THE IMF bailout programme has put the government under pressure to curtail its spending, especially current expenditures, slash its burgeoning fiscal deficits and produce a primary surplus for debt reduction and sustainability. It has also come under scathing criticism from economic experts and political parties for massively raising taxes on salaried individuals and tax-compliant sectors of the economy to meet the tax target of the IMF programme for the present fiscal year, instead of curbing its wasteful expenditures. In June, the prime minister told the National Assembly that the government planned to cut expenditures within months, citing his decision to abolish the Public Works Department as part of a plan to rightsize the government and curb its expenses. In August, his cabinet approved the abolition of 150,000 jobs, closure of six ministries, and the merger of two others, as part of a slew of reforms agreed upon with the IMF. Later, it instructed all federal divisions and their attached ministries and subordinate offices to prepare lists of contingency temporary posts, outsource their non-core services, such as plumbing and gardening, and provide details of surplus employees who could be given a severance package and sent home. However, matters are moving slowly. A report suggests that only 15 to 16 of over 40 ministries and divisions have started the process more than two months after the cabinet made its decision in this regard. Others have given a lukewarm response. That is not surprising. In 1997, the federal government had embarked upon a similar plan, prepared by the planning ministry, to rightsize. Nothing happened. Instead, according to a senior economist, the total number of federal employees was 829,000 in 2011. This strength remained largely steady until 2017 when the sudden infusion of 137,000 new entrants raised the figure to 966,000. The Imran Khan administration had approved a major government restructuring plan, which included retaining 325 entities out of the total 441. It has yet to be implemented because of bureaucratic inertia. A plan to jettison state-owned enterprises to prevent future losses was not executed either. Downsizing the government without a responsive bureaucracy is difficult. And bureaucrats seldom act unless the politicians want them to. If the bureaucracy is not getting the prime minister’s message it is because it has not been conveyed with the kind of force that is needed to put it across.