She was one of the first to alert on the subject. As early as 2012, Claude Revel, enarque and entrepreneur, worried about France, a country under influence? (Vuibert) of the growing influence of consulting firms on political decision-making. Ten years later, this practice has become predominant. A Senate commission of inquiry described, on March 17, a “sprawling phenomenon” and a remedy “that has become a reflex”, particularly in the management of the Covid. In 2021, the ministries’ external consultancy expenditure reached 893.9 million euros, more than double that of 2018, when it already reached 379.1 million euros.
Since his post as interministerial delegate for economic intelligence, from 2012 to 2015, then at the Court of Auditors, from 2015 to 2019, Claude Revel has seen McKinsey and the others gradually impose themselves in places of power. With L’Express, she recounts their rise to power … and details the consequences. Sometimes counterproductive, in his eyes.
L’Express: The government considers that the use of consulting firms makes it possible to mobilize skills that do not exist in the administration. In the computer field, for example. Why not accept this analysis?
Claude Revel : Because it is wrong. I agree that on very specialized IT subjects, we need special expertise. But the State’s recourse to consulting firms goes far beyond the subject of digital technology. This use has become a reflex. When I was an interministerial delegate, as soon as a senior official mentioned a problem, he said to me: “We are going to ask for a report.” That meant reporting to McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, Roland Berger, Ernst & Young (EY), or a few others, most of the time.
It is a practice that allows you to cover yourself. We have an external actor validate what we have decided in advance. But it goes further. This denotes a particular ideological software: a deep mistrust for the senior civil service, which is not considered competent enough. Conversely, it has become almost consensual to consider that everything that comes from the private sector is by definition better. When this vision is carried by senior civil servants, it shocks me. I was flabbergasted by a message published on the social network LinkedIn, a month ago: the direction of the Treasury, of Bercy, congratulated one of its executives for his “appointment” at the Boston Consulting Group. It looked like it was just a different direction of the state.
Aren’t there cases in which the use of these firms is fully justified?
Yes, of course. You know, I am an entrepreneur, I like the private sector and I defend globalization, I am far from populists. On specific support missions, on technical points, I am not against using consulting firms. But I think we’ve gone too far. I want to defend the state. For reports, I happened to consult senior civil servants who were a bit on the sidelines, and I realized that not only were they brilliant, but also that they were not coping with this situation. There are skills in the State that we do not use. When we ask McKinsey or others to report on a public policy or to make a link between administrations, there are already inspections that exist for that: the Finance Inspectorate, the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs, etc. . In the end, it is believed to save the State but this incessant recourse makes it lose money because these firms practice high tariffs.
When you were at the Court of Auditors, were the magistrates aware of the cost of these offices?
I remember that we could not quantify the total cost for the State of the use of consulting firms. There were framework contracts, contracts one-shot, a lot of different missions in the directions of ministries. It was a real problem. Because all this was done in an opaque way, without democratic control. Unfortunately, this fuels populism. However, we should have a real debate: if we think that we lack skills in the public service, either we have to review training – which I am in favor of – or we have to change the model, switch to a very lean state, like in other countries. But if we keep senior civil servants, we have to make them work.
When would you date the arrival of consulting firms in ministries?
When I started my career in the 1980s, that didn’t exist. From 2007, the phenomenon began to grow, with the General Review of Public Policies (RGPP) wanted by Nicolas Sarkozy. And when I came back into administration in 2013, I found they were everywhere. Today, there are more and more enarques who go to work in these firms. As a result, the executives of these companies always have more friends in the senior civil service. And senior civil servants find it even more difficult to say no to these firms, which they see as a possible outlet in their careers. Again, I’m not against it in principle. That a civil servant knows the private sector, this is my case, that can be very positive. The problem is when the director of a service leaves to work as a consultant in the same sector. Because he will find himself playing on his relationships to obtain public contracts. This is not healthy.
In Infiltrators, the recent investigation by journalists Matthieu Aron and Caroline Michel-Aguirre, you say that when you arrived at the Court of Auditors, you were confronted with consulting firms. What place did they hold in the institution?
It is true, and yet the Court of Auditors is one of the institutions most spared by the phenomenon. When I became a member, I was given a mission on its digital transformation. So I organized a first meeting, and I found that day that people I did not know were present. They were representatives of consulting firms. They sit next to you and approach you in a very courteous way: “What can we do to help you?” I hadn’t invited them, but someone at the general secretariat had done so, without telling me, considering their presence as obvious. I did not respond.