To what extent are there positive (formalized) forms of coordination across ministries that aim to enhance policy coherence?
Interministerial coordination mechanisms targeting policy coherence provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities.
10
---
---
9
Australia
Government agencies in Australia have well-established practices for creating working groups to foster inter-agency cooperation on cross-domain challenges, such as cybersecurity. These groups often include external actors for additional input. For example, recent cybersecurity reforms stress coordination involving multiple federal departments – Home Affairs, Defence, Australian Signals Directorate, Foreign Affairs, and Attorney General’s – along with state governments and industry in a whole-of-nation effort to protect against cyber threats (Department of Home Affairs 2023). Regular movement across the public service, including secondments, facilitates knowledge-sharing. Many departments send staff to common training programs at institutions like the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG), supporting a common perspective on policy approaches.
Citations:
Department of Home Affairs. 2023. “Cyber security: Our partners.” Australian Government Department of Home Affairs https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/cyber-security/our-partners
Department of Home Affairs. 2023. “Cyber security: Our partners.” Australian Government Department of Home Affairs https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/cyber-security/our-partners
Finland
The guiding rule in Finland is that each ministry is responsible for preparing issues that fall within its mandate and for ensuring the proper functioning of the administration. Given this framework, line ministries are expected to involve the Prime Minister’s Office in their policy preparations, rather than the other way around. In practice, the patterns of interaction are not fixed.
Policy programs and other intersectoral matters in the cabinet program concern the Prime Minister’s Office as well as the ministries, and efforts must be coordinated. The government’s analysis, assessment and research activities that support policymaking across the ministries are coordinated by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Because decision-making is collective and consensual, ministry attempts to place items on the cabinet’s agenda without involving the Prime Minister’s Office will fail. The tradition of broad-based coalitions necessarily amalgamates ideological antagonisms, thereby mitigating fragmentation along ministerial and sectoral lines. The PMO is responsible for interadministration coordination in special areas, such as Arctic collaboration.
Ministerial committees effectively prepare for cabinet meetings. The government has four statutory ministerial committees: the Ministerial Committee on Foreign and Security Policy – which meets with the president when pressing issues arise – the Ministerial Committee on European Union Affairs, the Ministerial Finance Committee and the Ministerial Committee on Economic Policy. Additionally, ad hoc ministerial committees can be appointed by the government’s plenary session. All these committees are chaired by the prime minister, who also chairs sessions of the Economic Council, the Research and Innovation Council, and the Title Board. Furthermore, there are several ministerial working groups. The primary task of these committees and groups is to prepare for cabinet meetings by fostering consensus between relevant ministries and interests. Overall, a large majority of issues are reviewed first by cabinet committees and working groups.
Interministerial coordination is facilitated by digital technologies such as IT programs and platforms, as well as digital information systems. These tools are widely used. Additionally, work-related incentives such as job rotation with the GO/PMO or job-sharing are available at all hierarchical levels to encourage civil servants to exchange information actively across ministerial boundaries in their daily work. The formal pre-consultation procedures provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities rather than focusing on incompatibilities with other policies (negative coordination).
Policy programs and other intersectoral matters in the cabinet program concern the Prime Minister’s Office as well as the ministries, and efforts must be coordinated. The government’s analysis, assessment and research activities that support policymaking across the ministries are coordinated by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Because decision-making is collective and consensual, ministry attempts to place items on the cabinet’s agenda without involving the Prime Minister’s Office will fail. The tradition of broad-based coalitions necessarily amalgamates ideological antagonisms, thereby mitigating fragmentation along ministerial and sectoral lines. The PMO is responsible for interadministration coordination in special areas, such as Arctic collaboration.
Ministerial committees effectively prepare for cabinet meetings. The government has four statutory ministerial committees: the Ministerial Committee on Foreign and Security Policy – which meets with the president when pressing issues arise – the Ministerial Committee on European Union Affairs, the Ministerial Finance Committee and the Ministerial Committee on Economic Policy. Additionally, ad hoc ministerial committees can be appointed by the government’s plenary session. All these committees are chaired by the prime minister, who also chairs sessions of the Economic Council, the Research and Innovation Council, and the Title Board. Furthermore, there are several ministerial working groups. The primary task of these committees and groups is to prepare for cabinet meetings by fostering consensus between relevant ministries and interests. Overall, a large majority of issues are reviewed first by cabinet committees and working groups.
Interministerial coordination is facilitated by digital technologies such as IT programs and platforms, as well as digital information systems. These tools are widely used. Additionally, work-related incentives such as job rotation with the GO/PMO or job-sharing are available at all hierarchical levels to encourage civil servants to exchange information actively across ministerial boundaries in their daily work. The formal pre-consultation procedures provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities rather than focusing on incompatibilities with other policies (negative coordination).
Citations:
Interadministration coordination. https://vnk.fi/en/inter-administrative-cooperation
Interadministration coordination. https://vnk.fi/en/inter-administrative-cooperation
Interministerial coordination mechanisms targeting policy coherence sometimes provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities.
8
Denmark
There is a strong tradition of so-called ministerial rule (ministerstyre). Each minister is in charge of a specific area, but the cabinet operates as a collective unit, and is expected to maintain a single policy focus, directed by the prime minister.
Overall responsibility is coordinated through special committees. The most important is the government coordination committee, which meets weekly and plays a crucial role, especially for coalition governments. Other committees include the committee on economic affairs, the security committee and the appointments committee. There is also a tradition of two-day government seminars once or twice per year where important government issues are discussed. Finally, ad hoc committees are routinely formed within ministries when new legislation is being prepared.
To become the permanent secretary, the highest civil servant in a ministry, candidates are now required to have leadership experience from an agency within a different ministry. This relatively new requirement is intended to ensure that top civil servants possess broad knowledge of the public sector. Moreover, it is believed to improve the understanding of implementation issues among the upper levels of ministerial hierarchies.
Overall responsibility is coordinated through special committees. The most important is the government coordination committee, which meets weekly and plays a crucial role, especially for coalition governments. Other committees include the committee on economic affairs, the security committee and the appointments committee. There is also a tradition of two-day government seminars once or twice per year where important government issues are discussed. Finally, ad hoc committees are routinely formed within ministries when new legislation is being prepared.
To become the permanent secretary, the highest civil servant in a ministry, candidates are now required to have leadership experience from an agency within a different ministry. This relatively new requirement is intended to ensure that top civil servants possess broad knowledge of the public sector. Moreover, it is believed to improve the understanding of implementation issues among the upper levels of ministerial hierarchies.
Estonia
The Government Office (GO) and prime minister’s support structures primarily provide consulting services, monitor governmental processes and provide technical (judicial) expertise. De facto, the GO’s and prime minister’s capacity to undertake substantial evaluations of line-ministry proposals is limited due to the efficiency aims, inflexibility and highly siloed nature of the administrative system (Elbrecht 2023). Hence, the supporting structures of government in Estonia are mainly located in the line ministries.
The need to improve governance policy innovation capacity and quality management, as well as to pursue holistic approaches, has long been a concern. There has been considerable demand for such state reform. One element of this state reform aims to improve the coherence of governance by merging executive agencies with overlapping functions and strengthening the Prime Minister’s Office.
Currently, Estonia does not have a cabinet committee structure within the government or any ministerial committee tsked with fostering pre-consultations and synergies between ministries. Recently, however, steps have been taken to enhance cooperation and embrace a whole-of-government governance approach. These steps include granting the prime minister more power in strategic planning, initiating interministerial programs and increasing flexibility in recruiting personnel for interministerial units.
At the ministry level, procedures for coordinating policy proposals are set by national government rules. According to these rules, all relevant ministries must be consulted and involved in a consensus-building process before an amendment or policy proposal can be presented to the government. Additionally, senior civil servants from various ministries consult and inform each other about upcoming proposals. Deputy secretaries general play a key role in this informal consultation process.
The entire consultation process is managed via an online system for draft laws, the Information System for Legal Drafts (Eelnõude infosüsteem, EIS). The EIS allows users to search documents currently under consideration, participate in public consultations and submit comments on draft bills. Policymaking and policy monitoring are further supported by an interoperable data exchange platform called X-Road, an integrated system facilitating data exchange between different organizations and information systems. However, this has been criticized as a passive minimum that rarely generates qualitative and useful insights for suggestions.
As a result, Estonia’s Digital Agenda 2030 targets the development of an interinstitutional data governance and data science competence center, as well as the expansion of the usage of the administrative system for technical services and of the state information system databases. One of the sub-aims is also to improve the participatory element in the EIS, a pilot of which is already underway.
The need to improve governance policy innovation capacity and quality management, as well as to pursue holistic approaches, has long been a concern. There has been considerable demand for such state reform. One element of this state reform aims to improve the coherence of governance by merging executive agencies with overlapping functions and strengthening the Prime Minister’s Office.
Currently, Estonia does not have a cabinet committee structure within the government or any ministerial committee tsked with fostering pre-consultations and synergies between ministries. Recently, however, steps have been taken to enhance cooperation and embrace a whole-of-government governance approach. These steps include granting the prime minister more power in strategic planning, initiating interministerial programs and increasing flexibility in recruiting personnel for interministerial units.
At the ministry level, procedures for coordinating policy proposals are set by national government rules. According to these rules, all relevant ministries must be consulted and involved in a consensus-building process before an amendment or policy proposal can be presented to the government. Additionally, senior civil servants from various ministries consult and inform each other about upcoming proposals. Deputy secretaries general play a key role in this informal consultation process.
The entire consultation process is managed via an online system for draft laws, the Information System for Legal Drafts (Eelnõude infosüsteem, EIS). The EIS allows users to search documents currently under consideration, participate in public consultations and submit comments on draft bills. Policymaking and policy monitoring are further supported by an interoperable data exchange platform called X-Road, an integrated system facilitating data exchange between different organizations and information systems. However, this has been criticized as a passive minimum that rarely generates qualitative and useful insights for suggestions.
As a result, Estonia’s Digital Agenda 2030 targets the development of an interinstitutional data governance and data science competence center, as well as the expansion of the usage of the administrative system for technical services and of the state information system databases. One of the sub-aims is also to improve the participatory element in the EIS, a pilot of which is already underway.
Citations:
Elbrecht, G. 2023. “Riigireformist ja riigivalitsemise tulevikust (About State Reform and the Future of State Governance in Estonia).” Riigikogu Toimetised 48. https://rito.riigikogu.ee/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/81-94_Fookus-Elbrecht.pdf
Elbrecht, G. 2023. “Riigireformist ja riigivalitsemise tulevikust (About State Reform and the Future of State Governance in Estonia).” Riigikogu Toimetised 48. https://rito.riigikogu.ee/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/81-94_Fookus-Elbrecht.pdf
Lithuania
Regular interministerial coordination forums such as interinstitutional meetings allow chancellors from line ministries and vice ministers to discuss policy initiatives and align the positions of different ministries before these polices are adopted by the government. These forums sometimes provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities for policy coherence among various ministries.
Additionally, a network of chief scientific officers in line ministries was established in 2023 to facilitate interministerial coordination in the field of innovation. It is too early to evaluate its effectiveness.
Despite formal arrangements, interministerial coordination tends to be rather weak in practice, especially among civil servants and on issues overlapping several policy areas. Typical issues include addressing skill mismatches and bottlenecks in labor market regulation. Another area in which interministerial coordination is lacking is in reducing the regulatory and administrative burden for businesses.
The positions on draft EU legal initiatives are debated within the Governmental European Union Commission, which includes vice ministers from line ministries, the vice-chancellor of the government and the permanent representative at the EU. This commission typically adopts the national position before EU Council meetings, which the government then approves with minimal substantial debate. For example, during the term of the current coalition government, formed at the end of 2020, only one EU-related policy issue – the Fit for 55 package – was debated in substance at a government meeting. The LINESIS digital system is used to coordinate the positions of different line ministries on draft EU initiatives in real time.
Additionally, a network of chief scientific officers in line ministries was established in 2023 to facilitate interministerial coordination in the field of innovation. It is too early to evaluate its effectiveness.
Despite formal arrangements, interministerial coordination tends to be rather weak in practice, especially among civil servants and on issues overlapping several policy areas. Typical issues include addressing skill mismatches and bottlenecks in labor market regulation. Another area in which interministerial coordination is lacking is in reducing the regulatory and administrative burden for businesses.
The positions on draft EU legal initiatives are debated within the Governmental European Union Commission, which includes vice ministers from line ministries, the vice-chancellor of the government and the permanent representative at the EU. This commission typically adopts the national position before EU Council meetings, which the government then approves with minimal substantial debate. For example, during the term of the current coalition government, formed at the end of 2020, only one EU-related policy issue – the Fit for 55 package – was debated in substance at a government meeting. The LINESIS digital system is used to coordinate the positions of different line ministries on draft EU initiatives in real time.
New Zealand
There are several mechanisms and practices that contribute to fostering positive coordination across ministries to enhance policy coherence and effectiveness.
The primary formalized coordination mechanisms include interministerial working groups, which consist of representatives from various ministries and agencies and are established to address specific policy areas or projects; officials committees, which comprise senior officials from different ministries and are tasked with advising ministers on policy matters; and cabinet committees, which are formed to focus on specific policy areas, and include relevant ministers and senior officials. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) also plays a central role in coordinating government policies, ensuring that policies align with the government’s priorities and providing advice with the goal of improving policy coherence.
Various digital technologies and information systems facilitate collaboration, information-sharing and efficiency across ministries. Examples include shared digital platforms, intranets and online collaboration tools. In 2020, the portfolio of minister for the digital economy and communication was created. The government chief digital officer (GCDO) leads the development and improvement of digital infrastructure across the government. The GCDO is supported by the Digital Government Leadership Group, a partnership of stakeholders from various agencies aiming to create a coherent, all-of-government digital system. This group assists the GCDO and the government chief data steward (GCDS) in developing and improving the digital and data systems across the government, ensures alignment with the government ICT strategy, and reviews and informs the strategy (New Zealand Government n.d.). However, it remains unclear how effective the use of digital technologies is, particularly regarding interministerial coordination.
Formal pre-consultation procedures are designed to encourage the identification of synergies and opportunities among policies rather than solely emphasizing incompatibilities (negative coordination) with other policies. In particular, pre-consultation procedures require ministries preparing a policy proposal to consult not only other affected ministries, but also the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Treasury, and the Public Service Commission. Early engagement with relevant ministries and other stakeholders allows for discussions of potential synergies and areas of alignment, encouraging proactive identification of opportunities for policy integration.
Over time, New Zealand has witnessed an increasing number of cross-agency initiatives coordinated by a single line agency but involving numerous others to address “wicked” problems. One of these is the Joint Venture on Family and Sexual Violence, housed within the Ministry of Justice, but coordinated across 10 agencies (MOJ 2022).
The primary formalized coordination mechanisms include interministerial working groups, which consist of representatives from various ministries and agencies and are established to address specific policy areas or projects; officials committees, which comprise senior officials from different ministries and are tasked with advising ministers on policy matters; and cabinet committees, which are formed to focus on specific policy areas, and include relevant ministers and senior officials. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) also plays a central role in coordinating government policies, ensuring that policies align with the government’s priorities and providing advice with the goal of improving policy coherence.
Various digital technologies and information systems facilitate collaboration, information-sharing and efficiency across ministries. Examples include shared digital platforms, intranets and online collaboration tools. In 2020, the portfolio of minister for the digital economy and communication was created. The government chief digital officer (GCDO) leads the development and improvement of digital infrastructure across the government. The GCDO is supported by the Digital Government Leadership Group, a partnership of stakeholders from various agencies aiming to create a coherent, all-of-government digital system. This group assists the GCDO and the government chief data steward (GCDS) in developing and improving the digital and data systems across the government, ensures alignment with the government ICT strategy, and reviews and informs the strategy (New Zealand Government n.d.). However, it remains unclear how effective the use of digital technologies is, particularly regarding interministerial coordination.
Formal pre-consultation procedures are designed to encourage the identification of synergies and opportunities among policies rather than solely emphasizing incompatibilities (negative coordination) with other policies. In particular, pre-consultation procedures require ministries preparing a policy proposal to consult not only other affected ministries, but also the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Treasury, and the Public Service Commission. Early engagement with relevant ministries and other stakeholders allows for discussions of potential synergies and areas of alignment, encouraging proactive identification of opportunities for policy integration.
Over time, New Zealand has witnessed an increasing number of cross-agency initiatives coordinated by a single line agency but involving numerous others to address “wicked” problems. One of these is the Joint Venture on Family and Sexual Violence, housed within the Ministry of Justice, but coordinated across 10 agencies (MOJ 2022).
Citations:
MOJ. 2022. “Ministry of Justice.” https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/news/joint-venture-adopts-new-name-te-puna-aonui/
New Zealand Government. n.d. “Digital Government: Leadership.” https://www.digital.govt.nz/digital-government/leadership/
MOJ. 2022. “Ministry of Justice.” https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/news/joint-venture-adopts-new-name-te-puna-aonui/
New Zealand Government. n.d. “Digital Government: Leadership.” https://www.digital.govt.nz/digital-government/leadership/
7
Austria
There are formally established interministerial coordination mechanisms within the Austrian political executive. However, these structures or mechanisms are confined to specific areas, such as gender issues or youth issues. In some cases, it is subjective to determine whether existing structures should be considered formal or informal mechanisms (on the latter, see G1.3).
Arguably, the most prominent and important formal structure in the field of interministerial coordination is the Interministerial Working Group on Gender Mainstreaming/Budgeting, chaired by the federal minister for women, family, integration, and media in the Federal Chancellor’s Office. This group supports the process of implementing gender mainstreaming – accomplishing gender parity in all relevant areas – and gender budgeting across all government departments and governance levels.
The body’s tasks include organizing information exchange, examining best-practice examples from individual departments and abroad, and developing and evaluating current projects and laws concerning the adoption of central gender mainstreaming goals. Members of this working group include representatives from all government departments, the courts, the Austrian Ombudsman Board (Volksanwaltschaft), the Court of Audit, and parliament, as well as the trade union for public services and the states (Länder) (Schieder and Schmidt 2023).
Austria does not have a notable tradition of formalized digitized interministerial coordination, or if it does, little is known about it. However, much like in other countries, the coronavirus pandemic acted as a significant digitalization catalyst. Since early 2020, Austrian ministers and ministries have used Zoom and other digital formats to host regular interministerial exchanges. With some exceptions, there generally exists a high degree of informal interministerial coordination at the level of civil servants.
Arguably, the most prominent and important formal structure in the field of interministerial coordination is the Interministerial Working Group on Gender Mainstreaming/Budgeting, chaired by the federal minister for women, family, integration, and media in the Federal Chancellor’s Office. This group supports the process of implementing gender mainstreaming – accomplishing gender parity in all relevant areas – and gender budgeting across all government departments and governance levels.
The body’s tasks include organizing information exchange, examining best-practice examples from individual departments and abroad, and developing and evaluating current projects and laws concerning the adoption of central gender mainstreaming goals. Members of this working group include representatives from all government departments, the courts, the Austrian Ombudsman Board (Volksanwaltschaft), the Court of Audit, and parliament, as well as the trade union for public services and the states (Länder) (Schieder and Schmidt 2023).
Austria does not have a notable tradition of formalized digitized interministerial coordination, or if it does, little is known about it. However, much like in other countries, the coronavirus pandemic acted as a significant digitalization catalyst. Since early 2020, Austrian ministers and ministries have used Zoom and other digital formats to host regular interministerial exchanges. With some exceptions, there generally exists a high degree of informal interministerial coordination at the level of civil servants.
Citations:
https://www.imag-gmb.at/arbeitsgruppe/interministerielle-arbeitsgruppe.html#:~:text=Die%20Interministerielle%20Arbeitsgruppe%20ist%20ein,des%20f%C3%BCr%20Frauenangelegenheiten%20zust%C3%A4ndigen%20Regierungsmitglieds
Wojtarowicz, Natalie, and David M. Herold. 2014. “Coordination Practices in Federal Government: The Case of Integration Policy in Austria.” Journal of Economic & Social Policy 16 (2): 210-232.
Schieder, Sandra, and Colette M. Schmidt. 2023. “Inside Ministerrat: Ein Blick hinter die Kulissen eines wöchentlichen Regierungsrituals.” Der Standard, October 4.
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000186930/inside-ministerrat-ein-blick-hinter-die-kulissen-eines-woechentlichen-regierungsrituals
https://www.imag-gmb.at/arbeitsgruppe/interministerielle-arbeitsgruppe.html#:~:text=Die%20Interministerielle%20Arbeitsgruppe%20ist%20ein,des%20f%C3%BCr%20Frauenangelegenheiten%20zust%C3%A4ndigen%20Regierungsmitglieds
Wojtarowicz, Natalie, and David M. Herold. 2014. “Coordination Practices in Federal Government: The Case of Integration Policy in Austria.” Journal of Economic & Social Policy 16 (2): 210-232.
Schieder, Sandra, and Colette M. Schmidt. 2023. “Inside Ministerrat: Ein Blick hinter die Kulissen eines wöchentlichen Regierungsrituals.” Der Standard, October 4.
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000186930/inside-ministerrat-ein-blick-hinter-die-kulissen-eines-woechentlichen-regierungsrituals
Belgium
At the federal level, Belgium, like many OECD countries, allows internal mobility for civil servants, including senior levels, but this is neither promoted nor expected (OECD 2023). This can become a problem when ministries lose responsibilities. For instance, when the single market was created, Belgium had an excess supply of customs officers. Instead of reskilling them for other ministries, many remained in their original administration. Furthermore, Belgium has yet to adopt the approach of formulating learning plans for the majority or entirety of its public sector employees (OECD 2023).
As detailed in “Effective Coordination Mechanisms of the GO/PMO,” coordination between ministers is necessary to table a proposal. However, this does not prevent a single minister from using their own administration to develop a proposal unbeknownst to ministers from other parties and revealing it at a later stage. To limit this, experts close to another party are typically embedded in the minister’s team.
Concerning digitalization, the Federal Public Service for Information & Communication Technology (FEDICT) is responsible for defining and implementing an e-governance strategy. However, this agency primarily focuses on government-to-citizen (G2C) and government-to-business (G2B) communication, while government-to-government (G2G) interactions are largely overlooked. Although cooperation and coordination are improving within each government level, the federal structure hinders the sharing of a single IT architecture across government levels. Each level is responsible for its digital infrastructure.
However, Belgium fares comparatively well internationally. The U.N. E-Government Survey 2022 ranked Belgium among the countries with a “very high” e-government development index.
As detailed in “Effective Coordination Mechanisms of the GO/PMO,” coordination between ministers is necessary to table a proposal. However, this does not prevent a single minister from using their own administration to develop a proposal unbeknownst to ministers from other parties and revealing it at a later stage. To limit this, experts close to another party are typically embedded in the minister’s team.
Concerning digitalization, the Federal Public Service for Information & Communication Technology (FEDICT) is responsible for defining and implementing an e-governance strategy. However, this agency primarily focuses on government-to-citizen (G2C) and government-to-business (G2B) communication, while government-to-government (G2G) interactions are largely overlooked. Although cooperation and coordination are improving within each government level, the federal structure hinders the sharing of a single IT architecture across government levels. Each level is responsible for its digital infrastructure.
However, Belgium fares comparatively well internationally. The U.N. E-Government Survey 2022 ranked Belgium among the countries with a “very high” e-government development index.
Citations:
OECD. 2023. “Belgium | Country Notes | OECD Government at a Glance.” https://www.oecd.org/publication/government-at-a-glance/2023/country-notes/belgium-054f6923/
http://www.premier.be/fr/conseil-des-ministres
Structuur van de Vlaamse overheid | Vlaanderen.be : https://www.vlaanderen.be/structuur-van-de-vlaamse-overheid#q-06c38c8d-d3ea-4577-ac6f-b52c5672dc25
Opdrachten | FOD Kanselarij van de Eerste Minister (belgium.be): https://www.kanselarij.belgium.be/nl/opdrachten
Arrete Royal du 22/02/2017 arrete royal portant creation du service public federal strategie et appui. 2017. openjustice.be. https://etaamb.openjustice.be/fr/arrete-royal-du-22-fevrier-2017_n2017010836
G-Cloud – Home (belgium.be) : https://www.gcloud.belgium.be/nl/home
https://infocenter.belgium.be/fr/statistiques/spf-technologie-de-l-information-et-de-la-communication
https://d9db56472fd41226d193-1e5e0d4b7948acaf6080b0dce0b35ed5.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/events/forum/2004/panel_handouts/fedict.pdf
https://digitaldashboard.belgium.be/fr
http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN97453.pdf
United Nations. 2022. “E-Government Survey 2022: The Future of Digital Government.” https://desapublications.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/2022-09/Web%20version%20E-Government%202022.pdf
OECD. 2023. “Belgium | Country Notes | OECD Government at a Glance.” https://www.oecd.org/publication/government-at-a-glance/2023/country-notes/belgium-054f6923/
http://www.premier.be/fr/conseil-des-ministres
Structuur van de Vlaamse overheid | Vlaanderen.be : https://www.vlaanderen.be/structuur-van-de-vlaamse-overheid#q-06c38c8d-d3ea-4577-ac6f-b52c5672dc25
Opdrachten | FOD Kanselarij van de Eerste Minister (belgium.be): https://www.kanselarij.belgium.be/nl/opdrachten
Arrete Royal du 22/02/2017 arrete royal portant creation du service public federal strategie et appui. 2017. openjustice.be. https://etaamb.openjustice.be/fr/arrete-royal-du-22-fevrier-2017_n2017010836
G-Cloud – Home (belgium.be) : https://www.gcloud.belgium.be/nl/home
https://infocenter.belgium.be/fr/statistiques/spf-technologie-de-l-information-et-de-la-communication
https://d9db56472fd41226d193-1e5e0d4b7948acaf6080b0dce0b35ed5.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/events/forum/2004/panel_handouts/fedict.pdf
https://digitaldashboard.belgium.be/fr
http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN97453.pdf
United Nations. 2022. “E-Government Survey 2022: The Future of Digital Government.” https://desapublications.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/2022-09/Web%20version%20E-Government%202022.pdf
Canada
Many interdepartmental committees exist to coordinate ministerial activities. Some work better than others (Canadian Heritage 2021).
Draft bills are vetted primarily by the Privy Council Office and, to a lesser extent, by Finance Canada and the Treasury Board. These central agencies are crucial for a proposal to advance to senior levels within the federal public service. Central-agency staff members typically possess the expertise needed for the regular and independent evaluation of draft bills based on the government’s strategic and budgetary priorities.
Line departments and central agencies have different capacities for coordinating policy proposals since ultimate authority lies with central agencies like the PCO and the Treasury Board. Financing of policy initiatives and program design are vetted by Finance Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat, respectively.
Many policy proposals are coordinated by line ministries with other line ministries. In the past, cabinet committees facilitated this interdepartmental coordination. However, in the modern era, the power to resolve issues before they reach the cabinet lies with the Privy Council Office and often the Prime Minister’s Office.
Department-to-department processes are generally not as effective as central agency coordination. On certain issues, a line department may be unwilling to recognize the role or expertise of other line departments, or it may have fundamental differences in perspectives on the issue. As a result, the department may fail to consult sufficiently or
Coordinate a policy proposal with others, requiring Treasury Board, PCO, or PMO intervention (French 1980).
For policy proposals advancing to the cabinet, line departments must undertake the necessary consultations to ensure the proposal has been circulated and considered by other relevant ministries. Central agencies, however, still perform a critical oversight and steering role in this process.
Deputies meet regularly to discuss issues, policies, and programs under development. Frequently, when new policies are being developed, steering committees are formed involving several departments and led by senior officials. This often precedes the interministerial consultations that the PCO requires. Additionally, there is a rotation of personnel among posts to enhance collaboration and knowledge in other mandate areas. This rotation includes not only senior officials but also mid-range managers and operational personnel.
Draft bills are vetted primarily by the Privy Council Office and, to a lesser extent, by Finance Canada and the Treasury Board. These central agencies are crucial for a proposal to advance to senior levels within the federal public service. Central-agency staff members typically possess the expertise needed for the regular and independent evaluation of draft bills based on the government’s strategic and budgetary priorities.
Line departments and central agencies have different capacities for coordinating policy proposals since ultimate authority lies with central agencies like the PCO and the Treasury Board. Financing of policy initiatives and program design are vetted by Finance Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat, respectively.
Many policy proposals are coordinated by line ministries with other line ministries. In the past, cabinet committees facilitated this interdepartmental coordination. However, in the modern era, the power to resolve issues before they reach the cabinet lies with the Privy Council Office and often the Prime Minister’s Office.
Department-to-department processes are generally not as effective as central agency coordination. On certain issues, a line department may be unwilling to recognize the role or expertise of other line departments, or it may have fundamental differences in perspectives on the issue. As a result, the department may fail to consult sufficiently or
Coordinate a policy proposal with others, requiring Treasury Board, PCO, or PMO intervention (French 1980).
For policy proposals advancing to the cabinet, line departments must undertake the necessary consultations to ensure the proposal has been circulated and considered by other relevant ministries. Central agencies, however, still perform a critical oversight and steering role in this process.
Deputies meet regularly to discuss issues, policies, and programs under development. Frequently, when new policies are being developed, steering committees are formed involving several departments and led by senior officials. This often precedes the interministerial consultations that the PCO requires. Additionally, there is a rotation of personnel among posts to enhance collaboration and knowledge in other mandate areas. This rotation includes not only senior officials but also mid-range managers and operational personnel.
Citations:
Canadian Heritage. 2021. “Evaluation of Interdepartmental Coordination (in Relation to Section 42 of the Official Languages Act) 2013-14 to 2017-18.” https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/corporate/publications/evaluations/official-languages-interdepartmental-coordination.html
French, R. 1980. How Ottawa Decides: Planning and Industrial Policy-Making 1968-1980. Toronto: Lorimer.
Canadian Heritage. 2021. “Evaluation of Interdepartmental Coordination (in Relation to Section 42 of the Official Languages Act) 2013-14 to 2017-18.” https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/corporate/publications/evaluations/official-languages-interdepartmental-coordination.html
French, R. 1980. How Ottawa Decides: Planning and Industrial Policy-Making 1968-1980. Toronto: Lorimer.
Czechia
The government’s legislative plan divides tasks among ministries and other central bodies of the state administration, setting deadlines for submitting bills to the cabinet. Task allocation is transparent. Some horizontal coordination among line-ministry civil servants occurs. Senior ministry officials play a crucial role in collecting and discussing comments on proposed legislation. However, barriers persist among the ministries, particularly between line ministries controlled by different political parties.
The decision-making process also involves various interministerial groups or councils formally established under a specific ministry, in which various other ministries are represented. These groups may submit material during the preparatory process for government meetings and participate in the interministerial comment procedure. The councils provide advice prior to decision-making on various topics, but their powers are limited to making recommendations. For example, the Council on Sustainable Development, under the Ministry of the Environment, has 42 members, including representatives of the Government Office, 15 ministries, and outside interests such as NGOs, trade unions, employers’ organizations, and various individual experts.
The decision-making process also involves various interministerial groups or councils formally established under a specific ministry, in which various other ministries are represented. These groups may submit material during the preparatory process for government meetings and participate in the interministerial comment procedure. The councils provide advice prior to decision-making on various topics, but their powers are limited to making recommendations. For example, the Council on Sustainable Development, under the Ministry of the Environment, has 42 members, including representatives of the Government Office, 15 ministries, and outside interests such as NGOs, trade unions, employers’ organizations, and various individual experts.
France
If a line ministry wishes to get its proposals accepted or passed, it must liaise and coordinate with other ministries or agencies involved in the area of this legislation. If this consultation has not taken place, objections expressed by other ministers or by the Council of State might serve to kill a project. All ministries are equal, but some are more equal than others: For example, the finance minister is a crucial and indispensable actor consulted on virtually all projects. Usually, the coordination and consultation processes are placed under the responsibility of a “rapporteur” – usually a lawyer from the ministerial bureaucracy (which is also in charge of arguing for and defending the draft bill before the Council of State, whose intervention is crucial even beyond the purely legal point of view). The dossier is always followed by a member of the minister’s staff who communicates with his counterparts and tries to smooth the process as much as possible.
France is doing comparatively well in terms of digital government, according to a recent OECD (2020) study. Overall, the country receives above-average scores and is ranked 10th among the OECD countries, outperforming countries including Estonia, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. Several digital information platforms have been built, but have had only mixed success (Cabut et al. 2022).
In 2011, an interministerial Directorate for State Information Systems and Communication was established. In 2014, to strengthen its capacity to steer and influence the sectoral administrations, the directorate was placed under the authority of the prime minister. A further impulse has been given to the directorate by the Macron administration’s emphasis on the technological revolution. In parallel, a report of the Court of Accounts, in support of past actions, recommended a major effort to improve investment and personnel training. The new secretariat is building on these actions with a view to providing users with a single identification number that would provide access to all public services. Several experiences have already been quite successful. For example, the digitalization of tax declarations, processes and payments has been so successful that for most taxpayers, the use of printed documents is no longer possible. Various efforts to improve coordination between administrations have been implemented. For instance, public procurement processes that involve several administrations have been streamlined, and private companies can access the system using their registration number. Nonetheless, exchanges of information across minister portfolios still need to be more systematic.
In general, it is still quite often the case that governmental “couac” (i.e., mixed signals) happens, with ministries trying to push an initiative without prior clear consultation within the government. Marlène Schiappa, former secretary of state for gender equality, was thus nicknamed “Madam Controversy” before she finally resigned.
France is doing comparatively well in terms of digital government, according to a recent OECD (2020) study. Overall, the country receives above-average scores and is ranked 10th among the OECD countries, outperforming countries including Estonia, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. Several digital information platforms have been built, but have had only mixed success (Cabut et al. 2022).
In 2011, an interministerial Directorate for State Information Systems and Communication was established. In 2014, to strengthen its capacity to steer and influence the sectoral administrations, the directorate was placed under the authority of the prime minister. A further impulse has been given to the directorate by the Macron administration’s emphasis on the technological revolution. In parallel, a report of the Court of Accounts, in support of past actions, recommended a major effort to improve investment and personnel training. The new secretariat is building on these actions with a view to providing users with a single identification number that would provide access to all public services. Several experiences have already been quite successful. For example, the digitalization of tax declarations, processes and payments has been so successful that for most taxpayers, the use of printed documents is no longer possible. Various efforts to improve coordination between administrations have been implemented. For instance, public procurement processes that involve several administrations have been streamlined, and private companies can access the system using their registration number. Nonetheless, exchanges of information across minister portfolios still need to be more systematic.
In general, it is still quite often the case that governmental “couac” (i.e., mixed signals) happens, with ministries trying to push an initiative without prior clear consultation within the government. Marlène Schiappa, former secretary of state for gender equality, was thus nicknamed “Madam Controversy” before she finally resigned.
Citations:
Cabut, S., Piquard, A., and Untersinger, M. 2022. “Controversé et retardé, le Health Data Hub veut pourtant faire ses preuves dans la santé.” Le Monde, January 26.
OECD. 2020. “OECD Digital Government Index (DGI) 2019.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government-index-4de9f5bb-en.htm
Cabut, S., Piquard, A., and Untersinger, M. 2022. “Controversé et retardé, le Health Data Hub veut pourtant faire ses preuves dans la santé.” Le Monde, January 26.
OECD. 2020. “OECD Digital Government Index (DGI) 2019.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government-index-4de9f5bb-en.htm
Germany
Policy proposals often affect the responsibilities of several line ministries and require coordination. The German ministerial bureaucracy provides some incentives and established mechanisms for coordination across ministries. However, in most cases, one line ministry leads a policy proposal, and coordination with other ministries is secondary. Given the political differences among the three coalition partners of the Traffic Light Coalition, tensions and power struggles between line ministries have regularly occurred in the policymaking process.
Interministerial working groups exist at all hierarchical levels, though their permanence and formalization vary.
Digital coordination and digital administration are explicit goals of German governance. Although intranets and digital platforms for interministerial exchanges are in use, digital administration has not yet reached its full potential. According to the “Digital Check” implemented by the Bundestag in 2022 and performed yearly by the Norm Control Council (NKR), there is ample room for improvement in development, utilization, and education related to digital coordination tools (“Digitalcheck,” 2023).
In accordance with the “Rotationsbeschluss,” a decision by the government in 1995, regular exchanges of employees between the chancellery and the line ministries are encouraged and mandatory. This is an established practice in both agencies (Busse and Hofmann, 2019). Often, employees who have completed a stint at the chancellery are later promoted to make use of their increased oversight and experience, providing incentives for job rotation and encouraging information exchanges across ministerial boundaries.
According to the GGO (Gemeinsame Geschäftsordnung der Bundesministerien), line ministries are required to cooperate and coordinate on policy designs before presenting them in the federal cabinet. However, this process is usually not enforced (“Gemeinsame Geschäftsordnung der Bundesministerien,” 2020).
Political practice and precedent ensure that ministries generally avoid making proposals that might be blocked by other ministries and that conflicts between ministries are often resolved before cabinet meetings. Policy proposals in specific areas cannot be made without the involvement of the responsible ministry, such as budgetary decisions, which must involve the Federal Ministry of Finance. However, the Traffic Light Coalition and their respective ministries often clash on topics where party lines do not align, occasionally resulting in public conflict and conflicting policy proposals reaching the media. This has, in some cases, mitigated fluidity in coordination. The root of these issues lies more in party politics than in organizational structure.
Interministerial working groups exist at all hierarchical levels, though their permanence and formalization vary.
Digital coordination and digital administration are explicit goals of German governance. Although intranets and digital platforms for interministerial exchanges are in use, digital administration has not yet reached its full potential. According to the “Digital Check” implemented by the Bundestag in 2022 and performed yearly by the Norm Control Council (NKR), there is ample room for improvement in development, utilization, and education related to digital coordination tools (“Digitalcheck,” 2023).
In accordance with the “Rotationsbeschluss,” a decision by the government in 1995, regular exchanges of employees between the chancellery and the line ministries are encouraged and mandatory. This is an established practice in both agencies (Busse and Hofmann, 2019). Often, employees who have completed a stint at the chancellery are later promoted to make use of their increased oversight and experience, providing incentives for job rotation and encouraging information exchanges across ministerial boundaries.
According to the GGO (Gemeinsame Geschäftsordnung der Bundesministerien), line ministries are required to cooperate and coordinate on policy designs before presenting them in the federal cabinet. However, this process is usually not enforced (“Gemeinsame Geschäftsordnung der Bundesministerien,” 2020).
Political practice and precedent ensure that ministries generally avoid making proposals that might be blocked by other ministries and that conflicts between ministries are often resolved before cabinet meetings. Policy proposals in specific areas cannot be made without the involvement of the responsible ministry, such as budgetary decisions, which must involve the Federal Ministry of Finance. However, the Traffic Light Coalition and their respective ministries often clash on topics where party lines do not align, occasionally resulting in public conflict and conflicting policy proposals reaching the media. This has, in some cases, mitigated fluidity in coordination. The root of these issues lies more in party politics than in organizational structure.
Citations:
Busse, V., and H. Hofmann. 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
Gemeinsame Geschäftsordnung der Bundesministerien. 2020. www.verwaltungsvorschriften-im-internet.de/bsvwvbund_21072009_O11313012.htm
Busse, V., and H. Hofmann. 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
Gemeinsame Geschäftsordnung der Bundesministerien. 2020. www.verwaltungsvorschriften-im-internet.de/bsvwvbund_21072009_O11313012.htm
Greece
Coordination within the ministerial bureaucracy, which was somewhat inconsistent in the past, has been improved since the government reorganization in 2019. In each line ministry, a “Coordination Service” unit has been established, staffed by permanent civil servants. Their role is to ensure regular communication and interaction between the ministry and the Presidency of the Government. As a result, the Presidency of the Government receives regular updates from line ministries on policy matters. The Presidency itself is well-staffed, well-resourced, and utilizes modern management methods and digital technologies.
Horizontal coordination also takes place through interministerial committees, most of which are formed to address specific tasks, such as responding to crises caused by natural disasters. However, there are two permanent committees: the Government Council on National Security (KYSEA), which selects the heads of the armed forces and formulates defense and security policy, and the Government Council on Economic Policy (KYSOIP), which formulates and reviews key economic policies.
For minor policy implementation issues, civil servants frequently exchange information across ministerial boundaries. However, for more significant issues, they must escalate information and proposals through their ministry’s hierarchical structure before further collaboration with other ministries can occur. It is typically the top staff of each ministry (“General and Special Secretaries,” “Service Secretaries,” and “Directors General”) who identify synergies and opportunities for coordination.
Due to the strict control and streamlined coordination exercised by the Presidency of the Government, it is extremely rare for ministers to be surprised by initiatives taken by their colleagues in other ministries.
Horizontal coordination also takes place through interministerial committees, most of which are formed to address specific tasks, such as responding to crises caused by natural disasters. However, there are two permanent committees: the Government Council on National Security (KYSEA), which selects the heads of the armed forces and formulates defense and security policy, and the Government Council on Economic Policy (KYSOIP), which formulates and reviews key economic policies.
For minor policy implementation issues, civil servants frequently exchange information across ministerial boundaries. However, for more significant issues, they must escalate information and proposals through their ministry’s hierarchical structure before further collaboration with other ministries can occur. It is typically the top staff of each ministry (“General and Special Secretaries,” “Service Secretaries,” and “Directors General”) who identify synergies and opportunities for coordination.
Due to the strict control and streamlined coordination exercised by the Presidency of the Government, it is extremely rare for ministers to be surprised by initiatives taken by their colleagues in other ministries.
Citations:
For the KYSOIP council, see https://gslegal.gov.gr/?page_id=4587
For the KYSEA council, see https://www.primeminister.gr/governance/collective-bodies
The Coordination Services, found in each ministry, are regulated by Law 4622/2019 (article 38).
In 2015-2019 there were additional interministerial councils. They covered three policy areas: social policy, migration policy, and national communication policy. They were convened infrequently and remained largely inactive.
For the KYSOIP council, see https://gslegal.gov.gr/?page_id=4587
For the KYSEA council, see https://www.primeminister.gr/governance/collective-bodies
The Coordination Services, found in each ministry, are regulated by Law 4622/2019 (article 38).
In 2015-2019 there were additional interministerial councils. They covered three policy areas: social policy, migration policy, and national communication policy. They were convened infrequently and remained largely inactive.
Hungary
Under the present government, the number of ministries has increased to a more adequate number of 14, compared to the relatively low number in previous terms. This shift necessitates the replacement of intraministerial coordination with interministerial coordination. The Orbán governments have occasionally set up cabinet committees. However, these committees have to date played a subordinate role in interministerial coordination, primarily because of the limited number of ministries and the strong coordination from above. In the current parliamentary term, there are four cabinets: an economic cabinet; a strategy cabinet (a mixed shop); a cabinet on “nation-policy” (nemzetpolitika) dealing with state-church relations, national minorities and questions of the Hungarian nation such as citizenship; and a national security cabinet (defense council). In the Hungarian system, vertical coordination is stronger than horizontal coordination. Most horizontal conflicts arise when certain responsibilities are moved from one ministry to another or when new ministries are established. For example, the supervision of secret services was transferred from the Ministry of Interior to the Prime Minister’s Cabinet Office in 2022. Another instance is the establishment of the Ministry of Construction and Transport, led by a highly conflict-seeking minister (János Lázár). The political impetus stemming from the prime minister’s convictions is highly prioritized, and the line ministries are executors of this political will. Consequently, skirmishes between ministries about policy options and sectoral interests are rare. Still, the pivotal role of the Prime Minister’s Office has sometimes resulted in it becoming a bottleneck in policymaking.
Italy
The bureaucratic aspect of policy formulation at the centralized national level remains a concealed process, insufficiently examined by scholars. Here are the main features of the bureaucratic side of policy formulation from a formal point of view:
Interministerial committees: Various interministerial committees are responsible for exchanging information, evidence-based opinions, and ideas to advise the government on specific draft policy solutions. The most important committees deal with economic and financial matters, including the Interministerial Committee on Credit and Savings, the Committee for the Planning and Coordination of Financial Education Initiatives, the Committee on Accounting Principles, and the Interministerial Committee on Economic Planning.
Use of information technology: The use of IT in interministerial coordination has increased following COVID-19, though it remains insufficient for drafting policy texts.
Lack of organizational incentives: There is no significant organizational or structural incentive to coordinate.
Pre-consultation practices: Pre-consultation among ministerial offices is routinely conducted before cabinet meetings in the “Pre-consiglio” (Pre-cabinet) under the aegis of the DAGL (Department for Legal and Legislative Matters of the Presidency of the Council). The head of DAGL is a powerful figure in the administrative dimension of the cabinet and holds a political role due to a direct link with the president of the Council. The Ministry of the Treasury also serves as the central point of reference for any pre-consultation activity.
Overall, the use of information technology in drafting policy texts is insufficient, and positive coordination is less widespread than it should be. Effective coordination depends on the proactive roles of the Treasury or the PMO. It is important to note that many crucial issues are effectively handled through consultations between a few ministers and their ministerial cabinets before being brought to the Council of Ministers or deferred to this procedure after a preliminary discussion in the council. These consultations usually involve the treasury.
Interministerial committees: Various interministerial committees are responsible for exchanging information, evidence-based opinions, and ideas to advise the government on specific draft policy solutions. The most important committees deal with economic and financial matters, including the Interministerial Committee on Credit and Savings, the Committee for the Planning and Coordination of Financial Education Initiatives, the Committee on Accounting Principles, and the Interministerial Committee on Economic Planning.
Use of information technology: The use of IT in interministerial coordination has increased following COVID-19, though it remains insufficient for drafting policy texts.
Lack of organizational incentives: There is no significant organizational or structural incentive to coordinate.
Pre-consultation practices: Pre-consultation among ministerial offices is routinely conducted before cabinet meetings in the “Pre-consiglio” (Pre-cabinet) under the aegis of the DAGL (Department for Legal and Legislative Matters of the Presidency of the Council). The head of DAGL is a powerful figure in the administrative dimension of the cabinet and holds a political role due to a direct link with the president of the Council. The Ministry of the Treasury also serves as the central point of reference for any pre-consultation activity.
Overall, the use of information technology in drafting policy texts is insufficient, and positive coordination is less widespread than it should be. Effective coordination depends on the proactive roles of the Treasury or the PMO. It is important to note that many crucial issues are effectively handled through consultations between a few ministers and their ministerial cabinets before being brought to the Council of Ministers or deferred to this procedure after a preliminary discussion in the council. These consultations usually involve the treasury.
Citations:
Piccirilli, G. 2022. “Lo (scarso) impiego delle nuove tecnologie da parte del Governo nella redazione degli atti.” Osservatorio sulle Fonti no. 2: 311-320.
REV: on the functions of DAGL see: https://presidenza.governo.it/DAGL/index.html
Piccirilli, G. 2022. “Lo (scarso) impiego delle nuove tecnologie da parte del Governo nella redazione degli atti.” Osservatorio sulle Fonti no. 2: 311-320.
REV: on the functions of DAGL see: https://presidenza.governo.it/DAGL/index.html
Latvia
In March 2023 the State Chancellery absorbed the Cross-Sectoral Coordination Center, unifying essential functions like long-term policy development, modernization of public administration, and inter-sectoral coordination under a single team. The reorganization aims to reinforce the State Chancellery’s role as a pivotal government hub, bolstering its analytical power to aid the prime minister and the government in policy formulation, design and implementation.
Modifications to Cabinet Regulation No 606 laid the groundwork for thematic cabinet committees. Established by a prime minister’s decree, the committees will focus on specific areas and predefined action plans, necessitating collaborative efforts from various line ministries. The prime minister or an appointed minister will lead these committees, comprising other ministers or officials. The committees, set to convene on Wednesdays, will deliberate on both agreed and non-agreed draft legislation, potentially proposing new drafts based on their decisions.
Presently, three thematic committees are dedicated to Digital Modernization, Strategic Management, and Energy, Environment, and Climate.
A webpage, the TAP portal, was launched in autumn 2021 and implemented across the government starting Sept. 9, 2021. It has digitalized the cabinet’s operations, including task assignments, legislative drafting, approval, and electronic signatures. Ministers can remotely participate in cabinet meetings, submit drafts, vote, and sign documents from any location with internet access. The portal serves as a comprehensive platform to track the progress of projects, from public engagement to cabinet adoption, and facilitates public participation in policymaking. It has significantly automated processes, reducing manual tasks in the line ministries. Over 800 projects have been directed to public involvement through the portal (Valsts Kanceleja, 2023).
In 2022, the “Development of a Single Service Center for Public Administration in Latvia” project was launched to provide a digitalized, standardized, and more efficiently managed system for public administration accounting and human resource management. The Single Service Center will be the new agency operating on standardized processes, with the necessary infrastructure and information system solutions to provide accounting and human resources management services for public administration.
The TAP portal offers both public users and bureaucrats access to view the tasks assigned to various ministries. It serves as a platform where they can prepare and review opinions from other ministries on draft laws or other documents that necessitate agreement from multiple ministries. This feature enhances transparency and collaboration across different governmental departments.
The timeframe given to ministries for providing opinions on draft laws or other significant documents is often too short, making it challenging for them to comply within the set deadlines. This time constraint can negatively impact the thoroughness and quality of the feedback or opinions provided by the ministries.
Latvia’s policy-planning system is well established, limiting individual ministries’ ability to push through initiatives without debate with other ministries. All new policy initiatives are discussed within the government, even if these debates are brief.
In governmental operations, various interministerial collaborations have been established to address critical areas such as enhancing human capital for the labor market and coordinating climate policies. These collaborative efforts are crucial for cohesive and effective policy development and implementation. Additionally, there is provision for online participation in thematic committees of the Cabinet of Ministers, allowing for broader and more flexible involvement and facilitating easier access and contribution to governmental discussions and decision-making processes.
There are different formats for cooperation, and the legislative framework is designed to promote collaboration and joint problem-solving. However, policy coordination within bureaucracies is typically performed within formal boundaries and is effective for well-known issues. Coordination challenges persist, particularly in preparing bureaucracies to handle complex and “wicked” problems. Additionally, there are no incentives such as job rotations or job-sharing across ministries to encourage active information exchange.
Modifications to Cabinet Regulation No 606 laid the groundwork for thematic cabinet committees. Established by a prime minister’s decree, the committees will focus on specific areas and predefined action plans, necessitating collaborative efforts from various line ministries. The prime minister or an appointed minister will lead these committees, comprising other ministers or officials. The committees, set to convene on Wednesdays, will deliberate on both agreed and non-agreed draft legislation, potentially proposing new drafts based on their decisions.
Presently, three thematic committees are dedicated to Digital Modernization, Strategic Management, and Energy, Environment, and Climate.
A webpage, the TAP portal, was launched in autumn 2021 and implemented across the government starting Sept. 9, 2021. It has digitalized the cabinet’s operations, including task assignments, legislative drafting, approval, and electronic signatures. Ministers can remotely participate in cabinet meetings, submit drafts, vote, and sign documents from any location with internet access. The portal serves as a comprehensive platform to track the progress of projects, from public engagement to cabinet adoption, and facilitates public participation in policymaking. It has significantly automated processes, reducing manual tasks in the line ministries. Over 800 projects have been directed to public involvement through the portal (Valsts Kanceleja, 2023).
In 2022, the “Development of a Single Service Center for Public Administration in Latvia” project was launched to provide a digitalized, standardized, and more efficiently managed system for public administration accounting and human resource management. The Single Service Center will be the new agency operating on standardized processes, with the necessary infrastructure and information system solutions to provide accounting and human resources management services for public administration.
The TAP portal offers both public users and bureaucrats access to view the tasks assigned to various ministries. It serves as a platform where they can prepare and review opinions from other ministries on draft laws or other documents that necessitate agreement from multiple ministries. This feature enhances transparency and collaboration across different governmental departments.
The timeframe given to ministries for providing opinions on draft laws or other significant documents is often too short, making it challenging for them to comply within the set deadlines. This time constraint can negatively impact the thoroughness and quality of the feedback or opinions provided by the ministries.
Latvia’s policy-planning system is well established, limiting individual ministries’ ability to push through initiatives without debate with other ministries. All new policy initiatives are discussed within the government, even if these debates are brief.
In governmental operations, various interministerial collaborations have been established to address critical areas such as enhancing human capital for the labor market and coordinating climate policies. These collaborative efforts are crucial for cohesive and effective policy development and implementation. Additionally, there is provision for online participation in thematic committees of the Cabinet of Ministers, allowing for broader and more flexible involvement and facilitating easier access and contribution to governmental discussions and decision-making processes.
There are different formats for cooperation, and the legislative framework is designed to promote collaboration and joint problem-solving. However, policy coordination within bureaucracies is typically performed within formal boundaries and is effective for well-known issues. Coordination challenges persist, particularly in preparing bureaucracies to handle complex and “wicked” problems. Additionally, there are no incentives such as job rotations or job-sharing across ministries to encourage active information exchange.
Citations:
Ministru kabinets. 2023. “Ministru kabineta tematiskās komitejas.” https://www.mk.gov.lv/lv/ministru-kabineta-tematiskas-komitejas
Valsts kanceleja. 2023. “Gada pārskats 2022. gads.” https://www.mk.gov.lv/lv/media/16278/download?attachment
Ekonomikas ministrija. 2024. “Cilvēkkapitāla attīstības padome konceptuāli atbalsta EM piedāvāto pārvaldības modeli efektīvākai starpministriju sadarbībai.” https://lvportals.lv/dienaskartiba/359357-cilvekkapitala-attistibas-padome-konceptuali-atbalsta-em-piedavato-parvaldibas-modeli-efektivakai-starpministriju-sadarbibai-2024
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
Digitālās modernizācijas tematiskā komiteja. 2023. Digitālās modernizācijas tematiskās komitejas sēdes protokols. https://www.mk.gov.lv/lv/media/17625/download?attachment
Ministru kabinets. 2023. “Ministru kabineta tematiskās komitejas.” https://www.mk.gov.lv/lv/ministru-kabineta-tematiskas-komitejas
Valsts kanceleja. 2023. “Gada pārskats 2022. gads.” https://www.mk.gov.lv/lv/media/16278/download?attachment
Ekonomikas ministrija. 2024. “Cilvēkkapitāla attīstības padome konceptuāli atbalsta EM piedāvāto pārvaldības modeli efektīvākai starpministriju sadarbībai.” https://lvportals.lv/dienaskartiba/359357-cilvekkapitala-attistibas-padome-konceptuali-atbalsta-em-piedavato-parvaldibas-modeli-efektivakai-starpministriju-sadarbibai-2024
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
Digitālās modernizācijas tematiskā komiteja. 2023. Digitālās modernizācijas tematiskās komitejas sēdes protokols. https://www.mk.gov.lv/lv/media/17625/download?attachment
Norway
Despite the formal coordination role of the Ministry of Finance and the informal mechanisms of inter-party cooperation in coalition governments, the Norwegian governance system is generally regarded as highly sectorized rather than fragmented. Each ministry is responsible for research and policy development within its specific area of formal responsibility. There is no tradition of job rotation within the civil service, nor is there a central effort to use new technologies to enhance cooperation. Additionally, most interactions with policy stakeholders and interest groups are structured according to traditional sectoral lines.
This sectorization is increasingly seen as a challenge in developing new policies that cut across traditional divisions, such as measures to expedite the transition to a low-emission, sustainable economy and digitalization (see Szulecki and Kivimaa, 2022). A new Ministry of Digitalization will take effect in January 2024, while the responsibility for contributing to the “green shift” remains a sectoral responsibility for the line ministries.
The government and all ministers meet formally every week in so-called government conferences (“regjeringskonferanser”) to discuss issues. These conferences are the primary forum for formal coordination between departments, ensuring that the government is united in its policies.
Digital technologies are extensively used to facilitate coordination across ministerial areas. They are more commonly employed in ministries than in agencies and more often by managers than by lower-ranking officers. Civil servants working on transboundary tasks and policies use these technologies more frequently and view them as helpful in enhancing coordination.
This sectorization is increasingly seen as a challenge in developing new policies that cut across traditional divisions, such as measures to expedite the transition to a low-emission, sustainable economy and digitalization (see Szulecki and Kivimaa, 2022). A new Ministry of Digitalization will take effect in January 2024, while the responsibility for contributing to the “green shift” remains a sectoral responsibility for the line ministries.
The government and all ministers meet formally every week in so-called government conferences (“regjeringskonferanser”) to discuss issues. These conferences are the primary forum for formal coordination between departments, ensuring that the government is united in its policies.
Digital technologies are extensively used to facilitate coordination across ministerial areas. They are more commonly employed in ministries than in agencies and more often by managers than by lower-ranking officers. Civil servants working on transboundary tasks and policies use these technologies more frequently and view them as helpful in enhancing coordination.
Citations:
Szulecki, K., and Kivimaa, P. 2022. “Norway needs energy and security policy coherence.” https://www.nupi.no/en/publications/cristin-pub/norway-needs-energy-and-security-policy-coherence
Ministry of Digitalisation and Public Governance website. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dep/dfd/id810/
Christensen, T., and P. Lægreid. 2022. “ICT Use in Central Government: Scope, Predictors and Effects on Coordination Quality.” International Journal of Public Administration 45 (3): 273-286.
Szulecki, K., and Kivimaa, P. 2022. “Norway needs energy and security policy coherence.” https://www.nupi.no/en/publications/cristin-pub/norway-needs-energy-and-security-policy-coherence
Ministry of Digitalisation and Public Governance website. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dep/dfd/id810/
Christensen, T., and P. Lægreid. 2022. “ICT Use in Central Government: Scope, Predictors and Effects on Coordination Quality.” International Journal of Public Administration 45 (3): 273-286.
Poland
The Chancellery of the prime minister plays a crucial role in orchestrating interministerial activities, managing the government’s work, coordinating actions among ministries and overseeing the implementation of government priorities. Joint government committees are established for interministerial coordination, bringing together representatives from various ministries.
Under the conservative administration, examples of these operating committees included the Interministerial Team for Developing Changes to the Comprehensive Support Program for Families “For Life” (2020); the Interministerial Team for Polonia and Poles Abroad Affairs (2021); the Interministerial Team for Reviewing Conditions for Investment Processes in the Republic of Poland (2021); and the team addressing threats arising from hazardous materials in Poland’s maritime areas (2022). The newly appointed liberal government initiated its first team tasked with restoring the rule of law and constitutional order on December 13, 2023.
Interministerial agreements have covered projects, reports and other critical documents, such as the “Eighth Government Report for the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC” and the “Fifth Two-Year Report for the Conference of the Parties.” Additionally, agreements included the establishment of the long-term program “Management of Water Resources in Poland.”
Ministries are empowered to submit interministerial interpellations and formal inquiries to seek specific information or actions from other ministries, facilitating the flow of information between them. Interministerial coordination often entails collaborative projects or programs, particularly in areas involving multiple ministries, such as economic development, education or health. Coordination has extended to events significant from a public diplomacy perspective, as demonstrated during the World Urban Forum in 2022. Moreover, joint actions are taken in response to current challenges, exemplified by the interministerial meeting on the situation in the grain market in August 2023.
Effective coordination has played a crucial role in managing European funds. For example, the European Funds for Modern Economy and the European Funds for Social Development (2021 – 2027) required agreements between various ministries and government agencies. Key entities involved included the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development, the Bank of National Economy, the Digital Poland Projects Center, the Center for European Projects and the Chancellery.
Similarly, implementing the European Funds for Digital Development 2021 – 2027 necessitated cooperation between the minister of funds and regional policy and representatives of the Chancellery and the Digital Poland Projects Center. This cooperation was formalized in a trilateral agreement concluded in February 2023.
Earlier strategically pivotal documents, such as the National Reform Program and the Strategy for Responsible Development, were also products of extensive interministerial coordination. Final decisions were reached during Council of Ministers meetings, during which ministers presented and deliberated on their positions.
Under the conservative administration, examples of these operating committees included the Interministerial Team for Developing Changes to the Comprehensive Support Program for Families “For Life” (2020); the Interministerial Team for Polonia and Poles Abroad Affairs (2021); the Interministerial Team for Reviewing Conditions for Investment Processes in the Republic of Poland (2021); and the team addressing threats arising from hazardous materials in Poland’s maritime areas (2022). The newly appointed liberal government initiated its first team tasked with restoring the rule of law and constitutional order on December 13, 2023.
Interministerial agreements have covered projects, reports and other critical documents, such as the “Eighth Government Report for the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC” and the “Fifth Two-Year Report for the Conference of the Parties.” Additionally, agreements included the establishment of the long-term program “Management of Water Resources in Poland.”
Ministries are empowered to submit interministerial interpellations and formal inquiries to seek specific information or actions from other ministries, facilitating the flow of information between them. Interministerial coordination often entails collaborative projects or programs, particularly in areas involving multiple ministries, such as economic development, education or health. Coordination has extended to events significant from a public diplomacy perspective, as demonstrated during the World Urban Forum in 2022. Moreover, joint actions are taken in response to current challenges, exemplified by the interministerial meeting on the situation in the grain market in August 2023.
Effective coordination has played a crucial role in managing European funds. For example, the European Funds for Modern Economy and the European Funds for Social Development (2021 – 2027) required agreements between various ministries and government agencies. Key entities involved included the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development, the Bank of National Economy, the Digital Poland Projects Center, the Center for European Projects and the Chancellery.
Similarly, implementing the European Funds for Digital Development 2021 – 2027 necessitated cooperation between the minister of funds and regional policy and representatives of the Chancellery and the Digital Poland Projects Center. This cooperation was formalized in a trilateral agreement concluded in February 2023.
Earlier strategically pivotal documents, such as the National Reform Program and the Strategy for Responsible Development, were also products of extensive interministerial coordination. Final decisions were reached during Council of Ministers meetings, during which ministers presented and deliberated on their positions.
Portugal
There are numerous interministerial commissions (ICs) addressing a wide array of subjects, ranging from the utilization of European Funds (Portugal 2030) to water management, cooperation, education, and professional training, among others (see references for details). Typically, these ICs involve civil servants from various ministries, each relevant to the specific topic, and occasionally members of the cabinets of line ministers. They also have the option to seek guidance from experts. This implies a significant level of coordination among bureaucratic units from different sectoral ministries.
In practice, these working groups exhibit a fluctuating composition, as the civil servants designated by ministers can vary. Their organizational structure is also unstable, and they often lack a designated meeting location. Unfortunately, very little information is disseminated about their proceedings.
Consider, for instance, the Interministerial Committee for Coordinating Education and Professional Training within the scope of the National Qualifications System (ICCEPF, as per Presidência do Conselho de Ministros et al. 2021). This committee involves six ministers, and its coordination changes every six months. The responsibility alternates between various government sectors: labor and training, education (primary and secondary), science and higher education, and the economy. The committee is supposed to convene once every six months, with technical and logistical support provided by the government office responsible for coordination. Unfortunately, the constant organizational changes and personnel turnover do not bode well for the effectiveness of these working groups.
With few exceptions, such as institutions related to managing the Resilient and Recovery Funds, there are no digital platforms to support these working groups. These meetings, despite their challenges, prove highly effective in fostering policy coordination across the government. Moreover, the assessment of diverse proposals within each ministry extends beyond the attending secretaries of state to include ministerial advisers and, to some extent, senior officials of the public administration.
In practice, these working groups exhibit a fluctuating composition, as the civil servants designated by ministers can vary. Their organizational structure is also unstable, and they often lack a designated meeting location. Unfortunately, very little information is disseminated about their proceedings.
Consider, for instance, the Interministerial Committee for Coordinating Education and Professional Training within the scope of the National Qualifications System (ICCEPF, as per Presidência do Conselho de Ministros et al. 2021). This committee involves six ministers, and its coordination changes every six months. The responsibility alternates between various government sectors: labor and training, education (primary and secondary), science and higher education, and the economy. The committee is supposed to convene once every six months, with technical and logistical support provided by the government office responsible for coordination. Unfortunately, the constant organizational changes and personnel turnover do not bode well for the effectiveness of these working groups.
With few exceptions, such as institutions related to managing the Resilient and Recovery Funds, there are no digital platforms to support these working groups. These meetings, despite their challenges, prove highly effective in fostering policy coordination across the government. Moreover, the assessment of diverse proposals within each ministry extends beyond the attending secretaries of state to include ministerial advisers and, to some extent, senior officials of the public administration.
Citations:
Governo de Portugal. 2023. “Interministerial Commission of Coordination: Portugal 2030.” https://portugal2030.pt/2023/03/10/regulamento-interno-da-comissao-interministerial-de-coordenacao-do-portugal-2030
Presidência do Conselho de Ministros et al. 2021. Despacho 12818/2021 Creates the Interministerial committee for coordinating the education and professional training within the scope of the National Qualifications System. https://files.dre.pt/2s/2021/12/252000000/0002200024.pdf
Direção-Geral de Política do Mar. “Interministerial Commission of Mar Affairs (Comissão Interministerial de Assuntos do Mar).” https://www.dgpm.mm.gov.pt/ciam
Minister of Environment. “Interministerial Commission of Water Management.” https://apambiente.pt/agua/comissao-interministerial-de-coordenacao-da-agua
Camões: Instituto da Cooperação e da Língua. “Interministerial Commission for Cooperation.” https://www.instituto-camoes.pt/activity/o-que-fazemos/cooperacao/atuacao/coordenamos/cic
Governo de Portugal. 2023. “Interministerial Commission of Coordination: Portugal 2030.” https://portugal2030.pt/2023/03/10/regulamento-interno-da-comissao-interministerial-de-coordenacao-do-portugal-2030
Presidência do Conselho de Ministros et al. 2021. Despacho 12818/2021 Creates the Interministerial committee for coordinating the education and professional training within the scope of the National Qualifications System. https://files.dre.pt/2s/2021/12/252000000/0002200024.pdf
Direção-Geral de Política do Mar. “Interministerial Commission of Mar Affairs (Comissão Interministerial de Assuntos do Mar).” https://www.dgpm.mm.gov.pt/ciam
Minister of Environment. “Interministerial Commission of Water Management.” https://apambiente.pt/agua/comissao-interministerial-de-coordenacao-da-agua
Camões: Instituto da Cooperação e da Língua. “Interministerial Commission for Cooperation.” https://www.instituto-camoes.pt/activity/o-que-fazemos/cooperacao/atuacao/coordenamos/cic
Slovenia
The Government Rules of Procedure, adopted in 2001, define cooperation between ministries. The government establishes committees for the preliminary examination of individual matters and interministerial cooperation. The government determines which decisions the ministers on a committee are authorized to make on its behalf. A committee may cease its activities as soon as it has fulfilled its tasks.
The Office of the Government for Legislation ensures that regulations are constitutional and lawful, internally consistent, drafted according to nontechnical rules, understandable to the public, and practical in application. This government service plays a crucial role in coordinating cross-departmental regulations. According to the government’s rules of procedure, proposals for general legislation must always be coordinated in advance with the Office of the Government for Legislation.
The General Secretariat of the Government manages the technical aspects and administration of government activities. This body is responsible for organizing meetings of the government, its working bodies, expert councils, and other government entities, as well as monitoring the implementation of the government’s decisions and obligations.
Communication among government members occurs via the government information system, which is accessible to government members, the secretary-general, the prime minister’s head of office, heads of government services, and their representatives. Decisions on European legislation are made through the EU portal, which is part of the government information system. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses its information system for EU matters related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union. When EU matters are published on the EU portal, it is assumed that the material has been distributed to all ministries and government departments. The EU portal is also used to inform the National Assembly.
In December 2022 and March 2023, the government adopted the new Digital Public Services Strategy 2030 and the Digital Slovenia 2030 Strategy, respectively. The Office of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for Digital Transformation was established by the Janša government as a ministry without a portfolio. Although it remains part of the current government, it was reorganized in January 2023 and assigned to the Ministry of Digital Transformation. This ministry is responsible for providing electronic public administration services and, in May 2023, presented guidelines to public administration bodies for accelerating digital transformation in public administration.
The Office of the Government for Legislation ensures that regulations are constitutional and lawful, internally consistent, drafted according to nontechnical rules, understandable to the public, and practical in application. This government service plays a crucial role in coordinating cross-departmental regulations. According to the government’s rules of procedure, proposals for general legislation must always be coordinated in advance with the Office of the Government for Legislation.
The General Secretariat of the Government manages the technical aspects and administration of government activities. This body is responsible for organizing meetings of the government, its working bodies, expert councils, and other government entities, as well as monitoring the implementation of the government’s decisions and obligations.
Communication among government members occurs via the government information system, which is accessible to government members, the secretary-general, the prime minister’s head of office, heads of government services, and their representatives. Decisions on European legislation are made through the EU portal, which is part of the government information system. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses its information system for EU matters related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union. When EU matters are published on the EU portal, it is assumed that the material has been distributed to all ministries and government departments. The EU portal is also used to inform the National Assembly.
In December 2022 and March 2023, the government adopted the new Digital Public Services Strategy 2030 and the Digital Slovenia 2030 Strategy, respectively. The Office of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for Digital Transformation was established by the Janša government as a ministry without a portfolio. Although it remains part of the current government, it was reorganized in January 2023 and assigned to the Ministry of Digital Transformation. This ministry is responsible for providing electronic public administration services and, in May 2023, presented guidelines to public administration bodies for accelerating digital transformation in public administration.
Citations:
Republika Slovenija. 2024. “O Ministrstvu za digitalno preobrazbo.” https://www.gov.si/drzavni-organi/ministrstva/ministrstvo-za-digitalno-preobrazbo/o-ministrstvu-za-digitalno-preobrazbo/
Vlada Republike Slovenije. 2023. “Digitalna Slovenija 2023.” https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MDP/Dokumenti/DSI2030-potrjena-na-Vladi-RS_marec-2023.pdf
Republika Slovenija. 2023. “Usmeritve za pospešitev digitalne preobrazbe v javni upravi.” https://www.gov.si/novice/2023-05-15-usmeritve-za-pospesitev-digitalne-preobrazbe-v-javni-upravi/
Republika Slovenija. 2023. “C2K7 – Digitalna preobrazba javnega sektorja in javne uprave.” https://www.gov.si/zbirke/projekti-in-programi/nacrt-za-okrevanje-in-odpornost/o-nacrtu-za-okrevanje-in-odpornost/digitalna-preobrazba/c2k7-digitalna-preobrazba-javnega-sektorja-in-javne-uprave
Official Journal. 2001. Poslovnik vlade Republike Slovenije. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=POSL32
Republike Slovenije. 2023. “O Služba vlade za zakonodajo.” https://www.gov.si/drzavni-organi/vladne-sluzbe/sluzba-vlade-za-zakonodajo/o-sluzbi/
Republika Slovenija. 2024. “O Ministrstvu za digitalno preobrazbo.” https://www.gov.si/drzavni-organi/ministrstva/ministrstvo-za-digitalno-preobrazbo/o-ministrstvu-za-digitalno-preobrazbo/
Vlada Republike Slovenije. 2023. “Digitalna Slovenija 2023.” https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MDP/Dokumenti/DSI2030-potrjena-na-Vladi-RS_marec-2023.pdf
Republika Slovenija. 2023. “Usmeritve za pospešitev digitalne preobrazbe v javni upravi.” https://www.gov.si/novice/2023-05-15-usmeritve-za-pospesitev-digitalne-preobrazbe-v-javni-upravi/
Republika Slovenija. 2023. “C2K7 – Digitalna preobrazba javnega sektorja in javne uprave.” https://www.gov.si/zbirke/projekti-in-programi/nacrt-za-okrevanje-in-odpornost/o-nacrtu-za-okrevanje-in-odpornost/digitalna-preobrazba/c2k7-digitalna-preobrazba-javnega-sektorja-in-javne-uprave
Official Journal. 2001. Poslovnik vlade Republike Slovenije. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=POSL32
Republike Slovenije. 2023. “O Služba vlade za zakonodajo.” https://www.gov.si/drzavni-organi/vladne-sluzbe/sluzba-vlade-za-zakonodajo/o-sluzbi/
Spain
The two most important senior bureaucratic positions in the ministries are the secretaries of state, akin to junior ministers but not formally part of the cabinet, and the undersecretaries, career civil servants acting as department administrators. These officials meet in the General Committee of Undersecretaries and Secretaries of State to coordinate upcoming policy initiatives, often the first time other ministries learn of a policy initiative from a different department. This committee effectively prepares the Council of Ministers’ weekly sessions held on Tuesdays.
The head of the Government Office chairs the preparatory committee meetings, where all draft bills, appointments, and other ministerial proposals are discussed and scheduled for the Council of Ministers’ agenda. A provisional agenda is published a week before the cabinet meeting, and the Government Office circulates all relevant documents for discussion by the line ministers.
On Tuesday mornings, the prime minister’s advisers assess the relative importance of agenda items and identify likely divergent positions. The preparatory committee performs an important gatekeeping function by returning problematic proposals to the appropriate line ministry and forwarding the remaining proposals to the Council of Ministers.
High-ranking civil servants play a crucial role in preparing policy proposals within each line ministry but have limited involvement in horizontal coordination with other ministries. Due to strong departmentalization, each ministry tends to act within its area of competence, avoiding proposals that may involve other ministries. Although many administrative interministerial committees exist formally, they do not effectively coordinate policy proposals or decision-making between ministries.
Under the Digitalization Plan for Public Administrations 2021–2025, all ministries must draft digital-transformation action plans to simplify interdepartmental working procedures, electronically exchange information, address information classification, and implement information exchange standards. The Digital Agenda 2026 fosters digital transformation of interministerial coordination, introducing a corporate data warehouse to break down information silos between various ministerial departments and creating a strategic framework for vertical inter-administrative coordination.
Civil servants exchange information across ministerial boundaries in their daily work at both the vertical and horizontal levels. The High Commission for Personnel and the National Institute for Public Administration provide incentives for interministerial exchange. However, specialized corps tend to aggravate administrative fragmentation, as each seeks to control a department according to its specialization, leading to a “silo” structure, where each ministry, department, agency, organism, or public entity follows its own operating logic.
The head of the Government Office chairs the preparatory committee meetings, where all draft bills, appointments, and other ministerial proposals are discussed and scheduled for the Council of Ministers’ agenda. A provisional agenda is published a week before the cabinet meeting, and the Government Office circulates all relevant documents for discussion by the line ministers.
On Tuesday mornings, the prime minister’s advisers assess the relative importance of agenda items and identify likely divergent positions. The preparatory committee performs an important gatekeeping function by returning problematic proposals to the appropriate line ministry and forwarding the remaining proposals to the Council of Ministers.
High-ranking civil servants play a crucial role in preparing policy proposals within each line ministry but have limited involvement in horizontal coordination with other ministries. Due to strong departmentalization, each ministry tends to act within its area of competence, avoiding proposals that may involve other ministries. Although many administrative interministerial committees exist formally, they do not effectively coordinate policy proposals or decision-making between ministries.
Under the Digitalization Plan for Public Administrations 2021–2025, all ministries must draft digital-transformation action plans to simplify interdepartmental working procedures, electronically exchange information, address information classification, and implement information exchange standards. The Digital Agenda 2026 fosters digital transformation of interministerial coordination, introducing a corporate data warehouse to break down information silos between various ministerial departments and creating a strategic framework for vertical inter-administrative coordination.
Civil servants exchange information across ministerial boundaries in their daily work at both the vertical and horizontal levels. The High Commission for Personnel and the National Institute for Public Administration provide incentives for interministerial exchange. However, specialized corps tend to aggravate administrative fragmentation, as each seeks to control a department according to its specialization, leading to a “silo” structure, where each ministry, department, agency, organism, or public entity follows its own operating logic.
Citations:
Royal Decree 126/2022 of 15 February
Royal Decree 126/2022 of 15 February
Switzerland
Not surprisingly, given the small number of ministries, there are no cabinet committees in Switzerland’s political system. However, there is considerable coordination, delegation and communication at the lower level of the federal government. Every minister is in a sense already a “ministerial committee” – representing the coordination of numerous cooperating departmental units.
Indeed, the Swiss political system employs several formalized coordination mechanisms across ministries to enhance policy coherence. These mechanisms include the collegiality, departmental and delegation principles within the federal government. These structured forms of coordination are essential for managing the complex and decentralized nature of the Swiss federal system, ensuring effective governance, and facilitating policy implementation (Ali et al., forthcoming).
The principle of collegiality implies that decisions should arise internally by consensus or, in exceptional cases, by majority. Each member of the Federal Council must support the decisions made, even if they have different personal or party-political viewpoints. This approach to decision-making promotes a form of formalized coordination, ensuring that various political perspectives are considered and integrated into policy decisions. “Intra-executive collegialism” is one of the power-sharing institutional features intended to avoid the activation of veto mechanisms such as popular referendums further down the line (Mueller 2021). Collegiality has been put under strain in the past two decades due to increased party polarization, but is still a core feature of Swiss political life (Freiburghaus/Vatter 2019).
The departmental principle divides government business among the seven ministers. This principle allows each minister to express their political interests and beliefs in their policy decisions within their department. This organizational structure potentially creates an environment for both cooperation and conflict among departments, necessitating formalized coordination mechanisms to ensure policy coherence.
Formal delegation of policy issues to departments and their subsequent delegation to subordinated federal offices is another formalized coordination mechanism. This principle allows for a clear delineation of responsibilities and tasks among different government entities, facilitating coordination and coherent policy implementation.
The Federal Council has developed a strategy for information and communication technology within the federal administration. It uses digital technologies effectively to support interministerial coordination. However, the development and use of IT in the federal administration has experienced challenges with regard to efficiency and the appropriate use of fiscal resources. For example, the development of software for use in tax policy and administration has been heavily criticized by the Swiss Federal Audit Office. In cross-national comparison, Switzerland receives medium to low scores on e-government issues.
Indeed, the Swiss political system employs several formalized coordination mechanisms across ministries to enhance policy coherence. These mechanisms include the collegiality, departmental and delegation principles within the federal government. These structured forms of coordination are essential for managing the complex and decentralized nature of the Swiss federal system, ensuring effective governance, and facilitating policy implementation (Ali et al., forthcoming).
The principle of collegiality implies that decisions should arise internally by consensus or, in exceptional cases, by majority. Each member of the Federal Council must support the decisions made, even if they have different personal or party-political viewpoints. This approach to decision-making promotes a form of formalized coordination, ensuring that various political perspectives are considered and integrated into policy decisions. “Intra-executive collegialism” is one of the power-sharing institutional features intended to avoid the activation of veto mechanisms such as popular referendums further down the line (Mueller 2021). Collegiality has been put under strain in the past two decades due to increased party polarization, but is still a core feature of Swiss political life (Freiburghaus/Vatter 2019).
The departmental principle divides government business among the seven ministers. This principle allows each minister to express their political interests and beliefs in their policy decisions within their department. This organizational structure potentially creates an environment for both cooperation and conflict among departments, necessitating formalized coordination mechanisms to ensure policy coherence.
Formal delegation of policy issues to departments and their subsequent delegation to subordinated federal offices is another formalized coordination mechanism. This principle allows for a clear delineation of responsibilities and tasks among different government entities, facilitating coordination and coherent policy implementation.
The Federal Council has developed a strategy for information and communication technology within the federal administration. It uses digital technologies effectively to support interministerial coordination. However, the development and use of IT in the federal administration has experienced challenges with regard to efficiency and the appropriate use of fiscal resources. For example, the development of software for use in tax policy and administration has been heavily criticized by the Swiss Federal Audit Office. In cross-national comparison, Switzerland receives medium to low scores on e-government issues.
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. Eymeri-Douzans, J.-M., Goransson, M., and Kassim, H.
https://www.bakom.admin.ch/bakom/en/homepage/digital-switzerland-and-internet/strategie-digitale-schweiz.html
Freiburghaus, R., and A. Vatter. 2019. “The Political Side of Consociationalism Reconsidered: Switzerland between a Polarized Parliament and Delicate Government Collegiality.” Swiss Political Science Review 25: 357-380. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12359
Mueller, S. 2021. “The Politics of Compromise: Institutions and Actors of Power-Sharing in Switzerland.” In Power-Sharing in Europe. Federalism and Internal Conflicts, eds. S. Keil and A. McCulloch. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53590-2_4
Schmid, J., Urben, M., and Vatter, A. 2018. “Cyberföderalismus in der Schweiz: Befunde zur Digitalisierung kantonaler Verwaltungen.” Yearbook of Swiss Administrative Sciences 9 (1): 12–24. http://doi.org/10.5334/ssas.116https
https://www.egovernment.ch/de/aktuelles/medieninformationen/e-government-benchmark-der-eu-2021/
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. Eymeri-Douzans, J.-M., Goransson, M., and Kassim, H.
https://www.bakom.admin.ch/bakom/en/homepage/digital-switzerland-and-internet/strategie-digitale-schweiz.html
Freiburghaus, R., and A. Vatter. 2019. “The Political Side of Consociationalism Reconsidered: Switzerland between a Polarized Parliament and Delicate Government Collegiality.” Swiss Political Science Review 25: 357-380. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12359
Mueller, S. 2021. “The Politics of Compromise: Institutions and Actors of Power-Sharing in Switzerland.” In Power-Sharing in Europe. Federalism and Internal Conflicts, eds. S. Keil and A. McCulloch. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53590-2_4
Schmid, J., Urben, M., and Vatter, A. 2018. “Cyberföderalismus in der Schweiz: Befunde zur Digitalisierung kantonaler Verwaltungen.” Yearbook of Swiss Administrative Sciences 9 (1): 12–24. http://doi.org/10.5334/ssas.116https
https://www.egovernment.ch/de/aktuelles/medieninformationen/e-government-benchmark-der-eu-2021/
UK
Although the prime minister holds considerable power, it is somewhat paradoxical that their private office is usually relatively small and often reshaped when a new prime minister takes over. For instance, Boris Johnson’s tenure saw multiple “resets” of his office. Instead, the Cabinet Office is the principal body responsible for policy coordination, with its head, the cabinet secretary, attending cabinet meetings. Traditionally, the cabinet secretary was also the head of the civil service, though this role was separated during the 2010s before being re-consolidated. HM Treasury also plays a more extensive coordinating role than many other finance ministries. The UK government faces a recurring dilemma: whether to “mainstream” an issue across all departments or to set up specific units to coordinate activities, such as for health inequalities or climate change. It has typically opted to establish units or departments to signal the importance of cross-cutting issues, rather than creating an overarching structure to support routine cross-departmental cooperation.
6
Sweden
Interministerial coordination has long been problematic in the Swedish system of government. Formally, the government and its departments operate as a collective actor. All decisions are made collectively, and there is no individual ministerial accountability. The PMO and the finance ministry play a significant role in this process. Additionally, when the government is a coalition, as has been the case since 2006, policies must be coordinated not only among the relevant departments but also among the governing parties (Jacobsson, Pierre, and Sundström, 2015).
Collective decision-making becomes even more complex in practice. Each department has a fair amount of autonomy in its respective sector. Coordination among departments occurs at different organizational levels, depending on whether the issue is technical and administrative or politically charged. With the latter, political actors make the final decisions.
Formal collaboration – a program that started in 2006 in the Government Offices of Sweden and has evolved to a broader partnership scheme – falls under the purview of Vinnova, Sweden’s innovation agency, with the latest strategy covering the period from 2019 – 2022. The scheme addresses four thematic areas: business climate change, skills supply and lifelong learning, health and life science, and business digital and structural transformation (Vinnova, 2021).
Collective decision-making becomes even more complex in practice. Each department has a fair amount of autonomy in its respective sector. Coordination among departments occurs at different organizational levels, depending on whether the issue is technical and administrative or politically charged. With the latter, political actors make the final decisions.
Formal collaboration – a program that started in 2006 in the Government Offices of Sweden and has evolved to a broader partnership scheme – falls under the purview of Vinnova, Sweden’s innovation agency, with the latest strategy covering the period from 2019 – 2022. The scheme addresses four thematic areas: business climate change, skills supply and lifelong learning, health and life science, and business digital and structural transformation (Vinnova, 2021).
Citations:
Jacobsson, B., Pierre, J., and Sundström, G. 2015. Governing the Embedded State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vinnova. 2021. “Vinnova samordnar regeringens samverkansprogram.” https://www.vinnova.se/m/regeringens-samverkansprogram
Jacobsson, B., Pierre, J., and Sundström, G. 2015. Governing the Embedded State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vinnova. 2021. “Vinnova samordnar regeringens samverkansprogram.” https://www.vinnova.se/m/regeringens-samverkansprogram
Netherlands
Since the 2006 elections, politicians have called for a reduction in the number of civil servants. Early retirement schemes have led to a significant loss of substantive expertise. Moreover, sectoral expertise has not been considered an essential characteristic of departmental leadership. For instance, at the beginning of the pandemic and for much of its duration, the Ministry of Public Health had no medical experts among its top-level civil servants. This was corrected during the Rutte IV cabinet, when a gastroenterologist and former director of the Rotterdam Medical Center, one of the major COVID-19 policy advisers, was appointed minister of public health.
Equally if not more serious, as even the Council of State has warned, is the erosion of traditional loyalty and trust between (deputy) ministers and top-level officers. Ministers have increasingly turned to outside experts such as consultants, lobbyists and political trustees, breaking the monopoly formerly held by senior civil servants on providing policy-relevant information and advice. Last year, the Ministry of Economic Affairs spent 30% of its personnel budget on hiring outside experts. In response, top-level officers have adopted risk-averse and defensive behavior, specializing in process management and embracing Dutch variations of New Public Management (NPM) practices. Professor of Public Administration Noordegraaf evaluated the General Administrative Service (ABD), a pool of about 1,400 top civil service managers, and concluded that their high levels of career mobility – staying in their positions for an average of 4.3 years – may conflict with the development of substantial expertise. Consequently, it is no longer assumed that they are experts in their areas of responsibility. This undermines a core principle of good civil service, of championing a long-term perspective in opposition to the short-term outlook characteristic of politic cycles.
Recent departmental reorganizations have also been less than thoughtful. In 2010, the Rutte I government redefined the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK), which previously focused on administration, personnel and security. The security portfolio was transferred to the Ministry of Security and Justice (now Justice and Security), while the policy areas of housing and spatial planning from the dissolved Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment were added to BZK. This reorganization was implausible, as it brought housing and spatial planning under an administrative department and subordinated the police to the Ministry of Justice, violating the system of checks and balances. Another example is the transfer of agriculture to Economic Affairs and its subsequent reautonomization at the next cabinet formation, reflecting an ill-considered reorganization of the civil service.
As a result, the Netherlands received a below-average score in policymaking in the 2019 International Civil Service Effectiveness Index (InCiSE). There have been some attempts at improvement. After a reduction of the number of civil servants, their total numbers grew to 321,396 in 2022, an increase of 10,000 from 2021. New legislation often spurs but does not guarantee better coordination. The abolition of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment is now being addressed through a comprehensive Environment Act (see also “Effective Sustainability Checks”). Additionally, although government agencies have previously been reluctant to share information, the Rathenau Institute has issued proposals for better embedding algorithmic decision-making into law, conducting proportionality tests, requiring human intervention and oversight, requiring careful monitoring, and establishing a Permanent Committee on Digital Affairs. The Rutte IV cabinet installed a minister with special duties in this area.
Equally if not more serious, as even the Council of State has warned, is the erosion of traditional loyalty and trust between (deputy) ministers and top-level officers. Ministers have increasingly turned to outside experts such as consultants, lobbyists and political trustees, breaking the monopoly formerly held by senior civil servants on providing policy-relevant information and advice. Last year, the Ministry of Economic Affairs spent 30% of its personnel budget on hiring outside experts. In response, top-level officers have adopted risk-averse and defensive behavior, specializing in process management and embracing Dutch variations of New Public Management (NPM) practices. Professor of Public Administration Noordegraaf evaluated the General Administrative Service (ABD), a pool of about 1,400 top civil service managers, and concluded that their high levels of career mobility – staying in their positions for an average of 4.3 years – may conflict with the development of substantial expertise. Consequently, it is no longer assumed that they are experts in their areas of responsibility. This undermines a core principle of good civil service, of championing a long-term perspective in opposition to the short-term outlook characteristic of politic cycles.
Recent departmental reorganizations have also been less than thoughtful. In 2010, the Rutte I government redefined the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK), which previously focused on administration, personnel and security. The security portfolio was transferred to the Ministry of Security and Justice (now Justice and Security), while the policy areas of housing and spatial planning from the dissolved Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment were added to BZK. This reorganization was implausible, as it brought housing and spatial planning under an administrative department and subordinated the police to the Ministry of Justice, violating the system of checks and balances. Another example is the transfer of agriculture to Economic Affairs and its subsequent reautonomization at the next cabinet formation, reflecting an ill-considered reorganization of the civil service.
As a result, the Netherlands received a below-average score in policymaking in the 2019 International Civil Service Effectiveness Index (InCiSE). There have been some attempts at improvement. After a reduction of the number of civil servants, their total numbers grew to 321,396 in 2022, an increase of 10,000 from 2021. New legislation often spurs but does not guarantee better coordination. The abolition of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment is now being addressed through a comprehensive Environment Act (see also “Effective Sustainability Checks”). Additionally, although government agencies have previously been reluctant to share information, the Rathenau Institute has issued proposals for better embedding algorithmic decision-making into law, conducting proportionality tests, requiring human intervention and oversight, requiring careful monitoring, and establishing a Permanent Committee on Digital Affairs. The Rutte IV cabinet installed a minister with special duties in this area.
Citations:
Bekkers. 2022. “Leger rijksambtenaren groeide met 10.000 in 2021.” Binnenlands Bestuur, December 29.
Hamilton et al. 2022. “Hoe kan de Haagse bestuurscultuur daadwerkelijk veranderen?” Groene Amsterdammer, January 5.
NRC. 2023. “Algemene Rekenkamer: overheidsdiensten te terughoudend met uitwisselen van informatie.” Endedijk, March 30.
Rathenau Instituut. 2022. “Algoritmische besluitvorming. Handreiking aan de Eerste Kamer.”
Chavannes, De Correspondent. 2023. “Kunnen de overheid en de politiek dan niets meer?” De Correspondent May 27.
Van der Schoot. 2024. “Doemdenken en stemming maken over Omgevingswet.” Binnenlands Bestuur, January 8.
Ziesemer. 2023. “Zelfs de overheid vertrouwt de overheid niet meer.” De Correspondent August 8.
Platform O, Boersma. 2023. “De topambtelijke spagaat.”
Bekkers. 2022. “Leger rijksambtenaren groeide met 10.000 in 2021.” Binnenlands Bestuur, December 29.
Hamilton et al. 2022. “Hoe kan de Haagse bestuurscultuur daadwerkelijk veranderen?” Groene Amsterdammer, January 5.
NRC. 2023. “Algemene Rekenkamer: overheidsdiensten te terughoudend met uitwisselen van informatie.” Endedijk, March 30.
Rathenau Instituut. 2022. “Algoritmische besluitvorming. Handreiking aan de Eerste Kamer.”
Chavannes, De Correspondent. 2023. “Kunnen de overheid en de politiek dan niets meer?” De Correspondent May 27.
Van der Schoot. 2024. “Doemdenken en stemming maken over Omgevingswet.” Binnenlands Bestuur, January 8.
Ziesemer. 2023. “Zelfs de overheid vertrouwt de overheid niet meer.” De Correspondent August 8.
Platform O, Boersma. 2023. “De topambtelijke spagaat.”
Interministerial coordination mechanisms targeting policy coherence rarely provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities.
5
Israel
Interministerial coordination primarily occurs when an interministerial committee is established (Shatz et al. 2016). Such committees are usually created to promote specific programs, such as the committee for at-risk youth or the committee addressing violence in the Arab sector. Additionally, there is a forum for general directors, which aims to facilitate the exchange of information. This forum was very active under the previous government, but rarely meets under the current administration. One reason for this is that the current general director of the PMO, who is responsible for summoning the forum, does not do so.
When preparing a government decision, the respective ministry is mandated to consult and obtain the agreement of all ministries relevant to the decision’s implementation. This is another mechanism for information sharing and collaboration. The same is true for legislation drafted within a ministry. This practice usually allows for deliberation between ministries and the modification of proposals.
Ministries do not have access to the digital platforms of other departments.
Job rotations occur regularly in the Ministry of Finance. In other ministries, employees can apply for positions in different ministries, but the decision is personal and there are no incentives for such shifts.
In most cases, ministries are not caught off guard by the policies of other ministries. Although there is no systematic coordination mechanism, there are consultations and information sharing between individuals. However, there are instances where conflicts arise between departments due to a lack of coordination.
When preparing a government decision, the respective ministry is mandated to consult and obtain the agreement of all ministries relevant to the decision’s implementation. This is another mechanism for information sharing and collaboration. The same is true for legislation drafted within a ministry. This practice usually allows for deliberation between ministries and the modification of proposals.
Ministries do not have access to the digital platforms of other departments.
Job rotations occur regularly in the Ministry of Finance. In other ministries, employees can apply for positions in different ministries, but the decision is personal and there are no incentives for such shifts.
In most cases, ministries are not caught off guard by the policies of other ministries. Although there is no systematic coordination mechanism, there are consultations and information sharing between individuals. However, there are instances where conflicts arise between departments due to a lack of coordination.
Citations:
Shatz, H., Popper, S., Friedrich, S., Abramzon, S., Brodsky, A., Harel, R., and Cohen, O. 2016. Developing Long-Term Socioeconomic Strategy in Israel: Institutions, Processes, and Supporting Information. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR275
Shatz, H., Popper, S., Friedrich, S., Abramzon, S., Brodsky, A., Harel, R., and Cohen, O. 2016. Developing Long-Term Socioeconomic Strategy in Israel: Institutions, Processes, and Supporting Information. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR275
Japan
Japanese ministries are characterized by strong sectionalism focused on competition for funds and power. Civil servants follow fixed career paths in the ministry that hired them. As a result, intra-ministerial trust and coordination is high, but it may hinder the exchange of information and identification of synergies across ministries. Within ministries, most decisions are made in a bottom-up manner through the round-robin (ringi) system. Bureaucrats from different ministries occasionally establish working teams for coordination on important policy initiatives, but coordination is mostly conducted on an informal level. For that reason, competitive policy initiatives by different ministries are common.
Cabinet meetings have traditionally been treated as mere get-togethers to sign documents. Until 2009, they were always preceded by meetings of the administrative vice-ministers representing all ministries, presided over by the administrative deputy chief cabinet secretary – the highest-ranking bureaucrat among civil servants. Only the decisions authorized by this organ could be submitted for the cabinet’s approval. The Administrative Vice-Ministers’ Liaison Council, which replaced these meetings in 2012, is now only intended for interministerial discussions on how to implement cabinet decisions. Most policy coordination is now conducted by the Cabinet Secretariat (Kantei) in a top-down manner.
Digitalization of government services has been ongoing since the establishment of the Digital Agency in September 2021. One aim is to improve data linkage between governmental institutions. However, so far, digitalization has focused mostly on government-to-citizen rather than government-to-government systems. Plans include migration of local government IT systems onto a central government data cloud and the introduction of public service meshes to facilitate information sharing between various institutions. Both have yet to be fully implemented.
Cabinet meetings have traditionally been treated as mere get-togethers to sign documents. Until 2009, they were always preceded by meetings of the administrative vice-ministers representing all ministries, presided over by the administrative deputy chief cabinet secretary – the highest-ranking bureaucrat among civil servants. Only the decisions authorized by this organ could be submitted for the cabinet’s approval. The Administrative Vice-Ministers’ Liaison Council, which replaced these meetings in 2012, is now only intended for interministerial discussions on how to implement cabinet decisions. Most policy coordination is now conducted by the Cabinet Secretariat (Kantei) in a top-down manner.
Digitalization of government services has been ongoing since the establishment of the Digital Agency in September 2021. One aim is to improve data linkage between governmental institutions. However, so far, digitalization has focused mostly on government-to-citizen rather than government-to-government systems. Plans include migration of local government IT systems onto a central government data cloud and the introduction of public service meshes to facilitate information sharing between various institutions. Both have yet to be fully implemented.
Citations:
Cavanaugh, Luke. 2023. “What Next for Japan’s Digital Agency After the My Number Misfire?” https://thediplomat.com/2023/10/what-next-for-japans-digital-agency-after-the-my-number-misfire/
Mishimi, Ko. 2014. “A Big Bang for Japanese Mandarins? The Civil Service Reform of 2014.” International Journal of Public Administration 40 (13): 1101–1113.
Zakowski, Karol. 2021. Gradual Institutional Change in Japan. Kantei Leadership under the Abe Administration. London – New York: Routledge.
Cavanaugh, Luke. 2023. “What Next for Japan’s Digital Agency After the My Number Misfire?” https://thediplomat.com/2023/10/what-next-for-japans-digital-agency-after-the-my-number-misfire/
Mishimi, Ko. 2014. “A Big Bang for Japanese Mandarins? The Civil Service Reform of 2014.” International Journal of Public Administration 40 (13): 1101–1113.
Zakowski, Karol. 2021. Gradual Institutional Change in Japan. Kantei Leadership under the Abe Administration. London – New York: Routledge.
USA
Historically, federal government departments have established their own policy autonomy and operate fairly independently from other departments. Departmental autonomy was seen as a major initiative of strong departmental leaders, and this instinct still operates today (Carpenter 2001).
Once appointed, agency leaders tend to stay in place for at least the political lifecycle of their appointer. A department might see just one or two leaders over a four-year presidential term. For example, despite the personnel difficulties of the Trump administration, Trump had the same secretaries of the Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, Housing, Transportation, Education, and Trade for his full four-year presidency. State, Interior, Health, and Energy had just one change during his presidency. It is difficult for presidents to reshuffle their Cabinets because Senate approval is required for any new appointment, including moving an already confirmed departmental head to another department (e.g., from Education to Health). This gives department leaders greater staying power, even when the president might have some buyer’s remorse in appointing them to a position (Jenkins and Milkis 2014).
The Executive Office of the President (EOP), created during the 1930s reforms to the federal government bureaucracy, serves as a crucial coordinating institution at the core of the federal government. The EOP provides the president and his White House team with the capacity to develop policy and produce broad administration initiatives. However, much of the actual policymaking occurs within individual departments, and cross-department coordination is variable and sometimes quite weak (Skowronek et al. 2021).
The Biden administration released its President’s Management Agenda (PMA) in 2021, which defines government-wide management priorities for all federal agencies. The PMA is designed to support progress and opportunities beyond the reach of any single federal agency.
Once appointed, agency leaders tend to stay in place for at least the political lifecycle of their appointer. A department might see just one or two leaders over a four-year presidential term. For example, despite the personnel difficulties of the Trump administration, Trump had the same secretaries of the Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, Housing, Transportation, Education, and Trade for his full four-year presidency. State, Interior, Health, and Energy had just one change during his presidency. It is difficult for presidents to reshuffle their Cabinets because Senate approval is required for any new appointment, including moving an already confirmed departmental head to another department (e.g., from Education to Health). This gives department leaders greater staying power, even when the president might have some buyer’s remorse in appointing them to a position (Jenkins and Milkis 2014).
The Executive Office of the President (EOP), created during the 1930s reforms to the federal government bureaucracy, serves as a crucial coordinating institution at the core of the federal government. The EOP provides the president and his White House team with the capacity to develop policy and produce broad administration initiatives. However, much of the actual policymaking occurs within individual departments, and cross-department coordination is variable and sometimes quite weak (Skowronek et al. 2021).
The Biden administration released its President’s Management Agenda (PMA) in 2021, which defines government-wide management priorities for all federal agencies. The PMA is designed to support progress and opportunities beyond the reach of any single federal agency.
Citations:
Stephen Skowronek, John Dearborn, and Desmond King. 2021. Phantoms of a Beleaguered Republic: The Deep State and the Unitary Executive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jeffrey Jenkins and Sidney Milkis. 2014. “Introduction: The Rise of a Policy State?” In The Politics of Major Policy Reform in Postwar America, eds. Jeffrey Jenkins and Sidney Milkis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Daniel Carpenter. 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Stephen Skowronek, John Dearborn, and Desmond King. 2021. Phantoms of a Beleaguered Republic: The Deep State and the Unitary Executive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jeffrey Jenkins and Sidney Milkis. 2014. “Introduction: The Rise of a Policy State?” In The Politics of Major Policy Reform in Postwar America, eds. Jeffrey Jenkins and Sidney Milkis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Daniel Carpenter. 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
4
Ireland
Constitutionally, the Irish government is expected to work collectively, with each minister responsible for all governmental decisions. This collective doctrine fosters cohesion and encourages close coordination and communication. However, evidence shows that silo mindsets persist within ministries, and communication between departments and the national government is often weak. This is particularly evident in the lack of integration between policy areas such as food, agriculture and environmental policy, as well as spatial planning, transport planning and emissions reduction (O’Mahony and Torney 2023). The same issues are noted in priority policy areas like housing and health.
The Government Legislation Committee (GLC) includes the government chief whip, the attorney general, the program managers of the main parties in government, the leader of Seanad Éireann, the chief parliamentary counsel, and representatives of the Department of the Taoiseach (DoT) and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC). The process for discussing policy proposals is outlined in the Cabinet Handbook and the Programme for Government document. However, no definitive committee structure is prescribed, and many practices are ad hoc. The current 10 committees have an average of 6 to 13 members, while the coordination committee includes the leaders of each party in government, the secretary-general of the government and nominated advisers to the party leaders. Other ministers, advisers and officials may be invited to attend.
Informal conversations with senior civil servants suggest that digital technologies are commonly used for sharing documents, especially in policy development. IT systems are employed by the Cabinet Secretariat at the DoT to send memos for government comments. Civil servant mobility is encouraged at all levels, and the Senior Public Service has a scheme for senior staff. Secondments in public service reforms are also available. However, insularity in the public service may hinder the evolution of practices and knowledge. Over 80% of top-level public service appointments have been filled by internal applicants in recent years, with 85% of those recommended for employment coming from the civil service, 15% from the wider public service, and almost none from the private sector, despite 50% of applications coming from outside the civil service and 30% from the private sector.
Despite initiatives to enhance coordination, O’Riordan and Boyle (2023) conclude that significant institutional development is necessary for the public sector to facilitate cross-departmental and cross-institutional information exchange. Senior civil servants confirm that achieving policy coherence is challenging due to the lack of incentives for interministerial coordination, while individual actions are rewarded. The Bioeconomy Implementation Group Review of 2021 found inconsistencies in governmental thinking about integrating the bioeconomy into different policies. Efforts at policy coherence, particularly in climate action and sustainability, often focus on negative trade-offs. Knowledge of options for systemic change, significant positive synergies and the opportunities they present is typically absent from national policymaking processes in Ireland and from supporting analysis (O’Mahony and Torney 2023).
The Government Legislation Committee (GLC) includes the government chief whip, the attorney general, the program managers of the main parties in government, the leader of Seanad Éireann, the chief parliamentary counsel, and representatives of the Department of the Taoiseach (DoT) and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC). The process for discussing policy proposals is outlined in the Cabinet Handbook and the Programme for Government document. However, no definitive committee structure is prescribed, and many practices are ad hoc. The current 10 committees have an average of 6 to 13 members, while the coordination committee includes the leaders of each party in government, the secretary-general of the government and nominated advisers to the party leaders. Other ministers, advisers and officials may be invited to attend.
Informal conversations with senior civil servants suggest that digital technologies are commonly used for sharing documents, especially in policy development. IT systems are employed by the Cabinet Secretariat at the DoT to send memos for government comments. Civil servant mobility is encouraged at all levels, and the Senior Public Service has a scheme for senior staff. Secondments in public service reforms are also available. However, insularity in the public service may hinder the evolution of practices and knowledge. Over 80% of top-level public service appointments have been filled by internal applicants in recent years, with 85% of those recommended for employment coming from the civil service, 15% from the wider public service, and almost none from the private sector, despite 50% of applications coming from outside the civil service and 30% from the private sector.
Despite initiatives to enhance coordination, O’Riordan and Boyle (2023) conclude that significant institutional development is necessary for the public sector to facilitate cross-departmental and cross-institutional information exchange. Senior civil servants confirm that achieving policy coherence is challenging due to the lack of incentives for interministerial coordination, while individual actions are rewarded. The Bioeconomy Implementation Group Review of 2021 found inconsistencies in governmental thinking about integrating the bioeconomy into different policies. Efforts at policy coherence, particularly in climate action and sustainability, often focus on negative trade-offs. Knowledge of options for systemic change, significant positive synergies and the opportunities they present is typically absent from national policymaking processes in Ireland and from supporting analysis (O’Mahony and Torney 2023).
Citations:
Irish Government. 2023. “Bioeconomy Policy.” https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/a1bb6-bioeconomy-policy/#
O’Riordan, J., and R. Boyle. 2023. “Governance of Reform in the Irish Public Service.” Administration 71 (3): 11-33. https://doi.org/10.2478/admin-2023-0015
Boyle, Richard, F. O’Leary, and J. O’Neill. 2022. Public Sector Trends. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.
Health Manager. 2023. “Government to Establish Interdepartmental Working Groups to Examine the Rising Cost of Health-Related Claims.” https://healthmanager.ie/2023/03/government-to-establish-interdepartmental-working-group-to-examine-the-rising-cost-of-health-related-claims/
O’Mahony and Torney. 2023. Transforming Development: Economy, Innovation and Finance, Chapter 6. Volume 4 of Irish Climate Change Assessment. https://www.epa.ie/publications/monitoring–assessment/climate-change/ICCA_Volume-4.pdf
Irish Government. 2023. “Bioeconomy Policy.” https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/a1bb6-bioeconomy-policy/#
O’Riordan, J., and R. Boyle. 2023. “Governance of Reform in the Irish Public Service.” Administration 71 (3): 11-33. https://doi.org/10.2478/admin-2023-0015
Boyle, Richard, F. O’Leary, and J. O’Neill. 2022. Public Sector Trends. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.
Health Manager. 2023. “Government to Establish Interdepartmental Working Groups to Examine the Rising Cost of Health-Related Claims.” https://healthmanager.ie/2023/03/government-to-establish-interdepartmental-working-group-to-examine-the-rising-cost-of-health-related-claims/
O’Mahony and Torney. 2023. Transforming Development: Economy, Innovation and Finance, Chapter 6. Volume 4 of Irish Climate Change Assessment. https://www.epa.ie/publications/monitoring–assessment/climate-change/ICCA_Volume-4.pdf
3
Slovakia
The only formal bodies visible through the online search responsible for interministerial coordination are the Councils of the Government. These councils (23 in total) have an advisory role, with most having sectoral responsibilities. A few exhibit cross-sectoral characteristics, such as the Council of Government of the Recovery and Resilience Plan. No specific digital technologies facilitate interministerial coordination. Work-related incentives are formally available but rarely used. RIA and other formal pre-consultation procedures do not provide sufficient incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities. The Government Office
focuses on draft bills’ legal and technical coherence but lacks the capacity and sectoral expertise to evaluate their policy content. The legislative process encourages negative coordination by providing comments on draft laws. The current situation is not evaluated by any academic or other official online text, but the relatively old evaluation by Staroňová (2007) remains valid. Staroňová (2007, 120) states, “Coordination takes place only after the legislation is developed during the formal review process in the adoption phase of legislation (the so-called ‘commenting period’) and follows a very formal sequencing as stipulated in the Legislative Rules…. In general, there is a strong sense that ministries are autonomous organizations.”
focuses on draft bills’ legal and technical coherence but lacks the capacity and sectoral expertise to evaluate their policy content. The legislative process encourages negative coordination by providing comments on draft laws. The current situation is not evaluated by any academic or other official online text, but the relatively old evaluation by Staroňová (2007) remains valid. Staroňová (2007, 120) states, “Coordination takes place only after the legislation is developed during the formal review process in the adoption phase of legislation (the so-called ‘commenting period’) and follows a very formal sequencing as stipulated in the Legislative Rules…. In general, there is a strong sense that ministries are autonomous organizations.”
Citations:
Staroňová, K. 2007. “Executive Leadership and Policy Management System: The Case of Slovakia.” In Strategic Policy Making in Central and Eastern Europe, eds. M. Brusis, K. Staroňová, and R. Zubek. Bratislava: NISPAcee, 117-134.
Staroňová, K. 2007. “Executive Leadership and Policy Management System: The Case of Slovakia.” In Strategic Policy Making in Central and Eastern Europe, eds. M. Brusis, K. Staroňová, and R. Zubek. Bratislava: NISPAcee, 117-134.
There are no interministerial coordination mechanisms targeting policy coherence that provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities.
2
---
---
1
---
---