This chapter examines how the centre of government (CoG) can strengthen its role in prioritising, co‑ordinating and driving delivery when faced by a very large and fragmented set of government initiatives and competing political demands. It highlights the challenge faced by the centre in managing hundreds of commitments, ranging from legislative proposals to strategic initiatives, which risk overwhelming administrative capacity and weakening focus. The most recent institutional changes introduced in Poland in 2025are presented as efforts to compress this broad agenda into a more manageable framework with clear political and administrative ownership. The chapter underscores the importance of clear prioritisation, improved communication of government objectives, and stronger central oversight to ensure coherence across ministries. The chapter also highlights the importance of moving beyond agenda management toward a more strategic role in filtering priorities, aligning actors, strengthening analytical support, and embedding monitoring and feedback loops into routine decision making.
Building Centre of Government Capabilities to Steer and Deliver Complex Priorities
Abstract
Managing competing priorities in today’s complex environment is more challenging than ever. In Poland, a relatively recent change in government has resulted in significant changes in policy directions. A large number of parties form the current governing coalition and bring a large breadth of political objectives which challenges the civil service to prioritise with their limited time and resources. This is a particular challenge for the Chancellery of the Prime Minister – the main CoG institution in the Polish Government. CoGs are commonly responsible for helping the government to define complex priorities and for then translating and co‑ordinating the implementation of these across the whole of government. Codifying and tracking political priorities across the political level, the CoG, and responsible line ministries is no simple task, as is developing the strategic documents that can help identify and categorise these priorities.
Setting a clear vision is key to stewarding outcomes across government. Identifying and defining priorities is the first essential step in moving towards the achievement of government aims. Without clear objectives from the government, the civil service cannot deliver. However, in a challenging global landscape, identifying and delivering on clear priorities is more difficult than ever. Setting clear priorities enables better allocation of scarce resources (people, money and time), thereby increasing the quality of follow-through and implementation; inadequate prioritisation can create issues such as duplication of work or incomplete work. It can dilute the focus of the civil service, resulting in less efficient implementation of the things that really matter (OECD, 2024[1]).
For the CoG, the set of actors typically responsible for supporting the government in defining clear priorities and co‑ordinating their implementation, this role has become more difficult as government priorities also become more complex and cross-cutting (OECD, 2023[2]). CoGs must balance long-term development outcomes with immediate priorities and crisis responses. Furthermore, setting out clear priorities for the civil service to act upon is more challenging when the priority areas often sit across multiple areas of traditional divisions of responsibility (i.e. ministries and agencies), and requires a whole‑of-government approach with strong leadership and a strong mandate for support and co‑ordination from the CoG. In setting out clear priorities, the government enables the civil service to deliver on its stated aims.
4.1.1. Setting priorities with the CoG at the highest levels of decision making
In most OECD countries, Cabinet meetings are the principal forum for policy deliberation and decision making (OECD, 2023[2]). Most systems also involve a set of secondary bodies, including committees, state secretaries, and advisors to prepare and transmit advice to the Cabinet and head of government. The CoG thus has an important role to play in preparing these meetings, by verifying the quality of advice and the data and analysis this advice is informed by, co‑ordinating and helping resolve disputes, and ensuring that all required procedures, such as Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs), consultations, or legal assessments, are followed as needed. Supporting decision making at cabinet meetings is considered a top priority for the majority of OECD CoGs. It is in this context, that this chapter reviews how the centre of government and the Chancellery of the Prime Minister in Poland can improve prioritisation process.
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.
In Poland, the Council of Ministers (CoM), chaired by the Prime Minister (PM), is the highest-level executive body, and represents the highest level of authority in priority setting. Every Minister, including those with and without portfolio, is a member of the CoM. The Chancellery of the Prime Minister (hereafter referred to as the Chancellery) is the central CoG institution that supports the PM and the CoM.
The Standing Committee of the CoM (SCCoM) acts as a secondary body to the CoM, providing a forum for the preparation, and agreement on the positions of the CoM or PM. The Standing Committee provides an opportunity for discussion and the resolution of disputes which were not addressed during earlier inter-ministerial arrangements or consultations on draft government documents. The Standing Committee is led by the Chairman of the Standing Committee (a position of Ministerial rank) and every Minister with portfolio is represented on the Committee. The Chairman of this Committee (Minister for Government Policy Implementation) is in charge of the Committee of the Council of Ministers for Oversight of Government Policy Implementation (CCoMOGPI) which was created in September 2025. Other members of the Committee include the chairman of the Government Work Programming Team, the vice-chairman of SCCoM, the Secretary of the CoM, the deputy head of Government Legislative Centre and the director of the Department for Supervision of Government Policy Implementation as the secretary.
Many CoGs are being called upon to facilitate decision-making practices within their administration, and the Chancellery currently plays a role in this process. Within the Chancellery, the Department of Coordination of the Legislative Process manages the process of the CoM discussion. The Department is the primary unit serving the cabinet decision-making process. It prepares the agenda for the meetings of both the Council of Ministers (CoM) as well as its standing committee (SCCoM). In this capacity, it supports the policy formulation and cabinet decision-making process. The Department compiles and archives records from the CoM and Standing Committee. The Department acts as a gatekeeper for Cabinet discussion: responsible for the circulation and handling of draft government documents, their formal assessment, and their compliance with decisions taken by above‑mentioned bodies.
In August 2025, a significant organisational change took place. The former Department of Public Policies and Programming of Government Work has been transformed into the new Department for Supervision of Government Policy Implementation to serve the newly created Committee of the Council of Ministers for Oversight of Government Policy Implementation. Functions related to the Government Work Programming Team (GWPT) have been vested in the Department of Coordination of the legislative process. This body is mainly composed of selected deputy ministers from ministers with portfolio. The GWPT’s core responsibility is in selecting which items are included in the List of Legislative or Programme Works (LLPW) of the CoM. It includes both priority items but also numerous other governmental documents and therefore consists about of 700-800 projects. The list is constantly updated. The LLPW is managed by the GWPT and is available to the public via the Chancellery website (Government of Poland, n.d.[3]). The Team is also responsible for follow-up on developments in the items on the list. The GPWT plays the central role in managing the process of the general agenda of Cabinet. This also implies more than a mere procedural role: as mentioned, the gatekeeper role is a crucial part of the CoG’s agenda-setting capacity, and the CoG can enable the priority identification process of government. These are functions common to many CoGs, and can be a strong enabler for ensuring the proposals from line ministries are in alignment with government priorities (Figure 4.2).
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.
In Poland, the priority identification and setting process is challenged by the amount and number of priorities the government sets, a lack of coherence on standards and forms of a priority, and a lack of a centralised methodology for communicating and monitoring priorities. During interviews undertaken for this chapter, civil servants reported referring to several sources for government priorities, including political party platforms and the Prime Minister’s Exposé. In total, in January 2025, the number of government initiatives (mainly legislative) was estimated at around 700-800, including priorities. This significant number of objectives has the effect of overloading the civil service, as it can be challenging to address every item within the limited resources and capacity of each department, and particularly at the Chancellery which should be tracking mainly priorities. Additionally, the priorities set by the government which stem from campaigns or election promises are strongly tied to political aims, rather than long-term strategic goals and frameworks. This in turn results in priorities frequently changing, further hindering the work of the civil service in implementing the aims of the government.
The basic goal of priority setting is to allow the civil service to best align limited resources to achieve the most important objectives of the government. This works best when priority setting is aligned to a global vision of the future, that integrates all public action (OECD, 2023[2]). This allows governance to be systematic and streamlined, ensuring alignment between long and medium-term strategic plans, sectoral and whole‑of-government strategies, and horizontal and vertical strategic planning processes. In this regard in the Polish context, it is also necessary to improve internal channels of communication and knowledge management on priorities and other initiatives in the Chancellery.
From their position at the core of the government apparatus, the Chancellery has a unique opportunity to act as a force for cohesion. In most OECD countries, CoGs facilitate government prioritisation processes (OECD, 2023[4]). The convening power of the CoG can support this, including through periodic, face‑to-face meetings where representatives from the CoG and ministries can address relevant topics and meet with experts and stakeholders (OECD, 2024[1]). The material resources needed to support the CoG in addressing long-term and short-term priorities should also be considered, for instance in allocating budget and resources dedicated to initiatives over both time horizons (OECD, 2024[1]).
In July 2025, the Polish Prime Minister initiated a reform affecting the priority management architecture. These changes included the creation of a dedicated Minister for Government Policy Implementation responsible for co‑ordinating and monitoring the implementation of government priority policies and the legislative process. This reform also included appointing a government spokesperson (at secretary of state rank), adding a third deputy prime minister who also had responsibilities as foreign affairs minister, eliminating three ministerial positions, and reducing the total number of Council of Ministers members from 26 to 21.
The new above-mentioned Committee of the Council of Ministers for Oversight of Government Policy Implementation was tasked with establishing priority tasks within the Cabinet policy, setting milestones and deadlines, monitoring and controlling the implementation of tasks, and reporting conclusions and risks to the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers. Furthermore, in September 2025, the government adopted 58 political priorities, with each minister identifying three tasks to be carried out by the end of the current term of Parliament in 2027. Some of these tasks have a deadline for implementation that extends beyond 2027. Implementation is supported by review meetings between the Committee and responsible ministers, and by a new electronic inter-ministerial tracking system modelled on the Ministry of Digital Affairs’ existing platform. CCoMOGPI meets regularly to discuss, resolve and advise on policy issues relating to government priorities. On a regular basis and as required by the circumstances experts of the Department for Supervision of Government Policy Implementation meet with civil servants and other public servants responsible for priorities implementation.
At the administrative level, as outlined above, the Chancellery established a new Department of Supervision of Government Policy Implementation over the Implementation of Government Policy and an Office of the government Spokesperson, while transferring programming support functions to the Department of Legislative Process Co‑ordination.
4.2.1. Implementation activities in the area of the new approach to priority management
In terms of priority management, the Chancellery of the Prime Minister has established a target system for overseeing the implementation of priorities, in parallel with initiating the oversight process. These include:
1. Each minister – a member of the government – is provided with three priority tasks for the second part of the government’s term (until 2027). These are the most important tasks and will be subject to close monitoring. They will be implemented in parallel with existing plans and commitments. These priorities are established for four priority areas: Area 1. Safe Poland, Safe Poles; Area 2. Innovative and Competitive Economy; Area 3. Efficient State and High-Quality Public Services; Area 4. Modern Digital State. As for June 2026 a few priorities have already been delivered.
2. Publishing on the Chancellery’s website ‘the List of policy priorities of members of the Council of Ministers’, adopted by the government in September 2025, and a joint press conference of the Minister for Government Policy Implementation and the government Spokesperson regarding the priorities.
3. Establishing ministerial leaders and co‑ordinators of individual government priorities and corresponding priority supervisors in the Department for Supervision of Government Policy Implementation in the Implementation of Government Policy in the Chancellery of the Prime Minister.
4. Monitoring the implementation of the 58 government priorities adopted by the government in September 2025, including the commencement of cyclical (three times a week) meetings aimed at reviewing the status of implementation of the priorities of the minister for supervision with members of the government responsible for individual priorities.
5. Since 2025 an electronic inter-ministerial system for tracking priority implementation is used by both ministries and the Chancellery of the Prime Minister. The system will be based on the electronic system for monitoring the implementation of this ministry’s projects, used by the Ministry of Digital Affairs. This system ensures that the description of priority projects is standardised.
6. Establishing since the third quarter of 2025 a quarterly reporting scheme for ministers on implementation of priorities which has already resulted in preparing and publishing quarterly reports, adopted by the CoM.
4.3.1. Practical mechanisms from the CoG to enhance priority-setting processes
The Chancellery can be a lynchpin to support the quality of decision making at cabinet and has traditionally played a key role in managing the agenda of Cabinet meetings (OECD, 2024[1]). Practically, the Chancellery can play two key roles in supporting the priority identification and setting process of government, firstly in managing the process of submission to Cabinet and the agenda, and secondly by acting as a gatekeeper of the substantive quality of submissions.
The setting of clear rules and procedures to govern the process of Cabinet submission is an essential enabler for the CoG to enhance the quality of decision makers’ discussions. Poland has rules and procedures for submitting proposals to the Cabinet and is also working on a comprehensive e-legislation system. Support structures for line ministries including the development of tools, guidance, and frameworks, can help decision makers to refine available policy priorities and options. Mechanisms for simplification and streamlining the process have commonly included digital tools in recent years in Latvia (see Box 4.1).
Latvia’s centralised submission procedure similarly allows for all line ministries to submit draft legal acts to Cabinet through a single digital portal. The entire process of the drafting of legal acts is managed through the portal, including the beginning public consultation, harmonisation, approval, sending for publication, archiving, and circulation and control of tasks. The portal is available to the public, allowing a wide range of stakeholders to consult the development process of regulatory acts and to ensure the aim of continuity in the government’s work, regardless of political changes.
Sources: OECD (2023[5]), TAP Portal – Development of legislation: From documents to data - Observatory of Public Sector Innovation, https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/tap-portal-development-of-legislation-from-documents-to-data/; OECD (2024[1]), Steering from the Centre of Government in Times of Complexity: Compendium of Practices, https://doi.org/10.1787/69b1f129-en.
The CoG can issue frameworks and guidance to help decision makers refine and set priorities to enable the civil service to understand and deliver on the governments mandate. The setting of standards is a common function of the CoG, and in 2023 88% of OECD CoGs surveyed reported setting frameworks, standards, guidance, and building the capacity of the public administration in policy development as a priority (OECD, 2024[1]). By acting as a gatekeeper for Cabinet discussions, the CoG can elevate the conversation and ensure it is effective and efficient. Most CoGs play a role in refining options presented to Cabinet, and this can include the refinement of priorities.
Setting clear priorities from the CoG is no simple task, but clear guidance from the CoG can help both decision makers at the highest level as well as within line ministries to articulate priorities, clarifying the respective role and responsibilities of the civil service. The following outlines a number of principles in the prioritisation exercise:
Less is more: a smaller number of objectives – ideally a whole‑of-government number between three and 10 – is more likely to lead to successful outcomes.
Technical and political: the ideal priority should have broad, deep, and sustainable anticipated impact, and also align with the government’s political values and objectives.
Right ambition: priorities should be aligned with measurable targets that are high, but feasible.
Right scope: priorities should be carefully considered with regards to specificity – for instance, typically targeting an entire sector is too broad, but a specific project is too narrow.
Measurable: the best priorities are tied to clear and quantifiable indicators so that the government can monitor progress and communicate results.
Source: Hymowitz, D. (2016[6]), Choosing the First Among Equals. Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.
The CoG can be leveraged to support the alignment of outcomes with broader government objectives, including longer-term strategies. In Finland, for example, a systemic approach focuses on broader challenges in society to identify priorities which are then laid out in the government Programme.
Finland has established a strong governance model for a whole-of-government approach to cross-sectoral policy priorities through its National Commission on Sustainable Development. This multi-stakeholder Commission, led by the Prime Minister, brings together key government ministries, civil society, businesses, and other stakeholders to enhance the coherent implementation of sustainable development objectives.
A core strength of Finland’s approach is its institutionalised co-ordination mechanisms. The Sustainable Development Co-ordination Network, composed of representatives from all ministries, ensures that sectoral policies align with national sustainability goals. Throughout the process, they define the situation based on key themes, a future projection exercise, and set the rhetoric and action-based objectives with output and impact-based targets.
The process was managed by thematic groups of political actors and supported by experts under the co-ordination of the government Strategy Department, that provides independent, research-based input. Furthermore, the 2030 Agenda Youth Group ensures inclusivity by incorporating young people’s perspectives into decision making.
These mechanisms have significantly improved policy coherence of cross-sectoral policy priorities across government by facilitating regular interministerial and stakeholder dialogue, strengthening policy coherence across government levels, and ensuring that sustainability goals are integrated into national and sectoral strategies.
Sources: OECD (2024[1]), Steering from the centre of government in times of complexity: Compendium of practices https://doi.org/10.1787/69b1f129-en; Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development (n.d.[7]), Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development, https://kestavakehitys.fi/en/commission.
Communicating priorities
Once the government has identified and set their priorities, they must be communicated throughout the civil service in order to begin implementation. Enhancing communication mechanisms for key priorities can help clarify the obligations of the civil service and enable them to work more efficiently on the key priorities of government. In Poland, the communication mechanisms for government priorities could be strengthened to enhance clarity and efficiency of priorities for the civil service to act on. Once a decision is taken at the CoM or otherwise, it can be unclear what the next steps should be in communicating the new priorities and objectives throughout the public administration in order to begin implementation.
4.3.2. Communication tools to support the prioritisation process
There are a wide variety of formal and informal mechanisms, tools, and platforms through which governments communicate their priorities and goals throughout the civil service.
Documents stemming directly from the head of government are one common mechanism through which governments communicate their priorities (OECD, 2021[8]). From a whole‑of-government perspective, a decisive, clear mandate for action from the head of government can be a powerful communications tool to lead the civil service forward in a period of transition (Daley, 2020[9]). In Poland, this takes the form of the Prime Ministers’ Exposé, which is publicly available on the website of the Chancellery. The Exposé is presented directly from the PM, and reflects the personal priorities set from the head of government. Donald Tusk’s Exposé in 2023 outlined nine thematic groupings of priorities are set out, with each theme articulating several more specific measures to be taken (Chancellery of the Prime Minister, 2023[10]). The Exposé is clear, broad, and publicly accessible, however public servants report that they do not necessarily regard and rely on this document as the only articulation of the government’s priorities. One reason for this could be the dynamic internal and external environment which affects the CoM agenda. Nevertheless, the document is a strong example of clarity of vision from the head of government. It is typically the responsibility of the CoG to translate the vision of government in documents such as these into policy options and implementation plans (Hymowitz, 2016[6]).
In other OECD countries, tools such as the King’s Speech in the United Kingdom – which sets out the governments’ legislative programme for the year – or the Speech from the Throne in Canada, are used as a means for the head of government to set out priorities and objectives for the programme of government in a decisive and public manner (Daley, 2020[9]). In some presidential countries, messages to the nation are given on or near the start of the legislative session. For example, in Chile, the Cuenta Publicá (Public Account) is a speech given by the president, to congress each year on 1 June, highlighting the accomplishments of the government in the past year. In the 2026 Cuenta Publicá, the president highlighted accomplishments on three priority areas; Security, Economy, and Social policy (Government of Chile, 2026[11]). Some countries, such as Estonia, are also using digital approaches to drive clearer communications, or other approaches such as in Portugal to link with international strategies (Box 4.4).
Government Action Plan in Estonia
Estonia’s Strategy Unit within the Government Office, the Estonian CoG, is responsible for the publishing of the government Action Plan to ensure clear and transparent communication of government priorities. This online platform allows the public and all stakeholders to see ministerial priorities and deadlines, broken down by specific Ministerial areas of responsibility. The high level of detail and published indicators make it a strong tool for media engagement and enhances public accountability. Ministerial initiatives can only be discussed at Cabinet if they are included in the action plan, reinforcing its role as a key reference point for government priorities. The plan is renewed annually.
Operational level communications in Portugal
Ensuring alignment with international strategies and frameworks, including for example the EU priorities, UN 2030, and the Sustainable Development Goals is a key priority for Portugal. In order to manage these many priorities and responsibilities, the CoG is using an internal informational system managed at the level of the government. It is part of the ongoing discussions with parliament to ensure overall alignment. Each ministerial office can review, discuss, and provide inputs into the system in a centralised manner, which is managed overall by the Secretary of State who supports the minister for the Presidency of the CoM. The system provides a way for top-down and bottom-up communication to by synthesised and centralised through open dialogue.
Source: Information provided by representatives of the Estonian and Portuguese Governments.
While whole‑of-government approaches can help direct the broader strategic orientation and alignment of government, a narrower approach can directly support line ministries and agencies. Two examples from Canada and Australia highlight the importance of targeted high-level communication in fostering alignment around priorities. While it is not necessary that these letters be released publicly, and it is not yet a normalised practice among OECD countries, doing so could enhance transparency and build accountability. Regardless, the development of clear targeted mandates for line ministries and agencies could be a useful means of priority setting within the public service.
Charter letters from the Queensland Government
The Queensland Government publishes its cabinet charter letters publicly, following the principle of the public right to information. On the website of each Minister, the charter letter from the Premier of Queensland details the government commitments and priorities they are responsible for delivering through the agencies within their Ministerial portfolio. Each charter letter states the fundamental commitments that form the governments mandate, the core values of the portfolio the minister is to deliver on, and a series of specific key portfolio deliverables. These include outlining, for example, bodies such as committees that the minister is responsible for chairing, or the setting of targets the minister is responsible for achieving.
Mandate letters and departmental plans from the Government of Canada
The Government of Canada has multiple tools for communicating priorities to line ministries and the public. Mandate letters are similar to the charter letters seen in Queensland: in a process led by the CoG, they outline the key priorities of the government, and ask that each minister submit their plan on how they aim to advance policy that addresses those themes within their ministry. One other tool that could be of interest are the Departmental Plans, which are informed by the ministerial mandate letters with input from senior civil servants in the line ministries. These short-term strategic planning documents are the next step in the prioritisation process, and feature the specific initiatives the ministry will undertake in relation to the priorities set in the mandate letter.
Sources: Queensland Government. (2024[12]), Jarrod Bleijie MP Ministerial Charter Letter, https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/ministers-portfolios/jarrod-bleijie.aspx; Queensland Government. (Queensland Government, 2024[13]). Our priorities - Right to Information - Department of the Premier and Cabinet, https://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/right-to-info/published-info/our-priorities.aspx; Government of Canada (2025[14]), Mandate Letter, https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/2025/05/21/mandate-letter.
The budget can also be a strategic communication tool. Principle 4 of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Budgetary Governance suggests that governments ensure budget documents and data are open, transparent, and accessible. The publication of all budget reports fully, promptly, and routinely, and in a way that is accessible to various stakeholders, can be used to foster better understanding of the way government priorities are represented in concrete terms (OECD, 2015[15]). The current format of Poland’s budget bill expresses the cabinet priorities on a limited scale. Poland could explore the option of extending the explanatory memorandum of the budget bill to present government priorities and basic information on their funding or a parallel document released in tandem with the full budget which could summarise in a more accessible format the key themes and outcomes reached in the budget. Poland could also consider developing this for an area which is a key priority. This approach could be an asset given that any budget process contains hundreds of initiatives, most of which are smaller in scale and scope and do not necessarily require support or attention from the centre. A more focused document could help try to identify a smaller and more manageable set of initiatives (Daley, 2020[9]).
Poland has a requirement in its public finance law for each Ministry to develop Activity Plans for the year ahead. These should identify the goals and indicators necessary to implement priorities. The law stipulates that the PM should receive drafts and may give an opinion. Currently the Chancellery reviews these plans but does not give a “competence opinion” on these, due to their limited usefulness as tools for management by objectives and limited analytical resources of the Chancellery. Improving the use of these plans could potentially provide an opportunity for better activity planning and co‑ordination across the Chancellery, the Ministry of Finance and Line Ministries. The Greek Annual Action Planning process could be an inspiration in this regard. Annual action plans are developed in the fall for the following year, include all the reforms, investments and legislative acts expected for the year, and are tracked by the General Secretariat for Co‑ordination. This enables a more efficient use of government resources and helps plan the forward agendas for the CoM and parliamentary legislative processes.
4.3.3. Challenges in communication structures
Clear communication structures can help enable the effective dissemination of priorities throughout the civil service. In Poland, a lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities has emerged for senior leadership communication, and issues in collaborative implementation processes. Fragmentation in the roles and responsibilities of senior leadership has resulted in gaps in co‑ordination, creating obstacles to ensuring the effective and coherent communication of government priorities. There is a need to clearly define the roles and responsibilities for senior leaders in charge of co‑ordination efforts. Building trusting relationships between the senior levels of the civil service and their political counterparts is essential in order to facilitate information flows. Typically, the most senior deputies of the minister act on behalf of the political decision makers to drive forward implementation of government aims. In Poland, while the role of the Deputy Minister exists in the form of the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of State, they are often from different political parties.
In many governments, the administrative head of the ministry (e.g. Director General, and Permanent Secretary) may be responsible for co‑ordinating the policy development and service delivery activities in government. In Poland, Directors General (a senior position in the civil service corps) exist; however, they do not exercise policy functions – rather they manage administrative and internal functions. The Director General typically changes alongside the minister but in many cases this position is filled by experienced civil servants. The next level of civil servant, Directors, are leaders of specific policy areas, but tend to be numerous across ministries and therefore do not act as single points of contact for policy development in Ministries. Although the Secretary of State and Under Secretary of State should most likely fill the role as intermediaries, there is a lack of clarity on who the foremost co‑ordinator and point of contact in line ministries should be. Clarifying the mandate for this position would fill an important gap in the communication machinery and establish a more coherent approach across line ministries.
4.3.4. Developing policy options & strategy for implementation
Communicating a clear vision is no simple task, but it must be followed by an actionable plan for implementation. The CoG can be a useful actor and forum for facilitating better co‑ordination and planning to translate the vision of government into policy implementation. It can be an important hub for supporting the cross-governmental work of strategic planning and helping to balance long and short-term trade‑offs, acting as a vector and hub for expertise and analytical support, and underpinning the complex process of policy development and implementation cycles.
One opportunity is to enhance the integration of analysis and expertise, as well as strategic development in the Chancellery. In doing so, the Chancellery could strengthen the work of the government and its implementation. Two potential areas for strengthening opportunities for cross-government mobilisation of expertise could be explored through optimisation of political and civil service‑level working committees, or through the development of a broader forum for the discussion of public policy development. Both of these options could be further served and reinforced by the development of a specific unit of analytical expertise within the Chancellery to support the discussions in these forums.
4.3.5. Forums for early-stage policy development
Early-stage policy development can be a challenging area requiring increased co‑ordination, as it requires convening the right stakeholders, obtaining the right data, and gathering expertise and analysis to develop policy options. CoGs can often play a role in policy development through the use of interdepartmental taskforces, expert groups, or advisory groups to leverage their convening power in co‑ordinating decision makers access to expertise. In 2023, 88% of CoGs reported using some form of interdepartmental taskforce, and 73% reported the use of a type of expert or advisory group to support co‑ordination and coherence Figure 4.3).
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.
Stakeholders interviewed for this chapter reported that there is a dilution of analytical competencies and resources which can lead to inadequate consideration of draft government documents, proposed legislation and policy options. In some areas, it was suggested that the Chancellery’s reviews of draft government documents were too formalistic and not as substantive as they should be. This is due in part to the high volume of documents – an issue linked to the high number of activities and lack of clarity on which to prioritise. Draft government documents take significant time and resources to prepare and review at the Chancellery, however they often never reach the final stages of the process to be presented in front of the CoM. Clearer early-stage prioritisation could enable the Chancellery to channel limited analytical capacity more effectively to the priorities that are more likely to make their way through the full policymaking process. This could happen at the level of the Committee of the Council of Ministers for Oversight of Government Policy Implementation (CoMOGPI) or the government Work Programming Team (GWPT), with support from the Chancellery.
Furthermore, there is a perceived lack of analytical capabilities in preparing policy options and implementing government decisions. The use of data and analysis-informed decision making is the foundation of sound policy development, but is very much subject to individual and organisational capacity. Some potential areas for exploration to enhance this area emerged during research for this chapter: the development of more forums for policymaking discussion among civil servants and between the civil service and political leadership, as well as the development of a specific unit for analysis to support these.
4.3.6. Using committees and networks as platforms for early-stage policy development
Committees and subcommittees at the political level
Many governments use various committees and networks at multiple levels to co‑ordinate and align the policymaking process. At the top level, this often involves cabinet committees and subcommittees, mirrored by similar committees at the senior civil service level, where technical matters can be aligned to support the political discussion. These can be particularly useful when the civil service is tasked with developing new strategies or cross-cutting policy initiatives. They can also be used to share relevant information across the policy community to ensure that ministries are aware of each other’s initiatives and co‑ordinate and collaborate as needed. Furthermore, such committees can be used to build capacity in relevant areas, sharing best practice and pooling training and development opportunities, thereby raising the skill level of civil servants across the government system to develop sound data and analysis-based policy.
The existing committees and networks in the Polish Government could be further cemented as platforms for early-stage policy development, including for example the Economic Committee. The use of cabinet committees as a forum for policymaking processes is a common arrangement in OECD countries, as it is in Poland. Cabinet committees can be broad or can be tailored to a specific topic or policy area of focus, and can be an essential forum for discussion, alignment, and further narrowing and focusing of the policymaking process to the specific aims of government.
In New Zealand and in Finland, committees are used to promote coherence and cohesion in policy development. In both examples, these fora provide opportunities for exchange and feedback ahead of the decision-making phase, thereby avoiding the wasting of resources on developing unpalatable options. This can increase efficiency during cabinet meetings and ensures that proposals that reach this stage align with government priorities and are supported by the cabinet.
Finland
To ensure policy coherence across government, Finland relies on a negotiated government Programme that sets the strategic direction for the full term of office. Developed during coalition negotiations, the programme is binding on all ministries and serves as a central reference for planning, budgeting, and delivery.
Its implementation is led by the Prime Minister’s Office and supported by institutionalised co‑ordination mechanisms. Ministerial committees, such as those on economic policy and EU affairs, meet regularly and are formally prepared by cross-ministerial working groups. These working groups are backed by a formal secretariat and include permanent experts, in both cases typically senior officials from key central ministries. Their responsibilities include preparing agendas, ensuring follow-up on decisions, and maintaining alignment with the government Programme.
What distinguishes the Finnish approach is the systematic integration of technical expertise into political co‑ordination. Senior officials are appointed to serve in the secretariat or as permanent members, and the groups operate under formal rules of procedure. This contributes to continuity, predictability, and structured interaction between ministers and civil servants.
New Zealand
In New Zealand, cabinet meetings are preceded by standing cabinet committees. Cabinet committees provide the opportunity for more detailed review and discussion of proposals and issues before they are submitted to the cabinet for decision. Officials’ committees provide support for most Cabinet committees and their chairs to progress the government’s policy agenda. The officials’ committees help to ensure policy cohesion, provide quality assurance during the drafting process, and ensure papers are progressed through the committee process in a timely manner.
Sources: Government of Finland (n.d.[16]), What We Do – Finnish Government’s Knowledge to Action Initiative, https://tietokayttoon.fi/en/what-we-do; New Zealand Government (2023[17]), Cabinet Manual, https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/our-business-units/cabinet-office/supporting-work-cabinet/cabinet-manual.
One pathway that could be explored to further strengthen the role of cabinet committees in the policymaking process in Polsnf is the creation of subject-specific subcommittees. These subcommittees could be an opportunity for further discussion at the Ministerial level on topics which are of importance to the government agenda. The existing example of the Economic Committee or CCoMOGPI could be used as a platform to develop these topical subcommittees. The creation of subject-specific subcommittees could help drive forward reform and emphasise priorities in specific areas – for example, in the event that a specific policy area became a top priority following a change in government, an immediate response could involve convening the subcommittee more frequently and therefore dedicating more resources to preparing policy options and responses in that area. While a joined-up, whole‑of-government approach is essential, it may be also useful to explicitly provide dedicated forums that allow decision makers to negotiate on priority topics, thereby also signalling priorities to the civil service. For example, in Estonia special committees are held weekly on specific topics-the previous government held them on the economy, and currently still uses this format for regular discussion on security – a key priority for the current government.
In the United Kingdom, Cabinet Sub-Committees (CSCs) in the Scottish Government serve as focused vehicles for policy development and decision making within the government. These sub-committees facilitate cross-ministerial collaboration on key issues that require sustained attention and co‑ordination. Membership is tailored to each committee’s purpose, typically including Cabinet Secretaries, Ministers, and legal advisors when required.
Current CSCs address diverse policy challenges. For example, the Legislation CSC focuses on approving legislative proposals, including primary legislation and responses to government bills in the United Kingdom. The Child Poverty CSC oversees initiatives such as the Best Start, Bright Futures programme, ensuring cross-sectoral efforts to reduce economic hardship among families. Additionally, the Investment and Economy CSC works on implementing Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation, shaping policies related to sustainable economic growth. By structuring decision making around targeted committees, the Scottish Government enhances policy focus, accountability, and implementation efficiency.
Source: Scottish Government (2024[18]), Cabinet sub-committees: factsheet - gov.scot, https://www.gov.scot/publications/cabinet-sub-committees-factsheet/
Committees and forums for policymaking at the civil service level
At the level of the civil service, there could be further exploration of forums for discussion and development of public policy. One option is the exploration of a standing committee of civil servants that mirrors the work of the Standing Committee of the CoM. The second option could include the development of a forum for public policy discussion and debate early into the problem identification process.
In the Polish context, there is an apparent lack of committee structure at the civil service level that mirrors the Standing Committee and Economic Committee or Committee of the Council of Ministers for Oversight of Government Policy Implementation – there does not appear to be a single network that brings together the relevant directors of policy and strategy development from each Ministry. Instead, such networks appear to be developed on an ad hoc basis for the development of a specific initiative. If the establishment of such a body was considered as both beneficial and accepted by the decision-makers then a standing committee of policy experts at the civil service level, hosted by the Chancellery could be organised. A pilot project for the standing committee is an option for further exploration and testing of a new approach. Such a committee could for example be composed of the highest-level civil servants in the line ministries, or by the Secretary of States or Undersecretaries of State. In Portugal, the REPLAN network is an interministerial network that provides a forum for discussion between the political and civil service sides of government.
In 2021, the Portuguese government established an inter-ministerial network to promote co‑operation, knowledge‑sharing, and resource allocation in strategic planning, public policy, and foresight. Its objective is to support government sectors, builds institutional capacity, promotes best practices, and harmonises planning processes for cross-cutting issues. REPLAN serves as a forum for co‑ordination, aligning sectoral policies with overarching strategies, assessing policies, developing monitoring metrics, and facilitating information exchange among government agencies.
In Portugal, the planning processes is expected to be underpinned by a wide range of sources of data and analysis. Yet, many inter-ministerial networks associated with the large range of planning instruments being enforced in Portugal can hinder the ability to explore synergies in the planning processes (Chapter 3). Streamlining the number of networks and prioritising those that concern the whole-of-government are strategic priorities for REPLAN.
It 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. A number of success factors have been highlighted since its inception:
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 data and analysis-informed strategies and plans.
Sources: OECD (2024[1]), Steering from the Centre of Government in Times of Complexity: Compendium of Practices, https://doi.org/10.1787/69b1f129-en; Centre for Planning and Evaluation of Public Policies (2023[19]), REPLAN - PLANAPP Presentation, https://www.planapp.gov.pt/apresentacao-replan/; Information provided by representatives of Portugal.
The second pathway that could be explored in combination with the specific analytical unit could be the creation of a forum for discussion of public policy. Poland’s complex coalition structure and centralised decision-making process at the Cabinet, but large number of diffuse priorities create a challenge for policymakers on the political and civil service sides of government to best focus their efforts in policy development. Reportedly, significant time and resources are often spent on developing policy options that are ultimately unpalatable or do not align with current priorities of decision makers, which is an inefficiency that could potentially be addressed by creating further opportunities to build consensus around policy options at earlier stages. A policy forum could provide a platform where experts – for example, from the governmental research institutes – and civil servants from across government could present and exchange ideas. Such a forum could be chaired and led from the CoG, in order to bring a whole‑of-government approach and leverage the convening power of the executive. One forum that could provide inspiration is the National Economic and Social Council in Ireland.
Ireland’s National Economic and Social Council (NESC) is an advisory body supporting the Taoiseach on strategic policy for sustainable economic, social, and environmental development. The NESC was established in 1973, and representatives are appointed for three to five‑year terms. It includes members of the public from business, trade unions, agriculture, community, and environmental sectors, alongside government officials and independent experts.
NESC meetings take place quarterly and serve to foster cross-sectoral dialogue and develop data-based policy analysis. Its work programme is set annually with input from the Department of the Taoiseach at the CoG. NESC also engages at EU and international levels, collaborating with similar councils and organisations such as the International Association of Economic and Social Councils and Similar Institutions (AICESIS).
Source: National Economic and Social Council (2024[20]), Our Organisation | The National Economic and Social Council – Ireland, https://www.nesc.ie/our-organisation/
A challenge for both of these options may be to identify the right participant from line ministries to sit in such a committee, as it was apparent that not all ministries had a unit responsible for overseeing and co‑ordinating policy development and/or strategic functions. This may need to be developed. A related potential issue could be obtaining the necessary buy-in from line ministries to secure representation from the people at the correct levels and ensuring that the right level of expertise is present at the table. This is also linked to the issue identified by several representatives of different CoG units and line ministries of a perceived missing “link”, i.e. a role in communicating between objectives and action is missing in the governments organisational design.
Strengthening the analytical support apparatus for enhanced policy development
In both the development of more political level or civil service level committees, analytical support from the civil service is necessary to ensure high-quality discussions in these forums. One factor that the strengthening of the analytical support structure would be able to provide is substantive input during the policy development process. The structure ideally would be supported and co‑ordinated by the CoG, and would be enabled by relying on line ministry participants and expertise. One pathway that could be explored to fulfil this support role could be a dedicated analytical unit to enable enhanced policy analysis and development.
Capacities for analysis are diffused across the organisational structure of the Chancellery. Some analytical units are reportedly overwhelmed with large volumes of documents to review and therefore feel they are not able to provide the level of substantive analysis they would like to contribute.
An analytical unit could be staffed by senior advisors from the civil service and be a purely non-political body, in order to retain institutional memory and operationalise and advise with a long-term strategic perspective. It could enhance policy and strategy development with line ministries, particularly with regard to cross-cutting and long-term strategy development, by clarifying the roles and responsibilities within each line ministry for strategy development, through specific points of contact for co‑ordinating such work. The unit would be a natural secretariat supporting the network discussed above. This could be a key enabler for more joined up work across the system of strategy development. One such example of an analytical support unit for cross-governmental support is the government analytical unit (VAU) in the Czech Republic (Box 4.10).
To address the lack of analytical capacities in policymaking, in 2023 the Czech Government established the Government Analytical Unit (VAU) within the Office of the Government under the Minister for Legislation. The VAU aims to provide expert analysis on cross-cutting policy issues and support ministries in conducting economic assessments for new policies and laws. Initially, its role includes assisting in Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) upon request, but its long-term focus will expand to strategic foresight, policy evaluation, and co‑ordination of data‑informed decision making across government. Additionally, the VAU is expected to foster collaboration with research institutions, pilot new policies, and integrate behavioural insights into public administration.
The creation of the VAU aligns with the objectives of the National Recovery Plan, which envisions the appointment of analytical co‑ordinators in ministries and the establishment of a Central Analytical Unit under the Ministry of the Interior. This initiative aims to enhance analytical capabilities through training and inter-ministerial co‑operation.
Source: OECD (2023[2]), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Czech Republic: Towards a More Modern and Effective Public Administration, https://doi.org/10.1787/41fd9e5c-en.
An analytical unit with the core role of integrating and developing expertise and analysis for the Chancellery and line ministries could also support more joined-up work across government by bringing more coherence to the existing hubs of analytical expertise in Poland. For example, research institutes already serve as an important source of data and analysis for line ministries but are not necessarily collaborating beyond their respective line ministries in a cohesive manner, such as the Ministry of National Education and the Educational Research Institute (IBE). The IBE conducts interdisciplinary research concerning the functioning and effectiveness of the education system in Poland and has developed strong data and statistical capabilities. It participates in national and international research projects, and prepares reports, expert opinions and carries out advisory functions. The IBE is supervised by the Minister of National Education. The IBE is a good example of an external body conducting parallel policy analysis and development functions, working closely with the ministry. The relationship is trusted to the extent that the ministry allows other agencies and units to work directly with the IBE for support in areas such as strategic development, emphasising the extent to which the IBE and Ministry are in alignment with each other. Multiple line ministries have an external institute which provide analytical capabilities, for example the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy. However, the level of trust and joined-up ways of working between the institute and the ministry varies greatly across each, impacting the effectiveness of the advisory capacity of the institutes.
Key enablers for the success of such a unit would be trust both within CoG and with the line ministries. The analytical unit or forum would need to work in close alignment with Ministerial direction, taking rapid responses from the ministry and pursuing a joined-up approach with the lead counterpart of the ministry – likely the Secretary of State or Undersecretary of State – and ensure a closeness between the two. The role of PLANAPP in Portugal of co‑ordinating a similar model, could be a useful example in this case.
4.3.7. Enhancing strategy development for strengthened long-term prioritisation
Poland’s strategy development framework is complex due to the multiplicity of priorities at the political level. While there are formal strategic documents prepared by the Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy (MDFRP) such as the New Strategy for Poland, these documents are sometimes perceived as not fully aligned with changes in the political, social and economic environment. In the context of the work of this project in responding to changing government priorities, capabilities related to strategy emerged as a focal point. While most line ministries have strategic units, they are not consistently effective on strategic capacities and are not systematically involved in co‑ordinating and aligning new policy development with broader strategic frameworks and cross-cutting documents.
Based on research undertaken for this chapter, strategy offices within line ministries do not all have the same long-term strategic outlook and capabilities necessary to input into cross-cutting strategic development. Stakeholders interviewed reported a gap between strategic thinking within line ministries, the MDRFP, and within the Chancellery. One potential reason that emerged is the lack of in-house expertise to handle strategic work effectively, with tasks being delegated to directors who may lack the required strategic vision and proximity to the political decision makers to ensure alignment. Directors of Strategy could be closely working with Ministers to enable their vision for government, but reportedly this relationship is highly variable. Capacity-building initiatives can be used to target senior officials and staff within existing strategic units in line ministries. Line ministries should be empowered with strategic capabilities in order to encourage buy-in and engagement with the strategy development process.
The creation of the informal network of strategy heads is a positive step towards a more joined-up approach to strategy development in the Polish Government. The MDRPF has recently been working with the heads of strategy from all different departments – usually the Director or Deputy Director of strategy from the ministerial strategic units, in updating the 2023 strategy created by the previous government. After an ex post external evaluation was carried out, need was identified to develop a new strategic document due to changes in the external operating environment – COVID‑19, or Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine. The use of the informal group is perceived as a useful tool for the MDRPF. Several other bodies are mobilised in this process – including the Committee for Co‑ordination for Development Policy, and the Co‑ordination Committee. However, one challenge in this process has also been in securing the right level of participation, in ensuring that the right people are at the table in order for expertise and decisions to be made. This network could potentially be formalised as one of the civil service networks described above and the Chancellery take on the role of co‑ordinating secretariat.
One pathway that could be explored is redefining the division of responsibilities and mandate for whole‑of-government strategy development. In the Polish government, much of the strategy is led through the MDRPF, which is not considered a part of the CoG itself. In most OECD countries the CoG plays an important role in the development and co‑ordination of whole‑of-government strategy and reform initiatives. In 69% of countries surveyed in 2023, the CoG leads in formulating a long-term vision for government, a key part of setting national level long term strategies. The CoG can be a useful means to further enhance strategy work within Polish Government in several ways. For example, one issue discussed in the Polish context of strategic work is the difficulty to mobilise line ministries which could be addressed by giving the CoG the role of mandating line departments to develop strategic plans in different cross-cutting areas, something which the CoG leads on in 38% of countries surveyed in 2023. The authority and proximity to the executive of the CoG may be an enabling factor in this scenario. One other enabler could be strengthening and clarifying the role of the Director of Strategy within the line ministries, further emphasising the importance of the role and ensuring clearer structure for cross-ministry co‑ordination initiatives.
One model that has been effective for enabling strategic capacity development throughout the ministries is the Irish example of bringing civil servants together with strong strategic capacities in a single central unit and rotating these out to line ministries (Box 4.11).
The Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service (IGEES) is an integrated cross-government service. It was established in 2012 with the aim of enhancing the role of economics and value for money analysis in public policymaking. The IGEES sits in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. IGEES policy analysts work cross-government with all departments and functions as a talent pipeline accessible throughout government.
The IGEES has targeted graduate recruitment processes and internships, bringing in young professionals into the public service and training them. Learning and development opportunities include platforms for discussion, policy discussion sessions, seminars, and conferences. It is a rotational programme where participants change positions every two years. The IGEES has been a successful way to develop analytical capabilities in a centralised hub and ensuring that their expertise is diffused across the civil service beyond the centre of government.
Source: OECD (2024[21]), The Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service (IGEES) – Ireland, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-youth-policy-toolkit_41fab624-en/the-irish-government-economic-and-evaluation-service-igees-ireland_7e9bb420-en.html
Below are a number of options developed in October 2025 for further exploration in the context of Poland’s prioritisation and planning processes. It is complemented by the tool (online Annex) to help shape Poland’s future work in this area.
1. Strengthen the role of the Chancellery in the priority-setting and refining process to drive forward work on key priorities of government. This could include refining processes to manage Cabinet agendas, setting standards and guidance for priority-identification processes, and using the Chancellery to foster alignment between competing priorities.
2. Enhance communication mechanisms for government priorities by strengthening the use of existing communication tools and better directing whole‑of-government communications through the Chancellery. Use opportunities such as the budget process and the ministry Activity Plans to define priorities and related ministerial actions. Clarifying roles and responsibilities for senior civil servants in directing communication can further enable more joined-up work – possibly through networks or forums described above.
3. Continue developing further opportunities for the co‑ordination of priorities and vision to be translated into implementation. Optimise forums for early-stage policy development and platforms, including interministerial committees that focus on specific priority policy areas.
4. Consider forums at the civil service level which allow senior civil servants to discuss and drive forward implementation in a cohesive manner.
5. Convene a supporting analytical unit to centralise and elevate capabilities for analysis within the government, to additionally support the work of any collaborative structures such as the above committees and forums.
6. Enhance the development of strategy within line ministries for better co‑ordinated work on key priorities.
Consider strengthening and enabling the mandate of the CoG to lead on cross-cutting and long-term strategy development.
Formalise and cement the role of the existing informal network of strategy heads, and further define the roles and responsibilities of strategy heads in line ministries, particularly in relation to their respective Ministerial counterparts.
Continue to build the capabilities of line ministries and strategy units in line ministries to engage and drive forward the strategy development process.
References
[19] Centre for Planning and Evaluation of Public Policies (2023), REPLAN - PLANAPP Presentation, https://www.planapp.gov.pt/apresentacao-replan/ (accessed on 3 March 2025).
[10] Chancellery of the Prime Minister (2023), Exposé of prime Minister Donald Tusk, https://www.gov.pl/web/primeminister/expose-donalda-tuska (accessed on 28 January 2025).
[9] Daley, J. (2020), Prioritising a government’s agenda, Grattan Institute, https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Prioritising-a-governments-agenda-Grattan-Institute-Report.pdf?__cf_chl_f_tk=PJQgNILOC_2U0i5I.NTTfnD5yt0FzlGqiQAg0cwHHIc-1783433412-1.0.1.1-c8VFYFTFVxXeL3OHJJOJQ8BEU0iAIkwV28thtWECPro (accessed on 7 July 2026).
[7] Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development (n.d.), Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development, Government of Finland, https://kestavakehitys.fi/en/commission (accessed on 13 February 2025).
[14] Government of Canada (2025), Mandate Letter, https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/2025/05/21/mandate-letter (accessed on 18 June 2025).
[11] Government of Chile (2026), “Cuenta Pública 2026”, https://www.gob.cl/cuentapublica2026/ (accessed on 12 June 2026).
[16] Government of Finland (n.d.), What We Do – Finnish Government’s Knowledge to Action Initiative, Prime Minister’s Office, https://tietokayttoon.fi/en/what-we-do (accessed on 23 June 2025).
[3] Government of Poland (n.d.), Wykaz prac legislacyjnych i programowych Rady Ministrów, https://www.gov.pl/web/premier/wplip-rm (accessed on 15 June 2026).
[6] Hymowitz, D. (2016), “Choosing the First Among Equals”, Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.
[20] National Economic and Social Council (2024), Our Organisation | The National Economic and Social Council - Ireland, https://www.nesc.ie/our-organisation/ (accessed on 26 February 2025).
[17] New Zealand Government (2023), Cabinet Manual, https://www.dpmc.govt.na/our-business-units/cabinet-office/supporting-work-cabinet/cabinet-manuel (accessed on 26 May 2023).
[1] 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.
[21] OECD (2024), The Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service (IGEES) – Ireland, Case study, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2024/11/oecd-youth-policy-toolkit_7ae28a3d/the-irish-government-economic-and-evaluation-service-igees-ireland_83f53f65.html (accessed on 26 February 2025).
[2] OECD (2023), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Czech Republic: Towards a More Modern and Effective Public Administration, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/41fd9e5c-en.
[4] OECD (2023), “Survey on strategic decision making at the centre of government”, OECD, Paris, unpublished.
[5] OECD (2023), TAP Portal – Development of legislation: From documents to data - Observatory of Public Sector Innovation, OECD, Paris, https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/tap-portal-development-of-legislation-from-documents-to-data/ (accessed on 27 January 2025).
[8] OECD (2021), OECD Report on Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/22f8031c-en.
[15] OECD (2015), “Recommendation of the Council on Budgetary Governance”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD-LEGAL-0410, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0410.
[13] Queensland Government (2024), “Our priorities - Right to Information - Department of the Premier and Cabinet”, https://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/right-to-info/published-info/our-priorities.aspx (accessed on 28 January 2025).
[12] Queensland Government (2024), Jarrod Bleijie MP Ministerial Charter Letter, https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/ministers-portfolios/jarrod-bleijie.aspx (accessed on 28 January 2025).
[18] Scottish Government (2024), Cabinet sub-committees: factsheet - gov.scot, https://www.gov.scot/publications/cabinet-sub-committees-factsheet/ (accessed on 14 February 2025).