Strategic planning in the public sector necessitates evidence-based problem analysis and prioritisation of public policies. Prioritisation based on objective analysis ensures that resources are directed towards the most critical issues, enhancing the credibility and effectiveness of public policies. As highlighted in the OECD’s Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance (OECD, 2020[1]), a sound prioritisation process can lead to more realistic commitments and better designed interventions which in turn can help governments develop more credible plans. Failure to prioritise can lead to resource wastage, inefficiency, and diminished public trust. By following a systematic prioritisation process and engaging both internal and external stakeholders, governments can more effectively address societal challenges and work towards building a better future for their citizens.
Experiences across the OECD show that governments often try to address too many problems simultaneously through their strategic documents, endangering the successful achievement of set objectives due to unfocused delivery and scarce resources (OECD, 2018[2]). Various institutional interlocutors of the Palestinian Authority involved in this Review have brought to light similar challenges to the government’s reform efforts, citing the PA’s strategic plans as overly ambitious and therefore inconsistent with the reality of its limited financial resources and overstretched administrative capacities. Moreover, interlocutors stated that public institutions suffer from insufficient support, clarity, and tools in their fulfilment of each policy development phase, including problem analysis and prioritisation.
This Review (Chapter 5) further underlined that the Palestinian Authority would benefit from more focused prioritisation strategies, allowing for the identification of the most pressing issues in society requiring public intervention and for effective allocation of financial resources. In line with these findings, the Review (Chapter 5) emphasised that the identification of public administration reforms should be informed by the best available evidence and based on a duly planned solid analysis of the current situation. Furthermore, early involvement of civil society and institutional stakeholders in the problem analysis process would increase the likelihood that the strategic framework addresses real needs in society.
In this regard, this Review (Chapter 4) put forward some practical advice supported by country experiences and recommended to invest efforts towards better prioritisation of objectives by focusing on a limited number of carefully analysed, agreed upon, and prioritised issues, in line with the financial circumstances and the most pressing needs in society. It also stressed the need for the PA’s prioritisation exercises to build on the evidence collected during the problem analysis phase, including through consultations with both internal and external stakeholders. Moreover, it also recommended the development of more precise guidance, and standardised tools, on prioritisation and objective setting.
In reference to strategic planning, the Palestinian Authority’s Prime Minister Office (PMO) is a major player that co-ordinates interinstitutional efforts, provides guidance to line ministries and subordinate bodies, and ensures consistency between the National Development Plan and the different sectoral and cross-cutting strategies. In this regard, the PMO mentioned that they would be particularly keen to receive specific guidance on both problem analysis and prioritisation of policy objectives.
This Scan seeks to specifically address these two subjects. It is based on information and documents provided by the PMO and line ministries, including identified actors for PAR such as the General Personnel Council (GPC), and the Ministry of Women Affairs (MoWA), through a dedicated questionnaire, document analysis, and fact-finding interviews. According to the assessment methodology, collected information will be considered only if supported with evidence. Moreover, triangulation of information is applied to assess its correctness.
Based on the findings, the Scan forms an institutional review, draws general conclusions and proposes concrete recommendations, where necessary, to further improve the relevance and credibility of public policies. The Scan is articulated in three substantive sections:
1. The first section addresses setting priorities at the national level (national development plan, reform agenda) which are directly related to the tasks of the PA’s Prime Minister’s Office. This section also provides key guidelines and orientations on how best to clarify and delineate institutional mandates that will help to create a safer, more reliable and favourable institutional environment for strategic co-ordination and quality control from the centre.
2. The second section examines the legal framework, guidance, and tools for the PA’s sectoral strategic planning efforts, with a focus on problem analysis and prioritisation. In particular, it assesses:
whether problem analysis and prioritisation of problems to be addressed are regulated homogeneously throughout public administration;
the comprehensiveness and clarity of existing guidance on inclusive and evidence-based problem analysis and prioritisation, and its compliance to international standards;
whether such guidance is complemented by practical tools to support the work of sector ministries.
3. The subsequent sections look at the current problem analysis and prioritisation practices. They assess:
whether policy proposals are based on a comprehensive, inclusive, and evidence-based problem analysis;
whether practices are compliant with legislation or guidelines.