COMMUNICATION
Key findings
How successful are governments' communication policies?
Policy communication scores are composed of a single qualitative assessment [ 
].
Scores and methodology
]. Scores and methodology
CommunicationKey findings: Policy communication
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
In this top group, government leaders and their ministers typically communicate in a coordinated, consistent fashion, leaving little doubt about administration policy.
By United States standards, President Bush was unusually successful in managing public communications.
In Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, strong party discipline contributes to coherent government communication.
Iceland's ministers rarely contradict each other, despite considerable independence. In Luxembourg and Portugal, communications are coordinated by the prime ministers' offices.
By United States standards, President Bush was unusually successful in managing public communications.
In Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, strong party discipline contributes to coherent government communication.
Iceland's ministers rarely contradict each other, despite considerable independence. In Luxembourg and Portugal, communications are coordinated by the prime ministers' offices.
7.8
8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
6.6
16
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
In this middle group, communication is generally consistent, but coalition differences or structural aspects of the government itself sometimes lead to inconsistencies.
In a number of countries, coalition governments have sought consistency, but disagreements occasionally break into the public (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands).
In Mexico, Spain and South Korea, presidents coordinate their administrations' public statements. A hierarchical organization in France keeps most government statements consistent.
Switzerland's collegial government is typically consistent, though recent political polarization has undermined coherence. Consistency in Turkey varies by subject matter.
In Ireland and New Zealand, ministers are bound to support government positions, though public contradiction sometimes occurs.
In a number of countries, coalition governments have sought consistency, but disagreements occasionally break into the public (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands).
In Mexico, Spain and South Korea, presidents coordinate their administrations' public statements. A hierarchical organization in France keeps most government statements consistent.
Switzerland's collegial government is typically consistent, though recent political polarization has undermined coherence. Consistency in Turkey varies by subject matter.
In Ireland and New Zealand, ministers are bound to support government positions, though public contradiction sometimes occurs.
5.5
21
5.5
4.4
23
3.3
24
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
2.1
29
1.0
30
In this lower group, inconsistency in government statements is frequent, often due to ministerial independence or strife within coalitions.
The autonomy of ministers in Austria and Germany often leads officeholders to diverge from the official government line.
Coalition governments in a number of countries (Hungary, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany , Poland, Slovakia) have had difficulties coordinating public statements. Public disagreement has been particularly evident in Greece, Poland and Italy.
The autonomy of ministers in Austria and Germany often leads officeholders to diverge from the official government line.
Coalition governments in a number of countries (Hungary, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany , Poland, Slovakia) have had difficulties coordinating public statements. Public disagreement has been particularly evident in Greece, Poland and Italy.
Rationale
A coherent communication policy and broad public acceptance of governmental policies are important aspects of strategic governance.
This criterion assesses governments' public communication efforts, and the extent to which policymakers are able to win public acceptance for their policy rationales.