aggressive approach would not be effective in the UK—our political landscape is considerably less polarized and tends to favor consensus. Additionally, my experience with the mini-budget showed that the UK public is not in favor of radical governmental changes.
Instead, Starmer can concentrate on streamlining governmental operations and prioritizing services that directly impact voters. This ambition is clearly shared by Starmer, as evidenced by his announcement to dismantle NHS England to “cut bureaucracy” and restore management of the health service “back into democratic control.” Pat McFadden, the Cabinet Office Minister, has also committed to implementing “radical” changes within the Civil Service, although he has been somewhat vague about the specific reductions he envisions.
It is understandable that Labour, a party with roots in the trade union movement, is hesitant to disclose its plans regarding the actual headcount of civil servants, who represent a heavily unionized workforce. Nevertheless, it is clear that any “radical” reform must begin with a critical examination of the number of individuals employed. I firmly believe that both Rees-Mogg and Musk are correct in this regard.
Kwasi Kwarteng is a former Conservative MP. He served as Chancellor between September and October 2022 under Liz Truss.
