policy coordination in latvia (delft, 2012)
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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