In this group, strategic and long-term planning is well integrated into the policy-making process, with scholarly advice regularly consulted.
Outside commissions, generally with expert participation, have been an important part of drafting plans and legislation in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. However, use of such commissions is waning in Denmark, and the model has shifted somewhat in Sweden.
New Zealand’s moderate strategic capacity has improved through greater use of scholarly advice and the implementation of a performance improvement framework. Canada does not use official planning units, but many civil servants are engaged in planning tasks.
Strategic planning is constitutionally mandated in Turkey, and all ministries have planning departments, though expertise varies.
In this group, strategic planning and expert advice are widely but inconsistently used, and advice often has an ideological component.
Strategic planning and assessment is part of Finland governing culture, but most expert consultation happens informally. Political calculations and short-term crisis pressure diminished strategic planning activity in the UK.
The USA has deep institutional planning expertise, with respected scholars serving as presidential advisors. Its budgeting process contains relatively weak multiyear spending estimates, targets and ceilings, however.
Australia’s increased use of coordinated planning committees across a variety of domains boosted its score substantially relative to the SGI 2009. Chile’s fiscal rule, requiring expenditures to match budget projections, ensures widespread and coordinated planning.
Key decisions in Germany are made by political party heads, though experts can have significant influence on non-ideological topics. The Netherlands has diminished the role of planning agencies.
In this group, governments typically rely relatively weakly on sustained strategic planning, or short-term crisis responses have in some cases undermined strategic ability.
Crisis responses dominated governmental activity in Hungary, Ireland and Iceland. Hungary phased out cabinet planning committees, while Iceland’s planning had been vague even before collapse.
South Korea’s planning has shifted to a more short-term, pragmatic approach, with somewhat less reliance on expert commissions. Belgium’s strategic direction is driven by loose teams of ministerial advisors that do not bridge administrations.
Poland is the criterion’s top gainer compared to the SGI 2009, thanks to the creation of a board of strategic advisors, and substantial new reliance on expert advice. Belgium, Poland and Mexico score poorly in terms of creating detailed fiscal estimates and targets.
In this group, the quality of strategic planning performed, if any, is generally comparatively low. Most countries provide comparatively little detail in their budgetary estimates and targets.
Planning does have a significant role in Spain and Portugal, with the latter placing increasing weight on annual and medium-term planning documents. Japan’s government created a new strategy body aimed at reducing the strategic influence of the bureaucracy.