This chapter discusses a key set of enablers that, along with governance values, can contribute to effective governance and a better definition as well as implementation of policy and governance reforms across government. The chapter identifies four enablers, namely: commitment, vision and leadership; equitable and evidence-informed policy-making; whole-of-government co-ordination; as well as change management and innovation. In all likelihood, no policy or reform initiative make use of these practices in a flawless and integrated way, nevertheless this chapter argues that adopting them can contribute to substantive changes in the way governments make decisions and address reforms.
Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance
Baseline Features of Governments that Work Well
2. The Enablers of Sound Public Governance
Abstract
At the same time as public-policy challenges have become more complex and multidimensional, they have become more interconnected through globalisation and greater interdependence among nations. Climate change, migration, inequality: challenges are now characterised by rising uncertainty, increasing complexity, interdependent processes, structures and actors. In this unpredictable context, governments are facing pressure to design and deliver better policies and services, while simultaneously grappling with unprecedented fiscal-stabilisation challenges and trust levels below those that followed the 2008 financial crisis. Trust is difficult to rebuild when governments face the perception that reforms are ineffective and do not sufficiently take into account the needs of losers in the context of the gains of winners (OECD, 2017[1]).
Lessons learned from OECD experience in supporting policy and public-governance reform efforts of Members and Partners suggest that governments are facing the general perception that reform is often seen as a means to save money rather than solve policy challenges. Public governance is a political process, in which the government is not necessary a monolithic decision maker and multiple interests play a role. The way public decisions are made, which information they use and how interests interact behind these decisions define the parameters of policy-making and governance reform. Moreover as interdependence increases, outcomes, trade-offs, and the winners and losers of reform are more difficult to identify, generating considerable additional challenges for successful policy-making.
Governments need to adapt to the new public sector challenges. This might require transforming bureaucracies, institutional arrangements and governance cultures that have been in place for decades (in some cases centuries). Some government are focusing on agility, experimentation, enabling bottom-up innovation, and testing and scaling to deal with complexity and uncertainty, overlapping policy cycles and greater demand for external voices. However, the necessity of new innovative approaches is simultaneous to the necessity of meeting traditional demands of governments in terms of service delivery. In this context, how can governments plan and implement this transformation process? How can citizens and governments be sure that these transformations are driven by a fair willingness to resolve these issues? And how can they tackle complex policy challenges and launch a reform process in a more effective way?
There is no definitive responses to these questions. Countries are still exploring new mechanisms to deal with complexity and civil society. In parallel, citizens still demand more effective means of representation and participation. Nevertheless, key practices have been adopted by countries to approach reform and transformation in a more effective way:
Leadership, politically and stemming from of the civil service, is key to promote and drive change through all levels of the public administration and beyond. Moreover, reforms tend to be more effective when they contribute to the realisation of a common vision, to the common interest and do not constitute isolated efforts which perpetuate the same winners and losers (OECD, 2014[30]).
Reforms tend to work best when they are the subject of sustained commitment from the highest political and management levels to ensure their effective implementation and sustainability.
Public decision-making should aim to be equitable and driven at all times by a commitment to serve the public interest. To this end, evidence-informed decision-making can play a key role in improving the design, implementation and evaluation of public policies. This also means government should proactively seek the views of stakeholders at all key points in the policy cycle, as highlighted in chapter 1, to optimise the state’s accountability, responsiveness and integrity.
An integrated and innovative approach to reform requires overcoming traditional administrative barriers to designing, implementing and evaluating the performance of multidimensional policy responses through robust, sustained whole-of-government coordination across policy areas, administrative silos within governments, and between levels of government.
Successful reforms also place high political and institutional priority to innovation and experimentation to manage change successfully over time, in order to create more agile and responsive institutions.
In all likelihood, no policy or reform initiative make use of these practices in a flawless and integrated way. Policymakers usually deal with day-to-day emergencies that leave little room for effective co-ordination meetings, for experimentation or the development of innovation approaches or for sustained stakeholder engagement. Nevertheless adopting these practices in a progressive way can contribute to substantive changes in the way governments approach change. Future editions of the Framework will aim to propose more tailored sequential guidance and advice on reform enablers, for instance through implementation toolkits and maturity models.
Figure 2.1. The Enablers of Reform and of Sound Public Governance
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Commitment, vision and leadership
Commitment at the highest political level appropriate to the scale of reform being undertaken, is crucial to ensuring the success of reforms. Without commitment to reform from the highest political level, for public service leadership struggles to find incentives to pursue medium-term reform initiatives as it goes about managing its day-to-day responsibilities while fixing short-term, urgent issues.
Governments can exercise leadership in this area by expressing a strong political commitment for better governance and demonstrating the political will to endorse and recommends this approach in areas such as regulation, gender equality in public life, digital government and integrity:
The Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance [OECD/LEGAL/0390] recommends that Adherents commit at the highest political level to an explicit whole-of-government policy for regulatory quality (OECD, 2012[27]).
The Recommendation on Gender Equality in Public Life [OECD/LEGAL/0418] suggests that Adherents secure leadership and commitment at the highest political level as well as at the appropriate level of government in order to develop and implement a whole-of government strategy for effective gender equality and mainstreaming (OECD, 2015[25]).
The Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies [OECD/LEGAL/0406] recommends that Adherents secure leadership and political commitment for the strategy, through a combination of efforts aimed at promoting inter-ministerial co-ordination and collaboration, setting priorities and facilitate engagement and co-ordination of relevant agencies across levels of government in pursuing the digital government agenda. (OECD, 2014[31])
The Recommendation on Public Integrity [OECD/LEGAL/0435] recommends that Adherents demonstrate commitment at the highest political and management levels within the public sector to enhance public integrity and reduce corruption (2017[11]).
The Centre of Government (CoG) (Box 2.1) can play an important role in mainstreaming reform across the public administration. In OECD Member countries, the CoG is playing an increasingly important role in driving strategic priorities, closely linked with their increasing responsibilities on policy co-ordination (see Section 2.3.). According to the OECD Survey on the Organisation and Functions of Centres of Government, and its report Centre Stage, the CoG tends to play a prominent role in temporarily driving sensitive and/or structural reforms of the public administration, in particular at their initial stage (OECD, 2018[32]). This temporary assignment can send a strong message of political commitment both within the public sector and to the public. This has been the case in a number of OECD countries with e-government strategies and with red tape/administrative burden reduction initiatives (OECD, 2014[33]).
Box 2.1. What is the Centre of Government?
The strategic role of Centre of Government (CoG) has been expanding over the course of the last decade due to the increasing complexity of policy-making and the emergence of whole-of-government strategy-setting and implementation, strategic monitoring of government performance over the medium term, and strategic issues management.
The CoG is “the body of group of bodies that provide direct support and advice to Heads of Government and the Council of Minister, or Cabinet”. The CoG is mandated to ensure the consistency and prudency of government decisions and “to promote evidence-based, strategic and consistent policies” (OECD, 2014[33]).
The CoG concept does not make explicit reference to any particular organisational structure: institutions vary from one country to another, depending on the constitutional order, the political system, the administrative structure of the country, contextual and historical actors and even the personality of the chief executive. Therefore, expanded definitions of the CoG can include institutions or agencies which perform core cross-cutting governmental functions, such as finance or planning ministries, even if they are not reporting directly to, or supporting, the Head of Government/Head of State and Council of Ministers.
Source: OECD(2014[33]) Centre Stage, Driving Better Policies from the Centre of Government, https://www.oecd.org/gov/Centre-Stage-Report.pdf ; Alessandro, M, et al. (Alessandro, Lafuente and Santiso, 2013[34]) The Role of the Center of Government: a Literature Review, Institutions for Development, Technical Note, IDB-TN-581, IDB, Washington, DC, https://publications.iadb.org/handle/11319/5988
A broad government commitment can usually find expression in a government vision. As shown in the Centre Stage report on driving better policies from the CoG, nearly all OECD Member countries have some sort of strategic vision document. In this regard, OECD experience garnered through its country reviews has shown that governments can give better coherence to the activities when they have the capacity to define, implement and communicate both internally and externally their strategic visions, a means to orient the state, civil society, the private sector and citizens toward a common goal (OECD, 2011[78]).
How this vision is formulated and translated into specific long or medium-term strategies and policy decisions is an important process as it contributes to defining priorities and objectives along with the nature and scope of reforms; it underpins the rationale for better coordination as a means to pursue it. Strategic foresight, horizon scanning and debates on alternative futures with stakeholders are different tools that can support governments in the elaboration of a vision that incorporates trends and possible scenarios. A vision-building exercise and planning process that are open and include robust stakeholder engagement can legitimise policy-making and can constitute an effective tool to ensure the sustainability of reforms (OECD, 2016[23])
In this connection, public service leadership is also fundamental to achieve successful reforms for sound public governance. Public service leadership refers to senior-level public servants, who are those public servants who take decisions and exert influence at the highest hierarchical levels of the professional public service. In today’s complex political and policy environment, senior-level public servants are expected to work effectively across administrative and policy silos, responding diligently and ethically to support rapidly changing political agendas and reacting with agility to unpredictable developments. As senior-level public servants usually link strategy to policy execution, governments should invest in building a values-driven culture and leadership in the public service, centred on improving outcomes for society. Senior-management leadership can help ensure the effective policy design and implementation by drawing from institutional knowledge and experience to contribute to evidence-based decision-making1. Investing in leadership is an important catalyser for effective reform, regardless of the area or policy theme. This includes building effective systems for competitive and merit-based appointments of senior management and heads of agencies.
Recognising the essential role of these key actors, the OECD Recommendation on Public Service leadership and Capability (2019[9]) [OECD/LEGAL/0445] specifically recommends Adherents build leadership capability in the public service. The guidance it provides encourages governments to:
Clarify the expectations incumbent upon senior-level public servants to be politically impartial leaders of public organisations, trusted to deliver on the priorities of the government, and uphold and embody the highest standards of integrity without fear of politically-motivated retribution. This suggests the need to codify these expectations in law and ensure they are upheld and regularly monitored. Similarly, conflict of interest issues should be systematically reported and addressed though clear procedures.
Select and appoint the right people to these positions considering merit-based criteria and transparent procedures, and holding them accountable for performance through appropriate means. This suggests the need to look at performance management mechanisms for leaders and the integration of these mechanisms into the governance system.
Ensure senior-level public servants have the mandate, competencies, and conditions necessary to provide impartial evidence-informed advice and speak truth to power.
Develop the leadership capabilities of current and potential senior-level public servants.
The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity (2017[11]) [OECD/LEGAL/0435] also suggests investing in integrity leadership to demonstrate a public sector organisation’s commitment to integrity.
Core questions for consideration
When identifying and pursuing a priority reform initiative, does the government demonstrate sustainable commitment at the highest political and management levels through an explicit institutional measure?
How can the administration support the government in conveying this commitment towards sound public governance internally within and outside the administration?
Has the government established a medium to long-term vision and goals, and clear institutional mandates and financial resources for their accomplishment?
Is there an emphasis put on leadership to support the management of individual and collective performance? Does the government invest in skills to build leadership capability in the public service?
Does your government use cross-silo coordination instruments or mechanisms to secure alignment of actions and decisions of individual parts of the administration with the government’s main objectives, thereby ensuring greater coherence in government action?
Equitable and evidence-informed policy-making
Policy-making is not the same as technical decision-making. The first typically involves a trade-off between competing social values and different interests (Parkhurst, 2017[35]). Yet managing policy and technical decision-making effectively and efficiently in the general public interest lies at the core of sound public governance. How public decisions are made, which interests lie behind these decisions and what their goals are define the parameters within which reforms leading to sound public governance are designed and carried out. Despite the different features and dynamics of political systems, public decision-making should be framed at all times by the commitment to pursue the public interest – hence the notion of equitable policy-making.
When there is a lack of transparency and integrity in decision-making processes, lobbying and other practices to seek influence can be used to steer public policies away from the public interest. Powerful interests can put enormous pressure on government decision-making, determining how and for who our society works. As a result, policies are biased and suboptimal, and real progress towards addressing key policy challenges equitably in the public interest is undermined. This can become a major obstacle to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Preventing these risks requires fixing distorted decision-making.
Therefore, a pivotal element to guaranteeing equitable decision-making is preventing undue influence by vested interests. If governments make decisions favouring a specific interest group or individual at the expense of the public interest, the whole reform process is affected: policies will privilege the few; evidence will no longer be credible and people will lose trust in their institutions. Levelling the playing field can promote broader consensus and more legitimacy to decisions. This means allowing equitable access to the design and implementation of policy, and strengthening the transparency and integrity of policy-making processes. Equitable decision-making is strengthened when a multiplicity of actors, through robust enabling mechanisms and institutional spaces, promote and work collectively and in a representative manner in the public interest. This includes the necessity of strong and representative institutions, for example political parties, trade unions or trade associations, which represent the different interests of the society. Other institutions such as community-based or issue-based organisation can also offset undue influence and level the playing field. It also includes harnessing new media and channels of representation that can reduce the costs and enhance the impact of collective action.
No government is immune from attempts at undue influence. Given the economic and political interests that are at stake, the public arena is always vulnerable to possible hijacking by one or more special-interest groups. This potentially affects one of the basic tenets of democracy - political equality- and can lead to inequitable and vested-interest-based policy-making. Influence from particular interests of individuals or groups may not be illegal; in fact, it is part of the democratic process. However, fundamental issues emerge when everyone does not share the same opportunity to ensure that their interests are taken into account in the policy-making process. This can occur because of:
Disproportionate pressure and privileged access through lobbying of public officials,
Excessive financing of political parties and candidates’ electoral campaigns,
Provision of manipulated or fraudulent expertise or technical data,
Use of personal connections that lead to conflicts of interests.
Box 2.2. What is policy capture?
Policy capture is the process of directing public policy decisions away from the public interest towards the interests of a specific interest group or person. Capture is the opposite of equitable policy-making, and always undermines core democratic values, while usually also resulting in suboptimal public policies The capture of public decisions can be achieved through a wide variety of illegal instruments, such as bribery, but also through legal channels, such as lobbying and financial support to political parties and election campaigns. Undue influence can also be exercised without the direct involvement or knowledge of public decision makers, by manipulating the information provided to them, or establishing close social or emotional ties with them.
Source: OECD (2017[36]), Preventing Policy Capture, Integrity in Public Decision Making, http://www.oecd.org/corruption/preventing-policy-capture-9789264065239-en.htm.
Policy capture can happen at all stages of the policy cycle. Hence, over the past decades OECD Member countries have implemented different measures to avoid it. Governance structures should include the means to guarantee that policy and reform decisions are made in the most equitable way, including through the development of a culture of integrity, openness, inclusiveness and respect of the rule of law (see Chapter 1), such as by:
Engaging stakeholders in the decision-making process as early as possible as a key means to level the playing field and generate a broader consensus and more legitimacy regarding public-policy decisions;
Strengthening the integrity frameworks of representative institutions, including single-interest ones; for instance through specific regulations that frame their representativeness from a public-integrity standpoint;
Ensuring strategic communication, transparency and access to complete and updated information to enable civil society and all stakeholders access to the same information, data and evidence when engaging in policy discussions;
Promoting accountability through competition authorities, regulatory agencies and supreme audit institutions;
Identifying and mitigating policy-capture risk factors through integrity policies that are tailored to the specifics of different public institutions.
In addition, OECD evidence suggests that countries are adopting key tools to balance stakeholders’ ability to influence policymakers against the public interest, including:
Effective limitations to and oversight over political financing;
Adequate scrutiny and analysis of policy-making, making this available in an open, transparent and accessible manner to all; and
Implementing effective controls over lobbying, for instance through the establishment of transparency status for lobbyists and interest managers or the publication of donations taken and trips made by an authority (Box 2.3).
Box 2.3. France’s High Authority for transparency in public life
Since its creation in 2014, France’s High Authority for transparency in public life has aimed to uphold the integrity of public officials. Two of the institution’s core responsibilities involve promoting probity of French public officials and regulating lobbying:
Over 15 000 elected officials and civil servants are required to disclose their assets and interests to the High Authority when taking office Since its creation, the institution has received over 42 000 declarations and referred over 60 irregularities to the court. In October 2016, online disclosures became mandatory and some declarations are now published in an open data format following accuracy checks.
The High Authority also manages an online public register of lobbyists to inform citizens of the relations between lobbyists and decision-makers. Registration is mandatory for firms and associations that seek to influence the decision-making process through interactions with public officials. Over 1 900 entities and 14 000 activities were registered as of July 2019.
Source: Example of country practice provided by the Government of France as part of the Policy Framework's consultation process
The use of evidence in policy-making; in particular the governance of how evidence is collected, applied and integrated into decision-making on the broad social, political and economic policy challenges of the day, is a key – and complementary – element that can determine the nature and impact of reforms (Parkhurst, 2017[35]). Evidence-informed policy-making can play a critical role in improving the design, implementation and evaluation of all public policies, in ensuring good governance, notably equal access to quality, responsive and people-centred public services.
The collection of evidence can represent a particular challenge for policymakers, specifically in a context where the authority of science in being challenged. Evidence is not always easily available and can present conflicting findings, especially in complex policy areas. Moreover, it is important to assess the credibility and reliability of information, data, and factual evidence (for example through replicability, a multiplicity of sources, independent validation, etc.) used to make decisions. In cases where governmental institutions are not data producers, but consumers, the evidence produced by external actors can be subject to internal assessments of credibility and reliability. Moreover, strong management of the stock of evidence, with robust knowledge-management processes and the full mobilisation of administrative data, will help prevent one-sided policy design, avoid duplication, ensure that scarce resources are directed toward areas of greatest need and that services are designed and delivered based on evidence that demonstrates this need. Governments can lack the capacity to do so, developing skills to commission, understand and use evidence is therefore crucial. This provides the strongest opportunity for designing policies that will benefit citizens, overcome institutional bias and guard against vested interests maintaining the status quo.
While the need for evidence is generally widely accepted, evidence-informed approaches do not obviate the need for political discretion and commitment; they can ensure, however, that all policy choices and trade-offs are fully aired. In a context where the role of social media is growing, with direct access to a range of evidence through web-based channels whose sources are of uneven quality, and with increasing concern for fake news, the need for an evidence-informed approach to decision-making is taking on added importance.
This requires closing the implementation loop from the start, to ensure that the proposed reforms will and can be implemented. Implementation research (including performance evidence) can make a difference between the successful implementation of an intervention and one that is ineffective or even potentially harmful, offering tools for researchers and government officials to monitor the implementation of policies, ensuring they achieve the impacts that policymakers and citizens expect. This requires experimentation, the capacity for policy prototyping and piloting, and appetite, support and capacity for innovation in the public sector.
To close the implementation loop, policy evaluation (Chapter 5) can contribute to identify whether policies are actually improving outcomes. Robust evidence on the efficacy, policy-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of initiatives ensures that we understand ‘what works, why, for whom and under what circumstances’.
Yet experience confirms that reaching this state of affairs is challenging. Even in the most developed systems, challenges in connecting evidence and decision-making remain:
The civil service needs the right skills to commission, understand and use evidence. This necessitates building capacity at the level of the individual, and supporting the adoption of procedures, incentives and resources to enhance use of evidence.
Evidence-informed policy-making also requires a supportive institutional set-up and infrastructure with a clear and transparent framework for evidence-generation and use. This might include the existence of quality control and assurance mechanisms to check the reliability and robustness of the evidence collected, before they are actually used.
Evidence, no matter how robust and relevant, can only ever constitute part of the policy-making process: evidence will always be mediated through a process that integrates intuition and judgement into the shaping of the final policy decision.
Box 2.4. Examples of evidence-informed policy-making initiatives
Capacity building for evidence generation and use – several countries and organisations have made valuable steps to build public sector capacity and use. In the United Kingdom (UK), NESTA with the Alliance for Useful Evidence has created ‘Evidence Masterclasses’, providing “an immersive learning experience” for senior decision-makers who want to become more skilled and confident users of research.
Evidence Based Clearing Houses and What Works Centres – many OECD Member countries have clearing organisations which systematically review the evidence base underpinning policies and practices, assessing the strength of evidence and communicating this in an easy to understand format. Examples include the California Evidence-Based Clearing House for Child Welfare, the UK What Works Centres, and The Danish Clearinghouse for Educational Research, Kidsmatter Australia and the Swedish Institute for Educational Research.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Core questions for consideration
Are there mechanisms in place to allow policymakers regularly and proactively engage stakeholders that represent (and disclose) different interests in decision-making processes?
Does your government have regulations to establish formal and transparent links between interest groups and decision-makers for public decision-making?
For non-governmental institutions representing specific interests, such as political parties, trade union or trade associations, are there laws or regulations that frame their governance and representativeness from a public-integrity standpoint (as competitive elections for leaders, democratic decision-making; financial transparency and audit requirements; rules respecting electoral financing; etc.)?
Does the civil service have the knowledge, skills and capacity to ensure a right uptake of quality evidence in policy-making?
Does the senior civil service have a strategic understanding of the role of evidence-informed policy-making and to ensure that policymakers possess the right evidence at the right time in the right format?
Does the public sector have the processes and institutional set-up for incorporating evidence in policy-making?
Is the evidence used by policymakers subject to transparency and integrity requirements? Does the collection of evidence follow particular criteria/requirements to ensure its validity?
Whole-of-government co-ordination
In recent decades policy co-ordination to achieve greater policy coherence has become particularly relevant for many OECD Members and Partners, mainly due to the emergence of cross-cutting, multi-dimensional policy challenges and the subsequent atomisation of administrative structures illustrated by the exponential growth of agencies and other autonomous bodies (Beuselinck, 2008[37]; Alessandro, Lafuente and Santiso, 2013[34]). This is relevant for both horizontal co-ordination across administrative unities (ministries, agencies) as well as vertical co-ordination across level of government (Box 2.5).
Box 2.5. The importance of co-ordination across levels of government
While the initial focus of multi-level governance reforms can be on specific areas, such as infrastructure, OECD experience show that multi-level governance reform should be holistic and multi-dimensional to obviate negative and counterproductive outcomes. Additionally, they should account for regional disparities and develop co-ordination instruments and other management tools to ensure the sustainability. In light of these objectives, the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Effective Public Investment across Levels of Government (2014 ) [OECD/LEGAL/0402] sets out 12 principles grouped into three pillars representing systemic challenges to managing public investment. In particular, the first pillar highlights the importance of co-ordination across governments and policy areas:
Pillar 1 - Co-ordinate across governments and policy areas, including invest using an integrated strategy tailored to different places; adopt effective co-ordination instrument across levels of government; and co-ordinate across SNGs to invest at the relevant scale
Pillar 2 - Strengthen capacities and promote policy leaning across levels of government
Pillar 3 - Ensure sound framework conditions at all levels of government
Source: OECD (2017[38]), Multi-level Governance Reforms: Overview of OECD Country Experiences, OECD Multi-Level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264272866-en ; OECD (2019[39]), Effective Public Investment Across Levels of Government: Implementing the OECD Principles, Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMES, Regions and Cities, https://www.oecd.org/effective-public-investment-toolkit/OECD_Principles_For_Action_2019_FINAL.pdf.
Regarding whole-of-government co-ordination, according to the OECD Survey on Centre of Governments, most of the countries surveyed (59%) reported that the number of cross-ministerial policy initiatives has grown since 2008 (OECD, 2014[33]). To promote coherence in the way the government works across ministries, agencies and other administrative units, the majority (67%) of OECD Member countries surveyed in the 2017 update to the 2014 survey has strengthened the institutional and financial capacities of their Centres of Government, whose mandates have progressively shifted from administrative support to policy coordination (OECD, 2018[32]).
Figure 2.2. Key responsibilities delegated to the Centre of Government across OECD Member countries
Source: Survey on the Organisation and Functions of the Centre of Government, OECD, 2017 published in OECD (2018[32]), Centre Stage 2: The Organisation and Functions of the Centre of Government in OECD Member countries, OECD Centres of Government
Despite the wide range of institutional CoG structures across OECD Member countries, the 2014 and 2017 OECD surveys on the Centre of Government (OECD, 2014[33] ; OECD, 2018[32]) show several commonalities in their functions and responsibilities for leading whole-of-government co-ordination (Figure 2.2. ). These can be clustered in the following key areas:
Driving evidence-based, inclusive and timely decision-making by the Head of Government;
In most countries, the chief executive is supported by a private office that structures daily business and provides political intelligence and advisory support on an ad hoc basis. Regular Cabinet meetings remain the principal channel for policy discussion.
Legal conformity, regulatory quality and adequate costing are three important technical functions that support decision-making and can be co-ordinated by the CoG.
Policy co-ordination across government, which increasingly includes leading cross-cutting, multidimensional priority strategies;
One test of the effectiveness of the Centre of Government is its ability to play a mediator role between ministries’ disagreements.
The CoG is playing more of a leadership role with respect to strategic priorities, including on sensitive policy issues, designing action plans in cooperation with relevant departments and leading in project management.
Several CoGs provide technical and advisory support to line ministries to help them adjust and meet the extra demands of horizontal projects. The main incentives used by the Centre to promote horizontal work are individual or collective performance targets as well as evaluation.
Medium-term strategic planning for the whole-of-government;
A majority of OECD Member countries adopt strategic documents with a relatively short time horizon, similar to a single electoral term.
Three planning models are common in OECD Member countries: (i) a thigh-level cluster located close to and reporting directly the Head of Government; (ii) a system of strategy meetings including multiple departments and co-ordinated by the CoG; (iii) a specific unit dedicated to horizon scanning.
Monitoring the implementation of government policy for impact and results;
Monitoring can take different forms: regular reports delivered to the CoG, cabinet meetings to discuss on the achievement of particular targets, and more specific performance management mechanisms, which could include planning expenditure, input and outcome indicators.
Strategic communications: the Centre of Government is also playing an increasing role in strategic communications both internally and with the public, including managing the government’s social media strategies.
Leading transition planning: CoGs are also more frequently called upon to manage strategic support to incoming governments following general elections in order to ensure a smooth transition and transfer of power between governments, thereby sustaining stability across the electoral cycle.
Box 2.6. Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development
Target 17.14 of the SDGs calls on states to enhance policy coherence for sustainable development as a means of implementation This require collaboration and co-ordination across policy sectors and different levels of government. Moreover, policy coherence implies balancing short-term objectives with long-term sustainability objectives in a way that accounts for the impact of domestic policies on global well-being. The 2019 amended OECD Recommendation of the Council on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development highlights the importance of:
Develop a strategic vision for achieving the SDGs in an integrated and coherent manner
Develop effective and inclusive institutional mechanisms to address policy interactions across sectors and align actions between levels of government
Develop a set of responsive and adaptive tools to anticipate asses and address domestic, transboundary and long-term impacts of policies
Source: OECD (2019[79]), Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development 2019: Empowering People and Ensuring Inclusiveness and Equality, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a90f851f-en ; OECD, 2019[3], OECD Recommendation of the Council on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, https://www.oecd.org/gov/pcsd/oecd-recommendation-on-policy-coherence-for-sustainable-development.htm.
Core questions for consideration
Has your government developed civil-service capacities within the public administration to organise and lead high-level strategic policy discussion and planning?
Are there mechanisms at your government for the coordination of cross-governmental policy initiatives, such as policy co-ordination groups or committees?
Does your government generate incentives to promote co-ordination across ministries and agencies, such as financial, or individual or collective performance targets?
Has your government established clear mechanisms such as clear work plans for the implementation of the government programme, performance targets or monitoring instruments to ensure that the government’s policy priorities are implemented?
Innovation and change management
Public-sector innovation is about introducing and implementing new ideas whose impact help promote and improve sound public governance by reinforcing the strategic agility and forward-looking nature of the state. It is about how to introduce, and how to respond to, discontinuous change while promoting citizen-centred approaches in the design and implementation of public services.
This change can range from the more incremental (significantly altering or introducing an entirely new process), to the radical (a whole new way of understanding the world).
The change can be about disruption (i.e. new technology and associated operating models), about transformation (e.g. moving from analogue processes to digital interactions), or about defining and pursuing strategic priorities and ambitions when there were none before.
Evidence suggests that promoting public-sector innovation is a key priority in promoting sound public governance in many OECD Member countries. While market forces, notably competition, shape private-sector performance, the public sector needs to implement a range of mechanisms that supports, or at least establishes the conditions for, dynamic and disruptive capacity to change in ways that improve the government’s performance in serving citizens and businesses successfully in a fast-changing world. Governments now have to grapple with a number of drivers that requires a more structured and consistent approach to managing change and encouraging innovation:
Changing functions – in an environment of change, governments must also change how they operate;
Running to stay in place – in an evolving economy, governments have to change policy settings just in order to maintain results;
No room for spectators – in order to remain effective decision-makers, governments have to have actual knowledge of innovation; they cannot wait for the answers to be given to them;
People expect more – many politicians, citizens and public servants want and expect things to change;
Risk of a mismatch – a government that does not innovate is one that is at risk of always being behind, always reacting yet forever disappointing;
Innovation as a core competency – the need for innovation can strike anywhere, therefore everyone must be ready to play a part.
Much is still being learned about how best to create the conditions for innovation, and the skills, capabilities, tools and resources needed to undertake it successfully. Experience from across OECD Member countries indicates that innovation takes place across all levels of government. There is a role for the central government to create the conditions for it to emerge (Box 2.7). Research has found that the main innovation enablers in government are linked to factors related to how people are managed, whether internal regulations work, the role of budgets in creating space for innovation, how project management practices can be designed to deal with risks, and how to create safe spaces to experiment (innovation labs and units).
However considering these factors in isolation only provides a partial view of where innovation is most required or wanted, and may result in shifting blockages from one part of the system to another. The OECD Declaration on Public Sector Innovation (2019[40]) [OECD/LEGAL/0450] seeks to help governments and public organisations improve innovation to address a variety of challenges and leverage opportunities. The declaration establishes five principles and associated actions which can inform innovation and its management:
Embrace and enhance innovation within the public sector
Encourage and equip all public sector servants to innovate
Cultivate new partnerships and involve different voices
Support exploration, iteration and testing
Diffuse lessons and share practices
In addition, a systems perspective can bolster the capacity and ability of the civil service to identify, develop and apply new approaches as needed, both to meet current mandates and respond to new threats and opportunities2. The OECD has identified four areas that administrations should concentrate on if innovation is to be a consistent and reliable resource for governments:
Clarity – is there a clear signal being sent to actors in the public service about innovation and how it fits with other priorities?
Parity – does innovation have equal footing with other considerations for proposed courses of action?
Suitability – are the capabilities, systems, and infrastructure suitable for the options that are available?
Normality – is innovation seen as integral rather than as an occasionally accepted deviation from the norm?
Moreover, in 2017, the OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation published a beta model of skills to promote and enable innovation in public sector organisations (OECD, 2017[41]). The OECD beta skills model for public sector innovation is based around six “core” skill areas which enable civil servants to support increased levels of innovation in the public sector:
Iteration: Incrementally and experimentally developing policies, products and services
Data literacy: ensuring decisions are data-driven and that data isn’t an after thought
User centricity: Public services should be focused on solving and servicing user needs
Curiosity: seeking out and trying new ideas or ways of working
Storytelling : explaining change in a way that builds support
Insurgency: challenging the status quo and working with unusual partners
Box 2.7. Innovation in the public sector in Canada
Impact Canada
Announced in Budget 2017, Impact Canada is a whole-of-government effort that helps departments to accelerate the adoption of innovative approaches to deliver meaningful results to Canadians. The initiative reflects the need for and value of innovation in achieving government priorities and improving societal outcomes for citizens. Impact Canada promotes a wide range of innovative approaches including:
Challenge prizes which reward the first or best solution to a specific problem based on a set of pre-determined criteria;
Pay-for-Results Instruments, which are approaches to funding that shift the focus towards issue payments based on the achievements of positive and measurable results;
Behavioural insights, which is the application of findings from psychology, economics, and other social sciences to the work of government.
Canada’s Deputy Ministers Task Force on Public Sector Innovation (TF-PSI)
In November 2017, Canada launched the Deputy Ministers Task Force on public Sector Innovation (TF-PSI). The Task Force aims to play an action-oriented role in experimenting with innovative approaches, and helping the government achieve its policy priorities. The Task Force supports relevant departments along two major themes :
(1) Core systems transformation and
(2) Disruptive policy solutions
Source: Example of country practice provided by the Government of Canada as part of the Policy Framework's consultation process
Innovation and change management are two important but distinct enablers for effective reform. Change management is generally about transitioning to a known desired state or outcome, whereas innovation is an exploratory process of learning in a complex and uncertain context. Both play an essential role in effective government, though both require differing types of support and preconditions to be undertaken successfully.
Changes and reforms can at times be unpopular, or take time to produce results. A key challenge for governments in managing change successfully is to sustain legitimacy while enhancing support for reforms despite political and policy roadblocks or bottlenecks. Effective change management aims to keep the momentum for reform going, while overcoming opposition to change, whether internal or from the public. In the public sector, this is especially difficult as simultaneous change processes often occur at once. The OECD report “Making Reform Happen” (2010[83]) suggests that success in change management often depends on the existence of an electoral mandate, effective communication, sound institutions and leadership, prioritisation and sequencing of reforms, and how effectively reform agents interact with opponents to the reforms being pursued.
While change management is a long-standing focus and activity within the public sector, governments across the OECD are increasingly examining how to take a more sophisticated and institutional approach to change-management issues and strategies. Governments have begun to move away from top-down change-management processes to encompass a broader view of change which involves integrating bottom-up and top-down activities, including systematic problem identification, ideas generation, filtering of alternative solutions and their implementation.
Future iterations of the Policy Framework will present country practice in change management as an important, if still emerging, area of public governance and in so doing will present evidence of success where it exists in managing change and of the impact of successful change-management approaches on improving outcomes for citizens.
Core questions for consideration
Does the public sector have the capacity to absorb new trends, address underlying shifts, and track potential changes in citizen expectations and needs?
How does your government learn from emerging practices, and mainstream the lessons into core practices?
Does your government support (advising, guiding, and resourcing) agencies, public servants, and actors at the local level to enable them to test and apply new ways of doing things in order to deliver public value?
Additional resources
OECD Legal Instruments:
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Effective Public Investment across Levels of Government (2014) [OECD/LEGAL/0402]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity (2017) [OECD/LEGAL/0435]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (2017) [OECD/LEGAL/0438]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies (2014) [OECD/LEGAL/0406]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying (2010) [OECD/LEGAL/0379]
OECD Declaration on Public Sector Innovation (2019) [OECD/LEGAL/0450]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Service Leadership and Capability (2019) [OECD/LEGAL/0445]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity (2017) [OECD/LEGAL/0435]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Gender Equality in Public Life (2015) [OECD/LEGAL/0410]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies (2014) [OECD/LEGAL/0406]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance (2012) [OECD/LEGAL/0390]
Other relevant OECD tools:
OECD Embracing Innovation in Government: Global Trends (2019)
Managing Change in OECD Governments. An Introductory Framework (2008)
“Modernising Government”, in Making Reform Happen, Lessons from OECD Countries (2010)
SIGMA The Principles of Public Administration, OECD Publishing, Paris (2017)
OECD Preventing Policy Capture, Integrity in Public Decision Making (2017).
Summary of OECD conference on Evidence-Informed Policy Making (2017)
OECD Centre Stage, Driving Better Policies from the Centre of Government (2014)
SIGMA The Principles of Public Administration, OECD Publishing, Paris, (2017)
References
[34] Alessandro, M., M. Lafuente and C. Santiso (2013), The Role of the Center of Government A Literature Review, Institutions for Development , Washington, DC, http://www.iadb.org (accessed on 4 October 2019).
[37] Beuselinck, E. (2008), Shifting public sector coordination and the underlying drivers of change: a neo-institutional perspective, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
[39] OECD (2019), Effective Public Investment Across Levels of Government : Implementing the OECD Principles, Centre for Entrepreneurships, SMES, Regions and Cities, https://www.oecd.org/effective-public-investment-toolkit/ (accessed on 4 October 2019).
[79] OECD (2019), Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development 2019: Empowering People and Ensuring Inclusiveness and Equality, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/a90f851f-en.
[9] OECD (2019), Recommendation of the Council on Public Service Leadership and Capability.
[40] OECD (2019), Declaration on Public Sector Innovation, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0450 (accessed on 4 October 2019).
[3] OECD (2019), Recommendation of the Council on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, https://www.oecd.org/gov/pcsd/oecd-recommendation-on-policy-coherence-for-sustainable-development.htm.
[32] OECD (2018), Centre Stage 2, OECD Centres of Government.
[38] OECD (2017), Multi-level Governance Reforms: Overview of OECD Country Experiences, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264272866-en.
[36] OECD (2017), Preventing Policy Capture: Integrity in Public Decision Making, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264065239-en.
[2] OECD (2017), Systems Approaches to Public Sector Challenges: Working with Change, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264279865-en.
[41] OECD (2017), Core Skills for Public Sector Innovation, Observatory of Public Sector Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[1] OECD (2017), Government at a Glance 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2017-en.
[11] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity.
[23] OECD (2016), Open Government:The global context and the way forward.
[25] OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Gender Equality in Public Life.
[33] OECD (2014), Centre Stage: Driving Better Policies from the Centre of Governemnt.
[31] OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies.
[30] OECD (2014), Vision, Leadership, Innovation: Driving Public Sector Performance.
[27] OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance.
[78] OECD (2011), Estonia: Towards a Single Government Approach, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264104860-en.
[83] OECD (2010), Making Reform Happen: Lessons from OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264086296-en.
[35] Parkhurst, J. (2017), The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence, Abingdon: Routledge, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68604/1/Parkhurst_The Politics of Evidence.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2019).
Notes
← 2. A systems approach “analyses the different elements of the system underlying a policy problem, as well as the dynamics and interactions of these elements that produce a particular outcome. The term “systems approaches” denotes a set of processes, methods and practices that aim to affect systems change” (OECD, 2017[2]).