Governments are managing increasingly complex initiatives with limited internal capacity. Health systems, national infrastructure plans, and digital platforms require technical expertise and rapid execution. But many civil services are already operating at full stretch, focused on existing obligations and working within staffing constraints. When timelines tighten or new demands arise, leaders often find that their teams can’t handle the additional load.
Some governments have responded by turning to private advisors who work closely with ministries on planning, coordination, and delivery. Christopher Roy Garland of Botswana, who has advised public entities and private-sector development efforts in Southern Africa, represents this growing category of embedded specialists. Rather than submitting reports from the sidelines, these professionals are involved in structuring projects from the inside.
The reasons behind this shift are practical. Hiring freezes, attrition, and limited training budgets have left some ministries without the people they need to move complex work forward.
“External firms offer ready-made teams that can begin immediately,” says Garland. “That speed and flexibility are hard to match when internal processes require lengthy approvals or multi-stage recruitment.”
Table of Contents
What’s Missing Inside Public Institutions
The technical foundation of many public institutions has weakened over time. Budget cuts and outsourcing have reduced the number of engineers, analysts, and subject-matter experts on staff. In some cases, the knowledge needed to manage core systems has simply faded. Departments now depend on contractors for tasks they used to handle internally.
This decline often becomes visible only when something goes wrong. A stalled rollout or a broken system can expose how little internal capacity remains. Faced with tight deadlines and stalled initiatives, contracting is often the quickest option available, even if it means skipping internal development.
Frequent staff turnover adds to the challenge. Civil servants often rotate roles every few years, which can disrupt continuity and institutional memory. Advisors who remain focused on a single program for an extended period may become the most knowledgeable people involved, despite lacking official authority.
There’s also a reputational incentive. When governments present proposals to international lenders or donors, having a recognized advisory firm on board can build confidence. That perception of legitimacy can influence how a project is evaluated, even when the underlying strategy comes from within the ministry itself.
What These Advisors Are Doing
Private advisors often play a direct role in how public programs are designed and delivered. Their responsibilities may include procurement planning, timeline management, staffing input, and performance tracking. They are not just guiding from a distance, but are also involved in how systems function on a day-to-day basis.
In Rwanda, for example, Zipline partnered with the Ministry of Health to strengthen medical logistics using drone delivery during and after the COVID‑19 pandemic. The collaboration helped address gaps in the supply chain by improving distribution routes and accelerating access to rural health centers.
Advisors in other countries support tax reform, digital modernization, and infrastructure regulation. They assist in updating outdated processes, coordinating across ministries, and managing relationships with funders. These roles require consistent attention and hands-on execution, especially when public teams are understaffed.
Christopher Roy Garland has described this shift as a practical response to urgency: “Most ministries don’t have the luxury of pausing to build capacity mid-project. They need solutions in motion, not theory on paper.” That urgency helps explain why so many governments are bringing in advisors with operational experience, not just analytical skills.
Why Governments Keep Rehiring Advisors
Once an advisory firm is familiar with a project or ministry, continuing the relationship often feels like the least disruptive option. The team understands internal dynamics, knows the stakeholders, and doesn’t require onboarding. In time-sensitive situations, that familiarity carries real value.
Advisors also bring perspective from other countries and sectors. Consultants who have worked across multiple regions and policy areas often spot patterns or pitfalls that internal teams may not anticipate. That kind of comparative knowledge can help governments refine plans more quickly.
Political dynamics also play a part. When reforms face resistance, framing them as external recommendations can reduce the perception of unilateral decision-making. It doesn’t prevent criticism, but it can shift the public conversation away from individuals and toward technical consensus.
In the UK alone, public bodies spent £3.4 billion on consultancy in 2023–24—a 62 percent increase from 2019–20. According to Garland, repeat engagements are often less about loyalty and more about efficiency. “Once you’ve navigated the institutional terrain, the value isn’t just in your analysis—it’s in your ability to keep things moving.” In many cases, retaining an experienced advisor is seen as the fastest way to keep a project on track.
What Governments Risk When Dependence Grows
When governments work extensively with outside advisors, the long-term effects depend on how those partnerships are structured. If internal staff aren’t involved in the day-to-day work, knowledge may not transfer effectively. Once the engagement ends, ministries can find themselves without the expertise needed to maintain or adapt what was built. That kind of gap doesn’t show up immediately, but it can slow future progress when in-house teams are expected to carry the work forward on their own.
Budget pressures can increase gradually. While advisors are often brought in for complex, high-priority projects, multiple contracts over several years can consume a significant portion of operational budgets. Without clear evaluation criteria, it’s hard to know whether the spending is producing results that endure beyond the contract.
Responsibility for outcomes can also become unclear. Even when external teams work collaboratively, decisions may be shaped in ways that don’t reflect internal priorities. Staff may defer to consultants without fully understanding the trade-offs involved. That can complicate oversight, especially when the results take years to assess.
These challenges aren’t the fault of individual advisors. Rather, they stem from how relationships are structured, and how governments manage transitions. Agencies that define roles clearly, involve their own staff from the beginning, and track outcomes closely are more likely to benefit from outside support without losing internal control.
Steps Toward Building Public Capacity
Some governments are working to restore internal capability by creating teams that support complex planning and delivery across departments. Singapore’s in-house strategy unit is one example. It allows ministries to tap into structured planning support without defaulting to private firms.
The UK has taken steps to increase transparency around advisory contracts. Agencies are now required to publish more detailed data on costs, timelines, and project outcomes. This gives legislators and the public a clearer view of whether external support is delivering measurable value.
Other governments are pairing advisors directly with internal staff. Instead of working in isolation, consultants co-develop timelines, tools, and training so that departments retain knowledge once the engagement ends. It’s slower than full outsourcing, but it leaves stronger teams behind.
Garland has pointed out that “good advising leaves institutions stronger, not just better briefed.” That kind of legacy comes not from short-term fixes but from structures that build independence, even as they borrow outside help.
Christopher Roy Garland: How Public Institutions Can Maintain Control
Outside advisors can play an important role when governments face new challenges or need specialized expertise. But the terms of engagement matter. When external voices take on too much responsibility, public institutions risk losing clarity over who is accountable—and who remains when the contract ends.
Governments that manage these relationships carefully are better positioned to keep control of priorities and outcomes. They involve internal teams from the beginning, ensure goals are shared, and create systems for tracking performance that last beyond individual engagements.
That doesn’t mean rejecting external support. It means designing partnerships that support internal growth rather than substitute for it. The result is a public workforce that can keep momentum going long after an advisory team steps away.
Advisors can be useful. But the goal should always be to strengthen the institution, not to build around it. That’s the difference between temporary help and long-term value.
