3. Policy coordination
• Continuous procedural value
• Avoidance or at least minimisation of
duplication, overlapping and inconsistency of
government policies
• Promotion of comprehensive and coherent,
whole government perspective
6. Topicality
• Cross-sectoral challenges - competitveness,
sustainability, information society etc.
• National interests
• Fiscal pressures
• Efectiveness and eficiency of public administration
7. Policy coordination system
Policy
coordination
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC SERVICES
REGULATION
Formal Informal
GRANTS
TAXES
arrangements arrangements
Organisations
Formal Informal
8. Policy coordination
• Not an all of nothing matter
• Depends on the political system (coalition vs.
majority)
• Distributional interests of sectors
• Trust & social capital
9. Ways to promote policy
coordination
• «Super-ministries»
• Increased coordination in particular areas
• The centre of government
• Bottom-up initiatives
11. Policy coordination in Latvia
• High number of documents, but - lack of the process
approach
• Generalisation and fragmentation (e.g. policy and
investment planning)
• Lack of political support and scepticism in public
administration
• Increase in bottom-up initiatives in territorial level
12. Reasons
• Insufficient level of policy coordination due to the
lack of motivation and low social capital
Often political energies are exhausted in process of setting
objectives and defining missions which cannot be fulfilled
because more basic but less glamorous aspects of the
policy coordination process are too weak to support the
weight of large political ambitions
Metcalfe 1994
13. Social capital in Latvia
Indicator Latvia EU-27 Estonia Finland
Trust level in national parliament 14% 27% 40% 58%
Trust level in national government 19% 24% 49% 56%
Trust level in most people 15% 30% 33% 61%
Satisfaction with the way 23% 49% 38% 79%
democracy works
Satisfaction with life 65% 87% 74% 96%
14. Level of policy coordination
(the survey)
Arbitration by the third party (e.g. prime
minister) (1,70)
Integration of sectoral policies by setting and
mantaining national level priorities (2,03)
Voluntary search for an agreement (2,23)
Exchange of information and consultations
(2,90)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very often (4) Often (3) Sometimes (2) Seldom (1) Never (0)
16. Usefulness of instruments
(the survey)
Declaration of the government
(1,35)
Formal consultations (1,83)
Common policy papers (2,10)
Cross-sectoral policy papers
(2,10)
Voluntary interministerial
working groups (2,23)
Informal networks (2,25)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very useful (3) Fairly useful (2) Not very useful (1) Not at all useful (0) No answer (0)
17. Future prospects
(the survey)
The implementation of comprehensive
15%
whole-government strategy
Special cross-sectoral project or programmes
in fields especially important for the state's 28%
development
Special cross-sectoral project or programmes
in fields where closer sector policy 26%
coordination is needed
Sector policy planning consulting with other
25%
sectors
None of the form will work sufficiently 7%
0% 10% 20% 30%
18. Regional and local level
(the survey)
Need to involve in policy making
Local level - local municipalities
Regional level - planning regions
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very important Fairly important Not very important Not important No answer
Capacity to participate in policy making
Local level - local municipalities
Regional level - planning regions
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sufficient Fairly sufficient Not very sufficient Not sufficient No answer
19. Conclusions
• Informal aspects play a very important role
• Focus on enhanced coordination in particular domains
• Financial motivation (to counteracts distributive interests
of sectors)
• «Soft» measures - exchange of experience, informal
networks, rotation of senior staff etc.
• The role of regional level
