Development co‑operation is operating in a tight fiscal, political and institutional environment. Governments are being asked to deliver development outcomes with constrained resources, more delivery channels and a broader set of domestic policy interests in play. Across DAC countries, about 15% of bilateral ODA in 2023-24 was disbursed by actors other than the lead ministry or development agency. More than 200 government agencies across DAC members are involved in delivering development co‑operation. This raises the risk that objectives pull in different directions unless co‑ordination around development outcomes is deliberate. Whole‑of‑government approaches can help manage policy trade-offs, bring together dispersed authority and ensure multiple delivery channels work together. Whole‑of‑government approaches can make financial and non-financial resources work better, ensure scarce resources work harder, and provide partner countries with a coherent offer in a more fragmented landscape.
The report examines how DAC members organise whole‑of‑government co‑ordination in development co‑operation, and how these arrangements affect coherence, delivery and accountability. It looks at the interaction between development policy, budgets, implementation systems, country-level practice and engagement with actors beyond the core development administration. The report shows that members organise development co‑operation through different institutional arrangements, depending on political systems, administrative traditions and the different roles and responsibilities across government. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, and DAC members face many of the same co‑ordination challenges and can learn from each other’s practices. The report encourages governments to undertake a realistic assessment of when formal co‑ordination mechanisms add value and when lighter forms of co‑operation may be more appropriate.
Whole‑of‑government approaches can make resources work better when they connect authority, expertise and delivery. Development policy draws on a broad range of inputs beyond finance including sector knowledge, diplomatic relationships, the packaging of financing instruments and implementation capacity. Joining up these efforts requires appropriate institutional structures alongside strategic leadership that sets clear direction, manages cross‑governmental trade-offs and maintains accountability for results. Effective whole‑of‑government co‑ordination can transform institutional diversity from a source of fragmentation into a source of added value.
Interministerial structures and co‑ordination mechanisms can help bring diverse actors together when they have a clear role, purpose and influence in decision-making. Their value lies in helping governments set priorities, manage trade-offs and clarify who is responsible for what. By contrast, they are less useful when they focus mainly on information sharing, operate too late in the decision-making cycle or are disconnected from budgets or implementation. These mechanisms work when they support shared development objectives in different parts of government, while preserving the specialist expertise needed to deliver it.
Whole‑of‑government co‑ordination can also make resources work harder by reducing duplication and joining up resources and capacity. Effective co‑ordination depends less on any single institutional blueprint than on credible authority and incentives that fit the system in question. The report identifies four broad models, ranging from more centralised systems to more pluralistic arrangements with multiple actors, and illustrates that each creates different co‑ordination needs. Centralised systems may align policy more easily but risk narrowing the role of specialist expertise. More dispersed systems can mobilise stronger technical input from line ministries and agencies but face greater risks of overlap and fragmented delivery. Across centralised and more dispersed systems, the key considerations are whether leadership is clear, whether legal and institutional authority is strong enough to steer different actors, and whether budget processes or management practices are used to align resources with development policy priorities.
Private sector engagement and development, provide a particularly clear illustration of these considerations, as development agencies, development finance institutions (DFIs), export credit agencies and foreign ministries increasingly operate alongside one another. Fragmentation among these actors can create duplication, competition and missed opportunities to increase development impact. Conversely, stronger co‑ordination can combine complementary instruments and expertise, supporting firms and projects as they progress from grant-funded support to commercial finance.
Country level implementation is critical to translating whole‑of‑government co‑ordination objectives into practice. Effective co‑ordination is supported where lead ministries and agencies have adequate staffing, budget and analytical capacity to provide stewardship across government, and where line ministries have sufficient familiarity with development standards and objectives to contribute meaningfully to shared goals. Shared funding arrangements, the deployment of sectoral expertise, staff mobility schemes and targeted capacity building are among the mechanisms that can strengthen these foundations. The report also gives particular weight to country strategies, embassy leadership, in-country co‑ordination and the alignment between headquarters decisions and country-level delivery. The report also finds that co-location and common country presence can facilitate co‑ordination across development agencies, DFIs and other actors. Results and evaluation mechanisms offer governments a structured means of tracking progress and fostering accountability for the system as a whole.
Effective whole‑of‑government approaches provide partners with a clear and coherent offer. The report points to the value of stronger alignment between concessional and non-concessional resources and clearer strategic direction across government. The report also highlights growing interest in offering partner countries integrated packages that combine policy, technical and financial instruments to increase impact. Managing development co-operation objectives alongside other foreign and domestic priorities can be supported by whole‑of‑government approaches. It is a necessary but insufficient condition for policy coherence. In today’s landscape, providing a whole‑of‑government offer that delivers coherently to partners needs to be backed by clear political steering, shared priorities across the relevant parts of government, and country-level systems that allow partner countries to engage with one government rather than a set of disconnected institutions.
