This chapter examines how the centre of government (CoG) can strengthen its role as a bridge between political and administrative levels of government to improve the coherence, quality, and delivery of cross-cutting policies. The chapter examines, in particular, the institutional architecture that supports the General Secretariat of Government (SGGOV), the Centre for Planning and Evaluation of Public Policies (PLANAPP), and the REPLAN network. While Portugal has developed an integrated framework combining strategic foresight, planning, monitoring and co‑ordination functions, a number of challenges have emerged including fragmented systems, overlapping mandates and limited systematic use of technical input in upstream political decision making. REPLAN, as a cross-ministerial network of planning units, shows strong potential in aligning strategies, build analytical capacity and foster a shared policy culture. The chapter underlines the important role of the CoG as a bridge between the political cadre and administrative officials ensuring that political priorities are translated into viable, coherent, and effective policies.
Building Centre of Government Capabilities to Steer and Deliver Complex Priorities
Abstract
One of the defining roles of the CoG is to act as a bridge between the political and technical levels of government. This interface is fundamental to ensuring that political priorities are translated into coherent strategies and implemented effectively across the public administration (OECD, 2024[1]). In a context marked by increasing complexity, overlapping crises, and shifting political dynamics, the CoG’s ability to manage this relationship is more critical than ever. Figure 3.1 illustrates how this interface has evolved across OECD countries, with many CoGs reporting changes in their capacity to engage with elected officials since 2019.
Note: n=26, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Korea, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Türkiye, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United States.
Source: OECD, Survey on strategic decision making at the centre of government, unpublished.
Bridging the political-technical interface is essential because the public administration holds institutional memory, in depth knowledge of public sector processes, and a clear understanding of the enablers and constraints of policy implementation. The administration also brings new ideas to the table and is often well positioned to adopt a long-term perspective beyond political cycles.
Managing this interface is not purely a technical function but requires trust, clarity, and a skilled workforce. Within this context, the CoG must navigate distinct institutional logics, align short-term political imperatives with longer-term development goals, and preserve the neutrality and professionalism of the civil service while remaining responsive to political leadership. This demands not only well-defined roles and responsibilities, but also effective co‑ordination mechanisms, sustained communication channels, and shared accountability structures.
Portugal has recognised the importance of strengthening this interface and has been undertaking important reforms to that effect since 2016. In 2021, the Centre for Planning and Evaluation of Public Policies (PLANAPP) was created at the CoG and the Public Administration Planning and Foresight Services Network (REPLAN). More recently, in 2024, Portugal created the General Secretariat of the government, reflecting the need to strengthen shorter term interdepartmental co‑ordination in the implementation of cross-cutting policies. In this context, the creation of the Public Administration Forum (PAF) is expected to be tasked with the co-ordination of short-term and immediate priorities, alignment and implementation of cross-cutting public policies. All these changes belong to significant state reforms taking place in Portugal, with a dedicated Minister for State Reform in the present government. It is in this context that this chapter explores the mechanisms through which the CoG undertakes the bridging function and enables an effective relationship between the political and technical levels of government.
SGGOV and PLANAPP play a central role in the CoG, the SGGOV with a focus on shorter term issues and PLANAPP helping to steer and co‑ordinate the strategic planning process, supporting greater alignment of priorities and improving the quality and consistency of strategic documents and choices. These co‑ordinating CoG bodies cover the different stages of public policy cycles (foresight, planning, monitoring and evaluation). While SGGOV and PLANAPP report to the Minister of the Presidency they are mandated at the same time to ensure ongoing collaboration with key sectorial ministries (Centre for Planning and Evaluation of Public Policies, 2023[2]).
SGGOV complements PLANAPP’s role as it intervenes in the public policy cycle on short-term and immediate priorities, at both the decision making and approval stage. Its responsibilities in support of political decision making include the legislative and regulatory process, scheduling, interministerial co‑ordination and alignment, and the production of knowledge.
In setting the organisational framework for policy implementation, SGGOV also strengthens the operational dimension, positioning itself as a public service delivery actor. The implementation of short-term monitoring and interim evaluation systems is critical to feeding policy implementation with useful, up-to-date and credible information, enabling the identification of any constraints or deviations from what was planned and the introduction of the necessary corrective measures.
Accordingly, SGGOV assesses the short-term outputs and results of public policy by monitoring progress in implementing public policies. At the same time, it drives and guides the operationalisation by sectoral ministries of rules, routines, processes, procedures and activities, so as to ensure effective and consequential government action.
PLANAPP also co‑ordinates REPLAN, which serves as a platform for interministerial exchange and collaboration. REPLAN plays a key role in building internal capacities, facilitating peer learning, and helping align strategies and methodologies across ministries. It is increasingly positioned as an instrument for promoting data‑informed policymaking, and for embedding participatory approaches in national foresight, planning, monitoring and evaluation. In a fragmented institutional landscape, PLANAPP (through REPLAN) helps strengthen the coherence of national strategies, supports the preparation of key public policies, and fosters capabilities across the administration.
Considering this institutional landscape, this chapter examines the institutional role of REPLAN, its current influence in supporting the CoG to bridge the political-technical interface, and opportunities and options to enhance its effectiveness. It identifies areas where Portugal’s strategic decision making remains fragmented and where further institutional adjustments may be needed to strengthen the coherence and integration of government policy planning and delivery.
3.2.1. Portugal’s strategic governance framework
Portugal’s strategic governance framework brings together a diverse set of actors operating at the political, administrative, and technical levels. This system aims to promote coherent policy planning, long-term strategic alignment, and effective implementation across the central government. Despite being relatively recent in its current configuration, the framework builds on longstanding institutional arrangements that have evolved in response to new planning challenges and reform priorities.
At the political level, strategic direction is provided by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Presidency, line Ministers and Secretaries of State. These actors exercise political leadership, set cross-government priorities, and oversee implementation through two main key collective bodies: the Council of Ministers and the Meeting of Secretaries of State. The Council of Ministers is the main forum for policy decision making and co‑ordination at the highest level of government. The meeting of Secretaries of State, governed by the Regimento do Conselho de Ministros (Government of Portugal, 2025[3]), functions as a preparatory and consensus-building platform, ensuring political coherence and cross-sector alignment before matters are elevated to the Council of Ministers. Both bodies are supported administratively and legally by the Secretary of State for the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.
Administrative and technical co‑ordination of short-term government action is ensured by the SGGOV. This body plays a decisive enabling role by supporting the Prime Minister and all members of government in interministerial co‑ordination, in the systematisation and technical analysis of proposals, and in strengthening the quality of decision making by underpinning the process with information on relevance and coherence (e.g. quality control, deadlines and dependencies). It is responsible for ensuring the continuity of the decision-making process, from the moment an item enters the government circuit (Council of Ministers), through the technical preparation of legal instruments, the overall procedural consistency of the Council of Ministers workflow, the alignment of policy instruments with the government Programme, and short term interministerial co‑ordination and articulation, through to the point at which it emerges as a formalised and operational decision as outlined in Decree‑Law No. 43-B/2024 (Government of Portugal, 2024[4]).
A recent institutional innovation was the establishment of PLANAPP in 2021, restructured in 2024 by Decree‑Law 67/2024. PLANAPP operates under the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and is tasked with strengthening Portugal’s strategic planning and evaluation capacity related with public policies, with its explicit purpose, according to the corresponding strategic guidelines for 2025-2027 being “Good Public Policies, Better Society”. Its responsibilities include the preparation of national-level foresight or strategic public policies, the development of data and analysis-informed policies, and the co‑ordination of strategic planning capabilities across the central administration, as well as monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment of public policies.
PLANAPP is also responsible for co‑ordinating REPLAN, the Public Administration Planning and Foresight Services Network. REPLAN is a cross-ministerial network of planning units based in each ministry. Established in 2021, it aims to strengthen technical collaboration across ministries, support the alignment of ministerial plans with national priorities, and promote common public policy standards. REPLAN members are embedded within ministries and contribute to sectoral strategy development, foresight exercises, and public policy implementation planning, monitoring and evaluation.
At the ministerial level, planning departments within ministries carry out day-to-day strategic and operational planning work. These units, which form the operational core of REPLAN, are tasked with drafting strategic documents, co‑ordinating internal policy planning processes, and ensuring that their ministry’s priorities are articulated within broader government strategies. Their work is often shaped by the availability of technical capacity, political will, and alignment with EU funding requirements or programme priorities.
Recent developments relating to the reform of the Portuguese public administration, as reflected in the legal instruments adopted between 2023 and 2025, point to a renewed focus on and definition of the CoG as a cross-cutting structure, functionally differentiated and grounded in complementary roles. In this model, SGGOV emerges as a hub for co‑ordination of short-term policy priorities, ensuring continuity in decision making and the operationalisation of government decisions, while PLANAPP consolidates a distinct and complementary role in longer-term strategic planning, foresight, monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment of public policies. This institutional architecture reflects a shift from a predominantly procedural CoG towards a more strategic centre with an integrated system of capabilities, in which political, technical, strategic and evaluative functions coexist in an articulated manner, reinforcing the coherence of government action, the quality of public decision making, and the state’s capacity to deliver sustainable results throughout the public policy cycle.
Together, all of the above institutions constitute a multi‑actor, multi-level governance structure. This structure aims to enhance the coherence, predictability, and performance of government planning, efficiency and efficacy by institutionalising technical input, fostering collaboration, and supporting alignment between strategic and budgetary priorities. However, as the rest of the report explores, the interface between political and technical levels, as well as between central and sectoral planning, remains an area in need of further institutional development and operational reinforcement.
3.2.2. Governance reforms to strengthen the alignment between the political and technical levels of government
Within this broader reflection on the strategic nature of the CoG, REPLAN (Rede de Serviços de Planeamento e Prospetiva da Administração Pública) has emerged as an institutional co‑ordination mechanism designed to strengthen public policy strategic planning, foresight, monitoring and evaluation capacities across Portugal’s public administration. Co‑ordinated by PLANAPP, REPLAN connects services of all ministerial areas through formally designated representatives. As of March 2026, the network encompasses 26 services across all of the 17 ministerial domains, reflecting its broad cross-government reach, at the level of its plenary, with additional entities which participate at the level of its multisectoral teams.
REPLAN’s legal basis is enshrined in Decree‑Law No. 67/2024, which defines its purpose as fostering interministerial collaboration, harmonising planning methodologies, and supporting more integrated and forward-looking public policy design. It is not a decision-making entity, but rather a structured and institutionalised network that enables knowledge exchange, methodological alignment, and co‑operation throughout the planning cycle, including foresight, planning, monitoring, and evaluation.
Within the wider governance framework, REPLAN plays a complementary role to PLANAPP and SGGOV. While PLANAPP and SGGOV operate from the centre of government, REPLAN is embedded in the ministries themselves and serves as a platform for operational co‑ordination and shared technical work. This positioning enables REPLAN to connect central guidance with sectoral implementation and foster peer learning among planning units across the administration.
The REPLAN network is structured around its plenary and five multisectoral teams, each co-co‑ordinated by relevant ministerial areas and supported by PLANAPP:
Foresight
Planning
Monitoring
Evaluation
Regional Co‑ordination
These multisectoral teams serve as thematic hubs for the co-production of tools, strategic frameworks, and technical outputs. Examples include the national megatrends report, foresight guidance documents, and a shared methodology for policy evaluation. Teams also contribute to national-level planning exercises, including the preparation of the Grandes Opções and the Medium-Term National Budgetary-Structural Plan.
REPLAN’s direction is shaped by annual action plans, validated by the network’s plenary. The 2025 plan prioritises the standardisation of planning practices, the development of joint reference materials, and the expansion of strategic foresight capacity. These plans also foresee the creation of a shared repository of policy studies and data to support effective planning.
By creating space for technical co‑operation and mutual learning, REPLAN strengthens a shared public policy culture and reinforces horizontal co‑ordination across government. It facilitates the articulation of ministerial strategies with national priorities and contributes to building planning capacity across the administration. In doing so, it plays a growing role in embedding strategic foresight and policy evaluation into government processes and outputs.
REPLAN is increasingly recognised as a foundational component of Portugal’s strategic governance framework. As a network anchored in line ministries and co‑ordinated by PLANAPP at the centre, it contributes to ensuring that whole‑of-government objectives are informed by robust analysis, shared methodologies, and sectoral insights. However, REPLAN’s effectiveness remains constrained by several structural and institutional challenges that limit its capacity to fully steer government decision making.
3.3.1. Challenges to REPLAN’s strategic influence
As noted in the 2023 OECD report, the strategic planning system in Portugal remains fragmented, with overlapping responsibilities across multiple institutions and an absence of a clearly defined planning architecture or hierarchy between long-term, medium-term and sectoral strategies (OECD, 2023[5]). While REPLAN’s, PLANAPP’s and SGGOV’s have formal mandates, other actors retain critical planning and strategic policymaking functions. In parallel, planning departments embedded in line ministries also exercise important responsibilities. These units serve as PLANAPP’s peers in sector-specific strategy design and implementation, and are the operational base of REPLAN, through which cross-government co‑ordination is pursued. This is not necessarily a problem, and it is common in OECD countries. Yet there is no overarching framework that clearly articulates how these roles should be co‑ordinated. The lack of a common methodology, standardised processes, and a shared calendar for the preparation and alignment of strategic documents further contributes to duplication and incoherence.
For instance, there is no explicit mandate that ensures REPLAN members are consulted earlier in the strategic planning processes to assure that its recommendations and advice are systematically integrated into ministerial planning and national policy formulation. Stakeholders noted that REPLAN’s contributions are often solicited on an ad hoc basis, with limited lead time to respond. This is particularly evident in the lead-up to meetings of Secretaries of State, with short time windows before decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers, and this limits the potential for meaningful ex ante advice. Strengthening REPLAN’s direct connection to key co‑ordination platforms and its recognised role in upstream policy development could further help to embed data and analysis more systematically across the public policy cycles.
Although REPLAN began to operate at full scale by the end of 2023, its work was temporarily interrupted following the 2024 government transition, due to the need to reappoint members. This procedural delay – common after changes in government – led to a gap of nearly six months before the network could resume its activities. Such interruptions can further limit the continuity and institutional memory required for effective strategic co‑ordination.
As a relatively recent initiative, REPLAN is still consolidating its identity and function within Portugal’s strategic planning architecture and, as several stakeholders noted, still needs to be empowered to undertake its full range of functions, especially in a context of several changes of government. Designed to serve as an interministerial network for planning and foresight services, its ambition is to build shared capacities, improve co‑ordination across ministries, and, in particular, support the development and alignment of cross-cutting strategic priorities. In this context, REPLAN’s potential to act as a strategic hub is not yet fully realised. The following section outlines a set of practices that Portugal could consider fostering for a more forward-looking and data and analysis-based governance system enabling a more effective bridge between political cabinets and technical levels of government.
3.3.2. Bridging the gap between political cabinets and technical units
Portugal’s public administration is characterised, as in a number of other countries, by a partial divide between political decision making and the administrative apparatus. Across ministries, the degree of integration between planning departments and political leadership varies significantly. While in some ministries there is a high degree of integration between the two spheres – especially in those managing EU funding – in others, planning departments operate in some isolation from political leadership, with weak or irregular engagement in policy formulation.
This gap is present in other OECD countries (Fernández-I-Marín et al., 2023[6]). To address it, some countries – such as Australia and Denmark – have taken steps to better codify the relationship between the civil service and the political level (Box 3.1).
In Australia, the Public Service Amendment Bill 2024 was intended to renew and strengthen understanding between ministers and agency heads on the apolitical nature of public service appointments. It included a new value of stewardship which was developed through extensive consultation with responses from over 1 500 Australian Public Service (APS) staff and builds as a result on the capability and institutional knowledge into the future. It requires the Secretaries Board to prepare an APS Purpose Statement; requires agency heads to uphold and promote the APS Purpose Statement; provides that ministers must not direct agency heads on individual employment matters; requires agency heads to put in place measures to enable decision making to occur at the lowest appropriate classification; requires regular capability reviews; requires the Secretaries Board to request and publish regular long-term insights reports.
Denmark maintains a politically neutral, merit-based civil service, supported by a clear delineation of roles between elected officials and public servants. A central pillar of this arrangement is White Paper 1443/2004, which codifies the relationship between civil servants and politically appointed advisers. To safeguard the integrity and coherence of ministerial work, the government not only endorsed the White Paper’s recommendation to limit the number of special advisers per minister to two or three, it went further, requiring that each minister should have no more than one special adviser. The adviser’s primary responsibility is to support media and press relations, rather than to engage in political or tactical policy advice. This strict limitation reflects a deliberate effort to prevent confusion or overlap between partisan guidance and professional civil service advice. It also reinforces the role of the civil service as the primary source of comprehensive, objective policy expertise. The Danish system relies on ongoing collaboration and mutual respect between civil servants and advisers, grounded in clearly defined roles.
Sources: OECD (2024[7]), Steering from the Centre of Government in Times of Complexity: Compendium of Practices, https://doi.org/10.1787/69b1f129-en; OECD (2007[8]), Political Advisors and Civil Servants in European Countries, https://doi.org/10.1787/5kml60qnxrkc-en.
The disconnect in Portugal is driven by several factors: the short-term dynamics of political agendas, the 24 hours news cycle, the need for trusted personal advisors in ministerial cabinets, and a decline in the public administration’s capacity to attract and retain young talent, to name a few. Ministers and Secretaries of State frequently prefer to rely on politically appointed advisors, which reduces the influence of senior civil servants responsible for strategic planning and policy formulation within the administration. In some instances, ministries lack a designated interlocutor for strategic planning, making it difficult for REPLAN to engage with the right representative within the cabinets in a structured way. This is often due to the absence of a dedicated body or unit in charge of public policies. In such cases, the interlocutors tend to be policy implementation units, such as directorates-general or agencies, which have comparatively narrower mandates and lower institutional visibility within their ministries.
The understandable dominance of political logic in agenda-setting means that strategic planning units operate largely as knowledge‑producing bodies, rather than strategic actors. Many stakeholders noted that planning teams are often brought in late in the process and expected to validate documents already shaped by ministerial advisors. This dynamic not only marginalises the role of technical expertise but also leads to fragmented processes, where strategic goals are not adequately defined, monitored, or adjusted over time. If those in charge of planning are not systematically involved, strategic documents may lack coherence across sectors. Different ministries may move in parallel without co‑ordination, which can result in overlapping strategies without alignment to shared national goals. Stakeholders interviewed for this chapter cited duplication of effort, lack of visibility over existing strategies, and the absence of a centralised overview as persistent issues.
The lack of structured routines linking planning units with political leadership further limits the influence of technical work. While forums for discussion exist – such as the weekly CoM’s preparatory meetings of Secretaries of State – REPLAN members are not always systematically consulted or informed of the decisions that arise from these meetings. Strengthening this interface requires more than informal engagement; it demands institutionalised mechanisms – such as standing agenda items, structured feedback loops, or regular joint briefings – that create regular, early opportunities for technical input, backed by political will. The objective is not to over-engineer the process or slow down decision making, but to create formal working routines that support meaningful technical input, reinforce collaboration, and build trust between political and technical actors.
International experience suggests that bridging these gaps does not necessarily require rigid structures, but rather predictable interactions between political and technical levels around a limited number of shared priorities. In this regard, several OECD countries have adopted multiple arrangements that help overcome this disconnect between the strategic centre and political decision making, and to facilitate strategic co‑ordination between technical units, political leadership and external actors. These platforms vary in format and formality but share the objective of supporting shared reflection on long-term challenges and aligning policy direction across ministries. For instance, Ireland has introduced formal mechanisms to strengthen the interface between political leadership and senior civil servants, offering useful models for embedding upstream technical input into high-level decision making (see Box 3.2).
Ireland – Senior Officials Groups (SOGs)
In Ireland, each Cabinet Committee is supported by a corresponding Senior Officials Group, composed of senior civil servants from key departments and chaired by a senior official from the Department of the Taoiseach (Prime Minister’s Office). These groups meet regularly in advance of Cabinet Committee meetings and also convene independently to co‑ordinate cross-departmental work on strategic issues that may not require formal political discussion.
SOGs play a pivotal role in Ireland’s co‑ordination ecosystem. Their responsibilities include preparing Cabinet Committee agendas, aligning departmental positions, brokering interdepartmental compromises, and escalating unresolved issues for political attention. This ensures that political decision making is supported by coherent technical inputs and cross-ministerial consensus where possible.
By operating in parallel to political committees and maintaining a direct link to the centre of government, SOGs contribute to institutional memory across political cycles. They are instrumental in advancing national efforts on complex, cross-cutting priorities such as child poverty and housing.
Ireland’s experience illustrates how structured, formalised co‑ordination among senior civil servants can strengthen the political-technical interface without introducing new bureaucratic layers, offering a useful model for other governments seeking to institutionalise early and meaningful technical engagement in policy development.
Source: Government of Ireland (2021[9]), Cabinet Committees of the 31st Government, Department of the Taoiseach, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-the-taoiseach/organisation-information/cabinet-committees-of-the-31st-government/
Based on these examples, three actions could enable a more effective interface between political and technical levels of government, through targeted governance adjustments.
Firstly, dedicating sessions for political and technical actors to collaborate on cross-cutting policy issues. In practice, this could result in Portugal dedicating periodic Council of Ministers sessions to a single cross-cutting policy issue, with REPLAN providing technical input. This would mean tasking REPLAN with producing analytical inputs and policy options ahead of each thematic session. Focusing each session on one issue would create the conditions for substantive cabinet deliberation on cross-cutting priorities. Over time, this arrangement would give REPLAN a concrete function in translating data and analysis into co‑ordinated political dialogue, supporting the CoG’s role in steering decision making and delivery.
Secondly, structurally embedding more frequent interactions between political and technical levels of government. This would foster more regular political-technical interactions with REPLAN itself. Cabinet representatives could be designated to participate in REPLAN on a regular basis alongside technical staff. This arrangement would strengthen the links between political leadership and the planning network, enhance communication between ministerial cabinets and technical units, and help ensure that REPLAN’s work is better aligned with cross-government priorities.
Finally, prioritising policy challenges, that require cross-cutting policy input. For Portugal, this could include the Council of Ministers identifying a small number of challenges (1 to 3) to be addressed by REPLAN each year, with the corresponding results and conclusions being reported back to the Council of Ministers by REPLAN.
Taken together, these actions aim to embed more structured, visible and strategically aligned interactions between Portugal’s technical planning capacities and the political sphere. Of course, implementing such an arrangement would require political support at the highest level. The success of REPLAN in this role depends on whether the Prime Minister’s Office, the Minister and the Secretary of State of the Presidency of the CoM are willing to open space in existing political routines for structured technical input.
3.3.3. Strengthening the co‑ordination role of REPLAN in policymaking
In addition to its technical co‑ordination functions, REPLAN could assume a stronger governance role by structuring upstream policy preparation across ministries. In several OECD countries, CoGs are increasingly steering the early stages of policymaking, not by centralising control, but by setting standards and routines that help ensure strategic coherence (OECD, 2024[1]). In Portugal, REPLAN is well positioned to fulfil a similar role by providing structured, anticipatory co‑ordination for major cross-cutting initiatives. This would allow the network to move beyond information exchange, offering a more systematic contribution to the quality, alignment, and strategic orientation of key policies before they reach key decision-making platforms such as the Secretaries of State meetings or the Council of Ministers.
Currently, there is no shared approach to preparing policy initiatives requiring co‑ordination across ministries. The current process varies significantly between departments, with different internal formats and timelines, and no structured requirements for early analytical input. In complex reform areas – such as digital transformation – this can lead to fragmented implementation, overlapping interventions, and missed opportunities for cross-government co‑ordination.
Some countries have addressed this by introducing standardised procedures for early-stage policy development. In Australia, for example, all Cabinet proposals that are likely to have significant societal or economic impact must include a formal “Impact Analysis” document, developed using a structured framework and reviewed centrally (see Box 3.3).
In Australia, the Office of Impact Analysis (OIA), housed within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, provides mandatory and comprehensive guidance to line ministries on how to prepare policy proposals for Cabinet consideration. This is codified in the Australian Government Guide to Policy Impact Analysis (2023), which is binding on all policy proposals expected to change rights, powers, or obligations and have significant community impact.
The Guide sets out seven structured questions that each proposal must answer, covering the problem definition, policy objectives, options analysis, consultation, and evaluation. These questions must be addressed using a standardised structure, with support from templates, methodological tools, and training provided by the OIA. All significant proposals must be accompanied by an “Impact Analysis” document, which is subject to assessment and public release.
The OIA also maintains an extensive library of past analyses, shares good practices, and reviews submissions in two formal assessment stages. The Impact Analysis is required for proposals to Cabinet that are assessed as “Any policy proposal or action of government, with an expectation of compliance, that would result in a more than minor change in behaviour or impact for people, businesses or community organisations”. This ensures that policy advice is supported by rigorous data and analysis and aligned with government-wide expectations for analytical quality, consultation, and transparency (Australian Government, 2026[10]).
This system exemplifies how the CoG can shape better policy outcomes by formalising analytical standards and procedures across government, ensuring consistency and accountability.
Source: Australian Government (2023[11]), Guide to Policy Impact Analysis, https://oia.pmc.gov.au
While the Australian model is highly formalised, its underlying approach of preparing proposals based on a clear rationale, defined objectives and considered alternatives offers insights that may be relevant in a broader context. For Portugal, a streamlined version could be adapted and institutionalised through REPLAN as an intermediate step in the preparation of significant policy reforms.
One enabler could be to mandate that selected cross-cutting reforms or major strategic proposals undergo a qualified technical review co‑ordinated by REPLAN before reaching the preparatory meeting of Secretaries of State or the Council of Ministers. To support this process, REPLAN could develop a common policy preparation template, including a summary of the problem definition, links to existing strategic documents (such as the Grandes Opções or Portugal 2030), expected outputs and risks, and a short analysis of delivery options. This would not replace political discretion but would provide a structured input that enhances the quality and consistency of strategic proposals.
Piloting this governance mechanism in a few policy areas would allow it to evolve incrementally and test its utility for both technical teams and political decision makers. Over time, a structured REPLAN review step could improve the use of data and foresight, clarify alignment with national priorities, and reinforce REPLAN’s role as a strategic interface between political ambition and technical planning.
Another enabler to facilitate upstream co‑ordination is through the use of digital tools. In Portugal, co‑ordination around cross-government strategies often relies on ad hoc communication and offline exchanges. For instance, ministries contribute to documents such as EU Medium-Term National Budgetary-Structural Plan through email or shared files, with limited visibility of parallel inputs or evolving drafts. Several interlocutors pointed to the absence of a shared digital workspace as a barrier to timely feedback and alignment during the preparation of strategic initiatives.
Estonia and New Zealand offer useful examples of how digital platforms can improve executive co‑ordination, enabling shared access to evolving documents, tracking inputs and decisions, and allowing early feedback. While their design and use cases differ, both platforms provide structured, transparent environments for policy preparation and collective decision making. In Estonia, the e‑Cabinet system allows ministers to review and comment on proposals in real time, significantly reducing the need for physical briefings and streamlining Cabinet meetings and in New Zealand, the CabNet platform ensures secure access to Cabinet papers and supports co‑ordination across departments by enabling timely submission, revision, and tracking of proposals (see Box 3.4).
Estonia
The Estonian Government uses a dedicated digital platform, the e‑Cabinet system, to co‑ordinate cabinet-level decision making. The platform functions as a secure, multi‑user information environment that enables ministers and senior officials to access all relevant materials for government meetings in real time.
e‑Cabinet allows documents and preparatory materials to be submitted, reviewed and discussed electronically, reducing the need for physical paperwork and pre‑meeting briefings. Items for discussion are organised and updated continuously, and ministers can consult the agenda, provide input, or flag items for debate directly within the system.
The system supports structured collaboration between ministries by enabling early access to policy proposals, facilitating cross-sectoral input, and reducing administrative burden. Since its implementation, the average duration of weekly cabinet meetings has decreased significantly, from 4-5 hours to around 30 minutes.
New Zealand – CabNet System
CabNet is a secure digital platform used to manage Cabinet and Cabinet committee processes in New Zealand. Maintained by the Cabinet Office, the system is used by government agencies and Ministers’ offices to prepare, circulate and store Cabinet papers, track decision-making processes, and manage meeting agendas and minutes, and track decisions across the policy cycle. This allows officials in ministries and departments to remain informed and contribute effectively to interdepartmental co‑ordination and policy development.
The platform enables structured co‑ordination across departments during the preparation of submissions to Cabinet. By facilitating early access to proposals and allowing agencies to review and lodge documents digitally, CabNet supports timely decision making, improves document quality, and strengthens interministerial collaboration within the executive decision-making process.
Sources: e‑Estonia (n.d.[12]), Enter e‑Governance, https://e-estonia.com/enter-e-governance/; Government of New Zealand (n.d.[13]), What is CabNet, https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/what-cabnet; Government of New Zealand (n.d.[14]), Secure Handling of Cabinet Material, https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/secure-handling-cabinet-material.
In Portugal, a simple digital platform could be piloted to support technical level co‑operation across government. Such a tool could serve as a broader governance instrument to facilitate co‑ordination for a range of strategic purposes, including, but not limited to, the preparation of planning documents and cross-sectoral policy initiatives. It could include features such as draft sharing, comment tracking, and timeline management. Over time, the platform could enhance policy consistency and provide a shared, transparent space for interministerial collaboration.
3.3.4. Strengthening the institutional interface for data-driven public action
Integrated, high-quality data is essential for the CoG to effectively steer cross-cutting priorities and monitor the implementation of national strategies. As one stakeholder interviewed for this chapter noted, “with the increased role of the CoG in cross-cutting complex issues that require evidence-informed decision-making, supporting the exchange of timely, high-quality data across the public administration is essential. The CoG can serve to co-ordinate the use of data across line ministries and other stakeholders.” This capacity is particularly important in Portugal’s context, where complex policy challenges – such as population ageing or housing – demand co‑ordinated responses grounded in shared information. Without the ability to access and integrate data from different sectors, the CoG’s capacity to align strategies, anticipate risks, and evaluate results remains limited.
One of the most persistent obstacles to effective cross-government collaboration in Portugal is the difficulty of accessing and using data across institutions. Despite notable progress in digital transformation – most recently through the launch of the Portugal Digital Strategy 2025 – the public administration still faces significant barriers to strategic data sharing. Many datasets remain siloed, ministries operate on incompatible systems, and there is no consolidated data infrastructure to support whole‑of-government planning, monitoring, or evaluation.
These challenges have been echoed in recent studies (OECD, 2024[7]; Sobral et al., 2024[15]), which point to interoperability, access, privacy concerns and data sharing as major obstacles to transforming findings into usable knowledge for policy. An additional challenge is maintaining the public’s confidence that the efficient sharing of data is compatible with the protection of personal data which is an important component of trust in government. According to findings of the OECD Trust Survey 2025, only 52% of people across the OECD, and 44% of people in Portugal find it likely that government agencies use data for legitimate purposes only (OECD, 2026[16]).
Legal and institutional uncertainties exacerbate the problem. Ministries often face unclear or restrictive interpretations of data protection rules, and access to microdata – particularly important for evaluation purposes – is limited and inconsistently applied. As highlighted by the (OECD, 2024[7]) public sector actors in Portugal frequently lack a predictable and secure framework for requesting or reusing data held by other institutions. This has made ex ante policy assessment and planning difficult in practice, particularly in areas that depend on integrated information, such as identifying vulnerable households across energy, health, and income datasets.
In response to these systemic issues, Portugal has taken a major step forward by adopting Decree‑Law 2/2025, which transposes the EU Data Governance Act into national legislation. This regulation creates new mechanisms to promote the secure reuse of public sector data, even when such data cannot be shared as open data due to legal or confidentiality restrictions. It introduces rules for data intermediation services and establishes safeguards for neutrality, transparency, and public trust. Crucially, it creates pathways for “data altruism” – the voluntary sharing of data for purposes such as research and public policy – opening new opportunities for collaboration across sectors. Among the public entities now empowered under this framework are SGGOV, PLANAPP, ARTE and the National Statistics Institute (INE), which will play a central role in co‑ordinating government-wide data systems and managing secure access infrastructure.
Within this evolving landscape, REPLAN has begun to operationalise its role in strategic data governance. As part of its 2023-2024 action plan, it established a Multisectoral Team for Data Access, tasked with contributing to the design of Portugal’s future statistical and administrative data infrastructure. This includes supporting INE in defining co‑ordination and methodological oversight mechanisms; and anticipating data needs for the monitoring and evaluation of public policies.
These efforts mark a promising step, but Portugal’s data governance ecosystem remains fragmented. The SGGOV holds formal responsibilities for digital infrastructure, cybersecurity, and data management across the CoG. At the same time, PLANAPP is tasked with overseeing planning, monitoring and evaluation systems, and co‑ordinating REPLAN. A shared challenge is to align these institutions around a common vision for data as a strategic enabler of public policy. Institutional alignment between REPLAN, PLANAPP, INE, ARTE and SGGOV is now essential to ensure that data, planning and co‑ordination systems evolve in an integrated and mutually reinforcing manner.
A relevant international model is New Zealand’s Data Investment Framework, which prioritises strategic data needs and guides public investment decisions accordingly (see Box 3.5). The Framework enables the government to treat data as a system-wide asset, not a technical afterthought, and links planning, budgeting, and capability-building with long-term public value.
New Zealand’s data governance model is led by the government Chief Data Steward (GCDS), located in Stats NZ. The GCDS co‑ordinates data strategy, standard setting, and capability building across government. Its main tool is the Data Investment Framework, a system-wide planning instrument used to prioritise initiatives, assess budget proposals, and guide investment in data infrastructure and skills. The framework focuses on critical system issues – such as data interoperability, reuse, granularity, and secure access – and aims to deliver “system wins” that benefit the broader public sector.
Ministries proposing major data initiatives must align them with the framework and demonstrate how they contribute to long-term system sustainability and value. This ensures that data is used to solve complex policy problems, drive innovation, and build public trust. The model illustrates how centralised stewardship and cross-agency co‑ordination can turn data into a pillar of strategic governance.
Source: Stats NZ (2022[17]), Data Leadership and the Data Investment Framework, https://www.stats.govt.nz/about-us/data-leadership/.
A similar model could be developed in Portugal. While SGGov holds operational responsibility for data systems and security, and PLANAPP leads on strategic planning, REPLAN is uniquely placed to connect data use with policy goals. It could act as a co‑ordinating platform to anticipate and prioritise cross-government data needs for planning, foresight, and evaluation, linking statistical and administrative data with strategic decision making. Drawing on the New Zealand experience, REPLAN – working with PLANAPP, INE, ARTE and SGGOV – could support the creation of a Data Investment Co‑ordination Mechanism to identify critical data needs, define cross-sector priorities, and guide standards and capabilities.
REPLAN could help ensure that data is systematically reused to inform planning and evaluation. Through its multisectoral teams, it can anticipate future data needs, support the development of shared methodologies with INE, ARTE and PLANAPP, and collaborate with SGGOV to align data infrastructure with strategic priorities. The goal is to ensure that data investments are driven by long-term government goals.
3.3.5. Developing outcome‑oriented policies to foster cross-sector integration
Strengthening the interface between political and administrative actors also depends on the strategic use of governance tools that help align long-term vision with short-term action. A forward-looking governance approach integrates foresight and planning, enabling governments to anticipate future scenarios, define shared priorities, and translate these into deliverable objectives (OECD, 2020[18]). When deployed effectively, these tools ensure greater coherence in policymaking and support the delivery of cross-cutting reforms.
The development of high-quality strategies across public administration depends not only on institutional co‑ordination but also on the use of clear guidance, tools and methodologies. A key challenge in Portugal, as identified in consultations with stakeholders, lies in the variability of strategic documents across ministries – regarding both structure and depth – and in the absence of formal guidance or templates that would support consistency and coherence. Officials acknowledged that while PLANAPP has provided methodological assistance on some occasions, such support is not yet systematic across the administration. This hampers the alignment of strategic documents with overarching government priorities and with each other (OECD, 2023[5]).
PLANAPP and REPLAN are taking important steps to foster the coherence of the planning system. In March 2025 a taxonomy of planning instruments and glossary of the public policy cycle were issued, providing clarity across the administration of what constitutes a strategy or a plan. However, efforts to co‑ordinate or align planning across the administration still rely on informal practices, individual leadership, or ad hoc collaboration. The result is a planning system where strategic documents vary widely in scope and quality, and where policy coherence is difficult to achieve in practice. This institutional landscape shapes the daily work of PLANAPP, SGGOV and other REPLAN’s members and defines both the limits and the opportunities for strengthening strategic steering from the centre.
One area where Portugal’s strategic planning system could evolve further is in strengthening the alignment between departmental strategies, performance monitoring, and overarching government priorities. To address this, REPLAN could work together in developing a more structured outcome‑based planning format to support their own ministries in aligning their strategies with government-wide priorities. Such an approach would enable clearer articulation of expected results, foster greater coherence across sectors, and provide a more consistent basis for monitoring and reporting. It would also contribute to setting clearer hierarchies between strategies (long-term/short-term). International practice offers useful models for how this can be done. In the United Kingdom (see Box 3.6), for example, the government introduced Outcome Delivery Plans (ODPs) in 2021 as the primary instrument for departmental planning and performance.
The United Kingdom introduced Outcome Delivery Plans (being rebranded as Strategic plans as of 2026) in 2021 as the central instrument for departmental planning and performance monitoring. Outcome Delivery Plans replaced the previous Single Departmental Plans and are situated within a broader government-wide planning and performance framework that links strategy, budgeting, and accountability.
Each ministerial department prepares a strategic plan on an annual basis. These plans set out the department’s priority outcomes, agreed with the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury, as well as the main activities, deliverables, and metrics associated with their achievement. Outcome Delivery Plans also include information on resourcing, risk management, and enabling functions such as workforce, digital transformation, and evaluation.
In cases where outcomes are cross-cutting in nature, departments are expected to co‑ordinate and develop joint plans to support shared delivery. The plans are reviewed annually and reflect spending decisions made through multi-year Spending Reviews and updated at fiscal events such as the Budget.
Outcome Delivery Plans form the basis for internal government performance reporting and provide a structured approach to aligning departmental strategies with overarching government priorities. Progress is reported through Annual Reports and Accounts and through regular publication of performance data and statistics.
Source: Government of the United Kingdom (2023[19]), The Government’s Planning and Performance Framework, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/planning-and-performance-framework/the-governments-planning-and-performance-framework
These templates could help structure ministerial strategies around a clear set of objectives, supported by defined deliverables, indicators, and implementation timelines. In cases where priorities span multiple portfolios – such as housing or territorial cohesion – joint planning approaches could be explored.
Such an initiative would not require a wholesale overhaul of current practices. Instead, it could build on existing instruments, such as the Grandes Opções and sectoral strategies, while introducing greater standardisation and results orientation. By clarifying the expected contribution of each ministry to overarching government goals, this approach could also strengthen horizontal co‑ordination, support a more transparent allocation of resources, and provide a foundation for more structured performance discussions at political and technical levels.
Over time, these outcome‑based planning tools could also be linked to the future national evaluation agenda under development by REPLAN, reinforcing the connection between planning, performance, and learning. Through this, Portugal could gradually move toward a more integrated strategic management cycle.
3.3.6. Promoting a strategic foresight culture
The capacity to anticipate change and plan for the long term is becoming essential to address cross-cutting policy challenges. This is particularly relevant for CoGs, as they must balance short-term political pressures with the need to align national strategies with structural trends and emerging risks. In Portugal, the creation of PLANAPP and REPLAN reflect a strong institutional commitment to strengthen these forward-looking capabilities and embed them within the policymaking process.
PLANAPP and REPLAN’s early involvement in emerging areas, such as artificial intelligence and demographic transition, demonstrates the value of engaging before political decisions are locked in. However, the challenge lies in extending this approach more systematically across government and building these capabilities across the administration.
Recent efforts, such as the identification of nine megatrends affecting Portugal, are promising, but remain disconnected from planning cycles in most ministries, a challenge that most OECD countries face. To move beyond isolated exercises, REPLAN could work to institutionalise foresight practices in a more systematic way.
Spain provides a compelling illustration of this approach. The España 2050 strategy was developed under the leadership of the National Office for Foresight and Strategy, a unit housed directly within the Presidency of the Government. The strategy examined Spain’s past, present, and potential futures using structured foresight methodologies to define 50 objectives across nine long-term challenges (see Box 3.7). From this analysis, actionable proposals were formulated to inform strategic decisions across government. The strategy was publicly launched by the Prime Minister, ensuring political visibility and commitment at the highest level. This combination of foresight, planning, and political endorsement gave the exercise institutional traction and positioned the unit as a driver of long-term policy thinking within the CoG.
The España 2050 strategy was developed by the National Office for Foresight and Strategy, a unit within the Presidency of the Government of Spain. Created in 2020, the Office reports directly to the Prime Minister and is tasked with identifying medium- and long-term challenges and opportunities and supporting anticipatory policymaking across government.
España 2050 is a strategic foresight exercise that combined quantitative and qualitative methodologies to define 50 long-term objectives and propose 200 policy actions across nine cross-cutting challenges. The strategy was informed by the work of over 100 experts from diverse disciplines and backgrounds. It includes scenario development, trend analysis, and a set of measurable targets to guide public action and monitor progress over time.
The strategy was launched publicly by the Prime Minister, providing high-level political visibility. Its development process involved collaboration with ministries, public institutions, academia, and civil society, reinforcing its legitimacy and outreach. The integration of foresight, planning and political leadership through a dedicated unit at the centre of government has helped to institutionalise long-term thinking and position the Office as a strategic actor in Spain’s policymaking system
Source: Government of Spain (n.d.[20]), National Office of Foresight and Strategy, https://futuros.gob.es/en/office
A similar approach could be explored in Portugal -where foresight is explicitly linked to strategic planning cycles, supported by structured methods, and connected to high-level political processes- thereby elevating the foresight work of REPLAN and PLANAPP, turning their insights into actionable and cross-sectoral policy agendas. In this regard, securing the CoM’s mandate for a long-term strategy could provide REPLAN and PLANAPP with a concrete way to channel foresight activities and resources into a tangible policy and political outcome.
Below are a number of options for Portugal to consider to better support the CoG's functions as a bridge between the political and technical levels of government. It is complemented by the online Annex with a repository of tools and practical solutions that are in use by other countries.
3.4.1. Governance reforms to strengthen the political and technical interface
Dedicate periodic Council of Ministers sessions to a single cross-cutting policy issue, with REPLAN providing the technical input. Ensuring effective and coherent stewardship by the centre of government, task REPLAN with producing analytical inputs and policy options ahead of each thematic session.
As part of the above recommendation, mandate REPLAN to perform a technical review of major cross-cutting proposals. Key reform proposals could undergo a REPLAN-led technical review before reaching political deliberation, to strengthen alignment with strategic priorities and improve delivery. Such a review process would support more effective co‑ordination within the CoG and deliberations in the Public Administration Forum.
The Council of Ministers could every year identify a small number of challenges (1 to 3) to be addressed by REPLAN, with the corresponding results and conclusions being reported back to the Council of Ministers by REPLAN.
Involve a small number of cabinet representatives in selected REPLAN meetings in order to build an open dialogue on specific cross-cutting policy priorities, with effective co‑ordination from the CoG as the body with responsibilities in ensuring an effective political-technical interface. Such an open dialogue could support the future role of the Public Administration Forum which aims to align ministries on cross-cutting issues and resolve inter-ministerial deadlocks.
Establish a digital cabinet system to improve strategic co‑ordination. In line with current efforts in this area, introduce a government-wide digital platform with stewardship from the CoG and where REPLAN can support the preparation, alignment and follow-up of cross-cutting initiatives, enhancing the coherence and traceability of policy development across ministries.
Co‑ordinate data governance to align investments with national priorities. Task REPLAN, under the supervision of PLANAPP, INE, ARTE and SGGOV, to identify cross-government data priorities and guide investments in infrastructure and capabilities, linking data use to long-term policy objectives.
3.4.2. Governance tools to strengthen the political and technical interface
Introduce a policy development framework within the CoG to strengthen early-stage co‑ordination of cross-ministerial initiatives. Develop and test outcome‑based planning templates with selected ministries, structured around clear objectives, deliverables, indicators, and timelines. Test these tools in a few priority areas with the CoG keeping a stewardship role in the process.
Strengthen the integration of foresight into strategic planning and policymaking at the CoG. Consider embedding foresight practices, namely through PLANAPP and REPLAN, into the preparation of selected strategic documents, including the Grandes Opções and flagship cross-sectoral strategies. Develop a long-term strategy with a formal mandate from the Council of Ministers to channel foresight work into a tangible and politically endorsed outcomes.
References
[10] Australian Government (2026), Australian Government Impact Analysis Framework, Australian Government, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, https://oia.pmc.gov.au/resources/australian-government-impact-analysis-framework.
[11] Australian Government (2023), “Guide to Policy Impact Analysis”, Office of Impact Analysis, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, https://oia.pmc.gov.au.
[2] Centre for Planning and Evaluation of Public Policies (2023), REPLAN - PLANAPP Presentation, https://www.planapp.gov.pt/apresentacao-replan/ (accessed on 3 March 2025).
[12] e-Estonia (n.d.), “Enter e-Governance”, e-Estonia Briefing Centre, https://e-estonia.com/enter-e-governance/.
[6] Fernández-I-Marín, X. et al. (2023), “Bureaucratic Quality and the Gap between Implementation Burden and Administrative Capacities”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 118/3, pp. 1240-1260, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055423001090.
[9] Government of Ireland (2021), “Cabinet Committees of the 31st Government”, Department of the Taoiseach, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-the-taoiseach/organisation-information/cabinet-committees-of-the-31st-government/#membership-of-cabinet-committees-of-the-31st-government.
[14] Government of New Zealand (n.d.), “Secure Handling of Cabinet Material”, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabine, http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/secure-handling-cabinet-material (accessed on 4 April 2024).
[13] Government of New Zealand (n.d.), “What is CabNet”, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/what-cabnet.
[3] Government of Portugal (2025), “Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 105/2025, de 3 de julho”, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/resolucao-conselho-ministros/105-2025-923487049 (accessed on 22 June 2026).
[4] Government of Portugal (2024), “Decreto-Lei n.º 43-B/2024 de 17 de junho” [Decree-Law No. 43-B/2024 of 17 June], Diário da República, 1.ª série, N.º 115”, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/decreto-lei/43-b-2024-870757938 (accessed on 18 June 2025).
[20] Government of Spain (n.d.), National Office of Foresight and Strategy, Ministry of the Presidency, https://futuros.gob.es/en/office.
[19] Government of the United Kingdom (2023), The Government’s Planning and Performance Framework, Cabinet Office, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/planning-and-performance-framework/the-governments-planning-and-performance-framework (accessed on 5 April 2025).
[16] OECD (2026), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2026 Results: Navigating Rising Expectations and New Horizons, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9eb63fec-en.
[1] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.
[7] 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.
[5] 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.
[18] OECD (2020), Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance: Baseline Features of Governments that Work Well, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c03e01b3-en.
[8] OECD (2007), “Political Advisors and Civil Servants in European Countries”, SIGMA Papers, No. 38, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5kml60qnxrkc-en.
[15] Sobral, S. et al. (2024), “Navigating complexity: looking at the potential contribution of a boundary organisation in Portugal to evidence-informed policy”, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Vol. 11/1, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03064-8.
[17] Stats NZ (2022), Data leadership and the Data Investment Framework, https://www.stats.govt.nz/about-us/data-leadership.