BOSTON — For two decades, Congress has been engaged in a bipartisan effort to shrink the size of government. But today, although fewer people appear on federal payrolls, more people than ever work for the U.S. government.

This seeming paradox has been achieved by hiring private contractors to perform many of the tasks previously performed by federal employees. And although it may not have resulted in a true downsizing of government, it has radically transformed the way public services are provided.

Nobody knows exactly how many contractors the government employs. Paul Light of the Brookings Institution estimates that the federal budget funds a "shadow government" of nearly 6 million contractors, about half of them in defense. That means contractors outnumber civil servants and military personnel by a ratio of 2 to 1.

[snip]

Second, does the taxpayer get value for money? One of the main reasons for outsourcing is that the private sector is widely assumed to be more efficient. But in Iraq, much of the $21 billion being spent on reconstruction is going to high-priced foreign contractors rather than low-cost local labor. As Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) has pointed out, non-Iraqi contractors charged $25 million to repaint 20 police stations — a job that the governor of Basra claims could have been done by local firms for $5 million.

Finally, how should this large and growing army of workers be managed? The rules governing how and what the government buys are designed to ensure fair competition. But more than half of government contracts are awarded without full competition, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan budget analyst. Giant contractors have become adept at gaming the system. Once firms win big contracts — often using low-ball initial cost estimates — the government becomes so dependent on their services that it's almost impossible to get rid of them.