An agenda for consultants in government

I have blogged earlier lamenting the alarming growth of the use of consultants in governments within India (and elsewhere) here and here. It's largely mediocre and routinised. 

I am no blind advocate of banning consultants within governments. But it's about using consultants for clearly defined tasks for which internal expertise is unavailable or external expertise is necessary. They range from preparation of specific documents to advising on specific projects or issues. It's the latter that is the subject of this post. 

How should consultant approach such work?

I am inclined to a two-step process. 

After a deep-dive on the issue, in the first stage, the consultant should distil their understanding into the different possible options available, with their respective pros and cons.

In the second stage, the consultant should exercise their considered judgement and make with a well-reasoned case, their recommendation about the preferred choice. This should focus on 

1. Why is the preferred choice superior to the alternative options?

2. What are the biggest drawbacks of the preferred option? Why is it still the preferred option?

The considerations in making this choice should include the technical merits, context (the implementation environment and bureaucratic capability to execute the same), comparative assessments (how others worldwide respond to the problem), prior experiences from similar contexts etc.

The two-step process is important for multiple reasons. The first step is important since the decision-makers within the government should know about all the available options and be able to make an informed choice. The second step is important since the government's choice should also take into consideration the opinion of professionally competent experts. Besides, it is also about holding the consultants too accountable for their advice. In fact, I would even suggest ranking consultants based on the success of their advice when adopted.

This thought discipline in government-decision making, enforced by the documents of record on the consultants' options and their preferred choice, is important for several reasons. For a start, it increases the likelihood of governments making the most informed choice. Another, it also forces accountability when the bureaucrats are overlooking the most qualified choice and making an alternative choice. It enhances the quality of the decision hygiene. 

It's a different matter that the government may, and rightly so, make a choice which is very different from that of the consultant. These choices can be dictated by legitimate and very valid real-world considerations like fairness and distributive justice, precedents, and political ideologies of democratically elected governments. Public policy choices are hardly only about expertise. 

I'll argue that it's therefore unfair and wrong for public commentators and academic scholars to critique governments just for not having adopted the preferred suggestion given by outsider experts. This point is important since it is the default media and popular commentary response when governments disregard the opinion of experts. Instead, their attention should be on the rationale that governments have for over-ruling the technical choice and making their alternative choice. 

This is also not to deny that governments do not make unjustifiable choices driven by nakedly political or corrupt considerations. That demands criticism. 

Governments should be willing to be held accountable for the reasons for their choices. Commentators should also be responsive to the right of democratically elected governments to make their fair political choices (for example, the choices that right and left wing governments make on various policies).

Granted that discerning between justifiable and unjustifiable choices by governments is difficult. But neither is it impossible.