policy coordination in latvia (delft, 2012)

Coordination of Territorial and Sector Planning in Latvia

Alise Vitola, Mg. oec.

Maija Senfelde, prof., Dr. oec.

Delft, May 2012

Content

• Policy coordination

• Current trends in Latvia

• Results of the survey

• Suggestions

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

Types of policy coordination

Administrative(functional)

Policy(strategic)

Vertical(multi-level)

Horizontal(cross-sectoral)

Negative Positive

Horizontal policy coordination

Merging

Synergy

Prioritising

Balancing

Topicality

• Cross-sectoral challenges - competitveness, sustainability, information society etc.

• National interests

• Fiscal pressures

• Efectiveness and eficiency of public administration

PUBL

IC A

DM

INIS

TRAT

ION

Policy coordination system

Formal arrangements

Informal arrangements

Policy coordination

Organisations

Formal Informal

RE

GU

LA

TIO

N T

AX

ES

GR

AN

TS

PU

BL

IC S

ER

VIC

ES

Policy coordination

• Not an all of nothing matter

• Depends on the political system (coalition vs. majority)

• Distributional interests of sectors

• Trust & social capital

Ways to promote policy coordination

• «Super-ministries»

• Increased coordination in particular areas

• The centre of government

• Bottom-up initiatives

Policy coordination scale*

* Les Metcalfe, 1994

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

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

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 democracy works

23% 49% 38% 79%

Satisfaction with life 65% 87% 74% 96%

Level of policy coordination (the survey)

Exchange of information and consultations (2,90)

Voluntary search for an agreement (2,23)

Integration of sectoral policies by setting and mantaining national level priorities (2,03)

Arbitration by the third party (e.g. prime minister) (1,70)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very often (4) Often (3) Sometimes (2) Seldom (1) Never (0)

Policy coordination scale*

* Les Metcalfe, 1994LV

Usefulness of instruments(the survey)

Informal networks (2,25)

Voluntary interministerial working groups (2,23)

Cross-sectoral policy papers (2,10)

Common policy papers (2,10)

Formal consultations (1,83)

Declaration of the government (1,35)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very useful (3) Fairly useful (2) Not very useful (1)Not at all useful (0) No answer (0)

None of the form will work sufficiently

Sector policy planning consulting with other sectors

Special cross-sectoral project or programmes in fields where closer sector policy coordination is needed

Special cross-sectoral project or programmes in fields especially important for the state's development

The implementation of comprehensive whole-government strategy

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

7%

25%

26%

28%

15%

Future prospects(the survey)

Regional level - planning regions

Local level - local municipalities

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sufficient Fairly sufficient Not very sufficient Not sufficient No answer

Regional and local level(the survey)

Regional level - planning regions

Local level - local municipalities

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very important Fairly important Not very important Not important No answer

Need to involve in policy making

Capacity to participate in policy making

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