In a previous incarnation, I worked in government, advising democratically elected ministers of different political hues, extensively on wide-ranging domestic and international policies, traversing business process re-engineering, civil justice, decentralisation, economic regeneration, European policy etc.

Evidently, that is not the focus of this piece, however, it is germane in the context of one’s capacity to speak cogently, and experientially, to the issue of policy making plus, its contestability relative to politics.

By policy in this sense, I simply mean the modus operandi and key priorities of an accountable, genuinely aspirational, democratically-elected and progressive government, irrespective of political ideology. By that characterisation, policies would typically reflect the manifesto commitments of a country’s ruling political party, before it was elected into office which, upon election into office, metamorphose into the government’s strategic priorities, deliverables and, ultimately, legislation.

That said, policy-formulation is not necessarily a government monopoly because a wide-range of domestic and international stakeholders oftentimes jointly develop policy on account of their sectoral/specialist expertise, as the context demands.

For instance, policy development across the Global North and Global South to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, was collaboratively developed by first-class scientists from leading universities, the African Development Bank, the Centre for Disease Control, the United Nations, the World Health Organisation etc.

The development of the COVID-19 vaccine not only saved millions of lives globally, concurrently, it heralded a pivotal moment for genuinely impactful international collaborative efforts devoid of political wrangling. A proposition which accords with the thesis established by M. Howlett, M. Ranesh and A. Perl, in “Studying Public Policy, Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems,” Oxford University Press, Toronto, 2009 viz: policy is executed by governments notwithstanding the fact its development could emanate from external partners.

Ordinarily, these policies include cross-cutting strategies including aerospace, civil justice, defence, education, fiscal and monetary policy, foreign policy, healthcare, law and order, social security and social care, transport, pension et al. It could also encompass strategic policies pertaining to innovation, competition and efficiency reviews/targets.

The latter arrests the attention of this essay, upon the foundation that all policies have triggers, which may have been scrupulously planned, costed, piloted and rolled out like national policy on university tuition fees in some nations. Conversely, a policy trigger could emanate from an unintended occurrence with fatal consequences.

For instance, in country X, a policeman routinely carries semi-automatic weapons which, upon an “accidental discharge” fatally injures two young children playing in their local park. Thereafter, the government of that country introduces a policy banning the routine issuance of such weapons to policemen, instead, issuing them with taser guns!

The other scenario, is force majeure, in country Y, where people consistently erect bungalows on flood plains adhering to approved planning-frameworks. However, following devastating monsoon-rainstorms, and tsunami-type floods, all those bungalows and neighbouring communities were wiped out. Thus, the government, established a policy banning all construction on flood plains as a prudent precaution.

Reversing to the important issue of efficiency reviews, invariably, the overriding policy trigger underpinning this strategic initiative is essentially a government’s overriding aspiration to add value, cut the costs of governance, by cutting waste. This is informed by a variety of factors including purist ideological leanings of centre right political parties like the Conservative Party and the Republican Party in the UK, and USA respectively: espousing core beliefs in minimalist government, libertarianism, low taxes and free enterprise; a desire to reduce government expenditure and what has been described as “waste”

The authors Womack and Jones, in Lean Thinking (2003) describe “waste” as: “specifically any human activity which absorbs resources but creates no value: mistakes which require rectification, production of items no one wants so that inventories and remaindered goods pile up, processing steps which aren’t actually needed, movement of employees and transport of goods from one place to another without any purpose, groups of people in a downstream activity standing around waiting because an upstream activity has not delivered on time, and goods and services which don’t meet the needs of the customer.”

They further argue that Lean Thinking is a robust antidote to “waste” because it provides a mechanism “to do more and more with less and less – less human effort, less equipment, less time, and less space – while coming closer and closer to providing customers with exactly what they want”. Today, Artificial Intelligence (AI), appears to be very definition of this proposition.

Because, progressive democratic societies are in constant battle of ideas, what is characterised as “waste” to centre right political parties, can be deemed “heartless” polices by centre left political parties like the Democratic Party, and Labour Party, in the USA and UK, respectively.

Broadly, but by no means exclusively, centre left parties espouse philosophical orthodoxies pertaining to environmental and social justice, globalism, liberalism, progressive taxation, regulatory statism, welfarism et al. For clarity, the ideological boundaries between centre left and centre right political parties, are not clear cut because, every responsible government has an obligation to ensure that it exercises effective discipline and prudence in financial stewardship, and transformational leadership, upon which, the capacity to execute impactful policies largely depends.

Upon that foundation, was the 2003/2024 UK’s Gershon Efficiency Review, launched by the ideologically, centre-left Labour Party, albeit, de facto, centre-right ‘new-Labour’ administration of Tony Blair, British Prime Minister (1997-2007); and led by the former Chairman of Tate & Lyle, Sir Peter Gershon. The objective was clearcut: to review processes across the UK’s public sector and make proposals pertaining to efficiency and expenditure. Gershon’s radical report made recommendations for efficiency savings in the 2005/6 fiscal year via business process reengineering models, smarter procurement, increased automation to free up resources from the UK public sector budget, then, approximately £520 billion. As at 2007, the Gershon Review reported efficiency savings of approximately £21.5 billion across the UK public sector.

And because government is a continuum, the enduring effect of the Gershon Review, has been to streamline departmental budgets, cut ‘waste’ and re-target resources largely to frontline education, healthcare and policing services, which chimes with the minimalist state ideology of the centre-right Conservative Party, which has continuously held power for 14 years since 2010 in UK.

How is this relevant in the Nigerian context? To the extent that every civilised country aspires to effective and viable leadership, embedding robust institutions and the rule of law, plus, the discipline of prudent financial stewardship, Nigeria, an established, albeit imperfect democracy, is no exception.

The country faced the extremely costly, cascading, conundrum of complexity, duplication of functions and opacity in governance, which necessarily imperilled public finances and the capacity of government to deliver core public services.

Hence, the government of former President Goodluck Jonathan established the Presidential Committee on the Restructuring, Rationalisation of Federal Government Parastatals, Commissions and Agencies on August 8, 2011 (also known as the “Oronsaye Review”).

The Committee was chaired by Mr Stephen Oronsaye, a former senior Nigerian civil servant and seasoned chartered accountant, had undoubtedly, learned lessons from the UK’s Gershon Efficiency Review, inter alia, in its formulation of its final report in 2012.

The Oronsaye Report identified 541 agencies, commissions and parastatals of the Federal Government and recommended: i.) the abolition of 38 federal agencies; ii.) the reduction of statutory agencies from 263 to 161; iii.) the merger of 52 public institutions; iv.) the reversion of 14 agencies to federal ministries.

Notwithstanding the fact that the overarching objective of a public sector efficiency review, as the name, implies, is to unleash value, cut waste, enhance operational efficiency and boost productivity, a number of important distinctions can be established between the UK’s Gershon Review and Nigeria’s Oronsaye Efficiency Review.

First, in the UK, the expression government is a continuum is an enduring philosophy because the essence of doing more with less and seeking productivity gains across the public sector traverses the political hues of centre-right Conservativism and centre-left Liberalism even to this day. Second, in Nigeria the Oronsaye report expired with the Jonathan administration in 2015!

Thus, although the policy intentions were sound, its non-implementation by the succeeding Buhari administration (2015 -2023) proved to be a complete waste of the public resources the Oronsaye Review was established to prune.

Third, the inescapable corollary of a public sector efficiency review in its purist sense, is the extraction of productivity gains. It stands to reason that there will be some degree of rationalisation which will free up resources which, presumably, will be redirected to more pressing policy priorities like defence, education, healthcare, national security, policing etc.

In the final analysis, the UK, has an effective social security safety net for those adversely affected by its efficiency reviews, stemming from Gershon to extant comprehensive spending reviews. Nigeria does not!! Plus, the socio-political milieu of both countries differs significantly. Therefore, it cannot be the case that what works in the UK can automatically be replicated in Nigeria.

That the administration of President Bola Tinubu (2023 to present), announced its intention to fully implement the Oronsaye report 12 years on, on February 26, 2024, objectively, evidences political will and a commitment to evidence-based policy-making, which is welcome.

Nevertheless, the effluxion of 12 years (2012 to 2024) has witnessed three different administrations, radically different strategic policy priorities and altered socio-political tectonic plates. The submission is that any policy decisions over the short, medium or long term on rationalisation needs very careful considerations and an effective social welfare counterbalance.

Beyond that, government as a continuum, policy certainty, absent political obfuscation, and evidenced-based policy making ought, reasonably, to be an enduring philosophy of Nigeria’s statecraft.

Ojumu is the Principal Partner at Balliol Myers LP, a firm of legal practitioners and strategy consultants in Lagos, Nigeria, and the author of The Dynamic Intersections of Economics, Foreign Relations, Jurisprudence and National Development.