What’s the criteria for rationalising agencies, commissions, and authorities?

I support the decision by government to rationalise agencies, commissions and authorities with a view to aligning the functions, structures, plans and budgets of government institutions based on national strategic goals and priorities in the provision of public services and also to eliminate functional ambiguities, duplications and overlaps among government Institutions, etc.
What I don’t agree with, however, is the rationalisation being done en masse without a critical review as to why each body was set up in the first place, the source of funding for each, what each agency, commission and authority has achieved so far (cost/benefit analysis) and what each will achieve going forward if it stays as it is rather than being merged with the line ministry.
In my opinion, before each agency, commission or authority is merged with the line ministry, a review of the rationale and its applicability to each body should be made. Let me explain each rationale in connection with some agencies to illustrate my point.
• To align the functions, structures, plans and budgets of government institutions based on national strategic goals and priorities in the provision of public services. Is the agency’s mandate well aligned with the government priority of increasing access to the service? Some agencies are executing their mandates through provision of an institutional structure that enables government to mobilise resources from development partners (grants and concessional loans) that would otherwise not be tenable with mainstream government ministries.
Government of Uganda funds these agencies mainly in the form of counter funding for projects. The government contribution is relatively small compared to the funding from development partners. Transfer of the projects to the mainstream ministry would mean cancellation in some instances or require re- appraisal by the funders of the new set-up for some of the projects, which would jeopardise implementation of the projects.
• To eliminate functional ambiguities, duplications and overlaps among government institutions. Some of the agencies were setup to provide an institutional framework to facilitate participation of the private sector in the financing of projects/programmes. Specifically, some of these agencies were set up to provide innovative solutions on business principles.
Some of the agencies deliver their mandate through establishment of strategic partnerships with the private sector and development partners. The objective is to use public resources to catalyse financing of projects and programmes by the private/financial sector on business principles. The above highlighted functions cannot be undertaken by a mainstream ministry.
• To eliminate wasteful expenditures in Agencies, Commissions and Authorities with a view to allocating those resources to other priority areas for socio-economic development of the country. Some of these agencies’ mandates are well aligned with the government priority of efficient and effective service delivery.
• To streamline the legal and institutional frameworks to ensure the retained agencies, commission and authorities are well aligned and more accountable to the citizens and mainstream government ministries.
Some of the agencies, commissions and authorities are already well aligned and accountable to their respective mainstream government ministries.
A critical review of each agency, commission and authority should be made against the criteria stated above. Those bodies that merit retention as stand-alone units should continue to operate as they are currently doing. Those that fail the criteria should be merged with the line ministries.

Mr Mugenyi is an accountant by profession.