Interministerial Coordination


How effectively do ministerial or cabinet committees coordinate cabinet proposals?

The vast majority of cabinet proposals are reviewed and coordinated first by committees.
The Council of Ministers (Conseil des ministres/Raad van ministers), which is one of the central components of the government, meets every week. Each minister is responsible for drafting a proposal, which gets submitted to the council. The council’s secretariat then checks whether the proposal can be debated, asking a number of questions: Is it complete and technically sound? Does it conflict with other past decisions? Is it contained in the governmental agreement? Proposals are debated by ministers only if they pass this first filter, a process that allows them to focus on the strategic aspects of the issue. However, the most important strategic considerations are mainly political.

Before reaching the Council of Ministers, projects are always discussed beforehand in formal or informal cabinet committee meetings that include experts and senior officers from the relevant ministries. Most negotiation is performed at that stage and, if necessary, further fine-tuned in the “core” meeting in the case of particularly important or sensitive policy issues.
Cabinet committees effectively prepare cabinet meetings. The government has four statutory ministerial committees: the Ministerial Committee on Foreign and Security Policy (which meets with the president when pressing issues arise), the Ministerial Committee on European Union Affairs, the Ministerial Finance Committee and the Ministerial Committee on Economic Policy. Additionally, ad hoc ministerial committees can be appointed by the government plenary session. All these committees are chaired by the prime minister, who also chairs sessions of the Economic Council, the Research and Innovation Council, and the Title Board. In addition, there are several ministerial working groups. The primary task of these committees and groups is to prepare cabinet meetings by helping to create consensus between relevant ministries and interests. In all, a large majority of issues are reviewed first by cabinet committees and working groups.
Policy preparation tends to take place in cabinet committees (regeringsudvalg) involving a smaller number of ministers. The number of such committees has varied over time. Currently, the following standing cabinet committees exist: the government coordination committee (chaired by the prime minister), the economy committee (chaired by the finance minister), the security committee (chaired by the prime minister), the appointments committee (chaired by the prime minister), the government’s EU implementation committee (chaired by the minister of employment) and the committee for green transition (chaired by the minister of energy, utilities and climate). The latter committee was formed by the new Social Democratic government of Mette Frederiksen.

This system was strengthened under the previous liberal-conservative government in the early 2000s and there are parallel committees of high-level civil servants.
Jørgen Grønnegård Christensen et al., Politik og forvaltning, 4. udg., 2017.

Oversigt over faste regeringsudvalg, (accessed 17 October 2019).
New Zealand
There are clear guidelines for policy formulation in the New Zealand core executive. All policy proposals are reviewed in cabinet committees. Full cabinet meetings therefore can focus on strategic policy debates and policy conflicts between coalition partners or between the government and its legislative support parties in the House of Representatives. In quantitative terms, from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019, the full cabinet met 41 times while cabinet committees met 182 times. A revised cabinet committee structure was implemented in October 2017 following the formation of the government after the general election. The overall number of committees remained ten, but seven out of ten committees were discontinued or superseded. Key committees are now the Cabinet Legislation Committee, the Committee on Economic Development and the Cabinet Environment, Energy and Climate Committee.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Annual Report 2019 (
Two powerful ministerial committees effectively prepare cabinet meetings in Spain: The Committee for Economic Affairs, and the Committee of Undersecretaries and Secretaries of State. The Committee for Economic Affairs normally meets on Thursdays to review and schedule economic or budgetary interministerial coordination. This committee has been chaired since June 2018 by the minister of economy and business, and also includes the other ministers and secretaries of state who hold economic responsibilities. For its part, the Committee of Undersecretaries and Secretaries of State effectively filters out and settles issues prior to cabinet meetings. This committee of top officials meets every Wednesday to prepare the Council of Ministers’ weekly sessions, which are held every Friday (see “Ministerial Bureaucracy” for further details). No cabinet member participates apart from the deputy prime minister, who serves as its chairperson. Spain’s only Council of Ministers committee composed exclusively of cabinet members is the Foreign Policy Council, which meets only about once a year. Other ministerial committees are regulated by Royal Decree 694/2018.
Real Decreto 694/2018
Real Decreto 595/2018
The composition and terms of reference of cabinet committees are decided by the prime minister. The minister for the Cabinet Office generally also has an influential role, chairing 10 and sitting on all but two cabinet committees under the May government. The creation of implementation taskforces alongside conventional committees led to a net increase in committee numbers. After the change of prime minister in the summer of 2016, two noteworthy innovations were the establishment of the European Union Exit and Trade Committee, and the Economy and Industrial Strategy Cabinet Committee, both of which were chaired by the prime minister. Additionally, a committee on social reform was created. However, leaks from cabinet ministers suggested that key decisions on Brexit were not adequately shared outside the prime minister’s inner circle.

When Johnson succeeded May as prime minister, he radically altered the mix of committees, reducing them to just six, three of which were largely focused on concluding Brexit, the over-riding priority of his government. This exemplifies the UK government’s tendency to create new committees rapidly in response to shifts in political priorities, demonstrating the flexibility of the system. Once withdrawal from the European Union has taken place a wide-ranging revision of these committees to reflect the next set of political priorities is certain to occur.

Cabinet committees reduce the burden on the cabinet by enabling collective decisions to be taken by a smaller group of ministers. Since the Conservative government of Edward Heath (1970 – 1974), it has become an established norm that decisions settled in cabinet committees are not questioned in full cabinet unless the committee chair or the prime minister decide to do so.
Most cabinet proposals are reviewed and coordinated by committees, in particular proposals of political or strategic importance.
Committees serve a purpose in dealing with various matters, which include: highly sensitive issues, for example revenue or security matters; relatively routine issues, for example a government’s weekly parliamentary program; business that is labor intensive or requires detailed consideration by a smaller group of ministers, for example the expenditure review that takes place before the annual budget, or oversight of the government’s initiatives in relation to a sustainable environment. The prime minister usually establishes a number of standing committees of the cabinet (e.g., expenditure review, national security, parliamentary business). Additional committees, including ad hoc committees, may be set up from time to time for particular purposes, such as handling a national disaster.
Cabinet committees have both the legal and de facto power to prepare cabinet meetings in such a way as to allow the cabinet to focus on vital issues. The de facto power to sort out issues before they go to cabinet belongs to senior officials in the PMO and PCO, not to cabinet committees. Still, this allows the cabinet to focus on strategic policy issues.
Coordination is strong across the French government, and is in the hands of the PMO and the President’s Office, which liaise constantly and make decisions on every issue. Coordination takes place at several levels. First at the level of specialized civil servants who work as political appointees in the PMO (members of the cabinet, that is political appointees belonging to the staff of the prime minister), then in meetings chaired by the secretary-general and finally by the prime minister himself, in case of permanent conflicts between ministers or over important issues. In many instances, conflicts place the powerful budget minister or minister of finance in opposition to other ministries. Appeals to the prime minister require either a powerful convincing argument or that the appealing party is a key member of the government coalition, as it is understood that the prime minister should not be bothered by anything but the highest-level issues. A powerful instrument in the hands of the prime minister is his capacity to decide which texts will be presented to the parliament with priority. Given the frequent bottlenecks in the process, ministerial bills can end up indefinitely postponed.

The council of ministers takes place once a week. There are also a large number of interministerial committees chaired by the prime minister or the president. Most of these committees meet upon request. While plenty of them hold meetings every week, these are usually attended by the ministers dealing with the topics discussed, and include only the ministers and secretaries of state involved. In some cases, these meetings might be chaired by the secretary-general of either the President’s Office or the Prime Minister’s Office, two prestigious and powerful high civil servants who respectively serve as the voices of the president and prime minister.

In 2017, the new government introduced the practice of government seminars with the aim of improving cohesion and harmonization. The team spirit seems to have improved considerably in comparison with the past, given that many ministers are not professional politicians.
Cabinet committees are an integral part of the official decision-making process. If ministerial agreement on draft policy proposals cannot be reached at the state-secretary level, issues are automatically taken up by a cabinet committee for resolution. The cabinet committee’s mandate is to iron out differences prior to elevating the proposal to the cabinet level. In 2017, cabinet committees considered 151 issues, of which 148 were sent on to cabinet.

The cabinet committee may be complemented by informal mechanisms such as the coalition council if agreement cannot otherwise be reached.
State Chancellery (2018), Report, Available at (in Latvian):, Last assessed: 06.11.2019.
There are no cabinet committees in the strict sense. The Council of Ministers (Luxembourg’s cabinet) has to rely entirely on the work of line ministries or interministerial groups, if more than one department is concerned. Generally, the Council of Ministers is well prepared, as only bills that have been accepted informally are presented. Moreover, bills must be scrutinized by experts at the Ministry of Finance and the inspector general of finance (Inspection générale des finances), which is comprised of senior civil servants and chaired by the secretary-general of the Council of Ministers. This informal body insures that coherence prevails. The Prime Minister’s Office has assumed some horizontal competences on issues that concern more than one ministry, notably in the field of administrative simplification, ethical and deontological questions.
There are regular sessions of the government council (“Regierungsrat”). The government council includes ministers and sometimes state secretaries, although there are currently no state secretaries (“Staatssekretäre”). There are no other cabinet committees outside the government council. Additional cabinet committees do not seem necessary as there are ad hoc meetings between relevant ministers on specific issues. The system is not rigid or predetermined, but works well.
Citations: Accessed 15 Dec. 2018.
Council of Ministers committees (onderraad) involve a separate meeting chaired by the prime minister for the ministers involved. Each committee has a coordinating minister responsible for relevant input and documents. Discussion and negotiations focus on issues not resolved through prior administrative coordination and consultation. If the committee fails to reach a decision, the matter is pushed up to the Council of Ministers.

Since the Balkenende IV Council of Ministers there have been six standing Council of Ministers committees: international and European affairs; economics, knowledge and innovation; social coherence; safety and legal order; and administration, government and public services. Given the elaborate process of consultations and negotiations, few issues are likely to have escaped attention and discussion before reaching the Council of Ministers.

However, since the Rutte I and II cabinets have consisted of two or more political parties of contrary ideological stripes (the conservative-liberal VVD and the PvdA or Labor Party, in the case of Rutte II), political pragmatism and opportunism has tended to transform “review and coordination” to simple logrolling, or in Dutch political jargon: “positive exchange,” meaning that each party agrees tacitly or explicitly not to veto the other’s bills. This tendency has negative consequences for the quality of policymaking, as minority views effectively win parliamentary majorities if they are feasible from a budgetary perspective without first undergoing rigorous policy and legal analyses. In the second half of the Rutte II cabinet, the government had to garner political support for its policy initiatives through elaborate negotiations with political parties in the Senate/First Chamber who were not formally part of the governing coalition. Introducing a wider range of perspectives and decision criteria may have increased the quality of policymaking and the democratic nature of the process, given that not only ministerial committees but also political parties were involved.
Cabinet committees are established by the government and managed by the Department of the Taoiseach. Cabinet committees derive their authority from government. Membership of cabinet committees includes cabinet ministers, ministers of state (junior ministers) and may also include the attorney general.

When a policy area cuts across departmental boundaries or is an urgent priority (e.g., Brexit) a common response is to set up a cabinet committee. The number of committees, and their relative size and composition is very much at the discretion of the taoiseach, so there is no semi-permanent standing committee structure as there is in some other countries.

For example, under the 2002 – 2007 government, there were 11 cabinet committees, whereas under the following government there were only six.

This means that many government ministers will serve on multiple cabinet committees. In 2011, the minister for finance was a member of five out of eight cabinet committees. The essential job of cabinet committees is to coordinate policy initiatives, especially when substantive policy proposals concern multiple line ministries.

In 2016, there were 10 cabinet committees. The most recent addition focuses on Brexit, while other cabinet committees focus on the economy, trade and jobs; housing; healthcare; social policy and public sector reform; justice reform; European affairs; regional and rural affairs; infrastructure, environment and climate change; and the arts, Irish culture and the Gaeltacht.

Each of the cabinet committees is supported by a group of senior officials who meet in advance of the committee to prepare agendas and identify problem areas. During the 2000s, “it has been reported that cabinet committees were attended not only by cabinet members but also by senior officials and often heads of agencies too.” (Hardiman et al, 116).

When Leo Varadkar became the taoiseach (prime minister) in June 2017 he reduced the number of cabinet committees to seven (economy, social policy and public services, European Union including Brexit, infrastructure, heath care, national security, and justice and equality). They ranged in size from healthcare with eight members to social policy with 20. In terms of their official composition, members are a mixture of full cabinet ministers and ministers of state (e.g., the cabinet committee for the economy is composed of 10 cabinet ministers and five ministers of state). The minister for finance is a member of six out of the seven committees. The minister for foreign affairs is a member of all of seven committees, mostly likely because he is also the tánaiste (deputy prime minister).

Cabinet committees are chaired by the taoiseach or a senior official of the Department of the Taoiseach. Cabinet committees generally make policy recommendations, which are followed up by a formal memo to the government.
For information about Cabinet Committee see:

Niamh Hardiman, Aidan Regan and Mary Shayne ‘The Core Executive: The Department of the Taoiseach and the Challenge of Policy Coordination, in Eoin O’Malley and Muiris MacCarthaigh (eds, 2012), Governing Ireland: From Cabinet Government to Delegated Governance. Dublin: IPA.
Although Lithuania’s government can create advisory bodies such as government committees or commissions, the number and role of such committees has gradually declined since the beginning of the 2000s, when coalition governments became the rule. Top-priority policy issues are frequently discussed in governmental deliberations organized before the official government meetings. The Strategic Committee is composed of several cabinet ministers, the chancellor and a top prime-ministerial deputy who manages the government’s performance priorities, policy and strategy. Another government committee, the Crisis Management Committee, advises the government on crisis management. A Governmental European Union Commission continues to act as a government-level forum for discussing Lithuania’s EU positions; made up of relevant vice-ministers and chaired by the minister of foreign affairs. Separately, a new commission established at the end of 2018 has been tasked with developing a strategy for sustainably increasing the wages of public sector employees through 2025. However, these coordination processes are often detached from the day’s political agenda, and are not given much attention by ministers who are often driven by their party agendas; for example, this means that some policymakers show little interest in the EU agenda and its connection to Lithuania’s national policies.
Most ordinary meetings of the Portuguese cabinet – the Council of Ministers – are used for policy decisions rather than strategic policy debates.
Political issues and strategic policy considerations are by-and-large prepared by an inner core of ministers, augmented by other ministers and staff when required. This inner core is an informal group, with a composition that can vary depending on the policy area.
In addition, Council of Ministers meetings are preceded by a formal weekly meeting of junior ministers (Reunião dos Secretários de Estado), which is intended to prepare the Council of Ministers meeting. These meetings of the junior ministers play a crucial role in filtering out and settling more technical issues prior to cabinet meetings. These meetings are chaired by the minister for the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (Presidência do Conselho dos Ministros), who has a seat in the Council of Ministers.
Cabinet committees play an important role in the preparation of cabinet proposals in Slovenia and settle issues prior to the cabinet meeting. The Šarec government has kept the three standing cabinet committees existing under its predecessor: the Committee of State Matters and Public Issues, the Committee of National Economy and the Commission of Administrative and Personnel Matters. Unlike the Cerar government, however, it has not established any temporary committees.
South Korea
Formally, the cabinet is the executive branch’s highest body for policy deliberation and resolution. In reality, the role of the cabinet is limited because all important issues are discussed bilaterally between the Blue House and the relevant ministry. However, bureaucratic skirmishing takes place on many issues. The Blue House’s capacity to contain rivalries between the various ministries tends to be relatively high early in a given president’s official term. However, coordination power becomes weaker in a lame-duck administration. Committees are either permanent, such as the National Security Council, or created in response to a particular issue. As many government agencies have recently been moved out of Seoul into Sejong city, the need to hold cabinet meetings without having to convene in one place at the same time has been growing, and the law has therefore been amended to allow cabinet meetings in a visual teleconference format.
Ministerial or cabinet committees are not necessarily central when it comes to decision-making on policy matters. Depending on the topic, ministerial committees are more or less involved in preparing cabinet proposals, especially those of relatively significant strategic or financial importance. These proposals are normally coordinated effectively.
The rules of procedure of the Croatian government provide for different kinds of cabinet committees and assign a major role in policy coordination to them. The prime minister and the vice prime ministers form the core cabinet (Uži kabinet vlade). In addition, there are various permanent and non-permanent cabinet committees that focus on particular issues. As there is little ex ante coordination among ministries, controversies are often pushed upwards, with cabinet committees playing an important role in resolving conflicts. However, the quality of coordination suffers from the fact that cabinet committees are absorbed by these disputes and other matters of detail.
Cabinet committees rarely prepare cabinet meetings, although the Budget Committee and some ad hoc committees are exceptions. However, the majority of items on cabinet meeting agendas are prepared by ministers often with two or more ministers coordinating the cabinet meeting. In the immediate aftermath of the 2008 economic collapse, cooperation between ministers increased, particularly between the prime minister, the minister of finance, and the minister of commerce. However, this change was temporary and intended only to facilitate the cabinet’s immediate reactions to the 2008 economic collapse. In February 2013, new regulations were introduced permitting the prime minister to create single-issue ministerial committees to facilitate coordination between ministers where an issue overlaps their authority areas.

Records must be kept of all ministerial committee meetings, but these are not made public.

The number of ministerial committees to coordinate overlapping policy issues was reduced from seven to three in 2016, but has since been increased to five. These committees included the Ministerial Committee on Public Finances (Ráðherranefnd um ríkisfjármál), with four ministers, and the Ministerial Committee on National Economy (Ráðherranefnd um efnahagsmál), with four ministers. The newly established Ministerial Committee on Coordination of Issues that concern more than one ministry (Ráðherranefnd um samræmingu mála er varða fleiri en eitt ráðuneyti) encompasses the former ministerial committees on equality, solutions for household debt, arctic affairs and public health affairs. In 2018, the number of committees was increased to four following the re-establishment of the special Ministerial Committee on Equality (Ráðherranefnd um jafnréttismál) and, in 2019, to five when the Ministerial Committee on Food Policy (Ráðherranefnd um matvælastefnu) was introduced.
Rules on procedures in ministerial committee meetings. (REGLUR um starfshætti ráðherranefnda. Nr. 166/2013 22. febrúar 2013).

Cabinet committees (Ráðherranefndir), Accessed 17th October 2019.
The government is authorized to appoint cabinet committees (called ministerial committees) to handle different policy issues. Moreover, it is obligated to appoint security- and state-focused cabinet that includes the prime minister, the minister of defense, the minister of justice, the foreign minister, the minister of state security and the minister of finance. Currently, 35 ministerial committees work to address a wide range of topics.

Most ministerial committees receive limited attention in the media. The ministerial committee for legislation handles the preparation and the first approval of legislative proposals. The committee’s decisions regarding proposals determine how the coalition members will vote on the proposals in the Knesset. The committee has the right to control and delay legislation, and decide when a bill should proceed to a parliamentary vote. In 2016, about 40% of draft bills were delayed, some up to six to seven times. It should be mentioned that the committee does not publish its protocols, the order of votes is not listed and only the committee’s final decisions are published without any explanation or elaboration. In 2019, under the current transitional government, the committee did not publish any decisions or legislative proposals.

Ministerial committees in Israel have become more relevant. Their decisions accounted for 54% of all governmental decisions during the 33rd government of Israel (2013 – 2015). Though the 34th government has not yet updated its information on this topic, committee decisions appear to have remained relevant through 2015 to 2018. However, there has not been any serious development in this field in 2019.
Cabinet committees and their authorities,” the ministry of Justice website 24.6.1996 (Hebrew)

Data proves: Ayelet Shaked is the real prime minister of the State of Israel, June 2018,

Friedberg, Chen, “The Knesset’s Committees – Foretold Failure?,” The Ben-Gurion Law Proposal –Amendments of ‘Basic Law: The Government,’ 2015
‘Decade of Ministerial Committees – comparative study’ – January 2016,
Citizens’ Empowerment in Israel (Hebrew):

“Ministerial Commitees.” PMO’s website (12.11.2015),

Much housing, little health: the priorities of the government are revealed, The Marker, 2017,

Research Institute for the Study of Israel & Zionism (January 2010) (Hebrew)

“The guidelines for government work,” PMO’s website (Hebrew)
Working Plan Book 2017-18, PMO Office, March 2017: (Hebrew)

The Ministerial Committee on Legislation postponed the discussion by 40% of the bills, Calcalist, May 2015,,7340,L-3688732,00.html

‘Transparency in the Ministerial Committee for Legislation’ – February 2016, The Socia Guard,Transparency in the Ministerial Legislative Committee, (Hebrew)
A significant number of policy proposals require de jure scrutiny by a Council of Ministers committee or even the explicit consent of a plurality of ministers. In a number of cases, this is only a formal exercise and the Council of Ministers committees are not an important mechanism. It is more significant that a number of important issues are de facto dealt through consultations among a few ministers (and their ministerial cabinets) before being brought to the Council of Ministers or are sent to this type of proceeding after preliminary discussion in the council. These consultations, which usually include the Treasury, typically avoid conflicts in the Council. Discussions of policy proposals in Council of Ministers meetings are typically very cursory. Most problems have been resolved beforehand, either in formal or informal meetings. Under the first Conte government, the strong political clout of the two coalition-party leaders (who also served as deputy prime ministers) and the weakness of the prime minister reduced the ability of Council of Ministers committees to solve conflicts. Consequently, frequent political “summits” between the prime minister and the party leaders proved necessary.
Government committees exist in a number of important fields in which coordination among ministries with de facto overlapping jurisdictions plays an important role. The most important is the Council for Economic and Fiscal Policy (CEFP), headed by the prime minister. However, this has never been a “ministerial committee” in a strict sense. First, it has only an advisory function. Second, individuals from the private sector – two academics and two business representatives in the current configuration – are included. This can increase the impact of such councils, but it also means they are somewhat detached from political processes.

Prime Minister Abe again strengthened the formal role of the CEFP and set up the Headquarters for Japan’s Economic Revitalization as a “quasi-sub-committee” of the CEFP encompassing all state ministers. The CEFP or the Headquarters are expected to hold initial discussions on the assignment of policies to committees, while the cabinet has to approve decisions. However, given Abe’s strong grip on the policy process, council discussions have lost some of their relevance.

There are currently four councils operating directly under the Cabinet Office, including CEFP and the Council for Science, Technology and Innovation.

The creation of the National Security Council in 2013 was a similar case in which interministerial coordination was intensified in the interest of asserting the prime minister’s policy priorities.
‘Bold’economic and fiscal policy in Japan becoming a mere facade, Editorial, The Mainichi, 22 June 2019,
Malta’s EU’s presidency helped to strengthen and refine Malta’s cabinet and ministerial committees. Since the 2017 election, greater stress has been placed on such committees, which report to the cabinet. Most of these committees remain focused on issues that cut across ministerial portfolios, but some ad hoc committees are more focused on single ministerial policies. The new prime minster, who took office in 2020, has advocated for the use of special committees, and immediately set up a special cabinet committee for constitutional reform.
Harwood Mark, Malta in the European Union 2014 Ashgate, Surrey
Mexico is unusual, because the constitution does not recognize the cabinet as a collective body. Instead, Mexico has four sub cabinets, respectively dealing with economic, social, political and security matters. As a result, Mexico in practice has a system of cabinet committees each of them normally chaired by the president. The full cabinet never or hardly ever meets. Mexico’s cabinet, as a collective, matters less than in most countries. The cabinet is not a supreme executive body as it is in, say, Britain. For one thing, there are a number of heads of executive agencies, with cabinet rank, who are not directly subject to a minister. There is a trend of governments to increase this process, partially out of the logic of depoliticizing and cementing programmatic decisions and views in social and economic policy fields. Under the current administration, cabinet reshuffles have frequently taken place, often in response to unpopular policy outcomes or political pressure. The central political figure has been and is the president.
The importance of cabinet and ministerial committees has varied over time in Slovakia, with every government modifying the committee structure. Since the parliamentary elections in 2016, there has been only one cabinet committee composed exclusively of ministers, the Council for National Security. Other ministerial committees consisting of ministers and senior civil servants and chaired by the four appointed vice prime ministers or line ministers have played a major role in the preparation of government proposals, and have been quite effective in settling controversial issues prior to cabinet meetings. However, they are still neither formally nor systematically involved in the preparation of cabinet meetings, partly as these bodies usually reside at the line ministries.
Until the PMO was abolished in July 2018, the Better Regulation Group within the PMO ensured coordination among related agencies and institutions, and improved the process of creating regulations. In addition, the government has created committees – such as the anti-terror commission under the Ministry of Interior, which includes officials from the ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice, as well as other security departments. These are composed of ministers, experts, bureaucrats and representatives of other bureaucratic bodies (such as those on legislation techniques, legislation management and administrative simplification, and regulatory impact analysis) in highly important policy areas or when important or frequently raised issues were under consideration.

As of 1 August 2018, several coordination committees and boards, presidential policy councils and other public institutions were established in association with the presidency. During the review period, observers have publicly pointed to the need for coordination mechanisms between the ministries, parliament and the AKP.
Cumhurbaşkanlığı Genelgesi 2018/3, (accessed 1 November 2018)
Cumhurbaşkanlığı Teşkilatı Hakkında Cumhurbaşkanlığı Kararnamesi 1, (accessed 1 November 2018)
K. Gözler, Türkiye’nin Yönetim Yapısı (TC İdari Teşkilatı), Bursa: Ekin Basın Yayın Dağıtım, 2018.
Z.Sobacı et al.,Turkey’s New Government Model and the Presidential Organization, SETA Perspective No. 45, July 2018.
There is little review or coordination of cabinet proposals by committees.
Forming ad hoc and ministerial committees is a regular practice. The constitutional limit on the number of ministries (11) results in the overlapping of competences and a great need for coordination. There are at present 18 committees, which focus on sector-specific matters that are within the powers of many ministries. The formulation of policy frameworks is also within their purview. Departments or technical committees mainly from within the ministries support their work; in some cases, they may seek contributions from external experts. The scope of work and degree of efficiency in committee coordination are not easy to assess, given that no activity reports are published.
1. Cabinet orders review of crisis management, Cyprus Mail, 31 July 2018,
The Czech government routinely establishes advisory and working bodies made up of members of the cabinet, ministry officials and other experts to support its activities. Such entities may be given permanent or temporary status according to the issue under consideration. In addition, there are a number of advisory bodies, commissions and councils that are managed by individual ministries and which deal with issues related to the ministries’ portfolios. In 2019, there were 17 permanent committees at the government level, four fewer than in 2018. Among the most important were the National Security Council, the Government Legislative Council, the Committee for the European Union, the Government Council for Human Rights, and the Research and Development Council. The committees discuss and approve policy documents, thereby filtering out issues and saving time in cabinet meetings. However, they do so in an ad hoc fashion, and are not systematically involved in the preparation of cabinet meetings.
As a rule of thumb, the cabinet functions as an institution that formally ratifies policy decisions that have been made elsewhere. In principle, line ministers are responsible for policies within their own jurisdiction. Therefore, they have a strong leeway to pursue their own or their party’s interests, though each ministry must to some extent involve other ministries while drafting bills. Formal cabinet committees do not play an important role in policymaking and are rarely involved in the review or coordination of proposals. One particularly interesting innovation in the area of early coordination occurred during the review period: In March 2019, the government created a Cabinet Committee for Climate Protection (“Klimakabinett”). This consists of the ministries for Economic Effairs (Peter Altmeier), for Environment (Svenja Schulze), for Transport (Andreas Scheuer), for the Interior (Horst Seehofer) and of Agriculture (Julia Glöckner), In addition, Chancellery Head Helge Braun is involved, and the body is led by Chancellor Merkel and Vice Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD).
There are cabinet committees tasked with overseeing specific policy sectors. However, these committees meet only when a major policy decision has to be made and are not subject to systematic organization. Substantive policy work is done at the line ministries and by the PMO before issues are presented to the cabinet. Within the headquarters of the PMO, a small, informal circle of advisers and ministers close to the prime minister bear primary responsibility for the formulation and coordination of cabinet proposals. Ministerial committees often performed a rather symbolic function while Greece was struggling to fulfill the requirements of three successive Economic Adjustment Programs in 2010-2018. After the government turnover of July 2019, there are initial good signs of rejuvenation of cabinet committees.
The Orbán governments have occasionally set up a cabinet committees. Since the 2018 parliamentary elections, such committees have played a subordinate role in interministerial coordination.
In Romania, ministerial committees, which are composed of one minister, deputy ministers and public servants, feature prominently in interministerial coordination. They are used for preparing decisions on issues that involve multiple ministries. However, de facto coordination of the process is typically led by the line ministry initiating the policy proposal. By contrast, committees consisting only of ministers or with several ministers are rare.
The question for the U.S. system is whether, on major issues, White House advisory processes prepare issues thoroughly for the president, and on lesser issues with interagency implications, whether interagency committees prepare them thoroughly for decision by the relevant cabinet members. The U.S. system of advisory processes varies considerably, even within a single presidential administration, but is largely under control of the president’s appointees in the White House. The process is to a great extent ad hoc, with organizational practices varying over time and from one issue area to another, based partly on the personnel involved. Typically, important decisions are “staffed out” through an organized committee process. However, the ad hoc character of organization (compared with a parliamentary cabinet secretariat), along with the typically short-term service of political appointees – resulting in what one scholar has called “a government of strangers” – renders the quality of these advisory processes unreliable.

President Trump’s White House has thoroughly neglected the role of managing an organized, systematic policy process. Trump selected his third White House chief of staff before the end of his second year in office. Decision processes have been described as chaotic, even by insiders.
No cabinet or ministerial committees coordinate proposals for cabinet meetings in Bulgaria. There are many cross-cutting advisory councils that include several ministers or high-ranking representatives of different ministries and have some coordinating functions. These might thus be seen as functional equivalents to ministerial or cabinet committees. The role of the councils, which often have a rather broad membership, is quite limited in substantive terms. Inasmuch as there are individual members from various ministries who sit on a number of such committees, their personal involvement may ensure some level of coordination between proposals.
The number and role of cabinet committees under the PiS government have been limited. After the 2015 elections, it set up an Innovativeness Council, consisting of five ministers, in February 2016 and an Economic Committee at the end of September 2016. The latter was in charge of coordinating the implementation of the Strategy of Responsible Development. There was also a cabinet-level Committee for Social Affairs headed by former Prime Minister Beata Szydło. However, conflicts among ministries were ultimately resolved not by cabinet committees, but by PiS leader Kaczyński and his immediate circle, including Prime Minister Morawiecki. The cabinet was reorganized following the 2019 elections, but the new structures are hidden from public scrutiny.
There is a new reconfiguration among ministers after the 2019 election. Generaly however, there is very little reliable knowledge on how these committees de facto work. It is all hidden from public eyes and scrutiny.
There is no review or coordination of cabinet proposals by committees. Or: There is no ministerial or cabinet committee.
During the last years of the SPÖ-ÖVP coalition cabinets (until 2017), there had been no regular (or permanent) cabinet committees. In rare cases, ad hoc committees were established to deal with specific matters. As coalitions are typical in Austria, such committees usually consist of members of both coalition parties in order to ensure an outcome acceptable to the full cabinet. Similarly, the ÖVP-FPÖ coalition did not establish any regular cabinet committees either.
Estonia does not have a committee structure within government, or any ministerial committee. Ministers informally discuss their proposals and any other pending issues at weekly consultative cabinet meetings. No formal voting or any other selection procedure is applied to issues discussed in consultative meetings. The creation of cabinet committees was proposed by government in March 2017. However, an amendment to the Act on National Government, which was passed in fall 2018, has not improved strategic coordination within the cabinet.
Not surprisingly, given the small number of ministries, there are no cabinet committees in Switzerland’s political system. However, there is considerable coordination, delegation and communication at the lower level of the federal government. Every minister is in a sense already a “ministerial committee,” representing the coordination of numerous cooperating departmental units.
There is little use of formal cabinet committees within Norway’s political system. The whole cabinet meets several times a week and generally works together as a full-cabinet committee.

However, there are meetings in subcommittees, such as the subcommittee dealing with security issues. There is also coordination between key officials representing the political parties that form the coalition government. The coalition partners have, for instance, created a subcommittee within the cabinet that coordinates issues on difficult or sensitive topics and a special subgroup for European affairs.
There are no standing cabinet committees in the Swedish system of government. Cabinet proposals are coordinated through iterations of sending drafts of bills to the concerned departments. This usually takes place at the middle level of the departments and thus does not involve the political level of the departments.

The cabinet is both a policy-shaping institution as well as the final institution of appeal on a wide range of issues. There is also a requirement that the cabinet must be the formal decision-maker on many issues. This means that the cabinet annually makes more than 100,000 decisions (mostly in bulk).
Back to Top