To what extent do established coordination mechanisms between the government’s office and line ministries effectively enhance policy coherence?
Functional coordination mechanisms between line ministries and the GO/PMO, aimed at enhancing policy coherence, are in place.
10
Finland
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has the capacity to evaluate proposed policy. The PMO’s resources have increased considerably over the last decade, with many new appointments. The primary function of the PMO is to support the duties of the prime minister, who directs the work of the government and coordinates the preparation and consideration of government business.
The PMO monitors the implementation of the government program and coordinates Finland’s EU policy. Additionally, the PMO coordinates communications between the government and various ministries, plans future-oriented social policies, and promotes cooperation between the government and different branches of public administration. The PMO encompasses the Government EU Affairs Department, the Government Administration Department, the Ownership Steering Department, the Government Communications Department, the Government Strategy Department and the Government Session Unit. The PMO has a state secretary, a permanent state undersecretary and approximately 550 employees distributed across several task-specific units.
The PMO has the necessary capacity, including personnel and financial resources, to evaluate policy proposals from line ministries and ensure they are aligned with the government’s overall priorities. Line ministries are required to involve the Government Office (GO)/PMO in the preparation of policy proposals not only for legal and technical matters but also for programmatic aspects. This involvement occurs through ministry committees and ministerial working groups under the PMO. Regular meetings take place between the GO/PMO and line ministries, during which the GO/PMO receives briefings on new developments that may impact policy proposal preparations.
The PMO regularly provides assessments of draft bills for the head of government. The Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis, which reports to the PMO, is responsible for issuing statements on government proposals and their regulatory impact assessments. The council strives to enhance the quality of draft laws, specifically by focusing on improving the impact assessment of government proposals. Its objectives include the development of the entire law drafting process, covering aspects such as scheduling, the planning of government proposals and the overall refinement of the law drafting procedure. To achieve these goals, a dedicated agency has been established for this purpose.
The PMO monitors the implementation of the government program and coordinates Finland’s EU policy. Additionally, the PMO coordinates communications between the government and various ministries, plans future-oriented social policies, and promotes cooperation between the government and different branches of public administration. The PMO encompasses the Government EU Affairs Department, the Government Administration Department, the Ownership Steering Department, the Government Communications Department, the Government Strategy Department and the Government Session Unit. The PMO has a state secretary, a permanent state undersecretary and approximately 550 employees distributed across several task-specific units.
The PMO has the necessary capacity, including personnel and financial resources, to evaluate policy proposals from line ministries and ensure they are aligned with the government’s overall priorities. Line ministries are required to involve the Government Office (GO)/PMO in the preparation of policy proposals not only for legal and technical matters but also for programmatic aspects. This involvement occurs through ministry committees and ministerial working groups under the PMO. Regular meetings take place between the GO/PMO and line ministries, during which the GO/PMO receives briefings on new developments that may impact policy proposal preparations.
The PMO regularly provides assessments of draft bills for the head of government. The Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis, which reports to the PMO, is responsible for issuing statements on government proposals and their regulatory impact assessments. The council strives to enhance the quality of draft laws, specifically by focusing on improving the impact assessment of government proposals. Its objectives include the development of the entire law drafting process, covering aspects such as scheduling, the planning of government proposals and the overall refinement of the law drafting procedure. To achieve these goals, a dedicated agency has been established for this purpose.
9
Canada
The Canadian government features key central agencies, specifically the Privy Council Office (PCO), the Finance Department, and the Treasury Board Secretariat. These agencies are intended to coordinate political-administrative relations and ensure program coherence and overall fiscal direction for line departments. The PCO’s role in coordinating government legislation is paramount and part of its broader mandate to support the prime minister and the Cabinet in administering government affairs. While individual government departments and agencies are responsible for developing specific pieces of legislation, the PCO plays a coordinating and facilitative role to ensure a cohesive and effective legislative agenda.
The PCO plays a central role in coordinating government legislation and supporting the overall functioning of the government. As a key institution within the executive branch, it serves the prime minister and the Cabinet. Although its primary responsibilities extend beyond legislative coordination, its role in this area is substantial. The PCO facilitates policy coordination across government departments and agencies, ensuring that proposed legislation aligns with the government’s overall policy objectives and priorities. This coordination involves the development of legislative proposals and their consistency with the government’s agenda. Additionally, the PCO works with government departments to establish legislative agendas, identify key priorities, and allocate resources for the development and advancement of legislation.
The PCO also provides administrative support to the Cabinet, the central decision-making body in the Canadian system of government. Its tasks include assisting in the development of legislative initiatives, preparing Cabinet submissions, ensuring that proposed legislation receives appropriate consideration, and managing Order-in-Council appointments. This includes coordinating legal reviews of proposed legislation to ensure compliance with legal requirements, constitutional principles, and government policy. It may work closely with the Department of Justice – responsible for legal drafting – to refine and finalize legislative texts.
From this central vantage point, the PCO promotes collaboration and communication among various government departments involved in developing legislation. This coordination is crucial for addressing interdepartmental issues, streamlining processes, and ensuring a cohesive approach to legislative matters.
The PCO also supports the government’s engagement with Parliament. This includes preparing speeches from the throne, coordinating the government’s legislative agenda in the House of Commons and the Senate, and assisting in responding to parliamentary inquiries.
Critical as well, the Finance Department reviews all proposals coming forward to the Cabinet from line departments, ensuring these are aligned with the fiscal framework and spending priorities. The Treasury Board Secretariat reviews the proposals to ensure program design and resourcing can deliver on intended objectives and that there is no duplication in line ministry initiatives.
The coordination continues after legislation is passed, with the PCO involved in supporting its implementation. This can include coordinating efforts to ensure that government departments and agencies are prepared to operationalize new laws and policies (Wernick 2021). The Treasury Board Secretariat continues to monitor program integrity, and the Finance Department oversees the fiscal framework. These assessments are considered when new initiatives come forward from line departments in upcoming policy cycles.
The PCO plays a central role in coordinating government legislation and supporting the overall functioning of the government. As a key institution within the executive branch, it serves the prime minister and the Cabinet. Although its primary responsibilities extend beyond legislative coordination, its role in this area is substantial. The PCO facilitates policy coordination across government departments and agencies, ensuring that proposed legislation aligns with the government’s overall policy objectives and priorities. This coordination involves the development of legislative proposals and their consistency with the government’s agenda. Additionally, the PCO works with government departments to establish legislative agendas, identify key priorities, and allocate resources for the development and advancement of legislation.
The PCO also provides administrative support to the Cabinet, the central decision-making body in the Canadian system of government. Its tasks include assisting in the development of legislative initiatives, preparing Cabinet submissions, ensuring that proposed legislation receives appropriate consideration, and managing Order-in-Council appointments. This includes coordinating legal reviews of proposed legislation to ensure compliance with legal requirements, constitutional principles, and government policy. It may work closely with the Department of Justice – responsible for legal drafting – to refine and finalize legislative texts.
From this central vantage point, the PCO promotes collaboration and communication among various government departments involved in developing legislation. This coordination is crucial for addressing interdepartmental issues, streamlining processes, and ensuring a cohesive approach to legislative matters.
The PCO also supports the government’s engagement with Parliament. This includes preparing speeches from the throne, coordinating the government’s legislative agenda in the House of Commons and the Senate, and assisting in responding to parliamentary inquiries.
Critical as well, the Finance Department reviews all proposals coming forward to the Cabinet from line departments, ensuring these are aligned with the fiscal framework and spending priorities. The Treasury Board Secretariat reviews the proposals to ensure program design and resourcing can deliver on intended objectives and that there is no duplication in line ministry initiatives.
The coordination continues after legislation is passed, with the PCO involved in supporting its implementation. This can include coordinating efforts to ensure that government departments and agencies are prepared to operationalize new laws and policies (Wernick 2021). The Treasury Board Secretariat continues to monitor program integrity, and the Finance Department oversees the fiscal framework. These assessments are considered when new initiatives come forward from line departments in upcoming policy cycles.
Citations:
Canada. Department of Finance. 2023. 2023-24 Departmental Plan. Ottawa: His Majesty the King in Right of Canada.
Canada. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 2023. 2023-24 Departmental Plan. Ottawa: His Majesty the King in Right of Canada.
Wernick, Michael. 2021. Governing Canada: A Guide to the Tradecraft of Politics. Toronto: On Point Press.
Canada. Department of Finance. 2023. 2023-24 Departmental Plan. Ottawa: His Majesty the King in Right of Canada.
Canada. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 2023. 2023-24 Departmental Plan. Ottawa: His Majesty the King in Right of Canada.
Wernick, Michael. 2021. Governing Canada: A Guide to the Tradecraft of Politics. Toronto: On Point Press.
Denmark
The Social Democratic prime minister during the review period, Mette Frederiksen, has argued that the Prime Minister’s Office is too weak compared to the Ministry of Finance and the line ministries. Since first taking office in 2019, she has increased the number of employees dramatically, adding approximately 20 full-time staff and expanding the ministry’s size from 84 to 104 full-time academic employees.
Prime Minister Frederiksen also established the Political Secretariat to ensure better coordination among ministers and to monitor whether ministries are following legislative plans. This move was criticized by the opposition, which argued that there is no tradition in Denmark for political appointees taking on significant posts in ministries. However, it was defended by the prime minister, who contended that the posts would ensure that the government’s policy line would be respected. The official description of the Political Secretariat on the PMO’s website states that it has “a special focus on the government’s priority projects and policy development, and is working to strengthen the strategic direction of the government and increase internal coordination between ministers and special advisers.”
The government in power during the review period was composed of the Social Democratic Party, the Liberal Party (Venstre) and the Moderates (Moderaterne). The Liberals and Social Democrats have historically been political rivals. Consequently, when the government formed, it also created the Committee for Government Management. The three party leaders from the governing parties are members of this committee, as are the minister of finance and the minister of economic affairs (Regeringsgrundlag 2022).
Internal government coordination of policy takes place in two central committees that in practice serve as inner cabinets. The first committee is called the Economic Committee (økonomi udvalget) and the second is the Coordination Committee (koordinationsudvalget). The number of members in these committees varies according to the number of parties in the government. The Economic Committee is always chaired by the minister of finance and, under the current government, has eight members: three Social Democrats, three from the Liberal Party and two from the Moderates.
Finally, since the enactment of the Climate Law in 2020, the government has been required to form a Green Committee. This committee, consisting of six members, is chaired by the minister of finance and is required to follow cross-ministerial environmental policies. The committee meets weekly.
Prime Minister Frederiksen also established the Political Secretariat to ensure better coordination among ministers and to monitor whether ministries are following legislative plans. This move was criticized by the opposition, which argued that there is no tradition in Denmark for political appointees taking on significant posts in ministries. However, it was defended by the prime minister, who contended that the posts would ensure that the government’s policy line would be respected. The official description of the Political Secretariat on the PMO’s website states that it has “a special focus on the government’s priority projects and policy development, and is working to strengthen the strategic direction of the government and increase internal coordination between ministers and special advisers.”
The government in power during the review period was composed of the Social Democratic Party, the Liberal Party (Venstre) and the Moderates (Moderaterne). The Liberals and Social Democrats have historically been political rivals. Consequently, when the government formed, it also created the Committee for Government Management. The three party leaders from the governing parties are members of this committee, as are the minister of finance and the minister of economic affairs (Regeringsgrundlag 2022).
Internal government coordination of policy takes place in two central committees that in practice serve as inner cabinets. The first committee is called the Economic Committee (økonomi udvalget) and the second is the Coordination Committee (koordinationsudvalget). The number of members in these committees varies according to the number of parties in the government. The Economic Committee is always chaired by the minister of finance and, under the current government, has eight members: three Social Democrats, three from the Liberal Party and two from the Moderates.
Finally, since the enactment of the Climate Law in 2020, the government has been required to form a Green Committee. This committee, consisting of six members, is chaired by the minister of finance and is required to follow cross-ministerial environmental policies. The committee meets weekly.
Citations:
Regeringsgrundlag 2022. Ansvar for Danmark. https://www.stm.dk/statsministeriet/publikationer/regeringsgrundlag-2022/
Regeringsgrundlag 2022. Ansvar for Danmark. https://www.stm.dk/statsministeriet/publikationer/regeringsgrundlag-2022/
Largely functional coordination mechanisms between line ministries and the GO/PMO, aimed at enhancing policy coherence, are in place.
8
Australia
Significant coordination mechanisms exist between the center, prime minister, and line ministries in Australia. The cabinet is the principal forum for ensuring a whole-of-government approach. Although the Cabinet operates collectively with shared decision-making and responsibility, its processes provide the prime minister with unique resources for agenda setting and establishing decision-making rules. One risk of the Australian line management system is over-centralization, prioritizing coherence over the benefits of decentralization, checks and balances, and some autonomy for line ministries. This risk was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic when it was revealed that then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison secretly assumed direct control of five ministries without informing his cabinet colleagues.
However, the COVID-19 pandemic merely exacerbated trends that have been decades in the making. As political scientist James Walter (2021) points out, Australian prime ministers have built up resources around their office to enhance their autonomy and influence. The result is the creation of “retail” leaders who are primarily experts in delivering the message and “winning” what they see as a permanent campaign.
However, the COVID-19 pandemic merely exacerbated trends that have been decades in the making. As political scientist James Walter (2021) points out, Australian prime ministers have built up resources around their office to enhance their autonomy and influence. The result is the creation of “retail” leaders who are primarily experts in delivering the message and “winning” what they see as a permanent campaign.
Citations:
Walter, J. 2021. “Power without Purpose.” Inside Story September 24. https://insidestory.org.au/power-without-purpose/
Walter, J. 2021. “Power without Purpose.” Inside Story September 24. https://insidestory.org.au/power-without-purpose/
Belgium
All government proposals in Belgium go through the Prime Minister’s Office and are discussed in a “kern” (core) meeting with the proposing minister, the prime minister, and the vice-prime ministers (one per party in the coalition). This ensures close coordination, sometimes following heated negotiations. If a proposal cannot be agreed upon, it can be vetoed or delayed in an attempt at logrolling.
The PMO contains a “strategic cell” that helps the prime minister evaluate and steer policy across all levels. Each adviser and expert in the cell specializes in one field, assessing only the most important issues due to the team’s relatively small size. Given that governments are always coalitions (comprising at least four parties), party advisers of the corresponding minister also play a central role in the lawmaking process.
Before implementation, each government project is submitted to the ministers’ council, which meets weekly. The council, composed of a secretariat that scrutinizes each proposal and prepares the agenda, includes 14 line ministers and the prime minister, who debate each proposal. Decisions are made based on political consensus, not a majority vote.
One notable feature of the Belgian system is the coexistence of politically appointed experts who work closely with their minister and professional civil servants who work in the administration. The tenure of politically appointed experts typically matches that of their minister, whereas civil servants can hold their positions for life. Some ministers try to impose a strict chain of command on their ministry, which may occasionally hamper communication across various administrations. However, whenever the government wants to table a proposal to parliament, the coordination process described above must take place.
Either directly or through the council’s secretariat, the prime minister can block or impose the redrafting of any proposal if it does not fit the government agreement or conflicts with a coalition party’s agenda, or for any other reason. All government members must defend accepted projects on a collegial basis.
This requirement has caused conflicts in the current government, which includes left-wing, right-wing, Christian Democrat, and Green parties. For example, in December 2023, the government could not agree on the appointment of a top civil servant, holding all other appointments hostage, which left several positions unfilled. As a result, the governor of the Belgian National Bank could not see his tenure renewed on time, forcing an external committee to reconfirm the governor ad interim at the last moment. Fortunately, such mishaps are rare..
The PMO contains a “strategic cell” that helps the prime minister evaluate and steer policy across all levels. Each adviser and expert in the cell specializes in one field, assessing only the most important issues due to the team’s relatively small size. Given that governments are always coalitions (comprising at least four parties), party advisers of the corresponding minister also play a central role in the lawmaking process.
Before implementation, each government project is submitted to the ministers’ council, which meets weekly. The council, composed of a secretariat that scrutinizes each proposal and prepares the agenda, includes 14 line ministers and the prime minister, who debate each proposal. Decisions are made based on political consensus, not a majority vote.
One notable feature of the Belgian system is the coexistence of politically appointed experts who work closely with their minister and professional civil servants who work in the administration. The tenure of politically appointed experts typically matches that of their minister, whereas civil servants can hold their positions for life. Some ministers try to impose a strict chain of command on their ministry, which may occasionally hamper communication across various administrations. However, whenever the government wants to table a proposal to parliament, the coordination process described above must take place.
Either directly or through the council’s secretariat, the prime minister can block or impose the redrafting of any proposal if it does not fit the government agreement or conflicts with a coalition party’s agenda, or for any other reason. All government members must defend accepted projects on a collegial basis.
This requirement has caused conflicts in the current government, which includes left-wing, right-wing, Christian Democrat, and Green parties. For example, in December 2023, the government could not agree on the appointment of a top civil servant, holding all other appointments hostage, which left several positions unfilled. As a result, the governor of the Belgian National Bank could not see his tenure renewed on time, forcing an external committee to reconfirm the governor ad interim at the last moment. Fortunately, such mishaps are rare..
Citations:
http://www.premier.be/fr/conseil-des-ministres
Structuur van de Vlaamse overheid | Vlaanderen.be
https://www.belspo.be/belspo/fedra/prog.asp?l=fr&COD=AM
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=19946&langId=en
https://openjournals.ugent.be/rp/article/id/72873/download/pdf/
https://www.law.kuleuven.be/apps/jura/public/art/46n4/dejaegere.pdf
http://www.premier.be/fr/conseil-des-ministres
Structuur van de Vlaamse overheid | Vlaanderen.be
https://www.belspo.be/belspo/fedra/prog.asp?l=fr&COD=AM
https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=19946&langId=en
https://openjournals.ugent.be/rp/article/id/72873/download/pdf/
https://www.law.kuleuven.be/apps/jura/public/art/46n4/dejaegere.pdf
Czechia
The Office of the Government of the Czech Republic (GO) is a central body of state administration that performs tasks related to the professional, organizational, and technical support of government activities. It provides support for government meetings by preparing programs and documents. Additionally, it assists the expert bodies of the prime minister and members of the government who do not have their own departments , as well as 19 advisory and working bodies of the government. These bodies include representatives from ministries and external organizations, creating a framework for coordination in preparing legislation and long-term plans across government departments and with the prime minister.
An additional 14 committees fall under individual ministries but have similarly broad compositions. They cover a wide range of areas such as state security policy, human rights, economic policy, the Roma minority, relations with the EU, sustainable development, and energy strategy.
The Government Office’s role in strategic planning and coordination across the government was weakened by the abolition – and continued absence – of a strategic planning team. In 2023, a Government Analytical Unit was established to restore and strengthen the office’s capacity to coordinate policies and strategies.
An additional 14 committees fall under individual ministries but have similarly broad compositions. They cover a wide range of areas such as state security policy, human rights, economic policy, the Roma minority, relations with the EU, sustainable development, and energy strategy.
The Government Office’s role in strategic planning and coordination across the government was weakened by the abolition – and continued absence – of a strategic planning team. In 2023, a Government Analytical Unit was established to restore and strengthen the office’s capacity to coordinate policies and strategies.
France
Policy coordination once a policy proposal has been forwarded to the prime minister is developed at three levels. The first is the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), the second is the President’s Office and the third, when the subject is either legislation or regulation, is the Council of State (Eymeri-Douzans 2022). This hierarchical organization gives the prime minister the option of modifying ministers’ draft bills. For important issues, this steering function is shared with the President’s Office, and entails strong cooperation and collaboration between the two secretaries-general – the directeur de cabinet for the PMO and the secrétaire général for the president – respectively at the Matignon and the Élysée. Both the president and the prime minister appoint civil servants from all ministries or from civil society as sectoral policy advisers. All ministerial domains are covered in this regard. Several hundred highly qualified people are involved in government steering, monitoring, oversight and advising functions.
However, it would probably be overstated to consider these various checks a method of evaluation. The PMO mainly coordinates and arbitrates between ministries, takes into consideration opinions and criticisms from involved interests and from the majority coalition, and balances political benefits and risks. The President’s Office does more or less the same in coordination with the PMO. It is also quite often the case that the initiative leading to a bill’s introduction comes from the presidential office. Rather than offering a thorough policy evaluation, these two institutions serve as a place where the ultimate political arbitrations between bureaucrats, party activists and vested interests are carried out. Evaluation is more implicit than explicit, since the impetus for reform tends to derive from dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs (Gaiti 2019).
Line ministers have limited independent room for maneuver. They have to inform the prime minister of all their projects. Strong discipline is imposed even at the level of public communication, and this rule is reinforced by the media, which tend to judge any slight policy difference as the expression of political tension or party divergence. As the Prime Minister’s Office oversees the policy process, the officeholder’s cabinet assistants in each area supervise, liaise and coordinate with their counterparts in line ministries about the content, timing and political sequences of a project.
The secretary-general of the PMO (as well as his counterpart at the Élysée) operates with some reserve. He or she can step in if the coordination or oversight process at that level has failed to stem the expression of differences within the government. Traditionally, the secretary-general is a member of the Council of State and – even though this figure could be fired at any time for any reason – there is a tradition of continuity and stability beyond the fluctuations and political vagaries of individual governments.
Given the presidential character of the Fifth Republic, the same type of control is exerted by the President’s Office in coordination with the PMO. In practice, the two secretaries-general are the most powerful civil servants whose opinions might often prevail on ministry choices. Today, the choice of secretaries-general for line ministries has to be negotiated with the President’s Office, when they are not imposed.
Coordination is strong across the French government. It 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 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 a situation in which 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. But the prime ministerial route often serves as a shortcut to a direct appeal for a decision by the president.
The Council of Ministers meets 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 many of them hold meetings every week, these are usually attended by the ministers dealing with the topics discussed.
However, it would probably be overstated to consider these various checks a method of evaluation. The PMO mainly coordinates and arbitrates between ministries, takes into consideration opinions and criticisms from involved interests and from the majority coalition, and balances political benefits and risks. The President’s Office does more or less the same in coordination with the PMO. It is also quite often the case that the initiative leading to a bill’s introduction comes from the presidential office. Rather than offering a thorough policy evaluation, these two institutions serve as a place where the ultimate political arbitrations between bureaucrats, party activists and vested interests are carried out. Evaluation is more implicit than explicit, since the impetus for reform tends to derive from dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs (Gaiti 2019).
Line ministers have limited independent room for maneuver. They have to inform the prime minister of all their projects. Strong discipline is imposed even at the level of public communication, and this rule is reinforced by the media, which tend to judge any slight policy difference as the expression of political tension or party divergence. As the Prime Minister’s Office oversees the policy process, the officeholder’s cabinet assistants in each area supervise, liaise and coordinate with their counterparts in line ministries about the content, timing and political sequences of a project.
The secretary-general of the PMO (as well as his counterpart at the Élysée) operates with some reserve. He or she can step in if the coordination or oversight process at that level has failed to stem the expression of differences within the government. Traditionally, the secretary-general is a member of the Council of State and – even though this figure could be fired at any time for any reason – there is a tradition of continuity and stability beyond the fluctuations and political vagaries of individual governments.
Given the presidential character of the Fifth Republic, the same type of control is exerted by the President’s Office in coordination with the PMO. In practice, the two secretaries-general are the most powerful civil servants whose opinions might often prevail on ministry choices. Today, the choice of secretaries-general for line ministries has to be negotiated with the President’s Office, when they are not imposed.
Coordination is strong across the French government. It 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 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 a situation in which 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. But the prime ministerial route often serves as a shortcut to a direct appeal for a decision by the president.
The Council of Ministers meets 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 many of them hold meetings every week, these are usually attended by the ministers dealing with the topics discussed.
Citations:
Eymeri-Douzans, J. M. 2022. “France: Under the Rule of a Contested Politico-Administrative Elite Whose Legitimacy Erodes.” In Handbook on the Politics of Public Administration, eds. 289-302. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gaïti, B. 2019. “Gouverner le Gouvernement : les trajectoires des politiques de coordination gouvernementale en France (1935-2019).” Revue française d’administration publique 171: 565-585. Available at https://doi.org/10.3917/rfap.171.0565
Eymeri-Douzans, J. M. 2022. “France: Under the Rule of a Contested Politico-Administrative Elite Whose Legitimacy Erodes.” In Handbook on the Politics of Public Administration, eds. 289-302. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gaïti, B. 2019. “Gouverner le Gouvernement : les trajectoires des politiques de coordination gouvernementale en France (1935-2019).” Revue française d’administration publique 171: 565-585. Available at https://doi.org/10.3917/rfap.171.0565
Greece
Horizontal, interministerial coordination processes have been streamlined since at least 2019 when a new law on government organization was adopted. This coordination is overseen by the Prime Minister’s Office, which was upgraded and renamed the Presidency of the Government in 2019, functioning similarly to a Government Office or Prime Minister’s Office in other countries. The Presidency of the Government is staffed with political appointees and experts in various fields, including law, economics, public administration, foreign relations, and communications. These experts evaluate policy proposals from line ministries and ensure alignment with the broader government priorities.
The cabinet meets regularly to discuss and decide on draft bills after the Presidency of the Government has consulted with the relevant ministry. Although ministers sometimes continue the practice of submitting last-minute amendments during parliamentary debates, they must coordinate with the Presidency of the Government for significant amendments.
After a law is adopted, further coordination between the involved ministries is necessary for its implementation. Often, this requires the issuance of joint ministerial ordinances (the “KYSA”), co-signed by two or more ministers. This process can sometimes lead to delays and implementation gaps, as it requires coordination among numerous officials to finalize the details of policy implementation.
Overall, however, established coordination mechanisms between the GO and line ministries are effective in enhancing policy coherence.
The cabinet meets regularly to discuss and decide on draft bills after the Presidency of the Government has consulted with the relevant ministry. Although ministers sometimes continue the practice of submitting last-minute amendments during parliamentary debates, they must coordinate with the Presidency of the Government for significant amendments.
After a law is adopted, further coordination between the involved ministries is necessary for its implementation. Often, this requires the issuance of joint ministerial ordinances (the “KYSA”), co-signed by two or more ministers. This process can sometimes lead to delays and implementation gaps, as it requires coordination among numerous officials to finalize the details of policy implementation.
Overall, however, established coordination mechanisms between the GO and line ministries are effective in enhancing policy coherence.
Citations:
The change in 2019 was effected by Law 4622/2019.
The website of the Presidency of the Government: https://www.primeminister.gr/primeminister/proedria-tis-kivernisis
The change in 2019 was effected by Law 4622/2019.
The website of the Presidency of the Government: https://www.primeminister.gr/primeminister/proedria-tis-kivernisis
Hungary
The Orbán governments have steadily expanded the competencies and resources of both the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Office. The division of labor between the two offices, each led by a minister, is somewhat artificial. The Prime Minister’s Office is central to policy coordination, ensuring that policies align closely with the prime minister’s preferences and Fidesz’s ideological rhetoric. The Cabinet Office, headed by Antal Rogán, is primarily responsible for government coordination and communication, but its scope was extended after 2022 to oversee the secret services as well.
Under the Orbán governments, line ministries have mostly acted as executive agencies following priorities set by the core political executive. This represents a complete turnaround from most earlier governments in post-communist Hungary, when ministers functioned more as representatives of their ministries in the government than as representatives of the government in their ministries. Today, orders come from above, and ministerial activities are subject to detailed oversight by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). However, the pivotal role of the PMO has also made it a bottleneck in policymaking at times.
In this structure, the core executive may intervene in a ministry’s preparation of policy proposals at any time. As the Orbán V government increased the number of ministries, coordination functions shifted from within large ministries (Orbán IV) to the core executive, enhancing the need for broader coordination. Overall, the continuous growth of the core executive has been a feature of the informal presidentialization of the Hungarian government, in which the prime minister is the central political figure and the decision-maker of last resort. Aside from technical issues, coordination here is always a matter of command and control. Nevertheless, the cabinet holds weekly, biweekly and sometimes extraordinary meetings where ongoing policy issues are regularly discussed, with the participation of the prime minister and the ministers. These meetings are not public, but the most important decisions are announced through press conferences.
Under the Orbán governments, line ministries have mostly acted as executive agencies following priorities set by the core political executive. This represents a complete turnaround from most earlier governments in post-communist Hungary, when ministers functioned more as representatives of their ministries in the government than as representatives of the government in their ministries. Today, orders come from above, and ministerial activities are subject to detailed oversight by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). However, the pivotal role of the PMO has also made it a bottleneck in policymaking at times.
In this structure, the core executive may intervene in a ministry’s preparation of policy proposals at any time. As the Orbán V government increased the number of ministries, coordination functions shifted from within large ministries (Orbán IV) to the core executive, enhancing the need for broader coordination. Overall, the continuous growth of the core executive has been a feature of the informal presidentialization of the Hungarian government, in which the prime minister is the central political figure and the decision-maker of last resort. Aside from technical issues, coordination here is always a matter of command and control. Nevertheless, the cabinet holds weekly, biweekly and sometimes extraordinary meetings where ongoing policy issues are regularly discussed, with the participation of the prime minister and the ministers. These meetings are not public, but the most important decisions are announced through press conferences.
Japan
Until the 1990s, the personnel resources at the prime minister’s disposal were considered insufficient, which was redressed by the administrative reforms implemented in 2001. The newly created Cabinet Office (Naikakufu) has the personnel and financial resources to effectively coordinate policy with the ministries. With a staff of more than 1,000, the Cabinet Secretariat is also well-equipped to provide administrative support to coordinate “important policies,” which can now be imposed by the head of government in a top-down manner. Before the reform, the rule of dispersed management (buntan kanri gensoku), and prohibited the prime minister and the Cabinet Secretariat from initiating policies within the domains that fell under the jurisdiction of separate ministers. Moreover, new minister of state for special missions and prime ministerial special adviser posts were created, which allowed the head of government to entrust problems requiring interministerial coordination to direct subordinates. The coordination capacity of the Cabinet Office was also enhanced by the creation of advisory councils under the direct jurisdiction of the prime minister, which enabled some bureaucratic procedures to be circumvented. In particular, the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy took over a large part of the budget compilation process from the Ministry of Finance.
Until 2009, coordination on the most important policies between the cabinet and line ministries had been conducted through the Administrative Vice-Ministers’ Council, which gathered on Mondays and Thursdays to establish a schedule for cabinet meetings on the following day. As that organ symbolized the bottom-up decision-making process led by the bureaucrats, it was abolished by the Democratic Party of Japan government in 2009. In 2012, the organ was revived as the Administrative Vice-Ministers’ Liaison Council. It now gathers only after cabinet meetings on Fridays to discuss the implementation of cabinet decisions. This change symbolizes the significant centralization of the decision-making process under the Abe administration (2012 – 2020). Other important institutional changes include the creation of the National Security Council and the Cabinet Bureau of Personnel Affairs in 2014. The former organ facilitated interministerial coordination on security and foreign affairs, while the latter enabled the strategic promotion of high-ranking ministerial bureaucrats by the prime minister. These reforms contributed to making Cabinet Office civil servants more loyal to the prime minister and his or her closest advisors.
While the reforms implemented since 2001 have greatly increased the coordination capabilities of the organs under the prime minister’s direct control, effective usage of the new institutional tools depends on the personal skills of the head of government and the chief cabinet secretary. Prime Minister Kishida Fumio has relied to a greater extent on traditional consensus-based decision-making patterns than his direct predecessors, which has sometimes caused confusion over the priorities of his cabinet.
Until 2009, coordination on the most important policies between the cabinet and line ministries had been conducted through the Administrative Vice-Ministers’ Council, which gathered on Mondays and Thursdays to establish a schedule for cabinet meetings on the following day. As that organ symbolized the bottom-up decision-making process led by the bureaucrats, it was abolished by the Democratic Party of Japan government in 2009. In 2012, the organ was revived as the Administrative Vice-Ministers’ Liaison Council. It now gathers only after cabinet meetings on Fridays to discuss the implementation of cabinet decisions. This change symbolizes the significant centralization of the decision-making process under the Abe administration (2012 – 2020). Other important institutional changes include the creation of the National Security Council and the Cabinet Bureau of Personnel Affairs in 2014. The former organ facilitated interministerial coordination on security and foreign affairs, while the latter enabled the strategic promotion of high-ranking ministerial bureaucrats by the prime minister. These reforms contributed to making Cabinet Office civil servants more loyal to the prime minister and his or her closest advisors.
While the reforms implemented since 2001 have greatly increased the coordination capabilities of the organs under the prime minister’s direct control, effective usage of the new institutional tools depends on the personal skills of the head of government and the chief cabinet secretary. Prime Minister Kishida Fumio has relied to a greater extent on traditional consensus-based decision-making patterns than his direct predecessors, which has sometimes caused confusion over the priorities of his cabinet.
Citations:
Makihara, Izuru. 2009. “From a Clerk Room to Government Headquarters: The Cabinet Secretariat and Its ‘Rotation System’ in Transition, 1997 – 2007.” In Germany and Japan after 1989. Reform Pressures and Political System Dynamics, eds. Roland Czada and Kenji Hirashima, Tôkyô Daigaku Shakai Kagaku Kenkyûjo Kenkyû Shirîzu, No. 33, Tokyo: Tôkyô Daigaku Shakai Kagaku Kenkyûjo.
Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet. 1947. “The Cabinet Law.” https://japan.kantei.go.jp/constitution_and_government_of_japan/cabinet_law_e.html
Zakowski, Karol. 2021. Gradual Institutional Change in Japan: Kantei Leadership under the Abe Administration. London - New York: Routledge.
Makihara, Izuru. 2009. “From a Clerk Room to Government Headquarters: The Cabinet Secretariat and Its ‘Rotation System’ in Transition, 1997 – 2007.” In Germany and Japan after 1989. Reform Pressures and Political System Dynamics, eds. Roland Czada and Kenji Hirashima, Tôkyô Daigaku Shakai Kagaku Kenkyûjo Kenkyû Shirîzu, No. 33, Tokyo: Tôkyô Daigaku Shakai Kagaku Kenkyûjo.
Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet. 1947. “The Cabinet Law.” https://japan.kantei.go.jp/constitution_and_government_of_japan/cabinet_law_e.html
Zakowski, Karol. 2021. Gradual Institutional Change in Japan: Kantei Leadership under the Abe Administration. London - New York: Routledge.
Latvia
The State Chancellery plays a crucial role in coordinating policy proposals from various line ministries. This includes the substantive, legal, and technical preparation of cabinet meetings, as well as the review and legal analysis of policy-planning documents, legislative drafts, and reports submitted to the cabinet. Additionally, the Chancellery provides recommendations on the future direction of these projects (Valsts Kanceleja, 2023).
In 2022, the State Chancellery’s primary role was to support the prime minister and the Cabinet of Ministers substantively and organizationally. There were 67 cabinet meetings, typically held weekly on Tuesdays in a hybrid format. Members of the cabinet were present in person, while state secretaries and experts joined remotely. Additionally, the prime minister convened extraordinary meetings to address urgent matters, conducted in person or through polls (Valsts Kanceleja, 2023).
Key measures introduced in 2022 to improve interministerial coordination and policy development include an Innovation Laboratory, training in innovation, and integrating the Cross-Sectoral Coordination Centre into the State Chancellery. Efforts also focus on digital transformation, such as the TAP portal for efficient government operations, and reforms in the remuneration system, including new job classifications and salary scales. Furthermore, communication and digital skills in public administration are being enhanced, exemplified by the introduction of Zinta – the virtual assistant for public services (Valsts kanceleja, 2023).
In 2022, the State Chancellery of Latvia managed 46 regular and 21 extraordinary cabinet meetings, with 12 organized through polls. A total of 3,084 issues were discussed, with 1,745 as main agenda items and 1,339 as additional. There were 255 document evaluations from courts and other institutions requiring cabinet opinions. The prime minister received 106 recommendations on legislative direction, and 21 opinions were prepared on ministry-submitted legislative drafts. The State Chancellery also legally and editorially processed 2,401 legislative drafts. Additionally, 5,924 documents were reviewed, with 1,081 tasks assigned to the cabinet (Valsts kanceleja, 2023).
As mandated by the Cabinet of Ministers regulations, interministerial coordination groups must report their progress regularly. This includes submitting signed minutes from coordination group meetings to the involved ministries and directly to the Prime Minister’s Office. This process ensures a formal and documented line of communication and accountability.
The prime minister may, by decree, establish a thematic committee of the Cabinet of Ministers to ensure systematic and planned work in a specific area and to coordinate and address various cross-cutting issues. These include the Thematic Committee on Digital Modernization, the Thematic Committee on European Union Funds, the Thematic Committee on Strategy Management, and the Thematic Committee on Energy, Environment, and Climate.
State secretary meetings are convened to address specific types of projects and issues. These include projects that lack agreement in the coordination process (excluding those needing political resolution or conceptual decisions), projects not refined as per earlier State secretary meeting decisions, national position project proposals, or related issues directed by the Senior Officials Meeting on EU Affairs, and official viewpoints of the Republic of Latvia for advocacy in international organizations, especially when there is a lack of consensus on ministry or institutional responsibilities. These weekly meetings, typically held on Thursdays and led by the director of the State Chancellery, also discuss other pertinent matters for state administration. The director of the State Chancellery and the state secretaries participate with voting rights.
However, there is no clear information about whether there are regular meetings between the GO/PMO, during which they receive briefings from line ministries on new developments that may impact policy proposal preparations, despite the official meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers, the cooperation meeting of parties forming the government, and state secretary meetings.
The number of meetings held and documents produced demonstrates an active and systematic approach to coordinating issues on the agenda. Additionally, the regularity of standard and poll-based meetings indicates effective ongoing communication and coordination between the GO/PMO and line ministries, which is essential for aligning policy proposals with governmental priorities.
In 2022, the State Chancellery’s primary role was to support the prime minister and the Cabinet of Ministers substantively and organizationally. There were 67 cabinet meetings, typically held weekly on Tuesdays in a hybrid format. Members of the cabinet were present in person, while state secretaries and experts joined remotely. Additionally, the prime minister convened extraordinary meetings to address urgent matters, conducted in person or through polls (Valsts Kanceleja, 2023).
Key measures introduced in 2022 to improve interministerial coordination and policy development include an Innovation Laboratory, training in innovation, and integrating the Cross-Sectoral Coordination Centre into the State Chancellery. Efforts also focus on digital transformation, such as the TAP portal for efficient government operations, and reforms in the remuneration system, including new job classifications and salary scales. Furthermore, communication and digital skills in public administration are being enhanced, exemplified by the introduction of Zinta – the virtual assistant for public services (Valsts kanceleja, 2023).
In 2022, the State Chancellery of Latvia managed 46 regular and 21 extraordinary cabinet meetings, with 12 organized through polls. A total of 3,084 issues were discussed, with 1,745 as main agenda items and 1,339 as additional. There were 255 document evaluations from courts and other institutions requiring cabinet opinions. The prime minister received 106 recommendations on legislative direction, and 21 opinions were prepared on ministry-submitted legislative drafts. The State Chancellery also legally and editorially processed 2,401 legislative drafts. Additionally, 5,924 documents were reviewed, with 1,081 tasks assigned to the cabinet (Valsts kanceleja, 2023).
As mandated by the Cabinet of Ministers regulations, interministerial coordination groups must report their progress regularly. This includes submitting signed minutes from coordination group meetings to the involved ministries and directly to the Prime Minister’s Office. This process ensures a formal and documented line of communication and accountability.
The prime minister may, by decree, establish a thematic committee of the Cabinet of Ministers to ensure systematic and planned work in a specific area and to coordinate and address various cross-cutting issues. These include the Thematic Committee on Digital Modernization, the Thematic Committee on European Union Funds, the Thematic Committee on Strategy Management, and the Thematic Committee on Energy, Environment, and Climate.
State secretary meetings are convened to address specific types of projects and issues. These include projects that lack agreement in the coordination process (excluding those needing political resolution or conceptual decisions), projects not refined as per earlier State secretary meeting decisions, national position project proposals, or related issues directed by the Senior Officials Meeting on EU Affairs, and official viewpoints of the Republic of Latvia for advocacy in international organizations, especially when there is a lack of consensus on ministry or institutional responsibilities. These weekly meetings, typically held on Thursdays and led by the director of the State Chancellery, also discuss other pertinent matters for state administration. The director of the State Chancellery and the state secretaries participate with voting rights.
However, there is no clear information about whether there are regular meetings between the GO/PMO, during which they receive briefings from line ministries on new developments that may impact policy proposal preparations, despite the official meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers, the cooperation meeting of parties forming the government, and state secretary meetings.
The number of meetings held and documents produced demonstrates an active and systematic approach to coordinating issues on the agenda. Additionally, the regularity of standard and poll-based meetings indicates effective ongoing communication and coordination between the GO/PMO and line ministries, which is essential for aligning policy proposals with governmental priorities.
Citations:
Valsts kanceleja. 2023. “Gada pārskats 2022. gads.” https://www.mk.gov.lv/lv/media/16278/download?attachment
Ministru kabinets. 2021. Ministru kabineta rīkojums Nr. 437 Par starpministriju darba grupas izveidi klimata politikas koordinācijai. https://likumi.lv/ta/id/324318-par-starpministriju-darba-grupas-izveidi-klimata-politikas-koordinacijai
Valsts kanceleja. 2023. “Gada pārskats 2022. gads.” https://www.mk.gov.lv/lv/media/16278/download?attachment
Ministru kabinets. 2021. Ministru kabineta rīkojums Nr. 437 Par starpministriju darba grupas izveidi klimata politikas koordinācijai. https://likumi.lv/ta/id/324318-par-starpministriju-darba-grupas-izveidi-klimata-politikas-koordinacijai
Lithuania
The prime minister’s office has the capacity to evaluate policy proposals from line ministries and assess their alignment with the government’s priorities. The government office effectively monitors policy proposals and their implementation through several channels. First, it administratively tracks the execution of government actions assigned to different ministries and other state institutions. Second, through its information system of monitoring, it assesses the achievement of government priorities and linked policy objectives based on performance indicators. Progress in policy implementation is discussed during cabinet meetings and other government-level deliberations.
Information derived from the monitoring process is infrequently used to propose corrective action when progress is deemed insufficient. Thus, the monitoring process does not always prevent the prioritization of sectoral or bureaucratic interests over full-government and horizontal interests in policy implementation. In one EU-funded project, the government office reviewed monitoring and evaluation practices and made several recommendations to improve performance measurement in line ministries, including the development of key performance indicators or indicator libraries in various policy areas. Despite the implementation of this project, the National Audit Office stated that the country’s monitoring and reporting system continues to lack quality information. Additionally, the government and line ministries often provide incomplete information regarding the achievement of their policy aims and objectives in their reports.
The coalition government, formed in late 2020, strengthened the monitoring of policy proposals from the line ministries by introducing questionnaires to check the alignment of their content with government priorities and their potential impact. The chancellor and advisers to the prime minister play important roles in coordinating policy processes with the line ministries.
Information derived from the monitoring process is infrequently used to propose corrective action when progress is deemed insufficient. Thus, the monitoring process does not always prevent the prioritization of sectoral or bureaucratic interests over full-government and horizontal interests in policy implementation. In one EU-funded project, the government office reviewed monitoring and evaluation practices and made several recommendations to improve performance measurement in line ministries, including the development of key performance indicators or indicator libraries in various policy areas. Despite the implementation of this project, the National Audit Office stated that the country’s monitoring and reporting system continues to lack quality information. Additionally, the government and line ministries often provide incomplete information regarding the achievement of their policy aims and objectives in their reports.
The coalition government, formed in late 2020, strengthened the monitoring of policy proposals from the line ministries by introducing questionnaires to check the alignment of their content with government priorities and their potential impact. The chancellor and advisers to the prime minister play important roles in coordinating policy processes with the line ministries.
New Zealand
In New Zealand, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) plays a crucial role in ensuring that the prime minister and cabinet have access to the information and support necessary for effective decision-making and governance. The DPMC acts as a central hub for coordinating government policies and initiatives, maintaining the machinery of government, and supporting the overall functioning of the executive branch.
In 2023, the DPMC consisted of nine units: the National Security Group, Government House, the Policy Advisory Group, Strategy Governance and Engagement, the Cabinet Office, the Cyclone Recovery Unit, Child Wellbeing and Poverty Reduction, the COVID-19 RCOI Coordination Unit, and the Implementation Unit. The Policy Advisory Group currently consists of 32 staff members covering a broad spectrum of policy expertise (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 2023). They are in constant contact with the prime minister, and provide advice on all cabinet and cabinet committee papers. They also engage in coordinating interministerial cooperation.
The DPMC typically engages in major policy initiatives or those with cross-cutting implications across various sectors. This involvement goes beyond legal and technical aspects to include broader programmatic elements, ensuring alignment with government priorities. Regular meetings between the DPMC and line ministries occur to different extents, depending on the demands deriving from policy developments, government priorities and specific initiatives. However, there is some concern that recent crisis management efforts by the DPMC have led to an increasing centralization of decision-making, which in turn risks becoming disconnected from external advice (Harman 2023).
In 2023, the DPMC consisted of nine units: the National Security Group, Government House, the Policy Advisory Group, Strategy Governance and Engagement, the Cabinet Office, the Cyclone Recovery Unit, Child Wellbeing and Poverty Reduction, the COVID-19 RCOI Coordination Unit, and the Implementation Unit. The Policy Advisory Group currently consists of 32 staff members covering a broad spectrum of policy expertise (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 2023). They are in constant contact with the prime minister, and provide advice on all cabinet and cabinet committee papers. They also engage in coordinating interministerial cooperation.
The DPMC typically engages in major policy initiatives or those with cross-cutting implications across various sectors. This involvement goes beyond legal and technical aspects to include broader programmatic elements, ensuring alignment with government priorities. Regular meetings between the DPMC and line ministries occur to different extents, depending on the demands deriving from policy developments, government priorities and specific initiatives. However, there is some concern that recent crisis management efforts by the DPMC have led to an increasing centralization of decision-making, which in turn risks becoming disconnected from external advice (Harman 2023).
Citations:
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 2023. “Annual Report / Pūrongo-ā-tau.” https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2023-11/dpmc-annual-report-2023-v2.pdf
Harman, R. 2023. “What’s Wrong with the Public Service.” https://www.politik.co.nz/whats-wrong-with-the-public-service
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 2023. “Annual Report / Pūrongo-ā-tau.” https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2023-11/dpmc-annual-report-2023-v2.pdf
Harman, R. 2023. “What’s Wrong with the Public Service.” https://www.politik.co.nz/whats-wrong-with-the-public-service
Norway
The office of the prime minister (PMO) in Norway is small in size compared to the line ministries. Of a total of 4,500 employees in the ministries, only 190 work at the PMO. The formal task of coordinating policy proposals from the line ministries lies with the Ministry of Finance (MoF). Because most policy proposals have fiscal implications, the MoF must consent to any new policy that results in rising public expenditures. However, if new policies can be financed within existing budgetary constraints, the MoF typically does not interfere. Most formal coordination takes place as an integrated part of working on the annual state budget, with two regular conferences: one in March and one in August, before the budget proposal is sent to parliament in mid-October.
Coordination of new policy proposals is systematic but informal, occurring through two mechanisms.
The first mechanism is the formation of coalition governments. Executive power requires a parliamentary majority and, given the existing party structure and the actual distribution of votes, all governments must be coalitions of two or more parties. To form a stable coalition government, the participating parties negotiate a common policy program. Even in cases of a one-party minority government, clarifications with supporting parties take place before presenting a parliamentary program. This process of producing a program effectively has a significant coordination impact.
The second mechanism of coordination is the frequent use of ad hoc collaboration between junior ministers. If a policy problem or proposal cuts across conventional lines of sectoral responsibilities, the coordination challenge is handled by junior ministers from each of the involved ministries.
Implementation of the UN SDGs and efforts toward sustainable development challenge the bureaucracy in new ways. Norway’s 2021 SDG Action Plan recommends using the OECD framework for policy coherence for sustainable development. However, implementing this framework is not straightforward in all countries (Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, 2021). Moreover, action plans do not always lead to behavioral change (Stave 2022). Proposed tools for increasing policy coherence include systematic environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and new indicators for policy coherence as an independent target (OECD, 2023).
Coordination of new policy proposals is systematic but informal, occurring through two mechanisms.
The first mechanism is the formation of coalition governments. Executive power requires a parliamentary majority and, given the existing party structure and the actual distribution of votes, all governments must be coalitions of two or more parties. To form a stable coalition government, the participating parties negotiate a common policy program. Even in cases of a one-party minority government, clarifications with supporting parties take place before presenting a parliamentary program. This process of producing a program effectively has a significant coordination impact.
The second mechanism of coordination is the frequent use of ad hoc collaboration between junior ministers. If a policy problem or proposal cuts across conventional lines of sectoral responsibilities, the coordination challenge is handled by junior ministers from each of the involved ministries.
Implementation of the UN SDGs and efforts toward sustainable development challenge the bureaucracy in new ways. Norway’s 2021 SDG Action Plan recommends using the OECD framework for policy coherence for sustainable development. However, implementing this framework is not straightforward in all countries (Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, 2021). Moreover, action plans do not always lead to behavioral change (Stave 2022). Proposed tools for increasing policy coherence include systematic environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and new indicators for policy coherence as an independent target (OECD, 2023).
Citations:
Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation. 2021. “White Paper no. 40 (2020-2021). Meaningful Goals. Norway’s Action Plan to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.” https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/bcbcac3469db4bb9913661ee39e58d6d/no/pdfs/stm202020210040000dddpdfs.pdf
OECD. 2023. Driving Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development: Accelerating Progress on the SDGs. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a6cb4aa1-en
Stave S.E. 2022. Handling med mening. Verktøy for en mer samstemt politikk.
for bærekraftig utvikling. Fafo-notat 2022:03. https://www.fafo.no/images/pub/2022/10364.pdf
Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation. 2021. “White Paper no. 40 (2020-2021). Meaningful Goals. Norway’s Action Plan to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.” https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/bcbcac3469db4bb9913661ee39e58d6d/no/pdfs/stm202020210040000dddpdfs.pdf
OECD. 2023. Driving Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development: Accelerating Progress on the SDGs. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a6cb4aa1-en
Stave S.E. 2022. Handling med mening. Verktøy for en mer samstemt politikk.
for bærekraftig utvikling. Fafo-notat 2022:03. https://www.fafo.no/images/pub/2022/10364.pdf
Slovenia
The Prime Minister’s Office handles the coordination, organization, professional, and administrative tasks for the Prime Minister. Its responsibilities include preparing expert opinions to inform the prime minister’s decisions and actions in managing and directing government work, as well as coordinating the ministries in implementing the government’s political and administrative measures. The office also oversees the implementation of binding instructions issued by the prime minister to the ministers, which are crucial for the work of individual ministries. Additionally, the office is responsible for interdepartmental cooperation on matters involving multiple ministries.
Structurally, the office consists of nine experts, the Head of the Office, and eight State Secretaries. The State Secretaries are responsible for relations with the National Assembly, European affairs, culture, and international affairs. They also develop dialogue with civil society, coordinate citizens’ initiatives, manage intergenerational dialogue and housing policy, oversee strategic communication, and handle the national nuclear program. Women are strongly represented in the current cabinet, alongside three male State Secretaries.
The government operates and makes decisions through regular and correspondence meetings, typically convened by the prime minister on Thursdays. In the prime minister’s absence, the deputy prime minister or a minister appointed by the prime minister chairs the meetings. The government also reviews materials finalized in meetings of its working bodies.
As with previous administrations, there are currently three working bodies: the Committee of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for State and Public Affairs, the Committee of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for Economic Affairs, and the Commission of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for Administrative and Personnel Affairs. These working bodies meet weekly and consist of the president, the deputy president, and a sufficient number of members appointed by the government. Decisions are made by a majority vote of the members present.
Each working body issues a brief report on the government material discussed at its meetings. Once a working body has given final consideration to a matter, the decision is issued as a government decision.
The State Administration Act defines the relationship between the government and its ministries. Ministries must follow the political guidelines of the government. The government may instruct a ministry to investigate a particular issue, fulfill a specific task, and report back. However, the Prime Minister’s Office is not directly involved in the policies proposed by the ministries, which remain the responsibility of the respective ministries.
Structurally, the office consists of nine experts, the Head of the Office, and eight State Secretaries. The State Secretaries are responsible for relations with the National Assembly, European affairs, culture, and international affairs. They also develop dialogue with civil society, coordinate citizens’ initiatives, manage intergenerational dialogue and housing policy, oversee strategic communication, and handle the national nuclear program. Women are strongly represented in the current cabinet, alongside three male State Secretaries.
The government operates and makes decisions through regular and correspondence meetings, typically convened by the prime minister on Thursdays. In the prime minister’s absence, the deputy prime minister or a minister appointed by the prime minister chairs the meetings. The government also reviews materials finalized in meetings of its working bodies.
As with previous administrations, there are currently three working bodies: the Committee of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for State and Public Affairs, the Committee of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for Economic Affairs, and the Commission of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for Administrative and Personnel Affairs. These working bodies meet weekly and consist of the president, the deputy president, and a sufficient number of members appointed by the government. Decisions are made by a majority vote of the members present.
Each working body issues a brief report on the government material discussed at its meetings. Once a working body has given final consideration to a matter, the decision is issued as a government decision.
The State Administration Act defines the relationship between the government and its ministries. Ministries must follow the political guidelines of the government. The government may instruct a ministry to investigate a particular issue, fulfill a specific task, and report back. However, the Prime Minister’s Office is not directly involved in the policies proposed by the ministries, which remain the responsibility of the respective ministries.
Citations:
Republic of Slovenia. 2024. “Office of the Prime Minister.” https://www.gov.si/en/state-authorities/government-offices/office-of-the-prime-minister
Republic of Slovenia. 2024. “Secretariat – General of the Government.” https://www.gov.si/drzavni-organi/vladne-sluzbe/generalni-sekretariat-vlade/
Republika Slovenija. 2024. “Dnevni redi delovnih teles vlade.” https://www.gov.si/drzavni-organi/vlada/seje-vlade/dnevni-redi-delovnih-teles-vlade/
Republic of Slovenia. 2024. “Office of the Prime Minister.” https://www.gov.si/en/state-authorities/government-offices/office-of-the-prime-minister
Republic of Slovenia. 2024. “Secretariat – General of the Government.” https://www.gov.si/drzavni-organi/vladne-sluzbe/generalni-sekretariat-vlade/
Republika Slovenija. 2024. “Dnevni redi delovnih teles vlade.” https://www.gov.si/drzavni-organi/vlada/seje-vlade/dnevni-redi-delovnih-teles-vlade/
Spain
Spain’s Government Office (Ministry of the Presidency) and Prime Minister’s Office (Gabinete) play crucial roles in evaluating proposals from line ministries, focusing on political, strategic, and technical aspects. The Government Office typically handles drafting and technical issues, while the Prime Minister’s Office concentrates on political and strategic considerations. This institutionalized process occurs weekly, with representatives from all ministries meeting at the cabinet meeting preparatory committee. Advisers from the Prime Minister’s Office also participate in this committee and in the specialized ministerial committee on economic affairs, which assists the Council of Ministers (see “Cabinet Committees”).
The Prime Minister’s Office is structured somewhat to reflect various ministerial portfolios but lacks comprehensive policy expertise for thorough executive oversight. The Government Office, which organizes Council of Ministers’ sessions and is headed by the minister of the presidency, evaluates the substantive content of draft bills to some extent, despite lacking sectoral policy expertise. Ministries are expected to involve the Prime Minister’s Office informally in preparing policy proposals. Although these ministries are formally autonomous, the legal and political hierarchy within the government facilitates and encourages this consultation pattern with the prime minister’s team.
The Annual Regulatory Plan of the General State Administration outlines the legislative or regulatory initiatives that various ministerial departments plan to submit each calendar year to the Council of Ministers for approval.
Two powerful ministerial committees prepare cabinet meetings in Spain: the Committee for Economic Affairs and the Committee of Undersecretaries and Secretaries of State. The Committee for Economic Affairs reviews and schedules economic or budgetary interministerial coordination. The Committee of Undersecretaries and Secretaries of State filters and settles issues before cabinet meetings, preparing the Council of Ministers’ weekly sessions held every Tuesday. The minister of the presidency chairs this committee.
To implement the Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP), existing departments have been assigned new responsibilities. For example, the Economic Office of the Prime Minister serves as a monitoring unit, the Ministry of Finance’s department for EU funds acts as the managing unit, and the General Intervention Board of the State Administration functions as an oversight and audit unit.
During 2022–2023, the lack of experience in managing coalition governments and partisan differences impacted the effectiveness and coherence of policy formulation, leading to coordination problems among line ministries. To streamline consultation, the Prime Minister’s Office increased personnel and financial resources to evaluate line ministries’ policy proposals.
The Prime Minister’s Office is structured somewhat to reflect various ministerial portfolios but lacks comprehensive policy expertise for thorough executive oversight. The Government Office, which organizes Council of Ministers’ sessions and is headed by the minister of the presidency, evaluates the substantive content of draft bills to some extent, despite lacking sectoral policy expertise. Ministries are expected to involve the Prime Minister’s Office informally in preparing policy proposals. Although these ministries are formally autonomous, the legal and political hierarchy within the government facilitates and encourages this consultation pattern with the prime minister’s team.
The Annual Regulatory Plan of the General State Administration outlines the legislative or regulatory initiatives that various ministerial departments plan to submit each calendar year to the Council of Ministers for approval.
Two powerful ministerial committees prepare cabinet meetings in Spain: the Committee for Economic Affairs and the Committee of Undersecretaries and Secretaries of State. The Committee for Economic Affairs reviews and schedules economic or budgetary interministerial coordination. The Committee of Undersecretaries and Secretaries of State filters and settles issues before cabinet meetings, preparing the Council of Ministers’ weekly sessions held every Tuesday. The minister of the presidency chairs this committee.
To implement the Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP), existing departments have been assigned new responsibilities. For example, the Economic Office of the Prime Minister serves as a monitoring unit, the Ministry of Finance’s department for EU funds acts as the managing unit, and the General Intervention Board of the State Administration functions as an oversight and audit unit.
During 2022–2023, the lack of experience in managing coalition governments and partisan differences impacted the effectiveness and coherence of policy formulation, leading to coordination problems among line ministries. To streamline consultation, the Prime Minister’s Office increased personnel and financial resources to evaluate line ministries’ policy proposals.
Citations:
Royal Decree 890/2023 of 27 November, approving the structure of the Presidency of the Government
Royal Decree 890/2023 of 27 November, approving the structure of the Presidency of the Government
Sweden
Policymaking in Sweden is characterized by a small government and numerous autonomous public agencies. The central administrative entity, known as Government Offices (Regeringskansliet), is led by the prime minister and has a small staff that assists the government (Regeringen) in preparing policy and governing the country. This entity comprises the Office of the Prime Minister (Statsrådsberedningen) and all the ministries.
The GO employs a very small fraction of the public servants working for more than 300 government agencies. Furthermore, Sweden is characterized by the absence of formal ministerial rule when it comes to public agencies. This means that, even though agencies belong to a specific ministry, public agencies and civil servants have considerable freedom in interpreting laws or exercising public authority (Larsson and Bäck 2008). Ministries focus on strategic planning and budgeting, and the managerial autonomy of agencies has increased in the past decades (Hall 2016).
The leadership of the GO and the PMO is asserted when policies are initiated, when final decisions are made, and if a disagreement emerges among the governing parties or ministers, rather than as a continuous monitoring of policy implementation work. Regular briefings and informal consultations occur frequently. This informal coordination procedure nevertheless ensures that the PMO, in line with the finance ministry, plays a crucial role in policy developments. As is the case in many aspects of Swedish politics, there are established yet informal rules regulating procedures when there is disagreement among non-political advisers on how to design policy. The practicalities of policy design are left to specialist public servants, whereas the GO and the PMO operate at the strategic level.
Finally, line ministries often seek advice from executive agencies during the early stages of the policy process because these public agencies possess the necessary expertise in the policy sector (Jacobsson, Pierre, and Sundström, 2015; Niemann, 2012; Page, 2012; Premfors and Sundström, 2007).
The GO employs a very small fraction of the public servants working for more than 300 government agencies. Furthermore, Sweden is characterized by the absence of formal ministerial rule when it comes to public agencies. This means that, even though agencies belong to a specific ministry, public agencies and civil servants have considerable freedom in interpreting laws or exercising public authority (Larsson and Bäck 2008). Ministries focus on strategic planning and budgeting, and the managerial autonomy of agencies has increased in the past decades (Hall 2016).
The leadership of the GO and the PMO is asserted when policies are initiated, when final decisions are made, and if a disagreement emerges among the governing parties or ministers, rather than as a continuous monitoring of policy implementation work. Regular briefings and informal consultations occur frequently. This informal coordination procedure nevertheless ensures that the PMO, in line with the finance ministry, plays a crucial role in policy developments. As is the case in many aspects of Swedish politics, there are established yet informal rules regulating procedures when there is disagreement among non-political advisers on how to design policy. The practicalities of policy design are left to specialist public servants, whereas the GO and the PMO operate at the strategic level.
Finally, line ministries often seek advice from executive agencies during the early stages of the policy process because these public agencies possess the necessary expertise in the policy sector (Jacobsson, Pierre, and Sundström, 2015; Niemann, 2012; Page, 2012; Premfors and Sundström, 2007).
Citations:
Hall, P. 2016. “The Swedish Administrative Model.” In The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics, ed. Jon Pierre, 299-314. Oxford: OUP.
Jacobsson, B., Pierre, J., and Sundström, G. 2015. Governing the Embedded State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Niemann, C. 2013. Villkorat Förtroende. Normer och Rollförväntningar i Relationen Mellan Politiker och Tjänstemän i Regeringskansliet. Stockholm: Department of Political Science, University of Stockholm.
Page, E.C. 2012. Policy Without Politicians: Bureaucratic Influence in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Premfors, R. and Sundström, G. 2007. Regeringskansliet. Stockholm: Liber.
Hall, P. 2016. “The Swedish Administrative Model.” In The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics, ed. Jon Pierre, 299-314. Oxford: OUP.
Jacobsson, B., Pierre, J., and Sundström, G. 2015. Governing the Embedded State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Niemann, C. 2013. Villkorat Förtroende. Normer och Rollförväntningar i Relationen Mellan Politiker och Tjänstemän i Regeringskansliet. Stockholm: Department of Political Science, University of Stockholm.
Page, E.C. 2012. Policy Without Politicians: Bureaucratic Influence in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Premfors, R. and Sundström, G. 2007. Regeringskansliet. Stockholm: Liber.
Switzerland
The Swiss political system does not have a prime minister or a prime minister’s office. The government, called the Federal Council, is a collegial body composed of seven ministries, each of which has a broad area of competency and is responsible for a large variety of issues. There are no line ministries. However, there are federal offices and institutions connected to the various ministries. These work closely with the minister responsible for their group. Every minister is in a sense a “ministerial committee,” representing the coordination of their numerous cooperating ministerial units.
Since ministers must achieve a large Federal Council majority in order to win support for a proposal, there is also a strong coordination between ministries. There are several instruments of interministerial coordination, as well as various mechanisms by which ministries’ draft bills are evaluated. The ministries, called federal departments, engage in a formal process of consultation when drafting proposals, the Department of Justice provides legal evaluations of draft bills, and the Federal Chancellery and Federal Council provide political coordination. In particular, the Federal Chancellery has gained a reputation as the central institution for interministerial planning (Vatter 2020: Chapter 7).
More precisely, there is first a preliminary procedure of interministerial consultations at the level of the federal departments. After the departments have been consulted, the co-reporting procedure begins. This instrument is specifically designed to coordinate policy proposals between the ministries. This process invites the ministries to take positions on political issues. The Federal Chancellery leads the process by submitting the proposal under consideration as prepared by the ministry responsible to all other ministries. These then have the opportunity to submit a report or express an opinion. A process of discussion and coordination ensues, designed to eliminate all or most differences before the proposal is discussed by the Federal Council. The co-reporting procedure is largely a process of negative coordination that highlights incompatibilities with other policies but does not systematically scrutinize the potential for synergy. Policy coordination and policy integration could thus be strengthened (Trein/Maggetti 2019).
There is a tension, however, between the consensus principle in the Federal Council that demands a common solution supported by all seven ministers, and the departmental principle that enables ministers to pursue their party line within their departments, which in turn allows them to satisfy party members as they secure support for consensus-derived government solutions. Increasing polarization in parliament has strengthened the departmental principle and rendered consensus-driven solutions within the Federal Council more difficult to achieve. Nonetheless, the Federal Council has to date managed to balance the two principles (Sager and Vatter 2019). However, the need to secure a substantial level of consensus within Switzerland’s nonadversarial system accounts for the slow and incremental nature of policy change, which can be an obstacle to ambitious reforms aimed at sustainability.
Since ministers must achieve a large Federal Council majority in order to win support for a proposal, there is also a strong coordination between ministries. There are several instruments of interministerial coordination, as well as various mechanisms by which ministries’ draft bills are evaluated. The ministries, called federal departments, engage in a formal process of consultation when drafting proposals, the Department of Justice provides legal evaluations of draft bills, and the Federal Chancellery and Federal Council provide political coordination. In particular, the Federal Chancellery has gained a reputation as the central institution for interministerial planning (Vatter 2020: Chapter 7).
More precisely, there is first a preliminary procedure of interministerial consultations at the level of the federal departments. After the departments have been consulted, the co-reporting procedure begins. This instrument is specifically designed to coordinate policy proposals between the ministries. This process invites the ministries to take positions on political issues. The Federal Chancellery leads the process by submitting the proposal under consideration as prepared by the ministry responsible to all other ministries. These then have the opportunity to submit a report or express an opinion. A process of discussion and coordination ensues, designed to eliminate all or most differences before the proposal is discussed by the Federal Council. The co-reporting procedure is largely a process of negative coordination that highlights incompatibilities with other policies but does not systematically scrutinize the potential for synergy. Policy coordination and policy integration could thus be strengthened (Trein/Maggetti 2019).
There is a tension, however, between the consensus principle in the Federal Council that demands a common solution supported by all seven ministers, and the departmental principle that enables ministers to pursue their party line within their departments, which in turn allows them to satisfy party members as they secure support for consensus-derived government solutions. Increasing polarization in parliament has strengthened the departmental principle and rendered consensus-driven solutions within the Federal Council more difficult to achieve. Nonetheless, the Federal Council has to date managed to balance the two principles (Sager and Vatter 2019). However, the need to secure a substantial level of consensus within Switzerland’s nonadversarial system accounts for the slow and incremental nature of policy change, which can be an obstacle to ambitious reforms aimed at sustainability.
Citations:
Ali, A., Sager, F., and Trein, P. Forthcoming. “Coordination in a Loosely Coupled Core: Insights from Switzerland.” In Coordination at the Core? Executive Decision-Making in International Organizations and the EU, eds. J-M. Eymeri-Douzans, M. Goransson, and H. Kassim.
Mavrot, C., and Sager, F. 2018. “Vertical Epistemic Communities in Multilevel Governance.” Policy & Politics 46 (3): 391-407.
Sager, F. and Vatter, A. 2019. “Regierungshandeln im Spannungsfeld von Partei- und Exekutivpolitik am Beispiel des Bundesrats.” In A. Ritz, T. Haldemann, and F. Sager, eds., Blackbox Exekutive. Zürich: NZZ Libro.
Trein, P. and Maggetti, M. 2020. “Patterns of Policy Integration and Administrative Coordination Reforms: A Comparative Empirical Analysis.” Public Admin Rev 80 (2): 198-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13117
Vatter, A. 2020. Der Bundesrat. Die Schweizer Regierung. Zürich: NZZ Libro.
Ali, A., Sager, F., and Trein, P. Forthcoming. “Coordination in a Loosely Coupled Core: Insights from Switzerland.” In Coordination at the Core? Executive Decision-Making in International Organizations and the EU, eds. J-M. Eymeri-Douzans, M. Goransson, and H. Kassim.
Mavrot, C., and Sager, F. 2018. “Vertical Epistemic Communities in Multilevel Governance.” Policy & Politics 46 (3): 391-407.
Sager, F. and Vatter, A. 2019. “Regierungshandeln im Spannungsfeld von Partei- und Exekutivpolitik am Beispiel des Bundesrats.” In A. Ritz, T. Haldemann, and F. Sager, eds., Blackbox Exekutive. Zürich: NZZ Libro.
Trein, P. and Maggetti, M. 2020. “Patterns of Policy Integration and Administrative Coordination Reforms: A Comparative Empirical Analysis.” Public Admin Rev 80 (2): 198-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13117
Vatter, A. 2020. Der Bundesrat. Die Schweizer Regierung. Zürich: NZZ Libro.
7
Estonia
Estonia typically has coalition governments; reaching an agreement on the priorities and goals of the future government is a core issue in the cabinet formation process. After a coalition cabinet is sworn in, it generally acts in accordance with the government program and rules of procedure signed by all coalition partners. The process of program implementation is coordinated by the coalition committee, which is composed of a representative from each coalition partner. The Basic Principles of the Government Coalition for 2023 – 2027 are stipulated in the coalition agreement, reached in April 2023. The objectives set out in the agreement will serve as the basis for the government in drafting its four-year plan of action. Defense and security are among the top priorities for the new government, along with ensuring the sustainability of public financing, implementing green reforms, reducing regional stagnation and inequality, and guaranteeing high-quality education.
Strategic meetings between the prime minister and line ministers take place annually to steer the strategic goals of Estonia 2035. The strategy, adopted in 2021, establishes a framework consolidating Estonia’s major strategic goals and national courses of action while taking into account international obligations.
Estonia 2035 serves as a crucial instrument for the country’s long-term development strategy and cross-sectoral coordination. All development plans approved by the government and all programs approved by the ministers adhere to the goals and necessary changes outlined in the Estonia 2035 strategy. Estonia 2035 is also closely linked to the state budget strategy process.
Primary responsibility for coordinating, implementing and monitoring Estonia 2035 lies with the Strategy Unit of the Government Office (GO). This unit drafts strategic development plans and government action plans and monitors the implementation of these policy documents. In addition to the GO, there is the Prime Minister’s Bureau, which is composed of experts in various policy areas who advise the prime minister. Unlike the GO, this body is mostly linked to the prime minister’s political party, and its members change with each new prime minister.
Citations:
https://valitsus.ee/en/coalition-agreement-2023-2027
https://valitsus.ee/en/estonia-2035-development-strategy/strategy/strategic-goals
Strategic meetings between the prime minister and line ministers take place annually to steer the strategic goals of Estonia 2035. The strategy, adopted in 2021, establishes a framework consolidating Estonia’s major strategic goals and national courses of action while taking into account international obligations.
Estonia 2035 serves as a crucial instrument for the country’s long-term development strategy and cross-sectoral coordination. All development plans approved by the government and all programs approved by the ministers adhere to the goals and necessary changes outlined in the Estonia 2035 strategy. Estonia 2035 is also closely linked to the state budget strategy process.
Primary responsibility for coordinating, implementing and monitoring Estonia 2035 lies with the Strategy Unit of the Government Office (GO). This unit drafts strategic development plans and government action plans and monitors the implementation of these policy documents. In addition to the GO, there is the Prime Minister’s Bureau, which is composed of experts in various policy areas who advise the prime minister. Unlike the GO, this body is mostly linked to the prime minister’s political party, and its members change with each new prime minister.
Citations:
https://valitsus.ee/en/coalition-agreement-2023-2027
https://valitsus.ee/en/estonia-2035-development-strategy/strategy/strategic-goals
Germany
Germany has a high level of intergovernmental communication, especially between the Federal Chancellery and the line ministries. This does not always lead to successful cooperation between the units. While the chancellor gives guidelines and direction to foster coherent policymaking across the line ministries, inter-party conflict – typical for German coalition governments and heightened under the current “Traffic Light Coalition” – still occasionally leads to intergovernmental tensions. However, formal and informal mechanisms of coordination often successfully calm or fully prevent outright conflict.
Coordination mechanisms between the German Federal Chancellery and the line ministries exist and are frequently used for both formal and informal coordination. The German Federal Chancellery employs around 620 staff members. Its policy units assess, filter, and analyze policies and current developments, supporting the German Chancellor (Olaf Scholz). Some of these units, known as “Spiegelreferate,” mirror the responsibilities of each line ministry in the chancellery and facilitate policy work in these areas (Busse and Hofmann, 2019).
The design and preparation of bills and policy proposals, following the “Ressortprinzip,” is largely the prerogative of the line ministries, while the chancellor should provide direction and priorities (“Richtlinienprinzip”).
Line ministries typically share policy proposals with officials from the chancellery before introducing them in the federal cabinet, where the chancellor must ultimately sign off on them. This process aligns priorities. Conflicts are often resolved in the weekly meetings between the head of the chancellery and the state secretaries. However, this mechanism frequently reaches its limits when coalition parties publicize their differences and seek to gain an advantage in political competition.
Weekly meetings occur between line ministries and the chancellery at various levels. These include meetings between the chief of the chancellery and the state secretaries, as well as lower-level meetings within interministerial working groups that include the chancellery.
During the observation period, conflicts between coalition partners emerged on almost all relevant issues, from support for Ukraine to the budget, from welfare programs for less wealthy families to energy policy. The chancellery was rarely able to mitigate these conflicts (see Zohlnhöfer and Engler 2024).
Coordination mechanisms between the German Federal Chancellery and the line ministries exist and are frequently used for both formal and informal coordination. The German Federal Chancellery employs around 620 staff members. Its policy units assess, filter, and analyze policies and current developments, supporting the German Chancellor (Olaf Scholz). Some of these units, known as “Spiegelreferate,” mirror the responsibilities of each line ministry in the chancellery and facilitate policy work in these areas (Busse and Hofmann, 2019).
The design and preparation of bills and policy proposals, following the “Ressortprinzip,” is largely the prerogative of the line ministries, while the chancellor should provide direction and priorities (“Richtlinienprinzip”).
Line ministries typically share policy proposals with officials from the chancellery before introducing them in the federal cabinet, where the chancellor must ultimately sign off on them. This process aligns priorities. Conflicts are often resolved in the weekly meetings between the head of the chancellery and the state secretaries. However, this mechanism frequently reaches its limits when coalition parties publicize their differences and seek to gain an advantage in political competition.
Weekly meetings occur between line ministries and the chancellery at various levels. These include meetings between the chief of the chancellery and the state secretaries, as well as lower-level meetings within interministerial working groups that include the chancellery.
During the observation period, conflicts between coalition partners emerged on almost all relevant issues, from support for Ukraine to the budget, from welfare programs for less wealthy families to energy policy. The chancellery was rarely able to mitigate these conflicts (see Zohlnhöfer and Engler 2024).
Citations:
Busse, V., Hofmann, H. 2019. Bundeskanzleramt und Bundesregierung. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Digitalcheck. 2023. “Bundesministerium für Justiz.” www.normenkontrollrat.bund.de/Webs/NKR/DE/weniger-buerokratie-und-besseres-recht/digitalcheck/digitalcheck.html
Zohlnhöfer, Reimut, and Fabian Engler. 2024. “Fortschritt gewagt – und wie weit gekommen? Eine Halbzeitbilanz der Ampel-Koalition unter Olaf Scholz.” Gesellschaft. Wirtschaft. Politik 73(1): 55-67. https://doi.org/10.10.3224/gwp.v73i1.07
Busse, V., Hofmann, H. 2019. Bundeskanzleramt und Bundesregierung. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Digitalcheck. 2023. “Bundesministerium für Justiz.” www.normenkontrollrat.bund.de/Webs/NKR/DE/weniger-buerokratie-und-besseres-recht/digitalcheck/digitalcheck.html
Zohlnhöfer, Reimut, and Fabian Engler. 2024. “Fortschritt gewagt – und wie weit gekommen? Eine Halbzeitbilanz der Ampel-Koalition unter Olaf Scholz.” Gesellschaft. Wirtschaft. Politik 73(1): 55-67. https://doi.org/10.10.3224/gwp.v73i1.07
Italy
The administrative structure of the Italian Presidency of the Council of Ministers is complex and intricate. As of 2024, it comprises 18 departments responsible for various functional areas, ranging from equal opportunity policies to civil protection coordination, and from European policy coordination to anti-drug policies. Additionally, 10 support offices provide coordination functions, general political direction, and technical-managerial support to the president. There are also seven ad hoc units established by the Premier through a special mission structure to perform specific tasks or implement specific programs. The duration of these structures, specified in the establishing act, does not exceed that of the government that established them. This organizational structure employs approximately 2,000 permanent employees as of 2018, according to the latest official data.
This organizational structure is further supported by the direct collaboration offices of ministers without portfolio, who coordinate the main PMO departments. The number of these offices varies depending on the president of the Council.
Over the past 30 years, since the crisis of the First Republic, two significant characteristics have emerged in decision-making coordination processes. Firstly, the role of the prime minister has become more influential, enhancing the political coordination capabilities of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Concurrently, the State General Accounting Office, part of the Ministry of the Treasury, has grown in importance and plays a crucial role in every decision with significant spending implications. The State General Accounting Office is considered one of the most competent administrations, with strong technical and analytical capabilities. In contrast, the PMO is characterized by a more diverse range of technical and analytical capabilities that are primarily based on a legal background.
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is regularly kept informed about policy proposals generated by line ministries. For proposals of particular political relevance to the government, the consultation process begins at the early stages of drafting and is more comprehensive, involving not only formal but also substantive issues. In fields less directly connected with the main missions of the government, exchanges are less intensive.
The process of co-drafting ministerial policies was strongly reinforced under the Draghi government due to the prime minister’s individual leadership. However, the Draghi government assigned the responsibility for coordinating and governing the policies for implementing the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) to the Ministry of the Treasury, considering it more technically equipped for this task. The Meloni government followed a similar approach, emphasizing strong political coordination of ministerial policies but transferring responsibility for the NRRP from the Treasury to the PMO under the direct oversight of the prime minister. The effects of this decision are not yet evident; however, it is suggested that it may render the NRRP implementation process less efficient due to the PMO’s limited technical and analytical capacities.
In summary, there is a trend toward vertical policy coordination, driven primarily by political factors. The bureaucratic aspect of coordination is less prominent. When there is no political focus on particular policies or programs, coordination tends to be weak, as the bureaucracy responds only reactively.
This organizational structure is further supported by the direct collaboration offices of ministers without portfolio, who coordinate the main PMO departments. The number of these offices varies depending on the president of the Council.
Over the past 30 years, since the crisis of the First Republic, two significant characteristics have emerged in decision-making coordination processes. Firstly, the role of the prime minister has become more influential, enhancing the political coordination capabilities of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Concurrently, the State General Accounting Office, part of the Ministry of the Treasury, has grown in importance and plays a crucial role in every decision with significant spending implications. The State General Accounting Office is considered one of the most competent administrations, with strong technical and analytical capabilities. In contrast, the PMO is characterized by a more diverse range of technical and analytical capabilities that are primarily based on a legal background.
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is regularly kept informed about policy proposals generated by line ministries. For proposals of particular political relevance to the government, the consultation process begins at the early stages of drafting and is more comprehensive, involving not only formal but also substantive issues. In fields less directly connected with the main missions of the government, exchanges are less intensive.
The process of co-drafting ministerial policies was strongly reinforced under the Draghi government due to the prime minister’s individual leadership. However, the Draghi government assigned the responsibility for coordinating and governing the policies for implementing the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) to the Ministry of the Treasury, considering it more technically equipped for this task. The Meloni government followed a similar approach, emphasizing strong political coordination of ministerial policies but transferring responsibility for the NRRP from the Treasury to the PMO under the direct oversight of the prime minister. The effects of this decision are not yet evident; however, it is suggested that it may render the NRRP implementation process less efficient due to the PMO’s limited technical and analytical capacities.
In summary, there is a trend toward vertical policy coordination, driven primarily by political factors. The bureaucratic aspect of coordination is less prominent. When there is no political focus on particular policies or programs, coordination tends to be weak, as the bureaucracy responds only reactively.
Citations:
on the organization and the staff of the PMO:
https://www.governo.it/it/organizzazione/uffici-dipartimenti-strutture/69
https://presidenza.governo.it/amministrazionetrasparente/personale/index.html
Capano, G., Cavalieri, A., and Pritoni, A. 2023. “Bureaucratic Policy Work and Analytical Capacities in Central Administrations in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain: The Results of a Comparative Survey.” International Review of Administrative Sciences, online first, August 1.
Cassese S., Melloni A., Pajno A., eds. 2022. I presidenti e la presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri nell’Italia repubblicana, Storia, politica, istituzioni. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Di Mascio, F., A. Natalini, and S. Profeti. 2022. “The Draghi Government Put to the Test by the National Recovery and Resilience Plan.” Contemporary Italian Politics 14 (4): 402-408.
on the organization and the staff of the PMO:
https://www.governo.it/it/organizzazione/uffici-dipartimenti-strutture/69
https://presidenza.governo.it/amministrazionetrasparente/personale/index.html
Capano, G., Cavalieri, A., and Pritoni, A. 2023. “Bureaucratic Policy Work and Analytical Capacities in Central Administrations in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain: The Results of a Comparative Survey.” International Review of Administrative Sciences, online first, August 1.
Cassese S., Melloni A., Pajno A., eds. 2022. I presidenti e la presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri nell’Italia repubblicana, Storia, politica, istituzioni. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Di Mascio, F., A. Natalini, and S. Profeti. 2022. “The Draghi Government Put to the Test by the National Recovery and Resilience Plan.” Contemporary Italian Politics 14 (4): 402-408.
Poland
In Poland, the prime minister’s office or Chancellery (Kancelaria Prezesa Rady Ministrów) typically evaluates policy proposals using a team of experts and advisers. The specifics of this group’s capacities, including personnel and financial resources, depend on budget allocations and government priorities.
Under Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, the office exerted centralized control over proposals prepared by line ministers, reflecting a broader trend toward bureaucratic centralization. Line ministries were required to involve the Chancellery in the preparation of policy proposals. The degree of involvement varied, but often included legal and technical assessments and consideration of programmatic aspects so as to ensure alignment with government priorities. These priorities were frequently coordinated by Jarosław Kaczyński, the head of the PiS party, rather than by Prime Minister Morawiecki. This was partly due to ongoing tension between Morawiecki and Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro.
Under the PiS government, the office consisted of various departments, but the crucial ones were the Government Work Programming Department and the Legislative Process Coordination Department. Regular meetings between the Chancellery and line ministries were common. These meetings served as a platform for briefings, updates and discussions on new developments that might impact policy proposal preparations. The frequency and depth of these interactions changed based on the nature and urgency of policy matters.
The budget of Prime Minister Morawiecki’s Chancellery grew immensely over the years. In 2021 – 2022, it increased from PLN 379.7 million to PLN 843.3 million, then doubled to PLN 1.54 billion. In 2024, it was planned to reach PLN 2 billion, which is 16 times more than the expenditures during the rule of the PO-PSL coalition in 2015 (Rzeczpospolita 2023).
Under Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, the office exerted centralized control over proposals prepared by line ministers, reflecting a broader trend toward bureaucratic centralization. Line ministries were required to involve the Chancellery in the preparation of policy proposals. The degree of involvement varied, but often included legal and technical assessments and consideration of programmatic aspects so as to ensure alignment with government priorities. These priorities were frequently coordinated by Jarosław Kaczyński, the head of the PiS party, rather than by Prime Minister Morawiecki. This was partly due to ongoing tension between Morawiecki and Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro.
Under the PiS government, the office consisted of various departments, but the crucial ones were the Government Work Programming Department and the Legislative Process Coordination Department. Regular meetings between the Chancellery and line ministries were common. These meetings served as a platform for briefings, updates and discussions on new developments that might impact policy proposal preparations. The frequency and depth of these interactions changed based on the nature and urgency of policy matters.
The budget of Prime Minister Morawiecki’s Chancellery grew immensely over the years. In 2021 – 2022, it increased from PLN 379.7 million to PLN 843.3 million, then doubled to PLN 1.54 billion. In 2024, it was planned to reach PLN 2 billion, which is 16 times more than the expenditures during the rule of the PO-PSL coalition in 2015 (Rzeczpospolita 2023).
Citations:
Rzeczpospolita. 2023. “U premiera Morawieckiego na bogato. Budżet jego kancelarii przebił sufit.” https://www.rp.pl/polityka/art39225341-u-premiera-morawieckiego-na-bogato-budzet-jego-kancelarii-przebil-sufit
Rzeczpospolita. 2023. “U premiera Morawieckiego na bogato. Budżet jego kancelarii przebił sufit.” https://www.rp.pl/polityka/art39225341-u-premiera-morawieckiego-na-bogato-budzet-jego-kancelarii-przebil-sufit
Portugal
Effective coordination within a government necessitates a degree of organic stability. Since its inauguration in March 2022, the XXIII Constitutional Government of Portugal, with an absolute majority from the Socialist Party, has experienced this firsthand. Its organizational framework was established in May 2022, as per Decreto Lei 32/2022. Despite some minor crises leading to changes in ministerial and secretarial positions in September 2022 (Decreto Lei 65/2022), January 2023 (Decreto Lei 7/2023), February 2023 (Decreto Lei 17/2023), and November 2023 (Decreto Lei 108-A/2023), the core government structure has remained relatively stable. This core includes the prime minister, the Prime Minister’s Office, and the prime minister’s secretaries of state for digitalization and administrative modernization and for European affairs, as well as the minister of the presidency of the Council of Ministers along with their secretaries of state for planning and for public administration. Notably, the secretaries of state under the prime minister and the minister of the presidency are most effective at ensuring cross-governmental coordination, particularly in areas like digitalization and public administration reform.
Formally, two collegiate bodies facilitate government coordination: the Council of Ministers and the regular meetings of the secretaries of state from various ministries. These weekly meetings, attended by a representative from each ministry, are crucial for aligning policies before they are submitted to the Council of Ministers.
Line ministers typically forward their legislative proposals to the minister of the presidency, followed by bilateral discussions to refine the proposals. These are then forwarded for approval in the Council of Ministers and, if necessary, to parliament.
Unlike regular briefings from line ministries, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) consistently receives updates on new developments that could influence the preparation of policy proposals.
In accordance with Decree-Law 21/2021, the establishment of the Public Administration’s Planning, Policy, and Foresight Competence Centre (PlanAPP) is integral for high-quality public action. PlanAPP’s mission is to align sectoral strategic planning with national plans through a cooperative network that shares knowledge, thereby enhancing policy coherence.
The prominence of the Ministry of Finance in the government structure is a testament to its pivotal role in addressing key issues such as economic growth, inflation, and fiscal sustainability.
Formally, two collegiate bodies facilitate government coordination: the Council of Ministers and the regular meetings of the secretaries of state from various ministries. These weekly meetings, attended by a representative from each ministry, are crucial for aligning policies before they are submitted to the Council of Ministers.
Line ministers typically forward their legislative proposals to the minister of the presidency, followed by bilateral discussions to refine the proposals. These are then forwarded for approval in the Council of Ministers and, if necessary, to parliament.
Unlike regular briefings from line ministries, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) consistently receives updates on new developments that could influence the preparation of policy proposals.
In accordance with Decree-Law 21/2021, the establishment of the Public Administration’s Planning, Policy, and Foresight Competence Centre (PlanAPP) is integral for high-quality public action. PlanAPP’s mission is to align sectoral strategic planning with national plans through a cooperative network that shares knowledge, thereby enhancing policy coherence.
The prominence of the Ministry of Finance in the government structure is a testament to its pivotal role in addressing key issues such as economic growth, inflation, and fiscal sustainability.
Citations:
Decreto-Lei no. 32/2022. Diário da República. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/32-2022-183159328
Decreto-Lei no. 65/2022. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/65-2022-201509739
Decreto no. 7/2023. Diário da República. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto/7-2023-213345453
Decreto no. 17/2023. Diário da República. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto/17-2023-215647912
Decreto-Lei no. 108-A/2023. Diário da República. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/108-a-2023-224661323
Decreto-Lei no. 21/2021. Diário da República. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/21-2021-159432384
Decreto-Lei no. 32/2022. Diário da República. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/32-2022-183159328
Decreto-Lei no. 65/2022. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/65-2022-201509739
Decreto no. 7/2023. Diário da República. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto/7-2023-213345453
Decreto no. 17/2023. Diário da República. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto/17-2023-215647912
Decreto-Lei no. 108-A/2023. Diário da República. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/108-a-2023-224661323
Decreto-Lei no. 21/2021. Diário da República. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/21-2021-159432384
UK
Although the prime minister holds a very powerful position in the UK system, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is relatively limited in its scope. In practice, the Cabinet Office fulfills this central role, coordinating effectively with teams for each line ministry. Additionally, the Treasury extends its remit beyond budgeting, providing a secondary coordination mechanism. However, the effectiveness of this coordination is sometimes called into question. The public inquiry into the governance of the pandemic, although not yet complete, is revealing significant incoherence at the heart of government. UK policy studies often describe this issue with phrases such as “incoherent state” (Richards et al. 2022) to indicate the lack of coordinated action within the government and across the public sector (summarized in Cairney and Kippin 2024). While the prime minister has considerable power to set specific priorities, this power does not extend to overall policy coordination.
Citations:
Richards, D., Warner, S., Smith, M.J., and Coyle, D. 2022. “Crisis and state.”
transformation: Covid-19, levelling up and the UK’s incoherent state,’ Cambridge
Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsac038
Cairney, P., and S. Kippin. 2024. Politics and Policymaking in the UK. Bristol: BUP.
Richards, D., Warner, S., Smith, M.J., and Coyle, D. 2022. “Crisis and state.”
transformation: Covid-19, levelling up and the UK’s incoherent state,’ Cambridge
Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsac038
Cairney, P., and S. Kippin. 2024. Politics and Policymaking in the UK. Bristol: BUP.
6
Austria
The Federal Chancellery can be considered the functional center within the Austrian political executive, responsible for coordinating the government’s various activities. However, it lacks the specialized personnel to function as a comprehensive strategy unit and has no authority to issue instructions to other ministries. The Chancellor’s Office focuses on coordinating line ministries’ activities rather than monitoring them, thus possessing limited capacity to evaluate the policy content of line ministry proposals against the government’s priorities.
Ultimately, these limitations are more political or constitutional than administrative. First, the federal chancellor, who chairs the cabinet, is only the first among equals (Binder 2016). He or she has no formal authority over the other members of the council (Müller 2003). Second, with the exception of the years between 1966 and 1983, Austria has been governed by coalitions since 1945. This further reduces the authority of the head of government, as another key member of the government – the vice-chancellor – is usually the leader of another coalition party. The result is a significant division, or indeed fragmentation, of strategic capacities. Responsibility within the government is distributed among highly autonomous ministers and among political parties that are closely linked by a coalition agreement but compete for votes independently. The Chancellor’s Office’s coordinative roles include overseeing the implementation of the coalition agreement.
The Federal Chancellery has a department called the Legal and Constitutional Service (Verfassungsdienst), which is responsible for checking the constitutionality of policy proposals from various ministries, rather than providing functional coordination.
Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (2017 – 2019; 2019 – 2021) introduced several major reforms to enhance the chancellery’s functional strategic potential as the government’s central hub. However, most changes concerned the public relations and outreach functions of the chancellery rather than the relations between the chancellery and individual government departments, with the exception of political communication issues. Possibly more important in terms of policy-related strategy was a newly formed strategic unit or think tank called “Think Austria.” This unit was, however, dissolved under Chancellor Nehammer (in office since late 2021) (Der Standard 2022).
Nehammer added several senior positions to his staff (to serve from 2024). However, it is unclear to what extent this step was motivated by a desire to strengthen the coordination capacities of the chancellery. The opposition criticized Nehammer, suggesting he was instead making “reward appointments” for loyal supporters (Der Standard, 31 October 2023).
Ultimately, these limitations are more political or constitutional than administrative. First, the federal chancellor, who chairs the cabinet, is only the first among equals (Binder 2016). He or she has no formal authority over the other members of the council (Müller 2003). Second, with the exception of the years between 1966 and 1983, Austria has been governed by coalitions since 1945. This further reduces the authority of the head of government, as another key member of the government – the vice-chancellor – is usually the leader of another coalition party. The result is a significant division, or indeed fragmentation, of strategic capacities. Responsibility within the government is distributed among highly autonomous ministers and among political parties that are closely linked by a coalition agreement but compete for votes independently. The Chancellor’s Office’s coordinative roles include overseeing the implementation of the coalition agreement.
The Federal Chancellery has a department called the Legal and Constitutional Service (Verfassungsdienst), which is responsible for checking the constitutionality of policy proposals from various ministries, rather than providing functional coordination.
Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (2017 – 2019; 2019 – 2021) introduced several major reforms to enhance the chancellery’s functional strategic potential as the government’s central hub. However, most changes concerned the public relations and outreach functions of the chancellery rather than the relations between the chancellery and individual government departments, with the exception of political communication issues. Possibly more important in terms of policy-related strategy was a newly formed strategic unit or think tank called “Think Austria.” This unit was, however, dissolved under Chancellor Nehammer (in office since late 2021) (Der Standard 2022).
Nehammer added several senior positions to his staff (to serve from 2024). However, it is unclear to what extent this step was motivated by a desire to strengthen the coordination capacities of the chancellery. The opposition criticized Nehammer, suggesting he was instead making “reward appointments” for loyal supporters (Der Standard, 31 October 2023).
Citations:
https://www.parlament.gv.at/aktuelles/pk/jahr_2018/pk0401
Binder, Andreas Franz. 2016. Die Richtlinienkompetenz des österreichischen Bundeskanzlers.
gibt es sie doch?; Diplomarbeit zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
Magister der Rechtswissenschaften, Johannes-Keppler-Universität Linz.
Müller, Wolfgang C. 2003. “Tight Coalitions and Stable Government.” In Wolfgang C. Müller and Kaare Strom, eds., Coalition Governments in Western Europe, 86-125. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000193273/spoe-kritisiert-neue-top-jobs-im-kanzleramt
Der Standard. 2022. “Nehammer löste Kurz’ umstrittenen Thinktank auf.” Available at https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000133232281/nehammer-loeste-kurz-umstrittenen-think-tank-auf
https://www.kleinezeitung.at/politik/innenpolitik/6048669/Neustart-gefordert_80-Medienleute-im-Kanzleramt-aber-immer-weniger
https://www.parlament.gv.at/aktuelles/pk/jahr_2018/pk0401
Binder, Andreas Franz. 2016. Die Richtlinienkompetenz des österreichischen Bundeskanzlers.
gibt es sie doch?; Diplomarbeit zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
Magister der Rechtswissenschaften, Johannes-Keppler-Universität Linz.
Müller, Wolfgang C. 2003. “Tight Coalitions and Stable Government.” In Wolfgang C. Müller and Kaare Strom, eds., Coalition Governments in Western Europe, 86-125. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000193273/spoe-kritisiert-neue-top-jobs-im-kanzleramt
Der Standard. 2022. “Nehammer löste Kurz’ umstrittenen Thinktank auf.” Available at https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000133232281/nehammer-loeste-kurz-umstrittenen-think-tank-auf
https://www.kleinezeitung.at/politik/innenpolitik/6048669/Neustart-gefordert_80-Medienleute-im-Kanzleramt-aber-immer-weniger
Ireland
Interministerial coordination in Ireland falls under the remit of the Prime Minister’s Office, the Department of the Taoiseach (DoT). Established in 1977 with around 30 staff, the office has now grown to more than 240 employees. The Taoiseach’s office deals with both legislative and expenditure proposals, focusing on delivering the program for government. It liaises with the president and both houses of the Oireachtas (parliament) through the Parliamentary Liaison Unit and coordinates legislative and expenditure proposals with other departmental ministries and the Office of the Attorney General. Coordination between various departments is primarily achieved through the cabinet committee structure, managed by the cabinet committee for interministerial coordination.
Parliamentary committees – Standing, Joint, Selectand Special – can be either departmental (shadowing governmental departments) or thematic (e.g., European affairs or public petitions), such as the Committee of Public Accounts or the Committee of Budgetary Oversight. These committees are essential for oversight, providing a point of contact for submissions of proposals and evidence, and facilitating discussions where stakeholders are invited. Despite improvements in oversight and resourcing, significant challenges to policy coherence remain in Irish policymaking for sustainable development and climate action. These challenges involve complexity across adjacent systems, requiring strong thematic integration across policy silos, which is critical for effective policy coherence in Ireland’s horizontal coordination (Torney and O’Mahony, 2023). Irish policy for sustainable development and climate action is widely recognized as being strongly siloed, exacerbated by the problem of “silos within silos” (Torney and O’Mahony 2023; Flynn and Ó hUiginn 2019; Banerjee et al., 2020; EPA 2020; Mullally and Dunphy 2015).
Parliamentary committees – Standing, Joint, Selectand Special – can be either departmental (shadowing governmental departments) or thematic (e.g., European affairs or public petitions), such as the Committee of Public Accounts or the Committee of Budgetary Oversight. These committees are essential for oversight, providing a point of contact for submissions of proposals and evidence, and facilitating discussions where stakeholders are invited. Despite improvements in oversight and resourcing, significant challenges to policy coherence remain in Irish policymaking for sustainable development and climate action. These challenges involve complexity across adjacent systems, requiring strong thematic integration across policy silos, which is critical for effective policy coherence in Ireland’s horizontal coordination (Torney and O’Mahony, 2023). Irish policy for sustainable development and climate action is widely recognized as being strongly siloed, exacerbated by the problem of “silos within silos” (Torney and O’Mahony 2023; Flynn and Ó hUiginn 2019; Banerjee et al., 2020; EPA 2020; Mullally and Dunphy 2015).
Citations:
House Of the Oireachtas. 2023. “About Committees.” https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/committees/about-committees/
Department of the Taoiseach. 2023. “https://www.gov.ie/civil-service-accountability-consultation-process/”
Banerjee, A. et al. 2020. “Perceptions of Multistakeholder Partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study of Irish Non-State Actors.” Sustainability 12 (21): 8872. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218872
EPA. 2020. “Ireland’s Environment: An Integrated Assessment 2020.” https://www.epa.ie/publications/monitoring–assessment/assessment/state-of-the-environment/EPA_Irelands_Environment_2020.pdf
Flynn, B., and Ó hUiginn, P. 2019. Environmental Policy Integration: Innovation and Change. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.ie/publications/research/socio-economics/Research_Report_290.pdf
Torney, D., and O’Mahony, T. 2023. “Transforming Governance and Policy.” Volume 4 of Irish Climate Change Assessment. https://www.epa.ie/publications/monitoring–assessment/climate-change/ICCA_Volume-4.pdf
Mullally, G., and N. Dunphy. 2015. “State of Play Review of Environmental Policy Integration Literature.” NESC Research Series Paper No. 7. National Economic and Social Council. http://files.nesc.ie/nesc_research_series/Research_Series_Paper_7_UCC.pdf
House Of the Oireachtas. 2023. “About Committees.” https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/committees/about-committees/
Department of the Taoiseach. 2023. “https://www.gov.ie/civil-service-accountability-consultation-process/”
Banerjee, A. et al. 2020. “Perceptions of Multistakeholder Partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study of Irish Non-State Actors.” Sustainability 12 (21): 8872. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218872
EPA. 2020. “Ireland’s Environment: An Integrated Assessment 2020.” https://www.epa.ie/publications/monitoring–assessment/assessment/state-of-the-environment/EPA_Irelands_Environment_2020.pdf
Flynn, B., and Ó hUiginn, P. 2019. Environmental Policy Integration: Innovation and Change. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.ie/publications/research/socio-economics/Research_Report_290.pdf
Torney, D., and O’Mahony, T. 2023. “Transforming Governance and Policy.” Volume 4 of Irish Climate Change Assessment. https://www.epa.ie/publications/monitoring–assessment/climate-change/ICCA_Volume-4.pdf
Mullally, G., and N. Dunphy. 2015. “State of Play Review of Environmental Policy Integration Literature.” NESC Research Series Paper No. 7. National Economic and Social Council. http://files.nesc.ie/nesc_research_series/Research_Series_Paper_7_UCC.pdf
Netherlands
The Dutch prime minister is formally responsible for coordinating government policy as a whole, and possesses a range of powers. These include deciding on the agenda and formulating conclusions and decisions for the Council of Ministers, chairing its meetings and committees, adjudicating interdepartmental conflicts, serving as the primary press spokesperson, speaking in the States General, and representing the Netherlands in international forums such as the European Union and the United Nations. The prime minister also oversees all affairs concerning the Royal House.
The prime minister’s Ministry of General Affairs includes 10-12 advising councilors (raadadviseurs, with junior assistants) who are top-level civil servants rather than political appointees. These councilors serve as secretaries of the cabinet sub-councils and committees, controlling the flow of information to the prime minister. Additionally, the prime minister maintains a special relationship with the Scientific Council for Government Policy. Directors of planning agencies and permanent knowledge institutes sometimes act as secretaries for interdepartmental “front gates.” Despite these resources, the Prime Minister’s Office has a limited capacity to evaluate the policy content of proposals from line ministries unless they openly conflict with the government platform (regeerakkoord). Prime Minister Rutte’s style reportedly allowed sectoral ministers considerable scope for action, reflecting the small size of the Prime Minister’s Office:
Line ministries typically involve the prime minister in the development of legislation, and coalition formations formally end with a constitutive meeting at which all ministers sign the coalition agreement and take joint responsibility for its implementation. To promote unity in spokesmanship among ministers, a set of principles for the cabinet’s communication policy has been developed. The prime minister is the primary spokesperson for the cabinet, especially on unresolved issues and those requiring collective political support.
Briefings between the prime minister and line ministries occur during weekly Council of Ministers meetings, usually held on Fridays at the Ministry of General Affairs. Additional meetings can be convened whenever the prime minister or at least two other ministers deem it necessary. For efficient decision-making, proposals for the cabinet are first submitted to a sub-council. The prime minister chairs all sub-councils and ministerial committees, each with a fixed composition of ministers and state secretaries.
This meticulous coordination mechanism relies on the political willingness to cooperate and mutual trust. In the Rutte IV cabinet, both factors were missing from the start. The prime minister’s involvement in the childcare benefit affair resulted in distrust and resistance to his leadership. Additionally, the VVD and Christian Democrats did not trust their D66 and Christian Union coalition partners, perceiving them as being too proactive in climate change, circular economy transition and nitrogen reduction policies, while migration policy also remained a significant point of contention. After less than two years, the prime minister deliberately violated coalition conduct rules by threatening a coalition break and calling for an open vote in a plenary Council of Ministers meeting, leading to the government’s collapse.
The prime minister’s Ministry of General Affairs includes 10-12 advising councilors (raadadviseurs, with junior assistants) who are top-level civil servants rather than political appointees. These councilors serve as secretaries of the cabinet sub-councils and committees, controlling the flow of information to the prime minister. Additionally, the prime minister maintains a special relationship with the Scientific Council for Government Policy. Directors of planning agencies and permanent knowledge institutes sometimes act as secretaries for interdepartmental “front gates.” Despite these resources, the Prime Minister’s Office has a limited capacity to evaluate the policy content of proposals from line ministries unless they openly conflict with the government platform (regeerakkoord). Prime Minister Rutte’s style reportedly allowed sectoral ministers considerable scope for action, reflecting the small size of the Prime Minister’s Office:
Line ministries typically involve the prime minister in the development of legislation, and coalition formations formally end with a constitutive meeting at which all ministers sign the coalition agreement and take joint responsibility for its implementation. To promote unity in spokesmanship among ministers, a set of principles for the cabinet’s communication policy has been developed. The prime minister is the primary spokesperson for the cabinet, especially on unresolved issues and those requiring collective political support.
Briefings between the prime minister and line ministries occur during weekly Council of Ministers meetings, usually held on Fridays at the Ministry of General Affairs. Additional meetings can be convened whenever the prime minister or at least two other ministers deem it necessary. For efficient decision-making, proposals for the cabinet are first submitted to a sub-council. The prime minister chairs all sub-councils and ministerial committees, each with a fixed composition of ministers and state secretaries.
This meticulous coordination mechanism relies on the political willingness to cooperate and mutual trust. In the Rutte IV cabinet, both factors were missing from the start. The prime minister’s involvement in the childcare benefit affair resulted in distrust and resistance to his leadership. Additionally, the VVD and Christian Democrats did not trust their D66 and Christian Union coalition partners, perceiving them as being too proactive in climate change, circular economy transition and nitrogen reduction policies, while migration policy also remained a significant point of contention. After less than two years, the prime minister deliberately violated coalition conduct rules by threatening a coalition break and calling for an open vote in a plenary Council of Ministers meeting, leading to the government’s collapse.
Citations:
G. Buitendijk, Seccretaris-Genraal. n.d. Introductiedossier. Kennismaking met de organisatie van AZ.
Bekkers. 2021. “Algemene Zaken, de kleine spin in het web.” Binnenlands Bestuur, March 30.
Joustra, T., and P. Van Venetiç. 1993. De geheimen van het torentje. Praktische gids voor het premierschap.
NRC. 2023. “De gang van zaken van de afgelopen dagen kan op het Binnenhof diepe sporen nalaten.” NRC, July 8.
G. Buitendijk, Seccretaris-Genraal. n.d. Introductiedossier. Kennismaking met de organisatie van AZ.
Bekkers. 2021. “Algemene Zaken, de kleine spin in het web.” Binnenlands Bestuur, March 30.
Joustra, T., and P. Van Venetiç. 1993. De geheimen van het torentje. Praktische gids voor het premierschap.
NRC. 2023. “De gang van zaken van de afgelopen dagen kan op het Binnenhof diepe sporen nalaten.” NRC, July 8.
USA
The closest comparison to a government office or prime minister’s office in the U.S. system is the White House staff, along with other units of the Executive Office of the President (e.g., the Council of Economic Advisers, the Office of Management and Budget, and the National Security Council).
In the U.S. system, coordination involves how the executive departments and agencies engage the president and the White House staff in their work. Long-established practice, however, shows that the president and the White House staff are dominant within the executive branch, allowing them to prioritize issues that align with the president’s agenda. During the Trump administration, agency policy development was heavily influenced by Trump’s desire to cut regulations and reverse actions taken by the Obama administration, with little focus on long-term agency missions or priorities. Upon entering the White House, President Biden took steps to rebuild federal departments and agencies by hiring a large number of senior officials to address the “talent exodus” (Zhao and Lippman, 2021) that occurred during the Trump years.
In the U.S. system, coordination involves how the executive departments and agencies engage the president and the White House staff in their work. Long-established practice, however, shows that the president and the White House staff are dominant within the executive branch, allowing them to prioritize issues that align with the president’s agenda. During the Trump administration, agency policy development was heavily influenced by Trump’s desire to cut regulations and reverse actions taken by the Obama administration, with little focus on long-term agency missions or priorities. Upon entering the White House, President Biden took steps to rebuild federal departments and agencies by hiring a large number of senior officials to address the “talent exodus” (Zhao and Lippman, 2021) that occurred during the Trump years.
Coordination mechanisms between line ministries and the GO/PMO, aimed at enhancing policy coherence, are only somewhat functional.
5
Israel
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is responsible for coordinating between departments, monitoring and coordinating the preparation of annual plans, and overseeing the implementation of cabinet decisions (Galnoor 2010). The general director of the PMO chairs many of the interministerial committees aimed at developing and implementing interministerial programs.
Ministers do not need to obtain consent from the PMO for their proposals. However, if they want to introduce a cabinet decision, the prime minister must agree to place the decision on the cabinet’s agenda. The PMO does not hold meetings with ministers to hear about their proposals. The PMO can receive information on proposals either when they are introduced to the cabinet or if they pertain to committees chaired by the PMO general director. Otherwise, ministers are not required to submit their plans to the PMO.
The PMO has several departments responsible for coordination and planning. Until recently, the PMO was seen by the line ministries as a powerful entity capable of promoting interministerial projects. However, over the past two years, many officials in the PMO have either left or been replaced by individuals who are less professional and more partisan. Additionally, the general director of the PMO – the person responsible for coordinating all the ministries – is currently a loyalist who lacks the necessary skills and experience for the position, especially when compared to previous general directors. As a result, the PMO has become weaker. This was evident following October 7, as the government failed to respond to mounting social and economic needs, and coordinate between government departments.
At the same time, the void left by the absence of a powerful PMO has been filled by the Ministry of Finance. Almost all proposals need to be reviewed by the Ministry of Finance. The ministry often uses its power to modify proposals even if they do not have financial implications. In addition, the ministry often drafts many of the ministerial legislative proposals as part of the Arrangements Law introduced with the annual budget (Kosti 2021). Hence, for line ministers to promote their policies, they often need the approval of the Ministry of Finance.
Ministers do not need to obtain consent from the PMO for their proposals. However, if they want to introduce a cabinet decision, the prime minister must agree to place the decision on the cabinet’s agenda. The PMO does not hold meetings with ministers to hear about their proposals. The PMO can receive information on proposals either when they are introduced to the cabinet or if they pertain to committees chaired by the PMO general director. Otherwise, ministers are not required to submit their plans to the PMO.
The PMO has several departments responsible for coordination and planning. Until recently, the PMO was seen by the line ministries as a powerful entity capable of promoting interministerial projects. However, over the past two years, many officials in the PMO have either left or been replaced by individuals who are less professional and more partisan. Additionally, the general director of the PMO – the person responsible for coordinating all the ministries – is currently a loyalist who lacks the necessary skills and experience for the position, especially when compared to previous general directors. As a result, the PMO has become weaker. This was evident following October 7, as the government failed to respond to mounting social and economic needs, and coordinate between government departments.
At the same time, the void left by the absence of a powerful PMO has been filled by the Ministry of Finance. Almost all proposals need to be reviewed by the Ministry of Finance. The ministry often uses its power to modify proposals even if they do not have financial implications. In addition, the ministry often drafts many of the ministerial legislative proposals as part of the Arrangements Law introduced with the annual budget (Kosti 2021). Hence, for line ministers to promote their policies, they often need the approval of the Ministry of Finance.
Citations:
Galnoor, I. 2010. Public Management in Israel. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203844960
Kosti, N. 2021. “Centralization via Delegation: The Long-Term Implications of the Israeli Arrangements Laws.” In I. Bar-Siman-Tov, eds., Comparative Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Omnibus Legislation 8: 73–94. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72748-2_4
Galnoor, I. 2010. Public Management in Israel. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203844960
Kosti, N. 2021. “Centralization via Delegation: The Long-Term Implications of the Israeli Arrangements Laws.” In I. Bar-Siman-Tov, eds., Comparative Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Omnibus Legislation 8: 73–94. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72748-2_4
4
---
---
3
Slovakia
The European Semester 2022 country report on Slovakia is critical of horizontal coordination (European Commission, 2022: 9): “The low capacity of the public administration is a serious bottleneck for investments and reforms. The lack of human resource management, effective governance, and coordination across areas such as administration, justice, services to people and businesses, and research and innovation often results in delayed or only partial implementation of reforms. The limited capacity of the Government Office to evaluate policy proposals from line ministries and to ensure they are aligned with the government’s overall priorities is one of the reasons for such evaluation.”
The specialized body within the Government Office regularly involved in assessing government-sponsored draft bills is the Legislative Council of the Government of the Slovak Republic. The statute of this council defines its main responsibilities as follows:
- Coordinating and directing the activities of ministries and other central state bodies; reporting on the preparation of draft laws and government regulations.
- Discussing and assessing drafts of constitutional laws, laws, government regulations, proposals, legislative intentions, and parliamentary bills when the chairman of the Slovak National Council requests the government’s opinion on these proposals and international treaties, which take precedence over laws;
- Preparing opinions for government deliberations on draft constitutional laws, laws, and regulations of the government, as well as on legislative proposals and parliamentary bills if the chairman of the National Council of the Slovak Republic requests the government’s opinion on these proposals, and by drafting international agreements that take precedence over law.
However, since assessing draft laws and regulations is the main function of this body, its opportunity to coordinate government policies and influence policy proposal preparations is minimal.
The specialized body within the Government Office regularly involved in assessing government-sponsored draft bills is the Legislative Council of the Government of the Slovak Republic. The statute of this council defines its main responsibilities as follows:
- Coordinating and directing the activities of ministries and other central state bodies; reporting on the preparation of draft laws and government regulations.
- Discussing and assessing drafts of constitutional laws, laws, government regulations, proposals, legislative intentions, and parliamentary bills when the chairman of the Slovak National Council requests the government’s opinion on these proposals and international treaties, which take precedence over laws;
- Preparing opinions for government deliberations on draft constitutional laws, laws, and regulations of the government, as well as on legislative proposals and parliamentary bills if the chairman of the National Council of the Slovak Republic requests the government’s opinion on these proposals, and by drafting international agreements that take precedence over law.
However, since assessing draft laws and regulations is the main function of this body, its opportunity to coordinate government policies and influence policy proposal preparations is minimal.
Citations:
European Commission. 2022. Country Report – Slovakia. Brussels: European Commission.
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-05/2022-european-semester-country-report-slovakia_en.pdf
https://www.vlada.gov.sk/legislativna-rada-vlady-sr/
European Commission. 2022. Country Report – Slovakia. Brussels: European Commission.
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-05/2022-european-semester-country-report-slovakia_en.pdf
https://www.vlada.gov.sk/legislativna-rada-vlady-sr/
Coordination mechanisms between line ministries and the GO/PMO, aimed at enhancing policy coherence, are not at all functional.
2
---
---
1
---
---