This chapter provides an in-depth exploration of Uzbekistan’s strategic planning and governance framework, with a particular focus on the 2030 Strategy’s delivery and measurement mechanisms. It examines the roles, instruments, and mandates of key institutions, such as the Agency for Strategic Reforms under the President, and their evolving contributions to effective planning efforts, especially in light of the new Presidential Decree on strategic planning. Additionally, it discusses the support and guidance provided by central institutions to line ministries, emphasising the importance of robust co-ordination mechanisms. Through dedicated case studies, the chapter assesses a whole-of-government approach to strategic planning. The chapter concludes with evidence-based recommendations designed to further strengthen Uzbekistan’s strategic planning framework, ensuring the nation’s continued advancement towards inclusive development.
OECD Public Governance Reviews: Uzbekistan
Abstract
The Government of Uzbekistan recognises the pivotal role of strategic planning in achieving its ambitious socio-economic transformation and in shaping the country’s future, especially in an increasingly volatile environment marked by disruptive crises and cross-cutting policy challenges. It has embarked on a robust reform trajectory towards long-term development, underscored by two key strategic frameworks: the Development Strategy of New Uzbekistan for 2022-2026 and Uzbekistan 2030 that encapsulate a vision for the future, emphasising sustainable growth, educational enhancement, environmental protection, effective governance, and socio-economic advancement. The latter also serves as an enhanced five-year strategic plan taking into account the national reform dynamics and the challenging geopolitical landscape, such as regional shocks, and national shifts such as its constitutional referendum that was held on 30 April 2023. The 2030 Strategy is bolstered by stakeholder engagement, drawing insights from citizen feedback and consultations across all ministries, thus aiming to ensure a holistic and responsive planning approach.
In a time where numerous OECD member and non-member countries are refining their long-term strategic visions towards 2030, Uzbekistan’s strategic planning efforts, particularly through the lens of the 2030 horizon, encapsulate an ambition to reflect current global changes and align with international good practices, while taking into account its country-specific developmental, social, and governance challenges.
This second chapter of the OECD Public Governance Review of Uzbekistan will therefore take a closer look into Uzbekistan’s strategic planning and governance framework, with a particular focus on its 2030 Strategy delivery and measurement mechanisms. It explores the country’s strategic planning ecosystem, spotlighting the roles, instruments, and mandates of the Agency for Strategic Reforms (ASR) under the President and other pivotal institutions steering the country’s strategic direction, as well as their evolutions, particularly those envisaged in the new decree on strategic planning. The chapter discusses the expertise, support and guidance provided by central institutions to line Ministries on strategic planning. An in-depth analysis of Uzbekistan’s existing co-ordination mechanisms is also presented, aiming to analyse its efforts in implementing key and cross-cutting priorities. This includes examining vertical co-ordination between central and local government tiers and proposing enhancements to foster more effective collaboration.
The country has been reinforcing its strategic planning framework and system over recent years by designing key overarching strategic documents, establishing institutions like the ASR, creating bodies on strategic planning and currently working on the creation of a comprehensive legislative framework for strategic planning. While significant efforts have been made to reinforce the strategic planning system, strengthening a number of governance practices and tools, adopting new ones or modernising others, could boost Uzbekistan’s efforts for strategic planning and unlock its untapped potential to deliver on inclusive and sustainable outcomes over time. This chapter concludes with a set of tailored, evidence-based actionable recommendations inspired by OECD good practices and relevant to its country-specific context.
In the form of dedicated case studies, this chapter will also assess the co-ordination and functioning of three key ministries that play horizontal functions and are tasked with delivering crucial priorities for the government. Most notably the Ministry of Economy and Finance, due to the intrinsic link between budget and strategic planning and its role vis-à-vis state-owned enterprises (SOEs); the Ministry of Investment, Industry and Trade, which plays an important role in economic policy formulation and implementation, and the Ministry of Digital Technologies considering the cross-cutting nature of the digital transformation.
Finally, the chapter is followed by a focused chapter on gender mainstreaming, by analysing the integration of gender equality in its decision-making processes. It compares Uzbekistan’s institutional frameworks and practices with those in OECD member countries, providing insights into the mechanisms and strategies employed to promote gender equality, including the implementation of the Strategy for Achieving Gender Equality in Uzbekistan until 2030.
As identified in the OECD’s Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance (OECD, 2020[1]), strategic planning is crucial for all levels of government to pursue and achieve policy goals essential for growth, development, and wellbeing. The ability to build and mobilise around a shared vision of the future is fundamental to this process, as it facilitates co-ordination across administrative silos and policy areas, enabling a whole-of-government approach to address multidimensional strategic priorities in a coherent manner. This approach is increasingly important in a complex and volatile policy environment, where governments face unpredictable and interacting challenges. By fostering a common vision, strategic planning helps to integrate and steer efforts towards coherent policy responses that address the multidimensional nature of these challenges efficiently and proactively.
Moreover, in the face of growing cross-cutting issues while governments are operating in a growingly complex environment, the necessity for adaptable long-term strategic planning intensifies. Global dynamics and fiscal constraints underscore the importance of a long-term vision that can guide government actions, balancing immediate pressures with the pursuit of overarching goals. Such planning not only promotes synergies and provides a coherent country vision but also ensures that governmental actors consistently implement policies and actions aimed at achieving long-term objectives. Thus, strategic planning serves as a structured approach to tackle complex challenges, providing a coherent vision for a country, and encourages actors in the administration to consistently implement the actions and policies aimed at achieving the long-term country goals (OECD, 2020[1]).
Ensuring effective strategic planning frameworks requires several critical elements, which will be discussed in this chapter, starting with the clear alignment and hierarchy of strategic documents to ensure that high-level priorities are consistently implemented across all levels of governance. Consulted stakeholders identified a lack of prioritisation, stability and alignment in current planning efforts, leading to misalignment and duplication in the system, where the assignments from the top are often unclear and evolving, including on institutional mandates and roles. Insufficient steering and limited capabilities also make it difficult for central strategic planning entities to provide much-needed support, expertise and guidance to line ministries, and need reinforcement to deliver. These units need robust performance management and co-ordination mechanisms to ensure coherence across policy areas and public institutions, aligning planning efforts with national objectives. Effective co-ordination is essential for tracking progress and identifying priority areas. Currently, this process is hampered by poor data quality and a lack of data exchange and interoperability.
These units need robust performance management and co-ordination mechanisms to ensure coherence across policy areas and public institutions, aligning planning efforts with national objectives. Finally, robust performance information is imperative to track progress and identify priority areas, a step currently hampered by poor data quality and a lack of data exchange and interoperability (OECD, 2023[2]).
Uzbekistan is currently engaged in the adoption of a draft Presidential Decree that aims to formalise and strengthen its strategic planning system. This is done most notably by reinforcing the roles and responsibilities of the involved actors and by clarifying its hierarchy of strategic documents by placing the 2030 Strategy firmly on top, while stressing the quality of sectoral strategies as a precondition for major government performance and delivery of results to the citizens, as well as reinforcing links with programme-based budgeting. It is crucial for such a decree to be passed to introduce the necessary stability, as well as standards for development, monitoring and evaluation of strategic planning documents, thus paving way for the implementation of the future Law on Planning and reinforce the overall planning system in Uzbekistan.
The government of Uzbekistan recognises the crucial role of strategic planning in shaping the country’s future and has defined a trajectory set by the mid-term five-year strategies starting with the 2017-2021 Strategy and subsequently the 2022-2026 Strategy. However, more efforts and strategic planning instruments are needed to ensure their consistent monitoring and implementation. The recent adoption of the 2030 Strategy, intended to adapt to regional shocks and constitutional changes, provides a shared and consistent high-level strategic guidance for the country and highlights the necessity for continual updates and revisions to strategic plans. Without such adaptability, plans risk becoming obsolete in rapidly changing contexts. The Latvian approach toward creating their main strategic document, as presented in Box 2.1, offers a potential model for Uzbekistan to follow, emphasising the need for clear, actionable strategies over mere announcements or decrees.
In 2020, the Latvian government and parliament approved the National Development Plan 2021-2027. The plan defines the strategic goals, priorities, measures and indicative investment needs for seven years to achieve sustainable and balanced development. The NDP2027 sets 4 strategic goals for 2027 in 6 priority areas and 18 directions for key policies.
The creation of the NDP2027 was centrally led by the Cross-Sectoral Co-ordination Centre (PKC), a CoG entity now integrated into the State Chancellery, with a mandate to develop a long-term strategic approach to public policymaking. The unique position of the PKC made it possible to develop the NDP coherently and collaboratively in accordance with the Latvian Sustainable Development Strategy 2030 and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
In addition, the NDP incorporates engagement with citizens, experts and other stakeholders. Over 150 different stakeholders work in six working groups organised by the PKC under the prime minister’s authority. These activities helped the CoG gather insights from different groups, providing valuable input for the plans while building advocacy.
The plan outlines the long-term vision and how it translates into operational plans, including information on indicators, responsible authorities and funding.
Finally, the NDP2027 was created in line with the resources available in the country. Policy changes are supported by public investment from the national budget, European Union (EU) funds and other financial instruments. In this context, abrupt crises might change financial possibilities, as was the case with the COVID-19 pandemic and the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility response to it.
Source: (Government of Latvia, 2024[3]).
Currently, Uzbekistan’s whole-of-government planning landscape is delineated by three primary documents, each with distinct goals and timelines, that aim to guide the nation's development across various sectors and timeframes, reflecting the government's ambitions and policy directions:
the Development Strategy of New Uzbekistan for 2022-2026 (2022-2026 Strategy)
the Uzbekistan 2030 Strategy (2030 Strategy)
the National Sustainable Development Strategy 2018-2030 (NSDS)
Development Strategy of New Uzbekistan for 2022-2026
The Development Strategy of New Uzbekistan for 2022-2026 is central in Uzbekistan’s planning efforts. It follows the format of mid-term five-year strategies, which started in 2017. It comprises 100 goals across multiple domains, namely the politico-institutional, judicial, socio-economic, cultural, foreign policy, and defence sectors. It establishes seven priority areas:
1. Building a humane state by improving the honour and dignity of humans and the further development of a free civil society;
2. Turning the principles of justice and the rule of law into a fundamental and necessary condition for the development of the country;
3. Accelerated development of the national economy and ensure high rates of growth;
4. Implementing a fair social policy, developing human capital;
5. Provision of spiritual development and raising this sphere to a new level;
6. Approach to global issues based on national interests;
7. Strengthening the country's security and defence potential, maintaining an open, pragmatic, and active foreign policy.
Despite its comprehensive scope, interlocutors consulted during the OECD’s fact-finding mission identified a lack of clearly defined outcome indicators, targets, and deadlines, which complicates the monitoring and evaluation of its implementation.
While the plan has been mostly created by working groups under the Cabinet of Ministers, the responsibility of overseeing this strategy falls on various entities, including the Ministry of Justice, the Accounts Chamber, and the Centre for Development Strategies, underpinned by the President’s Decree No. 216 as of 8th September 2022 that mandates the Agency for Strategic Reforms (ASR) to ensure its thorough and effective execution: “to control the implementation of the Development Strategy of the New Uzbekistan and the state programmes, and also, having built on this, to co-ordinate their full and high-quality implementation“. However, consulted stakeholders clearly identified that the ASR currently lacks the institutional or legal mechanisms to carry out this mandate effectively.
Uzbekistan 2030 Strategy
The Uzbekistan 2030 Strategy is a crucial step in the country’s strategic planning framework. Its aim is to extend and refine the trajectory set by the above identified mid-term five-year strategies which started with the 2017-2021 strategy and subsequently the 2022-2026 strategy. The 2030 Strategy, adopted in September 2023, is designed as a natural successor to the Development Strategy of New Uzbekistan for 2022-2026, with a long-term vision that extends beyond the immediate five-year horizon. The progression to that was strongly impacted by regional and national changes, maintaining continuity with previous goals while introducing refinements such as KPIs to enhance strategic effectiveness. The strategy sets five priority directions, entailing one hundred goals for their realisation, as follows:
1. Creating decent conditions for realising the potential of every person: focuses on extensive educational reforms, including preschool, secondary, and higher education, along with vocational training. Key initiatives include improving infrastructure, enhancing teacher salaries, and increasing the use of technology in education.
2. Ensuring the welfare of the population through sustainable economic growth: targets macroeconomic stability, digital economy expansion, tourism development, and improvements in fiscal policies. Goals include increasing per capita income, developing tourism, and enhancing the digital and physical infrastructure.
3. Conservation of water resources and environmental protection: emphasizes sustainable water use, environmental conservation, and addressing climate change impacts. Strategies include modernizing irrigation systems, expanding green spaces, and improving waste management and recycling.
4. Ensuring the rule of law, organising public administration oriented at service to the people: aims to transform public administration to be more service-oriented, enhancing the legal framework, and ensuring effective governance. Efforts include increasing transparency, improving local governance, and digitizing public services.
5. Consistent continuation of the policy based on the principle of “a safe and peace-loving state”: aims to continue an open and pragmatic good-neighbourly foreign policy, establishing a balanced and ongoing dialogue on regional and global issues.
While many goals from the 2022-2026 strategy are carried forward to ensure sustained progress, the 2030 strategy introduces more detailed goal setting to heighten its impact. Ministries and public entities are therefore expected to continue their efforts towards these continued targets.
A notable difference between the 2022-2026 and the 2030 Strategy, is the incorporation of public input in its development. The constitutional amendment on 30 April 2023 catalysed the inclusion of the public, highlighting a new participatory approach to national planning. This was facilitated through an initiative titled "the President's Reception", which allowed citizens to contribute their perspectives on the various strategic goals. Furthermore, interactions between the President or prime minister with regions and societal groups also informed the strategy to ensuring that it resonates with societal needs.
National Sustainable Development Strategy 2018-2030
The National Sustainable Development Strategy 2018-2030 reflects Uzbekistan’s commitment to aligning with the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, aiming to enhance the nation's international standing. It comprises 16 goals and 126 tasks, underpinned by a monitoring system with 190 indicators. The strategy has spurred several initiatives, such as the issuance of SDG sovereign bonds and the submission of two Voluntary National Reports (VNR) to the UN’s High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, indicating a strong national and international commitment to sustainable development.
However, while the 2022-2026 Strategy covers all the national sustainable development goals and targets, its second Voluntary National Review (Government of Uzbekistan, 2023[4]) recognises as a main problem the development of specific measures within the framework of the implementation of the 2022-2026 Strategy and individual targets of the SDGs. Furthermore, the NSDS does not seem to refer to the 2030 Strategy making it not perceived as central to the system, severely impacting its effectiveness. There is also no obligation for sectoral strategies to align with it, which further dilutes its impact. Finally, while the Ministry of Employment and Poverty Reduction is in charge of drafting the VNR, the overall leadership of the strategy seems to be unclear.
Uzbekistan’s main strategic documents show a certain level of alignment, but for many stakeholders a lack of clarity remains regarding prioritisation and sectoral linkage
Table 2.1 below compares the three strategic planning documents of Uzbekistan: the Development Strategy of New Uzbekistan for 2022-2026, the Uzbekistan 2030 Strategy, and the National Sustainable Development Strategy 2018-2030. These documents serve as the foundation for the nation’s strategic direction over different time periods and encompass a range of priorities, from socio-economic development to compliance with the United Nation’s sustainable development goals (SDGs).
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
The Development Strategy of New Uzbekistan for 2022-2026 sets a broad array of goals across multiple sectors, aiming for comprehensive national progress, but seems to lack specific metrics for evaluation. The Uzbekistan 2030 Strategy, building further on this strategy, focuses on long-term goals in areas like education, economic growth, and environmental protection. The National Sustainable Development Strategy aligns with international sustainable development goals, with a detailed monitoring system, yet struggles with effective goal linkage and sectoral integration. While each strategy reflects different aspects of Uzbekistan’s development aspirations and operational approaches, highlighting the country’s evolving strategic planning landscape, the more elaborate development process by actively involving ministries and citizens, and the wider time horizon ensure that the Uzbekistan 2030 Strategy effectively acts as a fortified strategic planning document.
However, the high-level planning documents of Uzbekistan, notably the Uzbekistan 2030 Strategy and the Development Strategy of New Uzbekistan for 2022-2026, exhibit a strong level of strategic ambiguity that impacts their effective implementation. While certain sectoral frameworks like the Digital Uzbekistan 2030 Strategy (see Box 2.2) aim to include both strategic documents, there seems to be confusion among consulted ministries in the framework of this review regarding which document should guide their functioning and planning efforts. This lack of clarity risks duplication of efforts and resources, as several consulted interlocutors during the OECD’s fact-finding mission mentioned they continue to prioritise the 2022-2026 Strategy, while others shared a clear shift towards the 2030 Strategy as instructed by the ASR.
Additionally, among the consulted line ministries that acknowledge the central role of the 2030 Strategy, effectively linking it with sectoral strategies proves to be a significant challenge. This disconnection undermines the potential for coherent and integrated planning, raising concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of strategic initiatives across the country’s governance landscape.
The Ministry of Digital Technologies (MDT) seeks to position Uzbekistan as a digital frontrunner in Central Asia by 2030. The ministry’s responsibilities encompass the formulation and implementation of a unified state policy across various digital domains, including the development of information and communication technologies, ensuring information security, and advancing the digital economy and e-commerce.
Strategic framework and alignment to national priorities
The MDT’s main strategic framework is the “Digital Uzbekistan 2030” strategy, formalised under the Decree of the President (UP-6079 from 6 October 2020). Developed in collaboration with other relevant ministries, the private sector and academia, the document defines four strategic directions: investments in digital infrastructure, expanding internet access, enhancing the quality of digital access and positioning Uzbekistan as a leading digital nation.
The decree emphasises alignment with broader national priorities outlined in the “Development Strategy of New Uzbekistan for 2022-2026” and “Uzbekistan 2030”. The MDT actively participates in the 2030 progress meetings within the Cabinet of Ministers. However, this alignment takes place mainly at the conceptual level and not at the operational one, considering that “Digital Uzbekistan 2030” serves as the strategic framework guiding the ministry’s actions. With the new planning framework, the development of new strategies will require the creation of a working team with the MoJ and the ASJ.
Co-ordination of whole-of-government bodies
Supported by the Deputy Prime Minister, the MDT acts as the working body of a central monitoring committee, to which heads of government entities must report monthly on implementation progress. A Digital Government Centre monitors the projects in the country, updating the MDT on their monthly progress using specific KPIs. The MDT has also developed a portal to conduct online surveys to engage citizens on digital initiatives.
Each ministry and local entity appoints a Chief Digital Officer (CDO) responsible for developing and implementing the digital transformation programme and reporting its progress to the Cabinet of Ministers. An advisor to the Prime Minister is responsible for continuous monitoring of achievements and making recommendations for rewarding or disciplining CDOs based on their effectiveness.
Areas of opportunities
“Digital Uzbekistan 2030” consolidates a unified and coherent policy towards digitalisation, with clear priorities and objectives. The involvement of the President and Deputy Prime Minister showcases the political commitment towards the strategy’s implementation, and the existence of CDOs is also a good practice to foster co-ordination.
However, challenges include developing digital skills and consistent training programmes within the civil service, where digital literacy has reached no more than 30%. Keeping pace with technological advancements is also difficult, as the MDT struggles to adapt the planning system to new developments.
Sources: (Ministry of Digital Technologies of Uzbekistan, 2024[5]); OECD interview with the Ministry Digital Technologies as part of the project.
Formalising Uzbekistan’s strategic planning framework through a legal framework for strategic planning
In the absence of a clear legal framework for strategic planning, the lack of clarity, hierarchy, and stability in the planning system in Uzbekistan hamper the delivery and alignment of strategic objectives and documents. As shared by consulted stakeholders, key elements of the planning framework, including the link between national and sectoral plans also remain unclear.
This is recognised at the top-most political level as a new presidential decree is aimed at laying out the groundwork for a more comprehensive strategic planning framework. This upcoming legal instrument is anticipated to clarify crucial components for the development, monitoring and reporting on the implementation of sectoral strategies of five-year planning strategies, enhancing co-ordination, and effectively linking sectoral strategies with the 2030 Strategy which will act as the main overarching strategic document.
The draft presidential decree ends with a provision for the elaboration and submission to the Cabinet of Ministers of a draft strategic planning act by the end of 2025 that should complete this work. The responsible institutions for the draft Act are to be the MEF, the MoJ, the ASR and the Institute for Strategic and Regional Studies (ISRS), as well as other stakeholders from ministries and agencies. The Act should establish further the powers of the actors in the strategic planning process as it pertains to the formulation of development goals, forecasting, planning, budget policies, as well as the control and monitoring of implementation of strategic documents. This anticipated decree should make Uzbekistan’s strategic planning framework more formally structured and consistent. The Latvian Law on the Development Planning System could inspire the ASR as it regulates the entire strategic planning system in Latvia (see Box 2.3).
In the following paragraphs general elements from the draft presidential decree that was shared with the OECD will be discussed and compared, namely: enhancing prioritisation through a clearer hierarchy of strategic documents, clarifying roles and responsibilities of the involved actors, and establishing strategic planning principles.
The 2009 Latvian Law on the Development Planning System regulates the entire strategic planning system in Latvia. The most notable regulations prescribed by the Law include:
Regulation No 737 Development and Impact Assessment of Development Planning Documents of the Cabinet of Ministers (02.12.2014.):
describes in detail policy frameworks, plans, conceptual reports, as well as institutional management documents. The appendix to the Regulations also provides templates for policy frameworks, plans and conceptual reports that ministries and agencies must follow;
describes the types of impact assessments to be done at different stages of the policy cycle;
gives a timeframe for the revision of policy documents;
describes institutional operational management documents – that are called institutions operational strategies in Latvia. The operation documents mainly aim to attain output indicators; however, some include outcome (policy) indicators.
Regulation No 970 On public participation in the development planning process of the Cabinet of Ministers (19.10.2011) defines the methods of public participation in different phases of development planning, requirements for public institutions on announcing public participation opportunities and responding to comments received.
Regulation No 979 On the system of results and performance indicators (01.09.2009) defines the typology of indicators that can be used at different levels and purposes across the planning and budgeting system. It was created by the Ministry of Finance which in the early 2000s was tasked to develop results-orientated system in order to tie budget and strategic planning together.
Regulation No 38 On the National Development Council (21.01.2014) describes the role of this advisory body convened by the Prime Minister when fundamental decisions are to be made on development planning.
Regulation No 606 Rules of Order of the Cabinet of Ministers (07.09.2021) describes in detail the steps to create the Government Declaration and Action Plan.
Regulation No 816 Procedure for development, implementation, monitoring and public discussion of the National Development Plan for 2014-2020 provides detailed methodology on the creation of the previous NDP. The next NDP was created in a similar fashion, only using an institution approved methodology.
The Law also establishes a specific hierarchy across documents. It implies that shorter term documents either emanate from higher level documents or are not incoherent with them. The system includes overarching national level planning documents, as well as sectoral and cross-sectoral ones and requires coherence from regional and local level planning documents. Development plans are created on the initiative of the relevant national and local government authorities to achieve goals defined by higher authorities, laws or regulations. Planning in defence and security are the exception and are not covered by this Law.
According to the Law, Latvia’s Sustainable Development Strategy (currently until 2030) determines Latvia’s long-term development priorities and the spatial development prospective. The National Development Plan (NDP) is the country’s main medium-term development plan that includes objectives, priorities, results, directions of action, responsible authorities. It programmes EU and other external financial instruments. In fact, the last two NDPs had an annex of measures with the projected amount of extra funding needed (from the national budget, EU funding and other sources) for measures to achieve the quantified outcome indicators.
Source: (Saeima, 2009[6]).
Enhancing strategic prioritisation through a clearer hierarchy
To address the above identified strategic ambiguity and to link high-level planning documents more effectively with sectoral strategies, Uzbekistan could outline more clearly the hierarchy between the Uzbekistan 2030 Strategy and the Development Strategy of New Uzbekistan for 2022-2026 and communicate this broadly. This would involve more clearly designating one of these documents as the overarching framework to guide all governmental activities, ensuring that all ministries and agencies align their efforts accordingly. This hierarchical clarity would help clarify with which national documents should the sectoral, regional, and institutional strategies and concepts be aligned. It would also prevent duplication of efforts and uncertainties, as seen during the OECD’s fact-finding mission where some interlocutors favoured one strategy over the other.
The necessity for a comprehensive strategic planning framework is acknowledged in the draft Presidential decree on strategic planning. This decree delineates the following hierarchy within the system of strategic planning documents:
1. The Uzbekistan 2030 Strategy (and the successive national development strategies);
2. The President’s Message to the Oliy Majlis (the Uzbek Parliament) and the People of Uzbekistan;
3. Medium- and long-term development concepts defining the main directions, objectives and tasks for the development of a region or a sector;
4. Medium- and long-term development plans for state institutions and major state-owned enterprises (SOEs).
Furthermore, a direct link is established in the decree by a separate provision between the system of strategic planning documents and a list of policy documents key to the proper functioning of strategic planning, being the budget and implementation programmes:
1. The state budget;
2. Government programmes that define the system of measures and mechanisms guaranteeing the achievement of the objectives of the Uzbekistan 2030 Strategy and the following national development strategies;
3. Programmes defining the system of measures and mechanisms as it pertains to the implementation of strategies, concepts and government programmes, including the comprehensive programmes for socio-economic development of regions and roadmaps;
4. Annual action plans of state institutions, local government authorities and major SOEs.
These efforts would offer an important step in tackling the disjointed approach to policy development and strategic planning, where the importance and adherence to the 2030 Strategy is inconsistent across various governmental levels and sectors. It would also impact the current duplication of work and inefficient use of resources and would address the misalignment of sectoral strategies such as the Strategy on Agricultural Development, that failed to align with broader national objectives set out in overarching documents like the 2030 strategy.
Different approaches have been established by countries to create a clear strategic framework, with a hierarchy of planning instruments, articulated across different timeframes. Latvia (see Box 2.3) embedded the hierarchy of strategic documents and results in a legal framework for strategic planning in order to increase policy coherence and coverage. Romania (see Box 2.4) created a specific Governmental Decision to lay out its hierarchy of government strategies. Both approaches specifically include their respective sustainable development strategies which is a notable absentee in the hierarchy proposed in the draft Presidential decree.
In recent efforts to refine its strategic planning framework, Romania has implemented Government Decisions (GD) 379/2022 and 427/2022 to bring clarity and structure to its governmental strategies. At the core of these enhancements is the establishment of a well-defined hierarchy within the strategic planning landscape, as outlined in GD 427/2022. This effectively lays out the hierarchy of Romanian government strategies, differentiating between sectoral (focusing on specific domains) and intersectoral (addressing cross-cutting issues) approaches. This ensures all strategies align with national priorities outlined in overarching documents like the Government Program, promoting coherence and avoiding duplication of efforts.
Both decisions underscore the importance of aligning various strategies to achieve overarching goals. GD 427/2022 assigns to the General Secretariat of the Government (GSG) the crucial role of verifying proposed strategies against national priorities. GD 379/2022 further reinforces this by advocating for complementarity and integrated approaches across strategies. This emphasis on alignment helps ensure efficient resource allocation in order to maximise the impact of its strategic planning efforts.
Specifically, GD 379/2022 also underscores the integration of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development into the Romanian strategic planning framework. This inclusion ensures that Romania's strategic initiatives not only serve national interests but also align with global sustainability goals, illustrating a forward-thinking and holistic approach to strategic planning.
Source: (OECD, 2023[7]).
Clarifying roles and responsibilities
According to the draft decree, the main driver of the strategic planning process is clearly identified with the ASR, that would be tasked with the leading role in regulating the system and co-ordinating all other institutional actors involved in the process. As can be seen from the provisions of the document, the ASR is the main initiator of many of the elements of the draft decree. It has been granted a co-ordination role, but also strong challenge functions – a de facto veto on all strategic planning documents – coupled with prerogatives for financial stimulus to the other institutions. This makes it the main actor for communicating and guiding Uzbekistan’s way forward.
The strategic planning departments within each relevant institution are responsible for co-ordinating the development of all strategic planning documents in their respective ministries and for serving as the initial quality-control filter for draft strategies before they are submitted to the ASR for opinion. The main tasks of the strategic planning departments include, alongside the analysis, prioritisation, and establishment of indicators – relevant to the elaboration process – also monitoring the implementation of strategic documents and evaluating their effectiveness.
The role of the ASR here is especially important – not only the heads of the strategic planning departments are to be appointed and dismissed in co-ordination with the ASR, but the ASR will also have the right to -propose financial stimulus to be granted to the heads and officials of strategic planning departments from a particular fund according to the results of their work. In addition, the strategic planning departments are to present a quarterly report to the ASR as to the progression of their respective strategic planning document.
Establishing strategic planning principles
Establishing clear principles across the planning system is a key component of robust legal planning framework observed in OECD member countries. Principles are expected to be met throughout the entire planning system and in all planning documents and usually evolve around unity, hierarchy, collaboration, and the link between budget and planning.
The draft decree also clearly outlines the main goals of Uzbekistan strategic planning efforts:
Creating a unitary and comprehensive approach for elaborating strategic planning documents on a national, sectoral and regional level;
Guaranteeing hierarchy and compatibility of strategic planning documents;
Introducing systemic budgetary mechanisms;
A clear definition of powers, spheres of responsibility and functional duties of ministries and agencies, as well as of the other actors in the strategic planning process;
A formulation of strategic planning objectives based upon clear, transparent and measurable indicators for their achievement and the creation of an evaluation system of the effectiveness of their achievement;
Digitalisation of the strategic planning processes.
Notably, this is followed by a list of requirements for the strategic planning documents that is currently absent and is one of the main areas of improvement. These proposed requirements play a role similar to that of general principles for strategic planning:
Justification for the adoption of a strategic planning document;
Inclusion of objectives and tasks linked with them, real and measurable target indicators, as well as timespans for achieving these indicators, along with the allocation of responsibility for the achievement of each objective;
Mutual compatibility between the documents, following their hierarchy;
Transparency and public participation;
Correspondence to the national objectives in the sphere of sustainable development until 2030, taking into account international rankings;
Digitalisation, reduction of bureaucracy, broadening public participation and private sector participation;
Awareness of budgeting constraints;
Analysis of challenges and expectation in the relevant sphere, forecasting and scenario planning.
The draft decree would bring Uzbekistan closer to the legal framework observed in several OECD and EU countries
Comparing the strategic planning legal acts of Uzbekistan with those from European countries (Latvia, Croatia, Bulgaria) that share elements of a similar legal and administrative culture reveals significant disparities (see Table 2.2). All three European countries base their strategic planning on formal legal acts in the form of a strategic planning Law, with Uzbekistan utilising a Presidential Decree in absence of the legal act under preparation of the ASR. Latvia and Bulgaria have specified central strategic planning bodies, emphasising involvement from various governmental and non-governmental sectors, while Croatia and Uzbekistan have not detailed these entities. This role could potentially be fulfilled by the ASR in co-operation with the Presidential Administration and/or the Cabinet of Ministers. The main driver of strategic planning varies, from a co-ordination centre under the Prime Minister in Latvia to specific ministries or agencies in other countries but all entities are located within the CoG.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
A notable aspect is the level of detail in strategic planning principles. Latvia and Croatia provide detailed frameworks, whereas Bulgaria and Uzbekistan's principles are less detailed. The types of strategic planning documents are comprehensive across all countries, covering national to local levels, with Uzbekistan additionally including the President’s Message to the Oliy Majlis and the People as part of its strategic documents.
The time horizon for strategic planning shows variation, with Latvia having a clear long-term vision up to 25 years, while other countries have less specified durations. The hierarchy of strategic planning documents in each country illustrates a structured approach, with Latvia and Croatia having more layers in their planning hierarchy compared to Uzbekistan. Finally, the presence of an online element and guidance documents in all four countries indicates an effort towards transparency and accessibility in strategic planning processes.
The institutional framework for strategic planning at the CoG
As identified in the OECD’s compendium: Steering from the centre of government in times of complexity (OECD, 2024[8]), centres of government (CoGs) (see Box 2.5), such as Prime Minister Offices, Government Offices or autonomous agencies, play a crucial role in shaping a country's vision, strategy, and priorities. From their unique central positioning, they can set the overall vision and co‑ordinate strategic planning and prioritisation efforts across the public administration. The OECD's survey on “strategic decision-making at the centre of government” (OECD, 2023[9]) revealed a widespread recognition of this role, with 69% of member and accession countries prioritising the formulation of a long-term vision as a key function of their CoGs and 58% of responding countries having the CoG lead the identification and setting of policy priorities (see Figure 2.1).
The strategic role of the Centre of Government (CoG) has been expanding over the course of the last decade due to the increasing complexity of policymaking 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”.
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, 2020[1]).
In Uzbekistan, the role of the CoG, which is formed by the Presidential Administration, the Cabinet of Ministers led by the Prime Minister, and the ASR, is crucial in shaping the country's strategic direction. Furthermore, the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the Ministry of Justice, also play significant roles in planning efforts. Particularly through the ASR, the CoG's influence is evident as steers and monitors the main national strategic documents and establishes a performance framework, thereby enhancing Uzbekistan’s planning ecosystem. Further strengthening the CoG's functioning and developing more structured instruments for the ASR would thus strengthen Uzbekistan’s planning ecosystem.
Note: Note: n=26. Respondents to the OECD survey were asked: “For each of the below activities regarding setting the vision, priorities and strategic planning, please indicate who has the primary responsibility”.
Source: (OECD, 2023[9]).
The Agency for Strategic Reforms under the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan (ASR)
The ASR, established by Presidential Decree No. 216 on 8th September 2022, plays a pivotal role in shaping the future of Uzbekistan through strategic planning and reform. It has recently been moved directly under the President, and is a central actor in this review.
Firstly, and most crucially, the ASR oversees the implementation of the Development Strategy of New Uzbekistan for 2022-2026 and its successor the Uzbekistan 2030 Strategy for which it is clearly the leading entity. Furthermore, the ASR's responsibility extends to the systematic co-ordination of preparing state programmes and generating relevant reports, cementing its role in the strategic planning process.
Secondly, the ASR is also tasked with the development of proposals for the reform of various sectors, and leverages the expertise of both domestic and international specialists to ensure the thorough planning and execution reforms. This empowers the ASR to introduce significant changes in Uzbekistan’s strategic planning framework and to serve as a central authority for policy co-ordination, ensuring the quality and consistency of strategic documents while providing essential methodological support to line ministries.
Thirdly, the ASR is responsible for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of reforms, conducting a critical analysis to identify and rectify systemic issues that contribute to bureaucracy, inefficiency, and corruption. By developing monitoring and evaluation criteria, the ASR enhances the accountability and transparency of sector strategies, again offering vital methodological guidance to the line ministries involved. By establishing comprehensive information databases and reporting systems, as envisaged by the draft Presidential Decree, the ASR aims to bolster the implementation of strategic planning reforms.
Finally, the agency also systematically works to attract support from international financial institutions, international organisations, and specialists, alongside securing grant facilities.
The Presidential Administration (PA) in strategic planning
The responsibilities of the Presidential Administration extend beyond strategic planning to encompass a broad spectrum of support functions crucial for the President's activities. It was established in accordance with the Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan from 26 August 2018, and serves as a vital source of information and analysis, offering insights into socio-economic and socio-political trends that are essential for informed decision-making at the highest levels of government. This analytical support helps in assessing the current state of the nation and in envisioning future pathways that align with the President’s vision for the country (Government of Uzbekistan, 2024[10]).
The Presidential Administration occupies a central role in the nation's governance and strategic planning architecture, as the linchpin for the formulation and execution of national development strategies. The President of the Republic of Uzbekistan sets the overarching direction for the country’s progress and endorses all strategic development plans, therefore the Presidential Administration is instrumental in creating key national development blueprints, such as the Development Strategy of New Uzbekistan for 2022-2026 and its successor Uzbekistan 2030.
Moreover, the Presidential Administration plays a pivotal role in providing organisational oversight. It ensures that the President's directives are implemented efficiently and effectively across various sectors and levels of government. In doing so this oversight maintains the coherence and consistency of policy implementation, ensuring that all government actions are synchronised with the national development strategies and the President’s overarching vision.
The Cabinet of Ministers (CoM) in strategic planning
The Cabinet of Ministers of Uzbekistan, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, plays a crucial role in the execution of comprehensive cross-sectoral policies. It is responsible for developing and executing programmes that span the realms of science, culture, education, healthcare, and other vital sectors of the economy and social sphere and is therefore pivotal in shaping the country's trajectory. The Cabinet of Ministers takes proactive measures to implement strategies, concepts, programmes, and roadmaps that address the most critical and priority areas of Uzbekistan's economic and social development, spanning short, medium, and long-term objectives.
The Apparatus of the Cabinet of Ministers provides essential support to the functioning of Uzbekistan’s government. This includes legal, organisational, technical, informational, analytical, and protocol support, ensuring the smooth operation of government activities. It plays a key role in the preparation of meetings, and in the drafting of laws, Presidential and ministerial acts. Additionally, it is involved in developing roadmaps, schedules, and action programmes that are crucial for executing the country's priority socio-economic development tasks. Recent structural changes within the Cabinet of Ministers have led to the establishment of the Secretariat of the Prime Minister, further enhancing the support system for the head of government.
The Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF)
The MEF, established through the merger of the ministries responsible for economy and finance, plays an important role in linking the strategic planning and budgeting framework. It is at the forefront of programme-based budgeting, aligning financial resources with strategic goals. This is recognised as an important area of work for OECD countries. In 2023, half of the surveyed OECD countries reported that their CoG works with their respective Central Budget Authority to strengthen the link between plans and budget instruments (OECD, 2023[9]). This ministry's collaboration with the ASR is therefore crucial, especially in ensuring that the action plans for strategy implementation are not only formulated but also financially backed. Furthermore, the MEF is instrumental in drafting overarching economic development documents. These documents guide sectoral strategies and regional development, illustrating the ministry's involvement in economic policy formulation.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ)
The MoJ plays a role in reviewing the legal and regulatory integrity of the strategic planning process. It also takes on the responsibility of monitoring the implementation of the main strategic documents, including on public administration reform (see chapter 1) and conducting regulatory impact assessments, thus laying the groundwork for evidence-informed policymaking. This topic will be further discussed in Chapter 6. The ministry’s commitment to public administration reform underscores its broader agenda to enhance the strategic planning and implementation mechanism across government bodies and the execution and monitoring of strategic initiatives.
Ensuring clear roles and responsibilities for enhanced effectiveness of planning efforts
This institutional setup on strategic planning with several entities involved is not unique to Uzbekistan and reflects a common structure among OECD members like Portugal and non-member countries like Kazakhstan (see Box 2.6), which have also established dedicated institutions for strategic planning allowing them to set and co-ordinate the nation's priorities and long-term vision, akin to the 58% of surveyed OECD countries that view priority setting as a crucial function of their CoGs (see Figure 2.1). The institutional structure of the Uzbek CoG, with its direct access to the President’s administration and senior government leaders epitomises the 'engine room' of decision-making. This enables the CoG to converge various actors and issues, setting a clear direction for the country's future.
In most OECD member countries, CoGs play a leading role in strategic planning activities under different institutional configurations. While the strategic planning function is most often located in the CoG, it may involve several entities both within and outside the CoG, necessitating whole-of-government co-ordinate on among different Ministries and government agencies.
Portugal
In Portugal, the CoG assumes a critical role in steering strategic planning activities amidst a diverse institutional landscape. This involves a constellation of various entities, both within and outside the CoG, contributing to strategic planning, including but not limited to: the Prime Minister’s Cabinet, the Ministry of the Presidency and the Ministry of Finance.
At the core of the CoG is the competence centre PlanAPP, situated under the Ministry of the Presidency and responding directly to the Prime Minister, serving as a linchpin in orchestrating strategic initiatives and ensuring coherence across government actions. It is mandated to ensure macro-co-ordination on strategic planning; reinforce the consistency and readability of national strategies; shape and steer the strategic planning process; reinforce and co-ordinate sectoral efforts; and support and develop the line capabilities of line Ministries.
PlanAPP also organises inter-ministerial co-ordination through its REPLAN network that involves line Ministries as well as civil society and academia to discuss, provide insights and co-ordinate on key policy issues.
Dedicated units for strategic planning exist within several line Ministries, including the Ministry of Labour, Solidarity and Social Security, the Ministry of Economy and the Sea, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and the Ministry of Culture.
Kazakhstan
In Kazakhstan, the institutional model of the CoG involves several key entities sharing mandated responsibilities for strategic planning.
The Executive Office of the President is actively engaged in planning and evaluation processes that determine government decision-making. It provides qualitative and timely analytical, organisational and documentation support and plays a key role in implementing the Kazakhstan 2050 Strategy.
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is responsible for the co-ordination of the activities of state entities in the preparation and execution of government programmes, as well as monitoring the timely execution of state decisions. A recent reform has transformed the PMO into a more compact Office of the Government focusing on decision-making, co-ordination and administrative tasks, while more role on sectoral and policy development was transferred to line Ministries.
The Agency for Strategic Planning and Reforms (ASPIRE) serves as a central link in the strategic planning system in Kazakhstan, overseeing strategic planning, statistical analysis and reforms. It develops state policy in strategic planning, and monitors and evaluates the implementation of strategic development plans. ASPIRE operates under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan and reports directly to the President.
The Ministry of the National Economy (MNE) is responsible for the co-ordination of strategies and policies and for the monitoring of strategies and Action plans across the government. It also supports the co-ordination, implementation and monitoring on Kazakhstan 2050 and other long-term national strategies.
Clear leadership and steering are essential for effective strategic planning, and the recent 2030 Strategy prominently positions the ASR in the driving seat. However, Uzbekistan’s CoG seems to face frequent institutional changes and a lack of stability and clarity, both for stakeholders within and outside of government, that can disrupt co-ordination and undermine effectiveness, and risk of significantly affecting the planning horizon and the implementation of the long-term strategic vision of the country.
The recent move placing it directly underneath the President can give the ASR more political gravitas and can be seen as a way to strengthen its functioning. However, the move appears to have significantly impacted the ASR's budget and human resources, thereby hindering its ability to act as a centre of expertise that co-ordinates and supports line ministries in their planning efforts. This has particularly affected its capacity for effective co-ordination, its role in providing oversight, and its monitoring responsibilities. Consequently, respondents to the OECD questionnaire indicated that the division of labour for strategic planning at the CoG is not always clear. For example, ensuring legal conformity, defining strategic priorities, and leading the government’s strategic priorities and work programme show variations in the assigned responsibilities between the Presidential Administration and the Cabinet of Ministers. These variations indicate a lack of uniform understanding or potentially fluid dynamics in role allocation. It is important for the ASR to not only establish clear leadership roles, but also communicate them effectively to all stakeholders to prevent disruptions and to allow it to effectively communicate the strategic vision of the government throughout the overall public administration and society as a whole.
As such, the CoG in Uzbekistan could benefit from more stable and predictable roles and responsibilities in strategic planning to enhance its effectiveness. This issue is far from unique to Uzbekistan; between 2012 and 2017, 70% of surveyed countries experienced changes in the number and 64% in the type of units within their CoGs (OECD, 2018[17]). The phenomenon of bicephalic or even multi-institutional CoGs, that is to say CoGs that are composed of several entities, are observed in numerous OECD countries, displaying varied divisions of power and responsibilities. For instance, Romania recently restructured its CoG into a bicephalic system, expanding the Prime Minister's Chancellery's roles and creating new departments to improve co-ordination across various government segments (see Box 2.7) (OECD, 2023[7]). Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the Cabinet Office collaborates with the Treasury to ensure government efficiency, while the Prime Minister’s Office, though part of the Cabinet Office, maintains a distinct identity, focusing on delivering government strategy and communication. Drawing lessons from OECD countries can provide valuable insights into structuring Uzbekistan’s CoG for better co-ordination and effectiveness.
The following elements can be used by Uzbekistan to stabilise its CoG:
To avoid duplication in the CoG it is crucial to clearly define and communicate the distinct roles of entities like the ASR and other players in strategic planning. While the institutions have different mandates, their activities and relations are not always explicit in practice neither for them, nor for other players particularly line Ministries. This can be achieved by creating explicit "statements of purpose" and practical "who does what" guides, ensuring each entity understands its unique functions. Enhancing this clarity will prevent effort duplication and promote optimal use of financial and human resources. It’s vital that both bodies possess the necessary skills, capacity, and resources to effectively disseminate their roles across the public administration, so the division of labour is also clear for all involved stakeholders.
Co-operation between the different bodies at the CoG on strategic planning is essential to bridge gaps in information sharing and prioritisation and prevents administrative burdens and duplication of work. This requires establishing clear working routines and practical tools, like shared digital platforms and possibly co-located offices, to ensure seamless daily interaction. These measures should also guide line ministries and agencies in understanding command lines, feedback mechanisms, and information exchange processes, thereby reducing administrative overhead and enhancing transparency and accountability.
Given the historical frequency of institutional changes within CoGs, as seen in OECD member countries and elsewhere, it is imperative to prepare for potential restructuring or dissolution of government bodies. This preparation involves maintaining skills and institutional memory to tackle the challenges posed by long-term structural reforms. Strategies should be in place to manage transitions smoothly, including change management plans, clear communication channels for disseminating changes and their implications, and mechanisms for collecting feedback to refine and adapt the operational framework, ensuring sustained policy leadership, co-ordination, and coherence. The establishing of manuals, like Cabinet manuals, can also help having a shared understanding of the processes, roles and interactions for strategic planning between CoG institutions.
To strengthen the functional capacity to design, update, implement, and evaluate the 2030 Strategy and associated strategies, more formal and regular co-ordination between the three main CoG units and between the CoG and the MEF would be necessary. This would ensure alignment between the strategic framework and the national fiscal framework. Thought should be given to formalising and strengthening this intra-CoG co-ordination as the “primus inter pares” co-ordination mechanism, which broader whole-of-government co-ordination mechanisms can emulate. Strengthening the focus on data—such as KPIs, targets, and alignment with spending targets and the budget’s performance indicators (part of the transition to results-based budgeting)—is hereby crucial. This could involve creating or strengthening a subcommittee focused on a performance dialogue, ensuring it reports regularly to the main inter-ministerial committee and the CoG steering committee, and should comprise relevant players including the MEF and the statistics agency.
Reunification of the Chancellery and the Cross-sectoral Co-ordination centre in Latvia
In Latvia, the State Chancellery, and the Cross-sectoral Co-ordination centre (PKC) which were separate institutional structures at the Centre of Government since 2011, have established close functional links, support and co-ordinating procedures and share the same offices.
Nevertheless, as of 2023 the two structures were merged into one under the authority of the Prime Minister, in view of strengthening national development planning and co-ordination, improving oversight of government programme implementation, reducing fragmentation and overlaps in public administration, strengthening the centre of government and improving international cooperation, considering the lessons learned from managing the financial sector reforms, COVID-19 pandemic and other major policy challenges.
The merger aimed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency by delivering “professional, competent and compact public administration proofed for addressing todays and future challenges” with a strong lead from the centre of government. Essentially, a single structure at the centre of government was deemed to provide less fragmentation and better steer than two separate ones, even while functionally close.
Recreating additional bodies within the CoG in Romania
Romania's Centre of Government (CoG) has undergone significant restructuring, now comprising the General Secretariat of the Government (GSG) and the Prime Minister’s Chancellery (PMC). Initially, both entities were involved in interministerial co-ordination; the GSG handled formal co-ordination, while the PMC, with around 15 state councillors, provided policy expertise.
However, in January 2017, the PMC was dismantled, its functions absorbed by the GSG, and then reconstituted under successive administrations, albeit with reduced capacity and members, particularly under the Orban government.
In 2021, the PMC regained its status as a separate legal entity through Emergency Ordinance No. 121/2021, with further structuring by Government Decision No. 832 on 27 June 2022. This decision expanded the PMC's competences and established additional departments, including the Resource Assurance Department, Legal Department, and Strategic Evaluation, Analysis and Co-ordination Department. It also defined the PMC's co-ordination role across various government departments and agencies, enhancing its function in strategic policymaking and government co-ordination, underpinned by a consultative council for advice and analysis within the Prime Minister’s domain.
In an effort to enhance the effectiveness and coherence of strategic planning efforts, (OECD, 2020[1]); (OECD, 2024[8]) OECD has identified several key tools and approaches. Uzbekistan’s strategic planning system could benefit from developing new tools and instruments to increase the harmonisation, consistency and quality of strategic planning documents. The ASR could play a role of centre of expertise on strategic planning to provide guidance and support to line ministries, provided additional capabilities are developed in the agency.
This chapter will discuss these tools that can inspire Uzbekistan’s efforts, beginning with the provision of support to line ministries to bolster their planning capabilities. It also examines the pivotal role of evidence in reinforcing strategic planning processes and the importance of improving co-ordination for a more integrated whole-of-government approach. Furthermore, the chapter explores the use of strategic foresight to anticipate and prepare for future challenges and underscores the critical alignment between budgeting and strategic planning to ensure fiscal resources are optimally allocated to achieve strategic objectives.
Expertise, guidance and support to line ministries for more effective whole-of-government planning
Acting as a centre of expertise and providing guidance and support
The 2023 Centres of Government survey (OECD, 2023[9]) results show that CoG support to ministries in strategic planning in OECD countries is considered an important responsibility and they provide support in practice in various ways. Accordingly, 62% of surveyed OECD CoGs reported setting frameworks, standards, guidance and building capacity in strategic planning as their priorities.
In terms of practical activities, the majority of OECD member countries’ CoGs contribute to the communication of specific government targets and priorities, as well as engage in providing review and feedback on draft policies (see Figure 2.2).
Moreover, several countries exhibit support mechanisms beyond the aforementioned, with at least one half of countries implementing ad hoc assistance and providing guidelines or templates to ensure consistent, harmonised and high-quality strategic planning documents that can support the alignment and achievement of strategic objectives. Some OECD CoGs extend their support to training initiatives aimed at enhancing the skills related to the development and input into strategy documents, plans, and instruments.
Note: n=24; Respondents to the survey were asked: “What support does CoG provide to line ministries and other agencies to develop strategy documents, plans and instruments?”.
Source: (OECD, 2023[9]).
As is the case for planning centres of expertise such as the above discussed PlanAPP in Portugal (see Box 2.6), the ASR plays a crucial role in supporting line ministries and agencies in the development of strategic documents, plans, and instruments, and can further expand this role. The ASR's support is twofold: it involves setting clear government targets or priorities that line ministries and agencies need to adhere to and provides the necessary guidance and inputs for the development of aligned sectoral strategies.
Firstly, the ASR steers and clarifies specific government targets or priorities, which ensures that line ministries and agencies align their strategic documents and plans with the overarching goals of the government. This is essential for maintaining coherence and focus on the strategic planning process across different sectors of the government. By setting clear targets, the ASR ensures that the strategic efforts of various ministries and agencies are not only aligned with national priorities but also contribute effectively to the broader objectives of the government.
Secondly, the ASR is tasked with offering training and guidance on developing sectoral strategy documents, plans, or instruments. Delivering on this support is crucial, especially in a context where stakeholders noted a lack of clear instructions, guidelines, or manuals for the strategic planning units within ministries. Such units are primarily responsible for drafting co-ordinating the development of strategic documents and integrating inputs from various internal and external stakeholders. However, the absence of effective guidance has resulted in strategic documents that are often not sufficiently relevant or aligned at the national and sectoral levels. The ASR could strengthen its guidance by taking into account the guidance provided to line ministries for the elaboration of sectoral or cross-sectoral strategies in Czechia (see Box 2.8).
If the ASR aims to be better recognised as a centre of expertise that drives and communicates Uzbekistan’s strategic planning narrative and overall direction, it must continue to engage in these critical activities, thereby positioning itself as a central and effective player in the strategic planning landscape that contributes actively towards the line ministries’ efforts.
The Ministry of Regional Development is in charge of providing guidance and support to line Ministries on strategic planning in Czechia and has developed a dedicated methodology for preparing public strategies. methodology streamlines and articulates the procedure for creating strategic documents with the aim of increasing their quality and interconnectedness. It describes the process of individual strategy preparation and implementation, from identifying the need for strategy creation, its preparation for approval and actual implementation. The methodology also includes resources on how the typology of strategic and implementation documents, the use of knowledge in strategic work, the evaluation of strategies and their impacts, and summarizes all this graphically in individual figures.
Guidance available to line ministries can be found on the Government Portal for Strategic Planning and includes the following resources:
Typology of strategic documents.
The process of creating a strategic document.
Templates and tools (model for determining the type of strategic document needed, organisational structure of strategy creation, strategy structure, strategy creation plan, matrix of measures and activities, strategy creation budget, strategy creation schedule, co-operation and communication plan, risk management plan, etc.).
Comparative analysis of methodological approaches to planning.
The portal is maintained and updated by the Ministry of Regional Development that is administering a second portal that consists in an online registry of all strategic documents. All ministries, agencies and local governments are required to publish their strategies on the portal. The Ministry also uses an Expert Group on Strategies to animate the portals and the technical discussions with line Ministries. This also fosters a sense of community among strategic planners in Czechia and allows alignment on the quality and format of strategic plans. The Ministry also provides capacity building for line Ministries including training sessions to which line Ministries can register online and find more details on the portals.
Notes: Government Portal: Ministerstvo pro místní rozvoj ČR - Metodika přípravy veřejných strategií (gov.cz).
Source: (Government of Czechia, 2024[19]).
Enhancing strategic planning units and capacities within line ministries
The recent establishment of strategic units or focal points within line ministries for strategic planning marks a proactive approach towards more structured planning in Uzbekistan. These units enhance the effectiveness of strategic planning by fostering coherence, as seen in Latvia and Romania (see Box 2.9). They strengthen leadership and align sectoral policies with national priorities, crucial for integrating strategic objectives across different policy areas. In support of these efforts, the ASR has made commendable strides by establishing a Strategic Planning Network. This network, with key meetings held in October 2023 and June 2024, provides a platform for collaboration and knowledge sharing among ministries. However, while this initiative is a significant step forward, the ASR has not fully utilised this mechanism to its potential. The irregularity of meetings and the turnover of key staff between meetings pose challenges to the network's effectiveness. To maximise impact, the ASR should consider holding regular meetings and ensuring continuity in participation from the relevant ministries. This would strengthen the network's role in fostering strategic planning across the government.
By maintaining consistency, these units ensure that various sectors and levels of government work synergistically rather than in silos. They are uniquely positioned to oversee the progress of strategic initiatives and conduct evaluations to compare outcomes against set objectives, strongly supporting inter-ministerial committees. Furthermore, these units can effectively disseminate information within the government and to the public, enhancing transparency and fostering trust. They also identify training needs in strategic planning, project management, and communication within ministries, building capacity and ensuring personnel are well-equipped for effective planning.
By embedding these functions within strategic planning units, governments can significantly improve the coherence, execution, and monitoring of their strategic initiatives, thereby ensuring more robust governance and better outcomes for their strategic planning efforts.
However, consulted interlocutors shared significant challenges, primarily due to the absence of systematic checks to verify the operational status of these units. Possible closures or mergers of strategic units highlight a critical oversight and co-ordination gap, leading to a disjointed strategic planning process across various ministries. Despite their institutional recognition following the Presidential Decree on Public Administration Reform (PAR), these units seem to lack recognition, and a wider cultural shift towards the importance of strategic planning within the overall administration seems to be necessary.
To address these challenges, the ASR needs to regularly monitor and evaluate the strategic units' functionality and effectiveness. This mechanism should include clear performance indicators and regular reporting requirements to ensure that these units are not only active but also contributing effectively to strategic goals. Additionally, formal co-ordination mechanisms need to be put in place to facilitate seamless collaboration and information sharing among the strategic units across different ministries. This would help in aligning their activities with the national strategy and ensuring a unified approach to strategic planning.
Moreover, the ASR should enhance its support for these units, perhaps through establishing a dedicated secretariat to handle basic co-ordination tasks, like sending out meeting invites, to overcome the current lack of control, guidance, and structured interaction. These efforts should not be underestimated and would strongly contribute towards aligning sectoral activities with national strategies and ensuring a unified approach to strategic planning.
Meeting of strategic planners in Latvia
The most significant asset in strategic planning is people. The State Chancellery of Latvia fulfils its co-ordination role by convening meetings of civil servants responsible for policy planning from the ministries and other public institutions.
Routine co-operation work takes place online. For example, this can occur via WhatsApp group chat exchange – with information flowing back and forth when the Prime Minister prepares to address the Parliament on sustainable development progress towards the National Development Plan or the Government Action Plan.
Rare physical meetings are important to exchange ideas and create solutions to problems identified in the planning process. During one of such meetings, Latvia’s policy planners actively discussed the results of a questionnaire on planning challenges previously answered by the group. Another Strategic Planners’ meeting resulted in embedding the Sustainable Development Goals into the country’s planning process. CoG recognises that the “salt” is in the details, and that perspectives can be so different in the different fields.
Sustainable development hubs in Romania
Recent efforts in Romania have enhanced the strategic planning framework by focusing on bolstering line ministry capacity and reforming the budgetary process. Of particular significance are institutional innovations, such as the establishment of Sustainable Development Hubs within each ministry. These hubs aim to promote coherence and co-ordination by ensuring that all institutions are actively involved in the implementation of the 2030 Romanian Sustainable Development Strategy (ROSDS) which is Romania’s strategic framework with the longest timeframe.
The hubs are mandated to align a whole of government implementation of the SDGs and play a central role in promoting and supporting sustainable development policies and expertise beyond the central authorities and the Department of Sustainable Development located within the Prime Minister’s Chancellery. Furthermore, they ensure that other policies do not work at cross-purposes with the ROSDS. Concretely, each hub pursues the implementation of the SDGs related to the field of activity of each institution while acting as liaison between its institution and the Department for Sustainable Development and the National Institute of Statistics. The hubs also contribute to the ROSDS’s monitoring framework to report on the progress of dedicated sustainable development indicators and to monitor the overall implementation of the NSDS.
A hub is formed by existing staff with competency in the field of sustainable development. As of 2020 each line ministry has appointed one or two persons to their respective hub. Dedicated training programmes have been developed to counter the issue of insufficient expertise of the involved staff.
The Sustainable Development Hubs across the government in Romania, constitute a successful deployment of a new co-ordination mechanism that strengthens coherence, co-ordination and strategic planning. These efforts can be replicated in other cross-cutting policy areas thanks to strong leadership. This innovative governance framework for sustainable development has also been recognised by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) as Romania received the 2021 UN “prize for innovation and excellence in public service”.
Sources: (OECD, 2023[7]); (OECD, n.d.[20]).
Review and challenge functions
In numerous OECD countries, the CoG also assumes review function of documents submitted to the cabinet. This function usually entails assessing whether the proposed item is aligned with the government priorities, proper quality standards of the documents, processes and procedures have been followed and that the document conforms to consultation, financial and legal criteria (see Figure 2.3). For some of these functions, for example, legal and fiscal conformity, the centre can share its responsibility with other entities (OECD, 2018[17]). Overall, in 2023, 66% of the surveyed OECD countries declared this quality review function as top or significant priority for their CoGs (OECD, 2023[9]).
Note: n=24; Respondents to the survey were asked: “When reviewing draft policy proposals, legislation, or other policy documents, which aspects does the CoG ensure?”
Source: (OECD, 2023[9]).
The ASR, and potentially the Cabinet of Ministers given its steering function, should have the responsibility to review strategic documents and ensure they are of good quality, sufficiently resourced, and aligned with the strategic priorities of Uzbekistan, particularly stemming from Uzbekistan 2030. However, consulted interlocutors have identified there is a capacity gap within the ASR to effectively take on a control function.
The draft presidential Decree aimed at strengthening Uzbekistan’s strategic planning framework expects the ASR to enhance its review function by implementing a strong challenge mechanism coupled with financial stimulus prerogatives for other institutions. In several OECD and non-OECD Member countries like Canada and Kazakhstan, this translates into the capacity for the central planning unit to reject a document and send it back for revision to the authoring institution. Additionally, it is crucial to note that there is already a dedicated department within the PA focused on legal conformity and strategic alignment. However, this department currently operates without clear guidelines and methodologies, resulting in unclear decisions and expectations for line ministries. The below practice of Estonia (see Box 2.10) could inspire the ASR and the PA to strengthen the guidance offered to line ministries.
Estonia's Strategy Unit, situated within the Office of the Government, plays a crucial role in translating the Coalition Agreement into a comprehensive four-year action plan known as the Government Programme. This unit collaborates closely with other central government institutions and line ministries to refine policy objectives across various sectors and sub-sectors, ensuring alignment with the coalition's political commitments.
Moreover, it oversees the translation of the Government Programme into actionable commitments, fostering effective strategic planning and resource allocation. Working in tandem with deputy secretaries-general and the Ministry of Finance, the Strategy Unit monitors performance and maintains coherence between the Government Programme, Estonia 2035, and multi-year budget framework.
Notably, the unit empowers the Prime Minister to exercise quality control over government-wide strategies, streamlining processes and reducing redundancy. Estonia's approach exemplifies the importance of co-ordinated strategic planning in achieving national objectives and optimising resource utilisation. The unit has the following key functions:
The Strategy Unit translates the broad ambitions outlined in the Government Programme into concrete, actionable commitments for individual ministries. This ensures clarity and focus in translating political goals into tangible deliverables.
The unit acts as a central co-ordinator, harmonising individual ministry plans with overarching national strategies and ensuring consistency across government initiatives. This fosters a unified approach to achieving national objectives.
The unit establishes clear and concise minimum standards for all strategic documents. This includes mandating elements like performance indicators, cost analysis, and explicit links to the budget, contributing to transparency and accountability.
The unit facilitates communication and collaboration across ministries, encouraging joint efforts and eliminating potential siloed approaches. This promotes synergy and avoids duplication of efforts.
The unit acts as a valuable resource for ministries throughout the planning process, providing guidance and expertise from initial conception to implementation. This ensures quality control and adherence to best practices.
The unit's effectiveness is underpinned by well-defined procedures and guidelines that flow from a ministerial note and a strategic planning handbook:
Clear steps are outlined for drafting sectoral development plans, covering every stage from initiation to implementation. This transparency fosters accountability, predictability, and uniformity.
The process mandates stakeholder involvement and incorporates regular evaluations to ensure plans remain relevant and effective.
Strategic documents must demonstrably contribute to long-term national goals and align with Estonia's commitment to sustainable development.
Financial considerations are central, with mandatory cost estimations and clear links established between plans and the state budget.
Source: (OECD, n.d.[20]).
Leveraging performance management tools and evidence to strengthen strategic planning
As indicated in the OECD’s policy framework for sound public governance, robust evidence is crucial for effective strategic planning (OECD, 2020[1]). Performance information, especially when collected systematically in discussed routinely in performance dialogues, can be used to measure progress of policies and priorities against set targets. It can reveal whether policies and projects are moving the country along the path to achieving the results and outcomes they were adopted to pursue. Robust performance information can thus enable the government to identify and address any issues that arise and, using effective feedback loops that integrate evidence into the policymaking process, help the government adjust course if policy and spending efforts are not achieving projected results or when results are sub-optimal. As such monitoring whole-of-government performance is seen as a clear priority for consulted CoGs in OECD (see Figure 2.4) and Box 2.11 for Latvia’s practice regarding monitoring national development policies from the CoG (OECD, 2023[9]).
Note: n=26. Respondents to the OECD survey were asked: “How much of a priority are the following functions in the CoG? [Monitoring whole-of-government performance]”.
Source: (OECD, 2023[9]).
At the CoG in Uzbekistan, the ASR and the MoJ both share monitoring duties within the existing planning framework for the Uzbekistan's 2030 Strategy. However, a lack of co-operation leads to lacking leadership and creates a risk of inefficiencies and overlaps. As the ASR helps line ministries in the preparation of strategic documents, the ASR should also evaluate the impact and performance of these documents to ensure effectiveness. Consulted stakeholders however revealed that the ASR lacks crucial tools and capacities like dashboards and data analysis platforms, as well as the necessary staff to engage in this work in an effective manner. This is further complicated by the absence of a clear requirement for individual ministries to track the implementation of strategic documents and compile results in dedicated monitoring reports. Furthermore, no entity seems to be in charge of reviewing and analysing the implementation reports if ministries do decide to create them. The ASR should ensure it has sufficient capacities to do so and should co-operate with the MoJ to divide the work. While the MoJ could build on its expertise related to gathering monitoring data, the ASR could focus on evaluations to make sure strategic long-term goals such as the 2030 Strategy are being met.
The existing situation leads towards an overall broader challenge in Uzbekistan: the clear gap between the strategic ambitions, as outlined in its key documents, and its actual implementation. The current monitoring and evaluation system appears to be incoherent, hindering progress tracking and lacking sound assessment against strategic goals. The lack of a robust data system further exacerbates this issue, as the existing framework is incomplete and overall leadership is unclear with involved actors also lacking the necessary tools and capabilities.
Latvia aimed to create a flexible and measurable monitoring framework to connect policy planning with the country’s longer-term vision. The objective of the system is to monitor and maintain sector-specific priorities and budget alignment with national development priorities.
The state policy planning framework manages, adjusts and monitors the different levels of policy planning documents, changes in political actors (governments) and their priorities. It includes managing long-term development plans, the government’s medium- to short-term action plans and sector plans.
At defined periods, line ministries report to the CoG on the progress of the plans and explain the implementation of tasks that have not been sufficiently achieved. The existing system is flexible, as it provides continuity for national long-term development; meanwhile, if political actors change, it allows revision of adopted long-term development planning documents and offers new solutions.
Additionally, the Government Project Monitoring Office, an internal body in the Prime Minister’s Office, also serves an important monitoring function. This office monitors selected public policies and serves as an important source of information for the Latvian Central Council on its portfolio of specific strategic projects.
Source: (OECD, 2024[8]).
Creating a legal framework for monitoring to clarify the system and roles
A clear step to combat these inconsistencies and inefficiencies would be the creation of a dedicated legal framework for monitoring and implementing strategic objectives. As seen in OECD member countries (OECD, 2024[8]), embedding monitoring efforts in legal frameworks contributes strongly towards the clarity of roles and mandates. This is crucial, given that the ASR’s monitoring role for the 2030 Strategy will create demands on the line ministries and will need a clear division of labour vis-à-vis the MoJ. It also ensures continuity following changes in the government and boosts the uptake of monitoring practices by civil servants by integrating monitoring activities in the policy cycle. The frameworks countries used to underpin monitoring can take various forms depending on their context. Some countries emphasise monitoring of their government-wide strategies, while other countries focus on monitoring well-being goals. Legal frameworks can also be supported by secondary documents, for example guidelines, to support standardisation and the promotion of good practices.
The draft presidential decree to strengthen Uzbekistan’s strategic planning framework envisages the implementation of the of Methodology for elaborating and monitoring strategic planning documents and for control over these processes, already prepared by ASR, while the Institute of Legislation and Legal Policy is tasked to focus on elaborating models for strategic foresight. However, to avoid duplication of work it would be beneficial for this decree to also include more details on the related monitoring system instead of creating a separate decree on a later time. Special training activities on strategic planning are also provided for officials in the MEF, the MoJ, the ISRS, the ACSD and the ASR, as well as for heads of ministries, agencies, and local authorities. In particular, the officials from strategic planning departments are to have such special training sessions at least once per year.
The legal framework for performance information in the United States (Box 2.12) could be inspirational for Uzbekistan as it offers a clear example of a whole-of-government approach towards the use of performance information established by introducing a strong legal framework within the federal government and the agencies that is resilient to change.
The 2010 Government Performance Results and Modernization Act (GPRAMA) introduced a set of rules, procedures and routines for setting federal and agency objectives, monitoring implementation and achievements and performance reporting. The GPRAMA identifies the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the custodian of this process and provides it with steering, co‑ordination and quality control functions across all phases of the policy cycle. In doing so, the GPRAMA establishes a legal and institutional framework for performance information:
The OMB co‑ordinates with agencies to develop the Federal Government Performance Plan, which sets performance goals and defines the level of performance to be achieved at the federal level. In this regard, the OMB also verifies compliance with the quality standards (related to both federal and agency performance plans) and ensures that all mandatory information is concurrently made publicly available and updated periodically.
The OMB works with the lead government official and officials from the agencies, organisations and programme activities that contribute to the accomplishment of each federal government priority goal to review the progress achieved during the most recent quarter, overall trend data and the likelihood of meeting the planned level of performance. It assesses whether agencies, organisations, programme activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies and other activities are contributing as planned to each federal government priority goal. Moreover, it categorises the federal government’s priority goals by risk of not achieving the planned level of performance. For the federal government, priority goals at the greatest risk of not meeting the planned level of performance identify prospects and strategies for performance improvement. The OMB reports on unmet goals to the head of each agency, parliamentary committees and the Government Accountability Office. In return, the head of each agency that has not met performance expectations has to prepare a Performance Improvement Plan addressing the OMB’s recommendations.
The GPRAMA also contributes to transparency by providing clear rules related to the publication of agencies and the federal government’s performance. In this regard, the head of each agency makes information about each agency’s priority goal available to the OMB for publication on the website. Based on the quality criteria and content requirements provided by the GPRAMA, the OMB issues guidance to agencies on providing concise and timely performance information for publication. The OMB ensures that such information is provided in a way that presents a coherent picture of all federal programmes, the performance of the federal government as a whole, as well as individual agencies. The OMB ensures the effective operation of the single performance website and its quarterly update.
Finally, in relation to each federal performance goal, the GPRAMA organises quarterly data-driven meetings for the director of the OMB, with the support of the Performance Improvement Council, to discuss the achieved progress, overall trend data and the likelihood of meeting the planned level of performance.
Furthermore, the 2018 Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act strengthens the legal framework for using evidence in policymaking. The act allows the OMB to play a key role in improving data use in the federal agencies’ decision-making. The act requires agency data to be accessible and agencies to develop statistical evidence for supporting policymaking.
Enhancing the performance management and data system through dashboards and tools
A clear framework for monitoring could also contribute towards Uzbekistan’s overall data management efforts which are currently hampered by low-quality data and a lack of interoperable data systems. The prevalent focus on outputs, rather than outcomes, combined with a lack of data culture, severely undermines the efforts towards effective monitoring. Despite the existence of several digital platforms like www.project.gov.uz, www.regulation.gov.uz, and www.implementation.gov.uz these seem to be underused and as such reflect a need to be scaled up and better integrated into the overall data framework. Given the role and function of the ASR related to improving the system of strategic planning, it would be pragmatic that, in parallel with developing adequate legislation and guidance in the form of a framework, a dedicated digital monitoring platform would be included to monitor the implementation of the objectives of the 2030 Strategy. This platform should be able to collect key information and data from sectoral strategic documents such as linkages to the 2030 Strategy, performance indicators, implemented activities or achieved outcomes.
In alignment with these efforts, the ASR is currently working on the creation of the Electronic Platform, an online tool for monitoring the progress of objectives in strategic planning documents. All strategic documents are to be present there in a systematic and hierarchical order, and all reports on the progress of each objective are to be uploaded there as well, alongside info charts and other analytic material. This platform is to be fully operational by 1 July 2024; however, this deadline has now been extended to a later date, with the responsibility for it allocated to a group of institutions consisting of the MDT, the Statistics Agency, the Chamber of Accounts, the MEF, the MoJ and the ASR. The below practice (see Box 2.13) from the United Kingdom could inspire the ASR in the development process.
In 2019, the CoG in the United Kingdom started moving towards real-time performance tracking. Triggered by the preparation of Brexit and sped-up by the Covid-19 pandemic, the new internal delivery dashboard, called “Government Performance App” was extended to the top 200 and top 35 government priorities (Government Major Project Portfolio – GMPP). It provides an up-to-date situational picture and allows for early identification of performance risks.
The Government Performance App (GPA) is managed by the Cabinet Office and the HM Treasury and fed by the different departments leading the government priority projects. Consistently with standard operational procedures, at least each four weeks lead departments are requested to co-ordinate with “contributing” departments and agencies and regularly provide the CoG with information on progress against milestones and deliverables, and related schedules, on expenditures, and on major concerns. In relation to the whole project, each milestone, and expenditures, the Senior Responsible Owners (SROs) of projects in the GMPP also provide their own assessment (on track/off track/pending) and qualitative commentaries in relation to actions planned or taken, deviation from planned schedule, and budget/forecast variance.
The GPA ensures up-to-date information, which is used for drafting monthly delivery notes presenting the state of affairs to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's Delivery Unit has full access to information; though focusing on a limited number of key policies, it can get a structured situational overview of progress on the overall Government Major Project Portfolio and draw general conclusions.
The OECD has also defined specific Public Administration Principles (OECD / SIGMA, 2023[24]) that include dedicated advice on purposeful monitoring (OECD, 2020[1]) (OECD, 2017[25]) Uzbekistan could therefore:
Set concrete objectives and targets in planning documents.
Define a set of performance indicators (aligned with objectives) that monitor progress on the implementation of policies in planning documents.
Ensure that performance indicators are measurable and relevant to the objectives and support accountability arrangements between institutions and responsible managers.
Establish a data-collection system for all identified indicators that provides ministers and officials with timely and accurate data.
Conduct overall progress reports at least every two years and ensure that they are publicly available and form a basis for discussion of implementation at political and top administrative levels.
Put in place functioning central steering and strategy review processes. Involving civil society and the business community in the monitoring and review process by ensuring transparency and access to information and enable them to provide input on implementation performance and challenges.
The ASR could make use of these digital platforms to make sure that indicators linked to the 2030 Strategy are cascaded down at all levels of governance. This is essential for ensuring that every sector and level of government—from national to local—aligns with overarching strategic objectives, thereby enabling a coherent approach to strategic planning. This systematic alignment of indicators contributes towards measurable and consistent priority-setting. This practice, as exemplified by Egypt's Ministry of Planning and Development initiatives such as the ISIPPM and ADAA (Box 2.14), offers a model that the ASR might consider optimising its monitoring frameworks.
One of the significant advantages of such an approach is the ability to aggregate results from sectoral plans to main strategic level of the 2030 Strategy. This not only allows for a comprehensive view of progress but also ensures that all initiatives contribute effectively to national priorities.
Furthermore, the selection of relevant and measurable indicators with clearly defined targets and baselines at each level of the results chain—from outputs to outcomes and impacts—is crucial. This ensures that indicators are not only measurable over time but also comparable across different levels and entities. Detailed indicator definition sheets and methodology notes can help establishing a common understanding of each indicator, which enhances the comparability and reliability of assessments across different governance levels.
Incorporating a mix of output, outcome, and impact indicators is also recommended. This diversity allows for a more nuanced evaluation of performance and the various contributions to the results chain. By emphasizing outcome-level indicators while still incorporating outputs and impacts, governance bodies can more effectively attribute and track contributions to overarching goals.
Egypt’s efforts to strengthen performance frameworks have also resulted in the establishment of specialised monitoring and evaluation units in certain ministries and government bodies. In addition, its Ministry of Planning and Economic Development (MPED) has created two electronic systems, linking SDGs with investment planning and with performance management.
Egypt’s Integrated System for Investment Plan Preparation and Monitoring
The first one is the Integrated System for Investment Plan Preparation and Monitoring (ISIPPM). The aim of the ISIPPM is to establish an integrated electronic system that enables public entities to formulate development plans, request appropriate funding through simplified electronic forms, and facilitates the monitoring of projects. It serves as the main information structure for proposed projects, supporting the achievement of the SDGs, Egypt Vision 2030 objectives, and the government programme.
The ISIPPM system standardises assessments and trade-offs in project selection, facilitating the preparation of economic plans for the seven regions of Egypt. The ISIPPM tracks various data related to economic, social, and development activities, including demographic data, economic and financial information, natural and technological resources, infrastructure, and existing and planned projects. It provides analytical tools, mathematical models, and accounting programmes to assist in data analysis and strategic decision-making.
This wealth of data allows MPED and its officials to monitor development progress, identify investment needs in different sectors, analyse future challenges and opportunities, and take necessary measures to achieve the goals set in development and investment plans.
Egypt's National System for Monitoring and Evaluation
The second system, Egypt's National System for Monitoring and Evaluation - known as ADAA - is a government-based network that facilitates the monitoring and evaluation of all state entities. Through quarterly reports sent to the Council of Ministers, Parliament, and the Administrative Control Authority, ADAA enables the government to assess the performance of the state administrative apparatus in accordance with international standards. This system is intricately linked to the state budget, ensuring efficient resource allocation, and serving as a foundation for government and institutional excellence.
The objectives of ADAA include implementing government-approved development targets, fostering co-ordination between ministries and agencies, highlighting national achievements, aligning government objectives with the performance of agencies and employees, improving service quality for citizens, ensuring effective public spending, and measuring the impact of development programmes on sustainable development goals. Notably, all indicators within ADAA are connected to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030.
Moreover, ADAA focuses on monitoring the performance of each government entity through entity-specific performance indicators. These indicators are updated on a quarterly basis and cover the entire process of plan preparation, follow-up, and assessment of development impact. The system incorporates over 3,000 performance measurement indicators, including 380 indicators specifically designed to measure the strategic impact of various government programmes. ADAA is an electronic system with an informative graphical interface that visually represents each government entity and its affiliated bodies.
Source: (OECD, n.d.[26]).
Creating performance dialogues to discuss and ensure progress on indicators and objectives
Facilitating performance dialogues through the use and sharing of information is essential to ensure that objectives and targets are shared and reached, that various stakeholders and levels of government are aligned and integrated, thereby preventing duplication of work and maximising resource use. This will lead towards a more comprehensive and structured assessment of progress by combining different perspectives and data, providing a fuller understanding of the impact of various factors on the achievement of strategic goals (OECD, 2020[1]).
The lack of a structured co-operation for collecting and sharing data between ministries in Uzbekistan hinders the ability to build on pre-existing information, knowledge, and solutions in a co-ordinated manner. This limits the ASR’s ability to leverage existing data to inform comprehensive and cohesive planning efforts and can lead to potential discrepancies in data and analysis. A practical way for the ASR to improve these co-ordination efforts is by creating work routines, through which data is collected and disseminated according to a set rhythm that generates a recognisable pattern. This has been widely recognised as a crucial success factor in promoting the use and value of performance information in the policymaking process. Concretely, they contribute to giving decision-makers a good co-ordinated overview of the state of play so that they can easily identify policy areas in need of intervention to safeguard progress.
An innovative way to create work routines is hosting data-driven review meetings, as in the United States (see Box 2.15), that represent a strategic tool to monitor and improve the performance of policies and institutions and are characterised by their structured format that focuses on frequency and regularity. The engagement of high-level leadership in these meetings is shown to increase effectiveness, as exemplified in the United States where securing the engagement of the deputy-secretary has shown to have a strong positive impact on the overall process.
The 2010 Government Performance Reporting and Modernization Act (GPRAMA) introduced the need for quarterly review meetings on each long-term federal government priority goal to discuss the progress achieved during the most recent quarter, overall trend data, the likelihood of meeting, and the planned level of performance against quarterly targets and milestones.
The federal government priority goals are categorised according to their risk of not achieving their planned level of performance. For those federal government priority goals that have the greatest risk of not meeting their planned level of performance, review meetings allow for the identification of prospects and strategies for performance improvement, including any needed changes to agencies, organizations, programmes activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, or other activities. Accuracy and reliability of the data used to measure progress towards the priority goal is also discussed.
These meetings are organised by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget with the support of the Performance Improvement Council. Meetings include officials from the agencies, organisations, and program activities that contribute to the accomplishment of each Federal Government priority goal.
Since then, agencies started to organise regularly scheduled, structured, and rigorously prepared data-driven meetings to review performance indicators with department or programme personnel. According to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), to engage in data-driven reviews, it is necessary that programmes have identified their strategic priorities, that there is authentic leadership support to engage in the process, and that programmes have the capacity to gather and synthesize data related to those priorities. On the latter, though several agencies are able to produce data-rich analyses that identified trends and potential performance issues. Performance Improvement Officers reported that having accurate, timely, and useful data available remains a major challenge.
The ASR's placement at the CoG is crucial because of its comprehensive oversight or 'helicopter view' and its ability to perform a 'challenge function'. This involves posing critical questions to line ministries as they present data and evidence, ensuring their validity and utility. Consequently, the CoG can identify the most valuable pieces of information, crafting a strategic overview that provides maximum benefit for top-level decision-makers. The following practice could inspire Uzbekistan to embed a routine that offers high-level updates on the progress of the 2030 Strategy. In the United Kingdom (see Box 2.16) a fixed work-routine enables the Prime Minister to receive regular updates on the implementation of policy priorities. This debrief is agreed on by both the PM’s top political advisors and the experts within the civil service, generating the perception that this analysis is legitimate. The ASR could also make use of the performance dialogue organised by the Ministry of Investment, Industry and Trade (see Box 2.17).
Monthly and six-monthly state of affairs presented to the Prime Minister
The UK introduced reporting routines at the heart of the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (PMDU), which provides the rhythm for the unit’s work. There are two reporting routines to the Prime Minister: monthly delivery notes and six-monthly delivery reports.
The monthly delivery notes summarise progress for each of the Prime Minister’s priorities. They highlight the main issues encountered in a short and data driven fashion and describe what is planned. Where necessary, some notes can be even more frequent.
Six-monthly delivery reports are designed to be a comprehensive assessment of the state of play for all the Prime Minister’s priority areas in a given department. They are written by the Head of the PMDU for the Prime Minister and copied to the secretary of state and lead officials. Usually, the drafts are discussed with the lead officials first. Each priority’s delivery report is just one page and is intended to:
Report progress against trajectories for the priority.
Outline what success looked like for the priority over the next six months.
Determine the best path forward and identify key actions that needed to be taken.
Reveal areas of disagreement between the delivery unit and the lead department.
Act as a reference document against which to chart progress.
Source: (Institute for Governance, 2015[29]).
The Ministry of Investment, Industry and Trade (MIIT) seeks to create a dynamic and favourable investment climate, driving sustainable economic growth and elevating Uzbekistan’s global economic position. The ministry’s mandate is centred on the execution of a cohesive state investment policy by co-ordinating the development and implementation of national and sectoral investment programmes.
Strategic framework and contribution to national priorities
The MIIT is guided by a strategic framework outlined in several presidential decrees and resolutions. Resolution No. PP-72 (30.12.2021) charts a long-term investment strategy through 2026, attracting foreign investment and enhancing project management methodologies. Resolution No. PP-292 (04.09.2023) underscores the implementation of investment programmes, fostering a supportive business environment. These are complemented by reforms outlined in Decree No. PD-111 (21.07.2023), aimed at optimising public administration in investment and trade sectors.
The Uzbekistan 2030 strategy aims to attract $250 billion in investments by 2030, with specific targets in technological advancements, infrastructure projects, and sector-specific growth. To ensure alignment with these objectives, the MIIT employs analytical tools such as gap analysis, scorecards and reviews, as well as the use of secondments to foster co-ordination and engagement across ministries.
Co-ordination of whole-of-government bodies
The Government Commission on Attracting Investments, Industry Development, and Trade Regulation Issues is central to the MIIT’s efforts to co-ordinate economic policies across government. Its tasks include the creation of strategies to boost exports, project reviews to ensure efficient and effective delivery and the promotion of regional industrial and production clusters. These responsibilities enable the Commission to co-ordinate across sectoral bodies to streamline investment and trade activities.
Furthermore, the MIIT has implemented an online system as part of a broader performance dialogue to monitor the progress of the national investment programme in accordance with resolution No. 16 (16.01.2023). The resolution specifies a six-stage process for forming a three-year investment program, including:
Initial drafting by relevant ministries and local authorities.
High-level review by the Cabinet of Ministers
Detailed project planning by ministries and local authorities.
Final submission of the investment program to the Cabinet of Ministers and the Presidential Administration.
The MIIT submits monthly update reports as part of this performance dialogue to the Presidential Administration and the Cabinet of Ministers, facilitating oversight and adjustments.
Areas of opportunities
A clear mandate for co-ordination, coupled with a high-level political commitment to expand investment, places the MIIT in a strong position for guiding whole-of-government economic policy. Moreover, the MIIT has implemented good governance practices to foster coherence and co-ordination of their activities.
Nonetheless, the MIIT faces challenges in effectively implementing its agenda. Risk management could be improved to avoid project delays and financial losses. Furthermore, despite important efforts to strategize the use of planning and monitoring, a skill gap regarding planning capacities and the development of key performance indicators.
Source: Interviews carried out by the OECD as part of the project.
Leveraging Uzbekistan’s delivery unit
Some CoGs have also established dedicated units within their system that monitor and co-ordinate a select number of key priorities. Uzbekistan has established such a delivery unit underneath its Presidential Administration to assess the political realisations of line ministries, inspired by a model like that introduced and made popular by Tony Blair’s government in the United Kingdom. Uzbekistan’s Delivery Unit comprises a small team consisting of six individuals who focus on three main areas: public health, public education, and drinking water. They aim to monitor twelve specific KPI’s such as the construction of new schools. One of their needs as shared during the OECD’s fact-finding mission is a Geographic Information System (GIS) map to accurately allocate budget and resources for their KPI’s. Furthermore, the unit faces challenges in distinguishing between raw data and processed statistics. Positioned above the ministries within the President's office, the delivery unit often encounters resistance from line ministries, which claim ownership of the data and may alter it to serve their interests.
The ASR should foster a strong partnership with the Delivery Unit to fully harness its capabilities in both data creation and analytical insights. This collaboration could contribute towards more successful implementation of the 2030 Strategy. By doing so, both the ASR and the DU can enhance their efficiency and effectiveness and avoid duplication of work and resources.
In fostering this relationship, it is crucial for the ASR to establish clear communication channels and regular interactions with the Delivery Unit. This will ensure ongoing alignment of strategies and facilitate timely adjustments to plans based on their respective insights. Moreover, leveraging the Delivery Unit's capabilities will enable the ASR to have a more data-driven perspective, leading to enhanced decision-making processes and more effective strategic planning efforts.
Improving co-ordination for more effective whole-of-government planning
The above-discussed performance dialogues are just one example of the variety of co-ordination mechanisms CoGs employ to enhance whole-of-government planning efforts and alignment across different stages of the policy cycle. These mechanisms further include both permanent and temporary structures such as taskforces, working groups, councils, committees, citizen assemblies, and innovation labs. These co-ordination efforts form a key tool for more effective strategic planning efforts. These structures not only support coherent, whole-of-government action but also promote peer learning and ensure that adequate resources are allocated for effective strategic planning.
Note: n=26. Respondents to the OECD survey were asked: “What enabling mechanisms does the CoG leverage to support co‑ordination and coherence?”.
Source: (OECD, 2023[9]).
Consulted CoGs in OECD Member countries (OECD, 2023[9]) indicated that the most commonly used co-ordination tools are interdepartmental taskforces, expert groups, and advisory groups (see Figure 2.5). Effective co-ordination bodies often depend on strong leadership, the inclusion of appropriate representatives, and a well-defined purpose. Inter-departmental co-ordination arrangements can serve different purposes and have different benefits, for instance:
They provide a forum for high-level political monitoring and decision-making and co-ordination across different ministries.
They can help to ensure that policies are aligned with/integrated into the government programme’s strategic priorities and objectives.
They can facilitate the development of cross-cutting policies that address complex, multidimensional issues that require input from multiple ministries.
In Uzbekistan, the strategic planning and co-ordination efforts undertaken by the ASR, the MoJ, and the CoM are undergoing change to improve their effectiveness. Initially, the planning process of long-term strategic documents such as the 2022-2026 Strategy was mostly led by working groups under the Cabinet of Ministers. The 2030 Strategy however, incorporated broader and more active involvement indicating a shift towards a more inclusive approach in strategic planning. Furthermore, the system is evolving from a report-oriented, bureaucratic approach to a result-oriented system, aiming for more effective implementation of strategies. Despite these efforts, the strategic planning process faces challenges of co-ordination and coherence.
Inter-ministerial committees for more effective co-ordination of planning efforts
To foster greater co-ordination and ensure policy coherence and effective implementation, both inter-ministerial committees at the political level as well as inter-departmental committees at the technical level, are instrumental. These committees play crucial roles by bringing together policymakers from different ministries to discuss and align on various policy aspects. This approach ensures high-level ownership and facilitate in-depth exchanges, enabling ministries to align their policies and actions with the broader national objectives:
High-level committees are mandated to steer strategy formulation and oversee implementation while ensuring its coherence, are organised by thematic clusters (e.g., addressing economic and trade, social and cultural, and foreign and defence policies). At the “top” of a committee hierarchy, some countries have established a whole-of-government steering committee at the ministerial level, in some cases chaired by the head of state or government, to provide overarching integrated guidance in the pursuit of the Government Programme.
These high-level, whole-of-government committee structures are supported by mirror inter-departmental committees of officials at the technical level that are responsible for providing data, evidence, and advice to their respective high-level committees. In addition, the main inter-ministerial oversight/steering committee is usually chaired by the head of government or a CoG minister and is supported by a CoG institution such as the ASR that works closely with relevant line-ministry strategy units and/or sustainable development units to feed the strategic policy decision-making process at the steering committee level.
These inter-ministerial committees acknowledge the role the CoG can play as a central leader that facilitates co-ordination, collaboration and co-operation across the public administration. This is demonstrated by the case of the PlanAPP expertise centre in Portugal with its Public Administration Planning and Foresight Services Network (RePlan) (see Box 2.18).
In Uzbekistan, such co-ordination within the government remains a challenge, with strategic priorities often discussed on an ad-hoc basis and silos persisting due to a lack of formal co-ordination structures and performance management dialogue based on key performance indicators (KPIs).
A formal inter-ministerial committee for the 2030 strategy presided by the President with the ASR as its technical secretariat could lead to further support a political and technical dialogue, akin to the successful model of the current digital co-ordination commission. While an ad-hoc committee currently serves to review the progress and challenges of the 2030 Strategy, its temporary nature, and the lack of a permanent, structured entity for continuous guidance and oversight reflect the need for a more formalised approach to strategic planning and co-ordination. The High-Level Commission for Strategic Reforms, led by the President, exemplifies this need, and could be strengthened to be made fit for purpose. Despite its high-level leadership, the council’s current effectiveness has been questioned by consulted interlocutors, as seen in the inadequate implementation of the agriculture strategy, which failed to align with climate objectives.
As mentioned, technical support for co-ordination mechanisms is essential for their effectiveness, and the ASR should play a central role in supporting the 2030 Strategy mechanisms, acting as secretariat when needed. This support includes handling co-ordination tasks like invites and note-taking, supplying thematic data and evidence for strategic policy discussions at inter-departmental committees, and offering training for involved officials. The ASR should also facilitate interministerial workshops to improve co-ordination practices, manage multi-sectoral initiatives, foster collaboration, resolve conflicts, and optimise resource use. These workshops could focus on priorities identified in Uzbekistan 2030 to discuss and advance progress on each. These efforts will bolster the implementation of strategic initiatives, aligning with national goals and enhancing Uzbekistan's strategic planning framework.
Focused high-level inter-ministerial committees in Finland
Finland has established several co‑ordination mechanisms to support strategy and decision-making supported by the CoG, particularly the Government Strategic Department. They bring together different line ministries and are usually shared by one or two lead ministries, depending on the topic. Finland has created:
Four permanent Ministerial Committees on Finance, Economic Policy, European Union (EU) Affairs and Foreign and Security Policy that play a key role in co‑ordinating government policies.
Thematic working groups focusing on a few government priorities (e.g., the Ministerial Working Group on Developing the Digital Transformation, the Data Economy and Public Administration) that help steer, monitor and implement those priorities.
Functional working groups on research and foresight.
The Belgian Interdepartmental Committee for Sustainable Development
The Interdepartmental Committee for Sustainable Development (ICSD) is responsible for preparing and co-ordinating actions by federal ministries and public services in the field of sustainable development.
The committee is mandated by law to:
Propose areas of work for the Federal Institute for Sustainable Development (FISD) and the Federal Planning Bureau as part of their designated tasks outlined in the sustainable development the Act of May 1997.
Co-ordinate the summary report of its members that they must compile 18 months before the end of the ongoing Federal Plan for Sustainable Development (FPSD).
Prepare the draft of Federal Plan for Sustainable Development when a new government takes up office.
Formulate a proposal regarding the modalities of the public consultation concerning the draft of the Federal Plan for Sustainable Development (FPSD).
It is composed of representatives from all federal government services and the Ministry of Defence. The Belgian Regions and Communities are also invited to appoint an observing member. The Federal Institute for Sustainable Development (FISD) as the dedicated federal administration for sustainable development located within the centre of government assumes the secretariat and the chairmanship of the committee.
The Public Administration Planning and Foresight Services Network (RePlan) in Portugal
In 2021, the Portuguese government established an inter-ministerial network for planning and foresight services of the public administration. Its objective is to support the government in building and aligning strategies for cross-cutting issues. And ensure that in Portugal, the planning processes are underpinned by a wide range of sources of data and evidence.
This acknowledges the role the CoG can play as a central leadership hub, to facilitate co-ordination, collaboration and co-operation across the public administration, including through the use of foresight in the planning process. Although RePLAN was de facto established in November 2022 and is still in its early stages, it has already identified some key success factors:
The establishment of a long-awaited convening platform that brings together different practices such as foresight offers an opportunity for synergies, increased efficiency and effectiveness in core governance areas such as strategic planning and policy evaluation.
A clear mandate, government empowerment and continuous political support.
The engagement of relevant stakeholders from civil society, academia and the private sector to drive evidence-informed and inclusive strategies and plans.
Reinforcing vertical co-ordination
Finally, to enhance Uzbekistan's strategic planning efforts, reinforced vertical co-ordination is also an important point of attention. Especially given the recent elevation of the mahalla's role through the Presidential Decree of December 2023. This decree not only establishes a Republican Council for Mahalla Support and a nationwide association but also clarifies the responsibilities of each executive council member, known as the "mahalla seven," and the procedures within the mahalla. This structured framework significantly supports local governance, promoting better integration and co-ordination with national strategic objectives.
This initiative is critical as existing challenges in vertical co-ordination, including unclear expectations and responsibilities, have been identified by consulted stakeholders during the OECD’s fact-finding missions as a clear reason for overburdening of regional capacities. The 2030 strategy's lack of clear work delineation for regional and local levels further complicates effective implementation. Moreover, the ASR's limited mandate and tools restrict its ability to effectively articulate and co-ordinate between local and national levels. Additionally, the quality of regional data remains severely limited, which undermines effective strategic planning and monitoring. By addressing these gaps and aligning local actions with national objectives, strengthened vertical co-ordination can significantly improve the execution of strategic objectives across different government levels. The below practice from Argentina (see Box 2.19) can inspire the ASR for more effective vertical co-ordination for the 2030 strategy.
Furthermore, a special unit named Project Cluster at the ASR is to link all stakeholders and the wider public through a complex of measures, mostly targeting the participation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and non-state experts, but also vertical co-ordination through involvement of representatives of local communities. The purpose of the Project Cluster is in large part to address societal concerns with the strategic planning process and to provide a means for a dialogue between the state and the citizens.
In conclusion, despite various initiatives for improvement Uzbekistan's co-ordination efforts face significant challenges which can be addressed with more effective integration of inter-ministerial and inter-departmental committees into the strategic planning process. Furthermore, while the regulations of the PA and the CoM provide a framework for resolving inter-ministerial conflicts, the details of these mechanisms are not well-defined, leading to difficulties in ensuring effective cooperation, particularly in crucial areas like budget adoption and policy evaluation.
In Argentina, the National Council for the Co-ordination of Social Policies (Consejo Nacional de Coordinación de Políticas Sociales, CNCPS), responsible for co-ordinating the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, is promoting co-operation agreements with the provinces to promote vertical co-ordination of the SDGs. Together with the Cooperation Agreement, the CNCPS provides provinces with an adaptation guide including methodological suggestions on the utilisation of the SDGs as a management and planning tool at the subnational level.
The CNCPS also invites provinces to participate in the voluntary Provinces Report (Informe Provincias), which seeks to highlight annual progress on the adaptation of the SDGs in each territory in relation to the SDGs under review by the High-level Political Forum every year. At the time of signature, the province had already adopted the goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda, set up focal points responsible for the local implementation of the SDGs and provided adequate resources. However, the signature was a trigger to use the adaptation guide as a key tool to ensure consistency between the provincial and national SDGs indicator frameworks. The province also committed to reporting to the CNCPS on the localisation process.
Source: (OECD, 2020[31]).
Aligning the budget and the strategic planning processes
In the latest Survey on strategic decision-making at the centre of government (OECD, 2023[9]), 75% of countries reported that the alignment both across different plans and with budget processes is a significant or top priority function for their CoG (see Figure 2.6). In doing so Uzbekistan can enhance its strategic decision-making and budgetary alignment by overcoming challenges such as the involvement of multiple institutions in the development process and the need to address and fund new priorities and measures. A structured approach towards this will foster more effective and efficient governance across the country. This can be done by aligning budget estimates with strategic priorities to ensure compliance with the fiscal framework. This is a key focus for the ASR, which works in conjunction with line ministries. However, this co-ordination role is often hampered by issues such as insufficient transparency, a lack of cooperative culture, overlapping mandates, and the need for improved capacities. Addressing these challenges will not only streamline processes but also enhance the overall governance landscape.
Note: n=24; Respondents to the survey were asked: “How much of a priority are the following functions in the CoG [Alignment across documents and with budget process]?”.
Source: (OECD, 2023[9]).
The draft presidential Decree that aims to formalise Uzbekistan’s strategic planning framework tries to address the above identified challenges for co-ordination that could prove complex to apply in practice. Strategic planning departments will require approval from key institutions on different aspects of their strategic plans, thus ensuring a thorough vetting process. The MEF, for example, will approve financial and economic justifications, while the Institute for Strategic and Regional Studies (ISRS) will handle threat assessments and scenario planning. The MoJ will monitor compliance with strategic planning requirements, with the Agency for Civil Service Development (ACSD) co-ordinating human resource management and capacity-building. The ASR will oversee the overall implementation of the 2030 Strategy and long-term national objectives, maintaining the hierarchy and compatibility between different strategic planning documents.
A dedicated case study regarding the alignment of strategic planning and budgeting through the MEF can be found in Box 2.20.
The Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) is responsible for the development of a sustainable and competitive economy by improving financial policies, the alignment of fiscal and budgetary procedures with plans and policies, and the transformation of state-owned enterprises in accordance with market principles. The ministry’s broad mandate allows for close budgetary co-operation with local governments and knowledge exchange with international partners.
Strategic framework and contribution to national priorities
The MEF operates under a comprehensive framework guided by numerous strategic documents, including the Development Strategy of New Uzbekistan for 2022-2026 and Uzbekistan 2030. Since he creation of the Planning Division in 2020, the ministry has sought to implement a results-based management (RBM) system to better align activities with national strategic priorities. Significant progress has been made in the development of a multi-year budget, having developed a methodology for results-based budgeting and launched a pilot programme within the MEF and the Ministry of Agriculture.
The MEF has created an open-access state budget portal to enhance transparency and accountability in budget implementation (www.openbudget.uz), outlining parameters including income, spending and deficit. However, the portal does not provide coherent and traceable information on the linkage between state and regional policies and dedicated financial resources.
Co-ordination of government bodies
Most co-ordination from the MEF occurs through the budgetary process, as all policies and programmes are reviewed by the MEF to ensure the availability of funds. This includes support and technical assistance to national and subnational institutions in budget preparation.
While the MEF currently measures programme implementation and expenditure, they cannot evaluate the efficiency and impact of their budget. The development of the RBM system will allow the MEF to play a stronger co-ordination role by measuring expenditure against impact, conducting spending reviews and performance evaluations, therefore allowing a better integration of the budget with Uzbekistan 2030. The MEF is thus expected to play a key role with ASR in checking the coherence of planning documents before they reach the Cabinet of Ministers and Parliament.
Areas of opportunities
Following the recent merger between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Economy, the MEF’s comprehensive mandate allows it to influence various critical sectors addressing socio-economic development and budgetary procedures and its capacity to streamline and align government goals with financial resources. Furthermore, the adoption of a results-based management model seeks to address the weak links within the planning system.
When creating the state budget, the MEF primarily focuses on the upcoming fiscal year. While this ensures synchronisation between government actions and annual budget cycles, it does not facilitate a longer-term view on financing national priorities. Medium-term budgeting (3-5 years) would allow the MEF to bring a longer perspective on financial resources and strategic priorities, as well as enhance its capabilities to monitor and evaluate budgetary performance. For this to work, the MEF equally has to work to improve the quality and availability of performance data to inform target indicators and streamline the number of strategic plans across government.
Source: OECD interview with the Ministry of Economy and Finance as part of the project.
To effectively implement the below identified recommendations for enhancing Uzbekistan's strategic planning system, the following approach can be proposed:
As a priority, pass the Presidential decree and utilise it alongside the forthcoming Strategic Planning Act as essential tools to formalise and complete the current strategic planning system. Ensure these legislative instruments clearly define the roles, responsibilities, and processes involved in strategic planning across all levels of government.
Develop the capacities and role on strategic planning, particularly on expertise, guidance, support and performance management, to enhance the alignment and implementation of strategies. Consider making the ASR the centre of expertise and competence of strategic planning in Uzbekistan, mirroring the example of PlanAPP in Portugal.
Harness the strong political support for the strategic planning framework to drive the implementation of the recommendations. Engage with key stakeholders, including senior leaders, to advocate for the necessary resources and to ensure alignment with the 2030 Strategy.
In the context of implementing programme-based budgeting, ASR and MEF should promptly join forces to align the respective methodologies, including requirements for content of planning documents and monitoring and reporting on performance, improve costing of strategies and quality of line ministries business plans.
Solidify the position of the 2030 Strategy to foster strategic clarity within the planning process.
Formalise a clear hierarchy of strategic documents that places the 2030 Strategy at the very top. Issue guidelines that require all sectoral and regional strategies to demonstrate alignment with the 2030 Strategy’s objectives. This could involve revising existing strategies or drafting new documents with explicit references to how each contributes to the broader national objectives outlined in the 2030 Strategy.
Develop and execute a comprehensive communication aimed at all public sector entities to clearly articulate the central role of the 2030 Strategy. This should include guidance that emphasises the strategy’s objectives, its importance in the national planning landscape, and the expectations from each entity in supporting its implementation.
Conduct a thorough review of the processes, methods, and achievements of the 2022-2026 Strategy. Identify elements that have been successful and can be integrated into the 2030 Strategy to avoid duplication of efforts and resources.
Enhance stability and efficiency in Uzbekistan's strategic planning system.
Clarify roles through the development and dissemination of clear "statements of purpose" and "who does what" guides across the CoG institutions (ASR, CoM, PA) to clearly define a division of labour that prevents duplication of work. This can be followed by dedicated training sessions to ensure all entities are fully aware of their respective roles and responsibilities.
Create a more formal and regular co-ordination between the three main CoG units and between the CoG and the MEF to ensure alignment between the strategic framework and the national fiscal framework. This could involve creating a subcommittee working on a performance dialogue that reports regularly to the main inter-ministerial committee and the CoG steering committee, and should comprise relevant players including the MEF and the statistics agency.
Improve cooperation through the establishment of shared digital platforms and possibly co-located offices to facilitate daily interactions and streamline communication among CoG bodies. This should then also extend further towards line ministries and agencies to improve understanding of command lines and feedback mechanisms.
Create change management plans and manuals to anticipate and manage restructuring within the CoG. This to preserve institutional memory and ensure a smooth transition during reforms.
Strengthen the ASR as the main driver and centre of expertise of the strategic planning process.
Make sure the ASR has sufficient political clout, recognition, resources (both personnel and financial) and tools to take on its functions as the main driver and communicator for Uzbekistan’s strategic planning efforts across the public administration and whole of society.
Strengthen the guidance and support on strategic planning that the ASR gives to line ministries:
Develop and distribute comprehensive manuals, guidelines, and toolkits for strategic planning considering the needs of line ministries and agencies. This should include best practices, step-by-step processes for document development.
The ASR should establish a central repository of templates, guidelines, and an online library, accessible through collaborative platforms, to streamline collaboration with ministries, facilitate their contributions and ensure alignment with their specific needs and objectives. This consolidated resource library should serve as a practical tool for enhancing co-ordination and cooperation between ministries, ultimately supporting the effective whole-of-government pursuit of the 2030 Strategy.
The ASR should spearhead targeted training programmes aimed at enhancing the skills of strategic planning units and staff within ministries. These programmes can cover areas such as data analysis and creation, policy integration, policy coherence and scenario planning to ensure that personnel are well-equipped to produce relevant and aligned strategic documents and they should also clarify the 2030 Strategy as the main strategic document/
Strengthen ASR’s review function of strategic documents to ensure their quality and alignment with the strategic priorities stemming from the 2030 Strategy. The ASR can consider the following lessons from OECD good practices:
Prioritise early engagement with ministries during the planning phase, particularly during objective setting. This proactive approach ensures alignment with national priorities and minimises wasted efforts.
By making the offered guidance streamlined and concise, it can enhance clarity and efficiency for its users. Nevertheless, guidance should clearly include key elements such as indicators and budget connections.
Recognise the value of feedback mechanisms. Rather than relying on veto power, employing a feedback mechanism that offers suggestions and encourages improvements fosters collaboration and enhances the quality of strategic plans.
Maintaining a small but dedicated team of experts within the ASR with sector-specific knowledge ensures ministries receive targeted and effective support, enhancing overall strategic planning efforts. These practices collectively contribute to the unit's success in supporting ministries and advancing national objectives.
To support the development of strategic planning units and to ensure their sustainability:
Make sure the ASR can monitor the role, mandate, and structure of the strategic planning units as recognised in the Presidential Decree on Public Administration Reform to enhance their stability and ensure their continued operation.
Ensuring that adequate resources, both financial and human, are allocated to these units can enhance their effectiveness and ability to meet the strategic objectives.
Creating a community of practice for strategic planning units across ministries can facilitate knowledge exchange, promote best practices, and improve co-ordination and integration of strategic planning efforts.
Building on its review function the ASR should engage in the evaluation and performance management of strategic documents to verify the effectiveness of these documents through their impact and performance.
Strengthen performance management and evidence in Uzbekistan’s strategic planning system.
The ASR should evaluate strategic documents to ensure realisation of priorities and collaborate with the MoJ on a division of labour. Embed these monitoring efforts in a legal framework within the Presidential Decree to promote a culture of evidence-based policymaking.
The ASR should set specific goals and monitor progress to identify performance gaps. Ensure that indicators related to the 2030 Strategy are implemented at all governance levels. Co-ordinate with agencies to review progress, align objectives and optimise the use of resources.
The ASR should develop performance routines for regular data collection and dissemination. And establish a digital monitoring platform to track 2030 Strategy objectives, collecting key information from sectoral documents.
The ASR should form a strong partnership with the Delivery Unit within the Presidential Administration to utilise data creation and analytical insights, enhancing efficiency and avoiding duplication of work and resources.
Strengthen co-ordination efforts for more effective strategic planning.
Require all ministries to work together through their strategic planning units to identify and harness linkages to pursue the 2030 Strategy. Make sure the ASR can support these planning units from sending out invites for co-ordination meetings to the distribution of templates and manuals.
Revise the role and structure of the existing high-level committee – or create a new one for the 2030 Strategy presided by the President, with the ASR as its technical secretariat, to create a political dialogue and high-level ownership. This committee should follow-up on the implementation and state of play of the 2030 Strategy:
Make sure the committee has a clear mandate and functioning by clearly defining and documenting its roles and responsibilities to ensure a comprehensive and well-defined mandate.
Appoint the ASR as the technical secretariat to prepare agenda, documents and data and support the discussions.
Ensure committee meetings take place in a regular manner by organising them at a fixed frequency (for example quarterly) to ensure periodical discussions on progress and challenges for the 2030 Strategy.
Ensure that a diverse range of institutions, including non-governmental stakeholders, actively participate in committee activities.
Strengthen vertical co-ordination for more effective implementation of the 2030 Strategy by:
Establishing clear guidelines and frameworks that delineate specific roles, responsibilities, and expectations for regional and local levels in relation to the national objectives of the 2030 strategy. This should include detailed action plans and checklists that are tailored to the unique needs and capabilities of each regional and local entity.
Mandating the ASR to facilitate better articulation and co-ordination between local and national levels. Equip the ASR with tools such as enhanced data access and authority to enforce compliance with strategic objectives.
Creating regular co-ordination meetings and digital communication platforms that connect local, regional, and national authorities. These meetings can focus on sharing good practices, discussing challenges, and aligning local strategies with the 2030 strategy to ensure that local actions support national efforts.
References
[30] Government of Belgium (2024), The Belgian Interdepartmental Committee for Sustainable Development, https://www.developpementdurable.be/fr/politique-federale/strategie-federale.
[19] Government of Czechia (2024), Strategic Planning Portal of Czechia, https://mmr.gov.cz/cs/microsites/portal-strategicke-prace-v-ceske-republice/nastroje-a-metodicka-podpora/vystupy-projektu.
[3] Government of Latvia (2024), National Development Plan for Latvia 2021-2027, https://www.pkc.gov.lv/sites/default/files/inline-files/NAP2027__ENG.pdf.
[18] Government of Latvia (2021), Single Portal for Development and Harmonisation of Draft Legal Acts.
[23] Government of the United Kingdom (2022), Innovative practices for data platforms in the United Kingdom.
[10] Government of Uzbekistan (2024), Administration of President of Uzbekistan, https://president.uz/en/pages/view/about_staff?menu_id=15.
[4] Government of Uzbekistan (2023), Voluntary National Review 2023.
[29] Institute for Governance (2015), Adapting the PMDU model.
[5] Ministry of Digital Technologies of Uzbekistan (2024), Ministry of Digital Technologies.
[8] OECD (2024), Steering from the Centre of Government in Times of Complexity: Compendium of Practices, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/69b1f129-en.
[7] OECD (2023), “Coherence and co-ordination at the centre of government in Romania”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 34, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3feaa33e-en.
[11] OECD (2023), “Improving decision making and policy development in Portugal: The role of PlanAPP”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 39, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3cb500e0-en.
[2] OECD (2023), “Strengthening strategic planning and the role of PlanAPP in Portugal”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 42, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/95f819e8-en.
[9] OECD (2023), “Survey on strategic decision making at the centre of government”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
[31] OECD (2020), A Territorial Approach to the Sustainable Development Goals: Synthesis report, OECD Urban Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e86fa715-en.
[1] OECD (2020), Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance: Baseline Features of Governments that Work Well, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/c03e01b3-en.
[17] OECD (2018), Centre Stage 2 - The organisation and functions of the centre of government in OECD countries.
[25] OECD (2017), “The Principles of Public Administration 2017 edition”, http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions. (accessed on 9 December 2022).
[16] OECD (2017), Towards a More Effective, Strategic and Accountable State in Kazakhstan, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264284005-en.
[20] OECD (n.d.), Guidelines for improving strategic planning in Bulgaria, OECD publishing, Paris, forthcoming.
[26] OECD (n.d.), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Egypt, OECD Publishing, Paris, forthcoming.
[24] OECD / SIGMA (2023), Principles of Public Administration, https://sigmaweb.org/publications/principles-public-administration.htm.
[13] President of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2021), On approval of the Concept for the development of public administration in the Republic of Kazakhstan until 2030, Ministry of Justice of the Republic ov Kazakhstan, https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/U2100000522.
[14] President of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2012), Strategy Kazakhstan 2050, https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/kaz200745.pdf.
[15] President of the Republic of Kazakstan (2024), Executive Office of the President, https://www.akorda.kz/en/executive_office/about_executive_office.
[12] Prime Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2024), Government Apparatus, https://primeminister.kz/en/government/offices.
[6] Saeima (2009), Development Planning System Law, https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/175748-development-planning-system-law.
[22] United States Congress (2018), Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ435/PLAW-115publ435.pdf.
[21] United States Congress (2010), GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ352/PLAW-111publ352.pdf.
[27] White House of the United States of America (2019), Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4174.
[28] White House of the United States of America (2010), The 2010 Government Performance Reporting and Modernization Act (GPRAMA);, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ352/PLAW-111publ352.pdf.