As an aposteriori language Esperanto takes its words from existing languages. It does however have the notion of word stem plus -o for noun, -a for adjective, -as for verb present tense, and so on. And it reduces some pseudo-suffixes in word stems somewhat.
As you see there is some reduction of pseudo-suffixes, in favour of systematic endings.
The numerals are - apart from 1 - all monosyllabic. Why 1 is the exception, one may guess. Esperanto has no indefinite article (English "a"), so maybe a security measure. The digits are also reduced in an almost Volapük like manner:
unu du tri kvar kvin ses sep ok naŭ dek
The advantage is easy counting. Where a foreign speaker often tends to fall back on his native language where counting, Esperanto helps a bit.
However to come back to your question: Esperanto does not reduce much, and it would have not be so much better. Volapük ("Worldspeak") shows that.
Doing away with categorical suffixes (~ation, ~al, ~ess, ~ine) did not come without a (shorter) substitution, though systematized. This does not make Esperanto texts much more compact though.
Though Esperanto gives a better active language possession, especially for non-europeans, providing an automatic assurrance of correctness, there exist other perspectives.
Interlingua goes entirely the natural way, to have readable text close to the natural languages - with several pseudo-suffixes to make an adjective from a noun, and so on. So Interlingua is a language not reducing its syllables. Nevertheless people love the language, and do not care to switch to Esperanto.
Given the three in order of reduction-to-natural, failed Volapük (very reductive), successful Esperanto, and "linguistic" Interlingua, I think the majority of linguistics tend more in the direction of Interlingua than Esperanto (a shame). So reduction is no compelling advantage.