Does Qatar need an Efficiency Tsar?

There have been many news headlines generated by the new Trump administration, especially by the highly confrontational Special Government Employee, the billionaire Elon Musk. He is heading the Department of Government Efficiency, and is intent on reducing both headcount and bureaucracy. Already he has attracted pushback, not only from political opponents and civil servants, but from the heads of federal departments appointed by Trump himself. Some of them told their staff to ignore an email from Musk sent to all government employees demanding that they summarize their achievements from the previous week.

But is there a case for reducing the numbers of civil servants, and the numbers of regulations, in the USA and in most countries? In many public sector institutions there can be a tendency for regulations, headcount and salaries to creep upwards, sometimes supported by a supply industry of consultants who earn a living from helping with compliance.

Few people would advocate zero regulation, as this would probably result in beaches poisoned with toxic waste and more deaths on the roads. But even those strongly in favour of regulation can see that too many laws, especially if they include unnecessary form-filling, are not only bad for productivity, but can be counter-productive: more time spent filling in forms can mean less time attending to operational matters, including safety and other aspects of responsible business. Also, the credibility of regulation is damaged with every rule that is not necessary, or where the rationale is not clear.

Then again, efforts to reduce red tape and improve efficiency can also be counterproductive. For example, some US tax experts have questioned the wisdom of firing around 6,000 employees of the Internal Revenue Service during the tax-filing season, as this may impair the gathering of tax and hence worsen deficits. If you lose expertise, efficiency can be damaged.

True efficiency is derived from retaining the people and measures that are necessary, as well as disposing of those that are not. Musk is correct to attend to this balance, but not everyone is convinced he’s making the right calls.

For regulations, there needs to be an optimal level, and a clear and well understood rationale for every law that businesses and citizens have to obey. For the most part, Qatar’s administrators do achieve this. Public feedback on government services in Qatar is generally positive, but anecdotally there are some complaints about the time taken up with bureaucracy.

Applying for building permits in Qatar, and setting up a business, can involve a considerable amount of bureaucracy and the rationale for each process is not always clear. For example all businesses are required to have point-of-sale equipment even if they have no retail transactions. Clearing away some of these rules would help administrators and business leaders focus on complying with the rules that are clearly essential.

Two approaches that can prevent red tape from becoming excessive are sunset clauses, and the ‘comply or explain’ principle. A sunset clause is an expiry date for a regulation: after, say, five years, it becomes invalid and the case has to be made for its reintroduction. This can help prevent an accumulation of regulations that become archaic and irrelevant. Some laws in Qatar were passed in the 1990s, for example.

The ‘comply or explain’ approach is used in some corporate governance codes: a company may depart from a recommended practice lawfully, but they are expected to explain why. This embeds the concept of understanding and explaining the rationale for a certain practice, and avoids punitive actions for minor breaches. Such approaches may not be appropriate for essential safety measures, but can be effective in other contexts.

In the case of Qatar, because it is a small country, it should be possible for an ‘Efficiency Tsar’ to make swift progress. There is a precedent: in preparing for the 2022 World Cup, there was the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy, which had authority to over-ride unnecessary regulations in order to get things completed.

Elon Musk faces a tougher challenge, and the Department of Government Efficiency will be an interesting case study to follow. It’s to be hoped that he makes tangible progress, otherwise he could be giving efficiency a bad name.