France’s struggle between dependence, autonomy, and a new balance of power. When the McKinsey scandal broke out in 2022, the outrage went far beyond a single firm. It was not only about unpaid taxes or opaque contracts. It was about sovereignty. France had spent more than €1 billion on consulting services in 2021, a figure confirmed by the Senate and one that stunned public opinion. For many, it revealed how deeply the State had become dependent on private advisers to design and manage its own policies.
The shock was political as well as financial. Media headlines and parliamentary hearings amplified the debate: was France still in control of its reforms, or had it outsourced too much of its decision-making? What began as a technical matter of procurement became a national conversation about the legitimacy of public action.
The government’s response was swift. If consulting had become indispensable, then the State would build its own. Thus began the rise of public consulting, embodied by the Direction interministérielle de la transformation publique (DITP) and its in-house consulting agency. The ambition was clear: reduce costs, reclaim sovereignty, and ensure that reforms serve the public interest first. But beyond institutional acronyms lies a deeper dilemma: Can the State become autonomous from private consultantsand perhaps more importantly, should it?
“It’s not about cutting ourselves off from the private sector,” one consultant explained, “but about learning to choose when we really need it.” That nuance lies at the heart of France’s new approach: regaining control without rejecting collaboration.
For decades, ministries relied on major consultancies for every type of reform, from digital platforms to structural reorganizations. The logic was simple: buy expertise when it is needed. But the bills piled up. In 2021 alone, ministries spent almost €900 million, and public operators nearly €200 million more. Reports denounced a lack of evaluation and transparency. Public trust eroded.
Creating an internal advisory team was both symbolic and practical. Symbolic, because it signaled that the State could once again take ownership of its own transformations. Practical, because sixty consultants, many trained in private firms, now carry out missions that once went to McKinsey or Accenture. Their work is concrete. “We know the machinery from the inside,” said one consultant. “That changes everything when you want reforms that actually work.”
When new teachers faced months-long delays before receiving their first paycheck, it was the DITP that redesigned the process. Independence, at least in part, comes at a lower cost.
But money is only part of the story. The real divide lies in the very logic of consulting.
Private firms live by contracts. A client pays, a firm delivers. Every deliverable is polished, every hour accounted for. Pressure creates results, or at least the perception of results. Clients expect to get what they pay for. Reputations are built on precision, speed, and the aura of global best practices. “You pay for certainty,” recalled a former private consultant, “and that certainty often comes in the form of a perfect slide deck.” Ministries also turn to big firms for their brand prestige, a guarantee that the work will meet “international standards.”
Public consulting, by contrast, does not issue invoices. As a former consultant said it speaks of “beneficiaries,” not “clients.” Freed from the commercial transaction, its consultants focus on purpose rather than profit: serving citizens, improving processes, making the State work better. They know the culture, the constraints, the people. Being inside the administration allows them to design reforms that are not just elegant but executable. “Our success isn’t measured in revenue,” said another DITP adviser. “It’s measured in impact.”
Here lies the trade-off. Market discipline drives rigor but can foster dependency. Public value inspires purpose but must constantly prove its legitimacy. The difference is not about efficiency versus mediocrity, it’s about orientation. One system is ruled by contracts, the other by mission. One optimizes for delivery, the other for meaning. Both have strengths, both have limits. The challenge is not to oppose them but to combine them intelligently.
That is where the DITP plays a unique role. It does more than deliver projects, it also acts as a gatekeeper. With visibility over public tenders, it can decide when to intervene internally or ensure that private firms stay aligned with public goals. “We see the tenders, we see the scopes,” explained a senior adviser. “Sometimes we step in directly. Other times, we make sure the right consultants are chosen.” Autonomy, then, does not mean isolation. It means oversight.
Public consulting brings efficiency, savings, and a closeness to real administrative life. But the State cannot ignore the depth of expertise that private firms bring in fields such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, or large-scale digital transformation. Pretending otherwise would be naïve. The key lies in balance: using private firms where they add true value, and developing internal capacity where it matters most.
The McKinsey scandal revealed more than excessive bills. It exposed a blind spot, a State that had outsourced not just expertise, but sometimes judgment itself. The creation of public consulting is the first step toward regaining that lost ground. It restores direction, aligns reforms with the public interest, and redefines sovereignty in practice.
Should the State do without private consultants? Probably not. But should it build the capacity to choose, critically and responsibly, when to use them? Absolutely. The true measure of autonomy is not abstinence, it is discernment. And in the end, what is at stake is not only money. It is credibility, sovereignty, and above all, the trust of citizens.