COORDINATION
Key findings
How coordinated are decision-making processes across institutional lines?
Coordination scores are weighted composites. Six qualitative policy assessments [ 
] each contribute one-sixth of this weighting.
Scores and methodology
] each contribute one-sixth of this weighting. Scores and methodology
CoordinationKey findings: Inter-ministerial coordination
Each 
represents an individual country and is positioned on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 10 (best). Position cursor over to see scores for individual countries.
Click country name in list or text for details.
represents an individual country and is positioned on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 10 (best). Position cursor over to see scores for individual countries.Click country name in list or text for details.
Score distribution
8.3
1
8.3
8.2
3
8.2
8.0
5
8.0
7.9
7
7.9
7.8
9
7.8
7.8
7.7
12
7.7
7.6
14
In this top group, the central government office typically plays a strong coordinating role, with policy coordination often remaining strong throughout the administrative and departmental levels.
Government offices in Canada, Mexico, Belgium and Norway play a particularly effective coordinating role. This effectiveness falls somewhat in the UK and New Zealand, despite their Westminster parliamentary model.
Central government offices have particularly deep sectoral expertise, and evaluate policy from a strategic perspective in Canada, Finland and Norway.
Cabinet committee influence is limited in Ireland, and nonexistent in Norway. Coordination between line ministries is inconsistent in Mexico, Luxembourg, Hungary and Iceland.
Government offices in Canada, Mexico, Belgium and Norway play a particularly effective coordinating role. This effectiveness falls somewhat in the UK and New Zealand, despite their Westminster parliamentary model.
Central government offices have particularly deep sectoral expertise, and evaluate policy from a strategic perspective in Canada, Finland and Norway.
Cabinet committee influence is limited in Ireland, and nonexistent in Norway. Coordination between line ministries is inconsistent in Mexico, Luxembourg, Hungary and Iceland.
In the middle group, government offices often play a strong coordinating role, but active policy coordination at lower levels is comparatively weak.
South Korea, Australia and the United States all score highly on government office coordination efforts, but coordination between lower levels of government is less common. Turkey, Spain and Sweden have less consistent centralized coordination efforts.
Cabinet committees are influential in Spain, of lesser importance in Turkey, and nonexistent in Sweden.
South Korea, Australia and the United States all score highly on government office coordination efforts, but coordination between lower levels of government is less common. Turkey, Spain and Sweden have less consistent centralized coordination efforts.
Cabinet committees are influential in Spain, of lesser importance in Turkey, and nonexistent in Sweden.
5.5
21
5.0
22
5.0
5.0
4.7
25
4.5
26
4.1
27
3.9
28
3.3
29
2.2
30
In this group, coordination between all levels over government is often relatively weak or inconsistent.
In several countries (Italy, Czech Republic, Poland), government office efforts at coordination are relatively ineffective.
Japan and Switzerland combine relatively low cabinet-level coordination with more coherence at the administrative level. By contrast, Greece and Poland see better cabinet-level coordination than administrative consistency.
Administrative coordination in Germany is relatively low. Ministries in Germany and Slovakia have considerable autonomy.
In several countries (Italy, Czech Republic, Poland), government office efforts at coordination are relatively ineffective.
Japan and Switzerland combine relatively low cabinet-level coordination with more coherence at the administrative level. By contrast, Greece and Poland see better cabinet-level coordination than administrative consistency.
Administrative coordination in Germany is relatively low. Ministries in Germany and Slovakia have considerable autonomy.
Rationale
Effective interministerial coordination increases a government's capacity to formulate strategically oriented policies.
The coordination criterion assesses whether government offices, cabinet committees, senior civil servants or junior ministers effectively filter and prepare policy issues so as to relieve the cabinet of routine business, thus facilitating strategic policy debates at the cabinet level.
Performance comparison
Use drop-down menus for selections. In all cases, higher scores reflect better performance.
