Policy Coordination in Latvia (Delft, 2012)
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like505 views
The document discusses policy coordination in Latvia. It finds that while Latvia has many policy documents, there is a lack of coordination and consistency across sectors. A survey found coordination happens mostly through informal exchanges rather than formal processes. It suggests Latvia improve coordination by focusing on priority areas, using financial incentives, and promoting informal collaboration and knowledge sharing across sectors. The regional level should also be more involved in coordination.
More Related Content
Similar to Policy Coordination in Latvia (Delft, 2012) (20)
More from Alise Vitola (9)
Recently uploaded (20)
Policy Coordination in Latvia (Delft, 2012)
- 1. Coordination of Territorial and Sector Planning in Latvia Alise Vitola, Mg. oec. Maija Senfelde, prof., Dr. oec. Delft, May 2012
- 2. Content Policy coordination Current trends in Latvia Results of the survey Suggestions
- 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
- 4. Types of policy coordination Administrative Policy (functional) (strategic) Vertical Horizontal (multi-level) (cross-sectoral) Negative Positive
- 5. Horizontal policy coordination Prioritising Synergy Balancing Merging
- 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 束Super-ministries損 Increased coordination in particular areas The centre of government Bottom-up initiatives
- 10. Policy coordination scale* * Les Metcalfe, 1994
- 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)
- 15. Policy coordination scale* * Les Metcalfe, 1994 LV
- 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) 束Soft損 measures - exchange of experience, informal networks, rotation of senior staff etc. The role of regional level