The number of ministries has doubled in Bangladesh since independence -- from 21 in 1972 to 42 in 2014.
The divisions under different ministries has expanded in two decades -- from 49 in 1994 to 59 now.
Likewise, the number of autonomous bodies has increased from 199 to 247 during this period of past twenty years.
Departments and directorates of Government have risen, in numbers, to 275 now, from 221 in 1994 and 181 in 1982.
This is what Government is all about its operational activities. The data that are available from Cabinet Division, Finance Division, the periodic publications of the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), government's budget documents over the years as well as a World Bank (WB) report, titled 'Government That Works' that was published in March 1996, reflect this profile.
This gives the picture about the size of Government in Bangladesh. This size has been expanding over the years in an uninterrupted sequence.
Every successive government has been contributing to it, in an unbroken chain, since the country's independence. Detailed time-series statistics do clearly indicate this.
As a logical consequences of this ever expanding size of Government, there has been a marked rise in the number of civil service personnel in various categories between 1972 and now.
The overall numbers of 'civil' or 'public' servants and public sector employments have thus virtually trebled since independence, rising from 4,54,450 in 1971 to 7,79,000 in 1982, 9,46,749 in 1992, 1,000,983 in 2001, 119,557 in 2005, and 1,760,864 in 2014.
The aggregate number of 'civil servants,' as of now, reflects an annual compounded rate of growth by about 3.0 per cent against an average population growth rate in the same period at about 2.25 per cent.
Figures, noted above, may, however, require some adjustments, on a more detailed scrutiny of statistics.
But one thing stands out clear: the size of Government, in terms of numbers of those employed in ministries and their divisions, autonomous bodies and departments and directorates, has expanded, outpacing the country's average annual population growth rate, on a compounded basis, over the last 44 years since independence.
The figures of those engaged in defence services, officers and support-staff for a good number of projects under the annual development programme (ADP) and temporary workers employed in contingency posts or covered under 'master roll' of departments and directorates etc., have been excluded here.
If these are included, then the picture will be 'bigger' about the size of Government.
According to knowledgeable circles, the size of Government has a "strong bearing" on cost of running it. The burden of this cost, as such circles noted, does ultimately fall on the people who bear the load of direct and indirect taxes, fees and other government charges.
Trends of compensation costs for both serving and retired government employees show that the bill on account of pay and allowances as well as pension and retirement benefits has been bulging steadily. It has increased not only in absolute terms but also as relative ratios to the government's revenue expenditure and gross domestic product (GDP) at current prices.
This correspondent talked to a number of analysts of public expenditures, economists, former civil servants and other competent experts to obtain their views on, what appeared to be, on the basis of available statistics and data, an unending expansion of size of Government in the country and its wider ramifications.
Their views covered a wide range of areas, centring the moot issue -- size of Government. Most of them made one common observation: time is ripe now to give a serious thought to right-sizing -- meaning neither down-sizing or over-sizing -- Government.
The advantages of greater use of today's digital technology and modern management practices, styles and methods do also heighten the need to taking such developments into consideration while making a meaningful exercise to this effect, they suggested.
The expansion on growth of Government, according to them, must not be stimulated by pure political considerations, like increasing the number of ministries to accommodate more intra-party groups and to give new ministerial positions to keep some influentials happy, spreading Government's wings unnecessarily to absorb the politically favoured ones in jobs in civil service or creating jobs for dispensation by political leaders without examining, on dispassionate grounds, the need for the same.
A number of analysts and observers with whom this correspondent talked to, noted that the number of ministries in Bangladesh "is already large" in Bangladesh, compared to the situation in many other countries like Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, South Korea, Japan, the UK and many more.
"What counts most in this contest is the quality of output, not more functioning of a ministry", one of them observed.
When this correspondent drew his attention to the claim by some quarters that the cost of running the government in Bangladesh is not far out of line with other comparator countries in fiscal terms, he observed that this factor must not be taken "as a source of any comfort" in the Bangladesh context where recurring expenditures on account of pay and allowances as well as retirement and pension benefits for serving and retired public officials increased by about 120% in last two decades and a half alone.
The observer, who preferred anonymity while expressing this view, was one of the members of the Bangladesh team that was part of the collaborative effort, in conjunction with the WB staff, for finalisation of an otherwise well-documented report -- Government That Works -- in 1996.
Meanwhile, competent analysts and experts, economists and former senior-level civil servants to whom this correspondent talked, before filing of this report, highlighted one common theme: efficiency and quality of Government matter much more than its size.
According to them, the 'value for money' is one important operational method to assess the efficiency and quality of Government. Explaining this further, they noted that a number of critical issues or questions on this count are inter-linked.
Such questions, as they further elaborated, include: what value or service does a taxpayer or any private citizen get from a Government department or public service provider? Is the job by any such body being done to a reasonably accepted level of satisfaction of the 'clients' or service-recipients? Are Government agencies or departments performing properly their respective assigned functional responsibilities? And are their functions of practical use to the people? Are their services cost effective? Do they entail bribery or kickbacks?
Such questions do, in essence, bring one major issue to the afore: the urgency for involving the private citizens in a wider public debate about the right-size of government.
Most of those with whom this correspondent interacted, before filing this report, identified complexities about coordination among the government agencies and departments as some major hindrances to getting due and proper cost-effective benefits from Government in its entirely.
If Government possesses too many agencies and departments amid overlapping functional responsibilities that make it (govt.) over-extended and too large and also if there is no effective decentralisation of decision-making among such authorities concerned, its them, they observed, becomes virtually ineffective or inefficient to deliver public goods and services in the way that the people expect from Government to deliver without hassles.
"What is more important and has a major bearing on efficiency, is not the size of Government but the level and extent of transparency, fairness and automaticity of its legal and regularly institutions, policies and practices", commented a former senior civil servant.
(jasimharoon@yahoo.com)