Public Sector Case Interviews: A European Guide With a Worked Case

What is a public sector case interview?

A public sector case asks how a government body should reach a policy goal: cut waiting times, lower residual waste, keep a service running with less money. The client is a ministry, a province, a municipality or an agency, so the objective is a public outcome within a fixed budget, set by elected officials and limited by law.

The case method stays the same as in any case interview: clarify, structure, analyze, recommend. What changes is the objective, the source of money and the number of people who can block a decision.

Who asks public sector cases in the Netherlands and Europe

Dutch public sector work is spread across many clients. The country had 342 municipalities on 1 January 2026 (official, CBS), each with its own council, budget and service contracts.

Consultancy.nl's 2025 government ranking places Berenschot, Deloitte, TwynstraGudde, KPMG, Ecorys, McKinsey, PwC, EY, AEF and Highberg in its top tier (reported; half the score comes from client and consultant surveys). For office locations and language requirements, see consulting jobs in the Netherlands; for Big Four interview formats, see our Big Four consulting interview guide.

How public sector objectives differ

Two Dutch facts show why money is tight. Municipalities faced a structural cut to the municipal fund from 2026, the year the VNG called the "ravijnjaar"; economists writing in ESB in March 2025 put the cut at EUR 2.3 billion (reported). And the waste levy that funds collection may not exceed its costs, according to the VNG (official), so a municipality cannot raise it to fund unrelated spending.

A structure built from first principles

Every public decision has to pass four tests. Build your issue tree around them.

1. Outcome. What does the government owe residents, and how is it measured? Agree on one metric and a target with the interviewer.
2. Cost. What does each option cost per year and up front, and who pays: the general budget, a levy or users?
3. Stakeholders. Who decides, who must cooperate, and who carries the burden? Name the groups that lose.
4. Deliverability. Is it legal, can the organization run it, and how long until it works?

Score each option on all four, then recommend the one with the best outcome per euro that the decision makers can pass.

Worked case: a Dutch municipality's waste collection

Prompt (fictional): Waalbrug, a fictional Dutch municipality of 60,000 residents in 27,000 households, must save at least EUR 750,000 a year on waste from 2027 and wants less residual waste per resident. The alderman asks which collection model to choose.

Step 1: outcome. The metric is kilograms of residual waste per resident. As an anchor, CBS reports 179 kg of residual household waste per inhabitant in the Netherlands in 2024 (official). Waalbrug sits at 190 kg (fictional).

Step 2: baseline cost. All unit costs below are fictional assumptions.

Residual tonnage is 60,000 residents x 190 kg = 11,400 tonnes.

Step 3: two options.

• Option B, collect residual waste every 4 weeks. Residents shift 15% of residual waste (1,710 t) into other streams: 1,140 t to organic waste, 570 t to paper and plastic at zero net cost. Fuller bins raise the cost per round to EUR 70,000. A one-off EUR 300,000 covers communication and larger organic bins.
• Option C, keep 2-weekly collection and charge per emptying (a differentiated tariff). Residual waste falls 25% (2,850 t): 2,000 t to organic waste, 850 t to other streams. Fewer bins at the curb cut the cost per round to EUR 52,000. Billing adds EUR 250,000 a year, extra clean-up of dumped waste EUR 100,000, and chipped bins plus software cost EUR 1.2 million up front.

Step 4: read the numbers. Option B saves EUR 855,200 a year, clears the EUR 750,000 target and pays back its one-off cost in 300,000 / 855,200 = 0.35 years. In year one the net saving is 855,200 - 300,000 = 555,200, so the alderman needs a one-year bridge. Option C cuts the most waste (47.5 kg per resident against 28.5 kg for B) but saves only EUR 194,000, below target, with a payback of 1,200,000 / 194,000 = 6.2 years. Per household, yearly cost falls from 4,784,000 / 27,000 = EUR 177 to EUR 146 under B and EUR 170 under C.

Step 5: stakeholders and deliverability. Under B, residents in flats with shared underground containers need a separate solution, and summer odor complaints will reach councillors. Under C, large families pay more. The VNG notes that councils usually combine a variable charge with a fixed base rate and may also vary the levy by household size (official), which gives the alderman tools to limit the burden.

Recommendation: "Choose option B. It saves EUR 855,200 a year from 2027, meets the savings target, cuts residual waste by 28.5 kg per resident and pays back within five months. Exempt high-rise blocks with shared containers, add weekly organic collection in summer, and review in two years whether a per-emptying charge is needed to cut waste further." Present it top-down, as our recommendation guide shows.

Four public sector prompts to practice

1. A fictional Dutch province must decide whether to keep three low-ridership rural bus lines or replace them with on-demand minibuses. Hint: compare cost per passenger trip and access for residents without a car.
2. A ministry wants to halve processing times for benefit applications without new staff. Hint: map the process and find the bottleneck step.
3. A city must choose between two sites for a new swimming pool on one budget. Hint: score expected visits, travel time per district and running cost.
4. A national tax agency wants more online filing among residents over 75. Hint: segment by barrier (access, skill, trust) and cost each intervention.

My book Cracking the Case works through three full candidate cases with the same discipline: define the objective, structure, calculate, and close with a recommendation.