Jordan drives its planning efforts through a series of strategic frameworks to modernise public administration and achieve key national objectives. This chapter delves into Jordan’s legal and policy framework for strategic planning by reviewing essential documents such as the Economic Modernisation Vision (EMV), the Public Sector Modernisation Roadmap (PSMR) and the Political System Modernisation Plan. It also introduces the revised Reform Matrix, an important follow-up strategic document connected to the EMV. Furthermore, it examines the institutional landscape for strategic planning, implementation and performance management, focusing on the roles and mandates of the Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (MoPIC), the Prime Minister’s Public Sector Modernisation Project Management and Implementation Office (PMIO), the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (PMDU) and the General Budget Department (GBD). Finally, based on good practices and OECD insights, the chapter identifies opportunities to further strengthen strategic planning, implementation and performance management to enhance transparency, accountability and public trust in Jordan’s governance.
OECD Public Governance Reviews: Jordan
Abstract
The importance of strategic planning for better public sector outcomes
Strategic planning helps guide the vision, mission and actions of a government and its institutions. As an integral part of governing processes, planning helps to examine strengths and weaknesses, seeking ways to achieve desired outcomes with available resources (OECD, 2024[1]). Moreover, as highlighted in the OECD Steering from the Centre of Government in Times of Complexity: Compendium of Practices, strategic planning can assist governments in prioritising and balancing investments of different objectives across various ministries and government agencies (OECD, 2024[1]). This can help to mitigate silos, duplication and conflicting agendas. Therefore, strategic planning not only tells “what an organisation (or other entity) is, what it does, and why" (Bryson, 2011[2]) but also facilitates the attainment of goals.
To ensure that plans are implemented effectively, evaluated and built upon, implementation support and ongoing performance monitoring are important components of the strategic planning system. Government performance management links strategic plans and their actions with implementation. It involves the systematic process of setting, monitoring and evaluating the performance of government ministries and agencies in achieving objectives set in planning documents.
Strategic planning is crucial for public sector transparency and accountability for several reasons.
First, it provides a clear roadmap for the government’s goals, priorities and actions, making it easier for the public to understand what it intends to achieve. This transparency can help foster trust and confidence among citizens and government.
Second, it establishes measurable objectives and performance indicators, allowing for the evaluation of the government’s performance. This accountability mechanism ensures public officials can be held responsible for their actions or inactions at all levels.
Finally, it encourages efficient resource allocation, ensuring that public resources are used effectively to achieve the stated goals. This efficiency contributes to the responsible stewardship of public funds, reinforcing the government’s commitment to accountability.
Strategic planning thus enhances transparency by clearly communicating government objectives, providing a basis for accountability through measurable goals and promoting efficient resource management, all of which are essential for a transparent and accountable public sector.
Jordan aims to overcome strategic gaps and achieve the government’s priorities through improved complementarity of strategic plans, and a renewed focus on implementation and enhancing the public sector’s capacity. This will be achieved as Jordan embarks on a new reform path with a new generation of comprehensive national strategic documents, supported by executive plans and a set of new units and departments to support, prioritise and monitor the delivery of the respective plans’ objectives.
Jordan’s strategic planning journey
Over the past decades, Jordan has developed a wide range of national development plans and strategies. In the beginning, the country’s efforts mainly focused on creating public sector institutions and providing public infrastructure. Since the 1990s, when Jordan undertook economic liberalisation and privatisation endeavours, the kingdom has been seeking ways to become more competitive in the global economy. Overall, this has resulted in more than ten national and sectoral plans over the past three decades. This has included plans and programmes such as the Economic and Social Development Plan (1993-97; 1999‑2003; 2002-04), the National Agenda (2006‑15), the Executive Development Programme (2007-09; 2009-11; 2011-13; 2016-18), the Poverty Reduction Strategy (2013-20), the National Employment Strategy (2011‑20), the Renaissance Plan (2018-20), the Economic Priorities Programme (2021-23), the Indicative Executive Programme (2021-24) as well as several other sectoral and ministerial reform plans.
In 2015, the government unveiled Jordan 2025 (also known as Vision 2025) as a long-term strategy that provided overarching directions to support the country’s economic and social development. The strategy outlined the country’s main challenges and introduced structural reforms, initiatives and programmatic improvements to be attained by 2025 in four different pillars: i) government; ii) business sector; iii) society; and iv) citizens. However, as noted during the OECD fact‑finding interviews, for many, the vision has been superseded by a new set of strategic roadmaps. In addition, no budget in the national budget framework was allocated to the implementation of Jordan 2025.
Following a significant reform of national strategic planning endorsed by King Abdullah II in 2022, Jordan’s development is currently guided by a set of national strategies targeting the economic, public administration and political sectors that frame Jordan’s overarching policy framework. The government of Jordan aspires to improve citizens’ living conditions through boosting economic growth and creating job opportunities. For more efficiency, the government acknowledges the need to modernise its public sector and align it with citizen priorities. In addition, the government of Jordan aspires to promote greater societal participation in politics. These objectives and achievements are supported by three national plans: the Economic Modernisation Vision (EMV), the Public Sector Modernisation Roadmap (PSMR) and the Political System Modernisation Plan.
To address multifaced socio-economic challenges and foster their capacity to deliver, Jordan recognises that the principles of good governance, transparency and accountability are crucial. While transparency enables public sector employees to monitor and assess the planning process, accountability ensures that all public institutions involved are accountable for their actions. When both go hand in hand, greater support from institutions and public trust in public administration can be achieved, thus facilitating the fulfilment of the political agenda and delivery of quality services that improve citizens’ lives.
This chapter on strategic planning, implementation and performance management is structured into the three following sections:
The chapter first describes Jordan’s legal and policy framework for strategic planning by providing an overview of its key national documents: the EMV, the PSMR and the Political System Modernisation Plan. It also introduces the revised Reform Matrix, an important follow-up strategic document linked to the EMV.
The chapter then assesses the institutional landscape for strategic planning, implementation and performance management by focusing on the roles and functioning of the Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (MoPIC), the Prime Minister’s Public Sector Modernisation Project Management and Implementation Office (PMIO), the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (PMDU) and the General Budget Department (GBD).
The chapter concludes with policy recommendations to continue strengthening strategic planning, implementation and performance management for more transparent outcomes and accountable public institutions in Jordan.
The clear and explicit articulation of strategic planning instruments and documents allows the government to focus on a few policy priorities and ensure better and more consistent implementation in the face of resource constraints (OECD, 2023[3]). The comprehensive set of national economic, administrative and political planning instruments adopted by the government of Jordan in response to new complex challenges the country faces are summarised in Figure 1.1. Relevant documents are explained in greater detail below, including their respective development process as well as their operationalisation through action plans and executive programmes.
Source: Author’s elaboration.
Although development and reforms are complex and evolving rather than linear processes in many countries, articulating strategic objectives across different timeframes is crucial to ensure plans promote synergies, avoid counterproductive efforts and provide a coherent vision for the country. In Jordan, the planning system is characterised by a multiplicity of national plans and strategies.
As shown in more detail below, the strategies were developed by different actors and processes and cover distinctive time frames, sectors and funding schemes. In addition, a number of sectoral strategies have been developed by line ministries in Jordan, for instance the Jordan Energy Strategy 2020-30, the Jordan National Tourism Strategy 2021-25 and the Investment Promotion Strategy 2023-26, noting that the content, structure and duration differ widely across documents. It appears that some sectors are lacking a strategy while strategic plans defined in other sectors are not systematically implemented. Some sectoral strategies, like the Jordan Energy Strategy 2020-30, define indicators and are accompanied by action plans or execution programmes while others do not.
While the roadmaps constitute overarching strategic documents, the high number of different national whole-of-government and sectoral strategies and their different formats make their implementation and ensuring coherence challenging and constitute a fragmented planning landscape. For instance, sectoral strategies do not refer directly to national plans and there is no cascading of policy measures of key performance indicators (KPIs) from national plans into the sectoral strategies. This can partly be explained by sectoral plans being developed before the national long-term plans. This is also due to the absence of formal inter-ministerial co-ordination committees that would support alignment across national plans and sectoral plans. Moreover, the exact hierarchy and linkage of the respective individual documents are not clearly determined, as Jordan has not defined a typology or hierarchy of strategic documents yet.
A unified approach, guidance and methodology, including templates and requirements for strategic documents and planning, could help address these issues. In Jordan, the King Abdullah II Center for Excellence (KACE) (Box 1.12) has developed a series of core strategic planning elements, including the Three-dimensional Planning Interconnection and Integration Principle. This principle empowers institutions to develop and implement their plans based on national, sectoral and organisational roles while meeting broader administration needs. It could guide institutions in translating plans into actionable steps, ultimately enhancing Jordan’s competitiveness. The government could, for instance, define the nature, time frame and scope of implementation documents, including executive programmes, development plans and action plans. A stocktaking exercise could also help identify existing strategies that are implemented, as well as gaps and potential overlaps across strategies.
Aligning objectives and programmes through a review of the strategic plans or elimination of superfluous documents is crucial to supporting a consistent, unified strategic framework. To align planning documents operating across different time frames, all existing and future strategies should ideally refer to the long‑term goals defined by the overarching roadmaps and should be cascaded down into sectoral medium-term objectives and short-term goals. Box 1.1 draws on the Polish experience to highlight how a government can streamline and rationalise the landscape of strategic planning documents in its country.
The Act on Development Policy (2006) was the first step in the evolution of Poland’s development management framework. This legislation not only established an institution to define and co-ordinate the country’s development policy but also used a series of interconnected action plans to deliver sustained and balanced national development, as well as to ensure regional socio-economic cohesion. This legislation – and the entire development management framework – was informed by a stocktaking exercise of Poland’s development strategies and programmes between 1989 and 2006. The government determined that, over this period, the country’s Council of Ministers had adopted no fewer than 406 national strategies (with varying scopes and degrees of implementation), of which only 120 remained relevant. Thus, in 2009, the country passed the Development Strategy Rearrangement Plan, which reduced and rearranged the number of binding strategies. All strategic initiatives developed since 2010 adhere to this new system.
Source: OECD (2022[4]), Centre of Government Review of Brazil: Toward an Integrated and Structured Centre of Government, https://doi.org/10.1787/33d996b2-en; adapted from OECD (2016[5]), Public Governance Reviews: Peru Integrated Governance for Inclusive Growth, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264265172-en.
Due to the existence of a large number of short- and long-term cross-governmental and sectoral strategies in Jordan, it is important to ensure transparency and easy access to information about existing strategic plans and related materials. By compiling all documents and information about strategic planning on one portal, website or register, governments can enhance transparency, foster accountability, facilitate consistencies and synergies across sectors, and promote knowledge and understanding about strategic planning. While initiatives to create a website took place in the past with the support of the United States Agency for International Development, MoPIC could consider developing an online registry of all existing strategic plans. The practice of establishing a registry of strategies, templates for strategies and a methodological guide in Czechia (see Box 1.2) could be of interest in this regard.
Czechia developed an online registry of existing strategies in 2012 that includes all strategic and conceptual documents. It clearly displays documents, their goals and measures, responsibilities for fulfilling them and indicators of success. Goals from the international level, through ministries and national institutions, down to the regional and local levels, can be connected thematically and functionally.
All line ministries and regions add their strategic documents to this registry. One of its main aims is to connect and align existing and new strategies to avoid duplication and find consistencies and synergies across proposed measures. This has not been achieved in practice.
The Strategies Database Working Group, composed of representatives from all line ministries and regions, is mainly facilitated by the Ministry of Regional Development. This working group was first established with its own statute and rules of procedure and, after the creation of the Expert Group for Strategy Work, was placed it its remit to act as a co-ordination tool.
Source: OECD (2023[3]), Public Governance Reviews: Czech Republic: Towards a More Modern and Effective Public Administration, https://doi.org/10.1787/41fd9e5c-en.
The Economic Modernisation Vision
Launched in 2022, the EMV (2023-33) is one of Jordan’s three new national strategic plans. As defined in its strategic pillars, the EMV has two objectives: i) to boost the country’s economic growth; and ii) to raise citizens’ living standards. Both goals are underpinned and tied together with sustainability principles as Jordan aims to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and move towards a green economy. Being at the core of economic development in the country for the next decade, the EMV is expected to serve as “a reference for all sectoral strategies and related action plans” (Government of Jordan, 2022[6]). Despite this aspiration for sectoral planning, the EMV does not explicitly specify how it relates to the other two national-level plans – the PSMR and Political System Modernisation Plan – as well as the Government Programme: the hierarchy and complementarity of documents remain undefined. However, the government has listed all of the priorities in the EMV’s new executive programme, which links the EMV to the government’s priorities included in other strategic planning documents. The EMV was developed following King Abdullah II’s public address on the country’s limited economic performance and a call for a National Economic Workshop at the Royal Hashemite Court. During the consultation stage, more than 500 experts from parliament, the public and private sectors, academia, civil society and the media were brought together to decide on long-term national objectives and provide an actionable roadmap. In addition, a survey of 2 500 Jordanian citizens was conducted to assess citizen satisfaction and define more specific goals for improving quality of life.
The EMV is set to be implemented through 8 key growth drivers in 35 sectors and sub-sectors, comprising more than 380 initiatives. Among its drivers, it lists high-value industrials, sustainable resources, a vibrant Jordan (urban development and quality of life), a green Jordan (green economy and living), investment in Jordan (foreign direct investments), a smart Jordan (education, data and innovation), future services and destination Jordan (tourism). All drivers and initiatives are accompanied by defined objectives, stakeholder roles, beneficiaries, a timeline for implementation as well as a methodology to track progress and execution. However, the number of initiatives monitored within the EMV has constantly expanded, making monitoring and implementation more challenging. Monitoring long-term strategic documents is challenging in many countries; Box 1.3 presents how other Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries are improving their monitoring efforts for long-term priorities.
Egypt
The Ministry of Planning and Economic Development (MPED) in Egypt is responsible for steering the strategic planning process to translate Egypt Vision 2030 into annual plans at the central and local levels. The MPED also reviews their implementation and monitors their performance by co‑ordinating with ministries leading key programmes and reviewing data shared at the outcome level. In particular, the annual investment plan approved by the Cabinet outlines concrete sustainable development objectives, policies, programmes and activities along the dimensions of Egypt Vision 2030 with its respective indicators and foreseen effects on its various sectors and levels of government. While efforts to monitor the performance of these programmes have been gradually established, challenges persist in the differing quality of the contributions submitted by each ministry to inform the annual investment plan as well as the capabilities to implement the approved programmes therein. In addition, the National Committee for Monitoring the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals was established by executive decree to act as a high-level institutional body responsible for monitoring the implementation of the SDGs. The primary mandate of the committee is to work collaboratively to ensure that Egypt achieves the United Nations 2030 Agenda. While it is currently composed of representatives from 17 ministries and state entities, this committee meets only on an ad hoc basis and its role in technical implementation and performance management could be enhanced. Egypt also started to establish a performance management framework focusing on assessing the outcomes of key strategies and achieving the SDGs with the Integrated System for Investment Plan Preparation and Monitoring and the National System for Monitoring and Evaluation (ADAA). Although these systems are thorough, there is an opportunity to embed KPIs to measure the outcomes and impact of SDGs and sectoral programmes, a common challenge that persists across various OECD member countries and partner economies.
Morocco
In Morocco, the New Development Model (NDM) is the country’s long-term strategic plan developed under the aegis of H.E. King Mohammed VI. Along with the Government Programme, which defines priorities for a five-year governmental mandate, these documents were developed by different institutional actors, making alignment between these different strategic plans essential considering their complementary objectives. The Head of Government Services is focusing on building a general coherence between both strategic documents, ensuring that the implementation of the government programme supports the fulfilment of the objectives of the NDM. They are currently in the process of developing a strategic monitoring framework that will systematically analyse the contribution of each strategy and law to the objectives set in the two strategic documents. The NDM foresees the creation of a monitoring mechanism reporting to the king, which has yet to be implemented.
Over the course of implementation, the EMV has several phases and is supported by other plans and programmes. It has three implementation phases, with a planned review of progress at the end of each period. In the first phase, from 2023 to 2025, Jordan intends to execute a substantial portion of the plan’s initiatives, thus calling it the “quick wins” period. The second phase (2026-29) and the third (2030-33) will capitalise on the progress achieved in previous phases. In the third phase, the vision also prescribes setting new long-term strategic goals for the next decade. While the EMV sets the country’s long-term national priorities and goals, it is also widely supported by various government action plans with different timeframes (Figure 1.2).
Source: Based on Government of Jordan (2022[6]), Economic Modernisation Vision: Unleashing Potential to Build the Future, https://www.jordanvision.jo/img/vision-en.pdf.
The Reform Matrix
As implementation support to the EMV and closely developed in co-ordination with the World Bank, Jordan’s Reform Matrix represents an integrated strategy for horizontal and vertical structural reforms. Launched during the London Initiative “Jordan: Growth and Opportunity” in 2019, its main objective is to strengthen and continuously enhance the co-ordination and delivery of comprehensive reforms in the country while closely co-operating with international donors and development partners. As such, the matrix aims to contribute to a number of government priorities, such as maintaining macroeconomic stability, improving the business environment, and growth of investments and exports. The document is comprised of 12 pillars in total, covering Jordan’s fiscal, finance, governance, labour and social policies, as well as the main economic sectors (MoPIC, 2023[11]). The revised Reform Matrix also bolsters the country’s climate and gender policies.
The Reform Matrix was initially launched in 2018 and updated and extended in 2021 and 2022 (World Bank, 2023[12]). It is not static and is periodically updated to promote results, as was done in light of the COVID‑19 pandemic and the enactment of the EMV. Through intensive internal and external stakeholder consultations, the MoPIC Reform Secretariat conducted periodic reviews and aligned the priorities set out in the matrix with the socio-economic situation, deepening reforms as part of the country’s post-pandemic recovery. During the fact-finding interviews, government stakeholders reported that the updated Reform Matrix 2018-24 aligns with the government programme and the EMV.
The matrix’s implementation is led and supported by MoPIC’s dedicated Reform Secretariat established in 2019. The secretariat is the government’s focal point for the Jordan Inclusive Growth and Economic Opportunities Multi-Donor Trust Fund, which is managed by the World Bank Group, co-chaired by MoPIC and currently funded by the governments of Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom. Following the end of the current version of the Reform Matrix in 2024, government institutions and international partners are expected to develop a new document to continue bolstering the priorities and plans enshrined in the EMV.
The Public Sector Modernisation Roadmap
Recognising institutional weaknesses and bureaucratic complexities in the public sector, the government of Jordan developed the PSMR (2023-33). As another plan of the 2022 strategic planning overhaul, the PSMR enacts a comprehensive public administration reform agenda, addressing key challenges. The overall objective of the roadmap is an “empowered and effective public sector working as a single unit to develop Jordan and achieve citizen wellbeing” that will enhance productivity and boost the internal capacity of the public sector to meet citizens’ expectations and support the public sector in its transformation process (Government of Jordan, 2022[13]).
Comprehensive work on the PSMR began at the end of 2021 when the Public Sector Modernisation Committee was established. Chaired by the prime minister, the committee comprised 13 representatives from the public and private sectors and civil society. A total of four ministers participated in the committee meetings. The committee’s work focused on examining the work of 97 civil service institutions (excluding municipalities, the armed forces and the security forces) and 3 main objectives: improving the quality of services provided to Jordan citizens and institutions (the services pillar), enhancing the institutional performance (the institutional pillar) and improving legislation concerning public administration (the legislation pillar). As for methodology, the committee carried out a desk review of existing documents, strategies and projects and held discussions in several specialised working groups, which helped to crystalise the modernisation framework and its seven components’ future directions and strategic objectives. Under the committee's guidance, the roadmap itself and 7 guidance papers for each component were prepared with the contribution of more than 30 national and international consultants.
As highlighted by the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (2017[14]) and the OECD-European Union SIGMA Principles of Public Administration, stakeholder engagement is key to ensure that the public sector modernisation vision, including its objectives and key steps, is shared by all stakeholders involved. In the case of the roadmap, the committee held over 100 stakeholder meetings and surveyed 2 400 public employees and more than 20 service centres to prepare the document. Among them was a study on the SIGMA Principles of Public Administration in Jordan carried out by the KACE in 2020‑21, which served as one of the inputs to the roadmap. Despite the aim to consult with stakeholders, the consultations only took place once the government endorsed the roadmap. As such, the Economic and Social Council conducted national dialogue sessions across the country. In addition to three sessions in Amman, weekly sessions were held in each governorate to gather stakeholders’ feedback on the roadmap and receive input for recommendations and proposals. The results of these sessions were presented to the government (ESC, 2023[15]). During OECD fact-finding interviews, government officials also reported that the participation of a broader range of stakeholders in the committee could have resulted in higher levels of ownership across the government. No information was made available on how the feedback received was integrated into the new planning framework. There was no mechanism in place for the public to comment on the draft roadmap.
In total, the PSMR sets 33 objectives, including on government services, procedures and digitalisation, organisational structure and governance, policy formulation and decision-making, human resources, legislation and institutional culture. Each component has its own strategic goals and initiatives. Each roadmap component is complemented by a technical concept report containing a full analysis of the Jordanian context at the time of the plan’s adoption. It includes an assessment of Jordan’s strengths and weaknesses with regard to the respective component, a review of national and international reports and surveys, followed by a definition of the component’s strategic objectives and a roadmap of relevant initiatives for 2023-25. While the roadmap is generally well-aligned with other national strategic planning documents, co‑ordinating certain cross-cutting projects that touch upon different sectors and other strategic plans (for instance, related to the EMV) was reported to be challenging.
The PSMR was supplemented with a three-year action plan (2022-25) to implement the reforms in the coming years. As an execution programme for the first stage, the plan lays down 206 initiatives and procedures to be developed in the first 3 years of the public sector modernisation journey. Similar to the EMV, initiatives for periods 2026-29 and 2030-33 will be adopted after reviewing the success of the previous stages. While the committee proved instrumental in designing the PSMR, it was dissolved once this mission was achieved. Under the responsibility of the Minister of State for Public Sector Modernisation, the PMIO is tasked with facilitating and monitoring the roadmap’s implementation. As of the end of 2024, PMIO has initiated development of an annual action plan for the consecutive 2026-29 phase.The Service and Public Administration Commission (SPAC), the entity that superseded the Civil Service Bureau, was also established in November 2023 to support public administration reform, principles and compliance (see section below) and has published its 2024-2027 Strategy to modernise the administration and deliver better services for citizens (Government of Jordan, 2023[16]).
The Political System Modernisation Plan
The Political System Modernisation Plan is the third strategic document of the 2021 planning overhaul. Among the three strategies, it was the first to be prepared and launched . As endorsed by the king in 2021, the overarching objective of this reform initiative is “to bring a qualitative shift in parliamentary and partisan life”, fostering greater participation rights for Jordanian citizens and “leading to a parliament based on programme blocks and parties” (Royal Committee to Modernize the Political System, 2021[17]). Overall, the king’s vision encompasses three key directions: i) the creation of new election and political party laws and consideration of constitutional amendments related to both laws; ii) the development of legislation to promote the participation of local administration in decision-making; iii) the creation of a legislative and political environment that promotes the role of young people, women and disabled people in public life.
In response to the king’s vision, the Royal Committee to Modernise the Political System was established, tasked with providing comprehensive recommendations for reform. Chaired by the prime minister, the committee was comprised of 92 members from political and other sectors. Its work was organised across six thematic committees: election law, political parties’ law, local administration, women’s empowerment, youth empowerment and constitutional amendments. Guided by unanimously agreed procedures, each thematic committee reviewed legislative documents related to its respective topic. Based on this analysis, they proposed amendments to existing laws or developed new legislation or criteria for improvements.
Among the numerous recommendations, the royal committee’s work resulted in proposing drafts for new election and political party laws. These drafts were presented to the National Assembly for consideration and adoption. In addition, consultations in all governorates were held before launching the plan. To effectively implement the recommendations outlined by the committee, the government developed the Executive Plan to Modernise the Political System (2021-23).
This section assesses the institutional landscape for strategic planning, the implementation of strategic plans and performance management in Jordan. As the head of state, the king of Jordan is responsible for setting the general direction of the country and the Royal Hashemite Court serves as a liaison between the king and the state institutions (government, legislative, judicial, armed forces and security forces), ensuring that directions set by the head of state are translated into strategic plans and action.
While as of the period of drafting Jordan is still working on developing a single national framework for strategic planning for instance through the implementation of the new Planning Law, this section focuses on the roles and functioning of the institutional actors involved in strategic planning within Jordan’s centre of government (CoG) and provides an analysis of the current developments in the strategic planning framework. The composition of the strategic planning entities in the CoG may vary between countries, with different institutions and agencies across OECD member and partner countries being responsible for cross-cutting governmental functions, like strategic prioritisation, planning and co-ordination and public administration reform steering and co-ordination (Box 1.4).
The CoG is “the body or group of bodies that provide direct support and advice to Heads of Government and the Council of Ministers, or Cabinet”. As a key institution of the executive branch, it is mandated to ensure elected politicians make decisions informed by coherent evidence and expert analysis, and facilitates co-ordination across government siloes. However, the CoG concept does not denote any specific organisational structure: the composition of the CoG can vary depending on the constitutional order, the political system, contextual and historical factors and the Head of Government’s preferences. Therefore, no two countries are identical in their approach to their CoG’s institutional and decision-making arrangements. Functional definitions of the CoG can include institutions or agencies that perform core cross-cutting governmental functions, such as planning, co-ordination, prioritisation and policy leadership role as well as preparations of Cabinet meetings, whole-of-government regulatory policy and legal compliance, and public administration reforms. In general, the role of the centre of government has expanded from purely procedural and agenda-setting functions to playing a more strategic leadership role of supporting the Head of Government and Cabinet.
Strategic planning is an essential function of the CoG, particularly on the formulation of long-term vision and strategic priorities, on coordinating whole-of-government strategic efforts and alignment and on ensuring the implementation of the priorities. Institutional models differ widely, ranging from a single unit or entity in the Prime Minister Office or State Chancellery to multiple entities and agencies responsible for strategic planning, or specific line ministries in charge, such as Ministry of Planning or Economy.
Source: Adapted from (OECD, 2020[18]) and (OECD, 2023[19]).
In Jordan, the CoG model for exercising the strategic planning function is polycentric as it involves several entities with different roles and responsibilities in the process, including Prime Ministry (and its entities such as PMDU and PMIO), the MoPIC, and Ministry of Finance with its GBD on the link between planning and budgeting. Additional bodies can also be considered as part of the CoG in Jordan as they carry out classic CoG functions on legal compliance and review and on public administration reform, in particular the Opinion and Legislative Bureau and SPAC. While the high turnover of ministers has hampered the smooth alignment and implementation processes of strategic plans, these institutions are the key actors developing and implementing the strategic plans and have seen their role and structure evolve to better steer and deliver on strategic plans and objectives (Figure 1.3). The new planning law is one of the latest examples of these efforts and could help clarify MoPIC’s roles and responsibilities for strategic planning but might not provide an integrated framework for all documents, including national plans (Government of Jordan, n.d.[20]).
Source: Author’s elaboration.
Roles and functions of institutions responsible for strategic planning
The Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation
MoPIC takes a central place in Jordan’s institutional architecture for strategic planning by spearheading the formulation and co-ordination of national whole-of-government development plans and supporting the development of sectoral strategies by line ministries. Created as a governmental entity in 1984, Ministry of Planning replaced the National Planning Council and carried out its tasks until it was renamed MoPIC in 2003 (MoPIC, 2023[21]). MoPIC’s mission was guided by the Planning Law of 1971 until 2024, when the government of Jordan adopted a new Planning and International Cooperation Law. The new law focuses on the role of MoPIC and line ministries in the strategic planning system, strengthening MoPIC’s positions and responsibilities within the system (Box 1.5). Overall, MoPIC aspires to “promote a culture of excellence, good governance, sustainable development” (MoPIC, 2023[21]).
Superseding the Planning Law of 1971 and its amendments, the new Planning and International Cooperation Law No. (10) of 2024 reinforces and harmonises the country’s regulation of and system for strategic planning.
The law designates MoPIC as the central body for strategic planning and endorses its roles in contributing to the identification of national priorities and the development of national policies, as well as supporting other ministries and public agencies in strategic planning and policy development. This includes framing and supporting the formulation and development process of national policies, developing methodologies and guidelines, building the capacity of ministries and public agencies in policy monitoring and evaluation, as well as steering and enhancing policy co-ordination and coherence by establishing (or reinstating) formal co-ordination mechanisms. The law also refers to incorporating evidence into strategic planning, aligning plans with budget processes and promoting participatory planning across different government agencies.
It also prescribes the establishment of co‑ordination instruments: MoPIC should form a committee, including ministries and public or official institutions, to prepare and monitor the implementation of national plans and executive programmes. In addition, the law tasks line ministries with creating internal planning, coordination and follow-up committees that can help drive and support their activities on strategic planning.
Based on the experience of OECD member and partner countries where strategic planning framework is enshrined in legislation, Jordan could benefit from supporting its new law by incorporating additional elements that are typical components of planning laws, particularly planning principles, timeframes, hierarchy, typology and territorial scope of planning documents. This would involve defining a hierarchy of planning documents between national documents, sectoral and regional plans over different time horizons. The law could further clarify the typology of documents between national strategic plans, programmes, policies, sectoral plans and executive programmes, and does not currently specify the strategic planning process, procedures and the roles of the Prime Minister’s Office and other central government institutions in reviewing and approving strategic documents, which could be developed in separate documents (rules of procedures or strategic manual). In practical terms, these additional changes can be made through implementing amendments within the law or developing additional legislation, such as a bylaw, that derives from the Planning and International Cooperation Law No. (10) of 2024.
Source: Government of Jordan (n.d.[20]).
While MoPIC remains integral to the systematic and co-ordinated development of Jordan’s national strategies, its role has undergone a shift. Previously, MoPIC was central in approving national strategies and plans. Now, temporary councils and fora, such as the Economic Workshop and the Public Sector Modernisation Committee, as well as government units such as PMIO and PMDU play a more prominent role in the area. However, it is important to note that MoPIC continues to play an important role within this new environment, contributing its expertise and experience to ensure the effective implementation of policies. Moreover, the responsibility of developing and co-ordinating sectoral strategies now lies within line ministries.
MoPIC serves as a key entity in facilitating co‑operation and domestic and international partnerships that can support the funding and implementation of strategic initiatives and plans. It works closely with line ministries, public agencies and governorates. In collaboration with the GBD, MoPIC prepares the development budget as part of the annual government budget. The ministry often mobilises resources through its Foreign Aid Unit, including international technical assistance and funding, to support the country’s development projects and programmes.
MoPIC is comprised of seven departments and ten units reporting directly to the secretary-general and two additional units, the internal Performance Monitoring Unit and the Internal Auditing Unit, which directly report to the minister (MoPIC, n.d.[22]). Implementing the reform objectives of the PSMR, MoPIC is currently revising its existing organisational structure, including developing the National Policy Department.
The Reform Secretariat
Following the launch of Jordan’s Reform Matrix in 2019, MoPIC established the Reform Secretariat to support the implementation of the set economic reforms (MoPIC, 2023[23]). The secretariat directly reports to the secretary-general as a separate entity within the ministry. While it was expected to end with the Reform Matrix in 2024, new plans to update and prolong the Reform Matrix would lead the Reform Secretariat’s continued existence.
As the main facilitator of the Reform Matrix’s implementation, the Reform Secretariat monitors and reports on the progress of reforms and takes the lead in specific reforms involving multiple stakeholders (MoPIC, 2023[23]). As such, in its work with multiple public stakeholders, it follows up and co-ordinates the implementation of policy reforms and provides support through technical expertise to agencies. The broad range of areas covered in the Reform Matrix requires substantial co-ordination with other entities across government. It also acts as a focal point between implementing agencies and international partners. Furthermore, the Reform Secretariat continues to manage the World Bank’s development policy loans and oversee the implementation of other World Bank-financed projects.
Alongside the Reform Matrix, the secretariat also supports the government’s work. By collaborating with public agencies on their plans and engaging different stakeholders, it participated in the creation of the Government's Economic Priorities Programme (2021-23) (MoPIC, 2022[24]). The Reform Secretariat follows up on the priorities in the economic programme and designs programmes that boost economic growth and job creation. In addition to regular reports to the prime minister, the secretariat provides technical progress updates and inputs to the PMDU and is “considering further structuring its co-ordination and engagement mechanism with the Unit” in the future (MoPIC, 2022[24]). Lastly, the secretariat pursues communication tasks highlighting the government’s work on reforms.
The Development Plans and Programmes Department
Through its Development Plans and Programmes Department, MoPIC is tasked with supporting line ministries and agencies for the development of their sectoral strategies and plans. In addition, it enhances participatory planning on both local and national levels. The Development Plans and Programmes Department is one of the seven MoPIC departments that supports the formation of national development plans and indicators. It aims to prepare, revise and update Jordan’s long-term plans and participate in formulating implementation programmes related to these plans. The department also plays a crucial role in supporting the PMDU in monitoring and aligning the EMV economic programme’s KPIs and initiatives.
By working closely with line ministries and agencies, the department overviews the harmonisation process of different national plans and programmes, aligning them with socio-economic objectives. It participates in the preparation of sectoral strategies and policies that are aimed at achieving national objectives. Moreover, the department has to adopt planning mechanisms and tools to increase the planning capacity of the executive agencies, which are currently missing in Jordan. This includes its involvement in the ongoing Comprehensive Strategic Planning Programme and the development of the national comprehensive strategic planning framework.
The department also has functions related to international co‑operation. It identifies national development priorities that will be reached with external assistance from donors and international organisations, which will call for close co‑ordination with the Reform Secretariat.
The National Policy Support Department
The main aim of MoPIC’s National Policy Support Department is to strengthen national policymaking in Jordan by co-ordinating and supporting national strategic and policy planning, providing guidance and building technical capacity in line ministries. To ensure that MoPIC is the focal support point in policymaking, the department was established following the adoption of the PSMR and, since then, it has undergone several changes in its structure and functions. While the new Planning Law does not define precisely the typology of strategic and policy documents, the department must cover both policies and strategies.
Apart from national policymaking, the department covers two other areas: competitiveness and international indicators, and gender policies and women’s empowerment. In that regard, complementarities between policymaking and Jordan’s priorities on competitiveness and enhancing its position in international indicators can be fostered through co-ordination within the department, as better national policies and strategies are ultimately aimed to achieve the long-term strategic objectives of Jordan.
The National Policy Support Department can specifically support strategic planning and policymaking in the following:
Developing a general framework for the process of public policymaking and institutionalisation by drafting and publishing a guide for public policymaking to be disseminated to all stakeholders by international best practices.
Acting as the main point of contact in the government for all matters related to national policymaking and contribute to reaching consistent views on policies within the government administration.
Building the capacity of government policy agencies with regard to methodologies and tools for policy formulation, analysis and follow-up.
Contributing to achieving an effective partnership for citizens and stakeholders outside the public sector, including scientific and research centres and academic institutions.
Developing an enabling regulatory framework to ensure the quality of public policy design, implementation and evaluation.
As the department still ramps up, it can help further structure, formalise and strengthen Jordan’s strategic planning landscape and processes. The department can help co-ordinate efforts on strategic planning, ensure alignment between national and sectoral plans, better define preparations, review and adoption processes of planning documents, enhance the quality and consistency of strategic plans, foster the development of implementation plans and indicators, and build capacities and network on strategic planning in line ministries. Furthermore, it can promote strategic planning benefits and principles across the administration and how they can ensure the implementation of national priorities and objectives as set in key national strategic documents. It can ultimately help better structure and organise the strategic planning cycle from the conception of strategic documents to their approval, implementation and evaluation.
In that regard, the department must be equipped with certain capabilities and instruments to deliver on its missions and enforce a more unified strategic planning system in Jordan. This involves analytical capabilities, inter-ministerial collaboration mechanisms, review and challenge functions on the quality and alignment between documents, guidance, methodologies and templates on strategic planning for the whole of government, and implementation and monitoring tools. Useful tools given the department’s mandate could include a registry of existing strategies, a strategic planning manual describing the required connections across strategic plans and documents, the methodology and expectations for the content of a strategic plan and templates of strategic plans and implementation documents. For instance, Czechia, Egypt and Latvia have developed such strategic planning manuals (Box 1.6).
Developed by the Latvian centre of government, the Policy Development Manual (hereinafter the Manual) is a concise document that provides a practical overview and guidance for policymakers at all levels, including politicians, public administrators and local decision-makers. It aims to foster a shared understanding of policymaking principles and procedures and enhance co-ordination.
The Manual dives deep into the various types and hierarchical structures of planning documents in Latvia. As such, it thoroughly describes the operational level (local, regional or national) and timeframe (short, medium or long term) for each planning instrument. It stresses the importance of vertical and horizontal integration of all planning tools, as this should be considered when developing a new plan. Moreover, the Manual briefly describes each possible type of strategic plan in the country, outlining its position within the planning system, key objectives and development procedures. International documents and their integration into national planning are also addressed.
Beyond clarifying the typology and hierarchy of documents, the Manual helps unravel Latvia’s planning system and procedures in several other ways. Notably, it discusses the core policymaking principles such as sustainable development, interest alignment, public participation, financial resources and territorial development. These principles are crucial for the Latvian development of plans and thus should be addressed in planning tools. The Manual also provides a concise overview of key actors involved in policymaking and their respective roles. Additionally, it guides users on how policy objectives should be defined, provides a glimpse into policy impact assessment and evaluation, and includes real-world examples.
Numerous call-out boxes are placed throughout the Manual. These boxes offer helpful tips, highlight key points, provide practical examples and pose insightful questions to consider while developing new planning tools. For example, intervention logic – a tool that helps structure policy and enhance the achievement of goals – is broadly discussed in the Manual.
Source: Interviews with the State Chancellery of Latvia.
A number of OECD member and partner countries have established strategic planning units with broadly similar roles and activities over time, such as Egypt and Finland (Box 1.7). They play a crucial role in ensuring that government priorities are identified, reflected in all national and sectoral strategies and delivered across the government, that strategic plans are aligned at the national and sectoral levels, and that high-quality, harmonised and consistent strategic plans are prepared and implemented consistently and effectively.
The Government Strategy Department in Finland
The Government Strategy Department (GSD) in Finland is located in the Prime Minister’s Office and performs strategic co-ordination and planning activities for the whole of government. The GSD was established in 2018 and carries out wide-ranging functions: strategic co-ordination and alignment, preparation and monitoring of the government programme, its operationalisation into an action plan, co‑ordination of government work on research and foresight, the monitoring and delivery of key government long-term priorities (United Nations Agenda 2030) and the oversight and support of a ministerial working group on government priorities for which it usually plays the role of secretariat. These activities are reflected in the structure of the GSD, with a dedicated team working on each of these topics.
The GSD actively engages with line ministries on strategic topics and co‑ordinates inter-ministerial working groups and networks, including foresight, research and key government priorities.
The Strategic Management Unit in Egypt’s MPED
The MPED has broadly similar functions and tasks in Egypt to the Jordanian MoPIC. As a central planning institution within the Egyptian administration, the MPED is mandated to steer and co-ordinate the strategic planning process to translate the country’s vision for sustainable development into annual actionable plans. It develops plans across different timeframes and ensures that sectoral strategies are consistent with national plans, the state budget law and other budget implementation laws. It is also responsible for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of plans, diversifying funding sources for plans and programmes, and promoting partnership mechanisms with the private sector, civil society and international partners.
In particular, the MPED Strategic Management Unit supports the ministry’s strategic planning efforts. The unit has been instrumental in the recent revision of Egypt Vision 2030 and leads the co-ordination with other strategic planning units across line ministries. It provides guidance and support. Among its practical works is a manual that provides guidance on how to build effective planning processes and the importance of strategic planning to reach long-term goals such as the SDGs and Egypt Vision 2030. This manual was published on the MPED portal to assist and guide public administration units through the strategic planning process.
Sources: OECD (2023[19]), “Strengthening strategic planning and the role of PlanAPP in Portugal”, https://doi.org/10.1787/95f819e8-en; OECD (OECD, n.d.[7]), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Egypt, OECD Publishing, Paris.
The General Budget Department
The GBD prepares, co-ordinates and carries out the budget process in Jordan and, more prominently, the General Budget Law and the Government Units Budget Law. The GBD also supports the implementation of modern concepts and methodologies in budget management and capacity building in line ministries (GBD, 2024[25]). It aims to play a pivotal role in strategic planning by overseeing financial matters and resource allocation, which are crucial to any strategic initiative. It is responsible for developing and managing the national results-oriented budgeting, ensuring that financial resources are allocated in alignment with the country’s strategic priorities and development goals as well as its financial policies (Government of Jordan, 2024[26]). Leveraging results-oriented budgeting, the GBD oversees harmonising institutional strategic plans with their budgets and systematically monitors performance against expenditures.
Throughout the budget process, the GBD reports active engagement with lines ministries and MoPIC to develop the budget and ensure the alignment of financial allocations with government priorities and financial policies (Government of Jordan, 2024[26]). The GBD annually reviews line ministries’ plans, including cost estimates, to ensure that they align with the government’s national plan and verify the budget proposals before issuing the budget circular. Once it has issued the budget circular outlining the budget ceiling, it ensures that all draft budgets submitted by line ministries fall under the budget ceiling before submission to the Prime Minister’s Office. MoPIC also reviews these plans, focusing on executing the Modernisation vision and roadmaps, ensuring that funds are allocated to necessary activities.
The collaboration between the GBD and MoPIC is crucial to ensure that projects and activities related to the Modernisation vision are included in the budget and to support the connection between strategic planning and budget. This link is a key challenge across all OECD member countries, particularly due to the lack of a structured framework and system to connect financial allocations with strategic objectives and priorities, creating funding and implementation gaps in strategic plans and policies (OECD, 2024[1]). Several countries, like Estonia and Latvia, have established formal mechanisms to support this alignment. To this end, in Latvia, the Budget Expenditure Review Working Group brings together the Ministry of Finance, the State Chancellery, the Bank of Latvia and the State Audit Office to develop, submit and review financial proposals expenditures for line ministries. Similarly, in Estonia, strategic review meetings between the Ministry of Finance, the Prime Minister’s Office and the authoring line ministries facilitate discussions on the costing of strategic plans from the inception of each key strategy. Such mechanisms could also support the alignment between planning and budget in Jordan, along with capacity-building activities for line ministries, including costing measures and preparing financial proposals.
Roles and functions of institutions responsible for implementation support and performance management
Following years of strategic planning, the government of Jordan has reformed its strategic planning system with the launch of a new generation of national strategic plans in 2022. The government established two new units at the Prime Ministry – PMIO and PMDU – responsible for performance management and implementation of these national strategic plans introduced as part of these reforms. Additionally, a network of delivery units was established across ministries and governmental institutions to reinforce these efforts. The following sections aim to provide an overview of their current work, highlighting both progress achieved and areas of opportunity for further institutionalisation and improvements. Moving towards a unified planning system in Jordan would call for aligning the roadmaps and all strategic plans.
The Prime Minister’s Public Sector Modernisation Project Management and Implementation Office
Establishing a lead institution for public sector reform and modernisation can be crucial for ensuring co‑ordinated efforts across government, efficient implementation and sustained progress. A designated lead institution may serve as a focal point, streamlining communication and collaboration among various government agencies involved in the modernisation process. Better alignment and co-ordination ensure the focus on priorities and targets, reduce redundancies, minimise resource wastage and promote synergy. Additionally, a lead institution enhances accountability by clearly defining roles and responsibilities, making tracking progress and addressing challenges easier. Overall, a well-defined lead institution is instrumental in driving the systematic transformation of the public sector, promoting innovation and fostering a more responsive and effective government.
The OECD-EU SIGMA Principles of Public Administration (2017[27]) thus recommend “designat[ing] one institution with overall responsibility for leading and co-ordinating public administration reform policy and implementation” (OECD-EU SIGMA, 2017[27]). With the aspiration to effectively implement the PSMR and following a goal included therein to task a unit at the Prime Ministry’s Office with “following up on government performance, removing barriers related to the speed of achievement, and enhancing accountability in plans and strategies” (Government of Jordan, 2022[13]), Jordan established the Prime Minister’s Public Sector Modernisation Project Management and Implementation Office (PMIO) in 2022. It was created through the prime minister’s administrative bylaw (Government of Jordan, 2022[28]), which introduced changes in the administrative setup of the Prime Ministry.
Following the governmental changes in 2024, the PMIO has experienced an institutional change and now reports to the newly established Minister of State for Public Sector Development, who reports directly to the Prime Minister. While it is too early to assess the new model, this institutional setting could help strengthen the political visibility and the convening power of the PMIO on steering and co-ordination public administration reform efforts, and support decision-making on key priorities, measures and issues on implementing the PSMR.
Under the previous setting, the PMIO had regular meetings and a formalised discussion on public sector modernisation with the prime minister to review progress and initiate required changes. Interviews confirmed that the PMIO currently counted on a high level of political support to steer the implementation process and focus on results. Moreover, the PMIO provides biweekly updates to the crown prince and monthly status updates to the king. This political support has led to the allocation of the budget, which is complemented by financial support from international donors. The appointment of a new Minister for Public Sector Transformation could modify the reporting lines and could further reinforce the relations and communications with the Prime Minister.
While the PSMR provides strategic initiatives and goals for the country to achieve, the PMIO is entrusted with coming up with tangible solutions, proposals and programmes to reach the objectives set out in the strategic document. The PMIO currently assumes four functions to varying extents:
1. Facilitating work of and providing technical implementation support to line ministries and agencies.
2. Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the PSMR.
3. Implementing selected priority projects included in the PSMR: for instance, introducing principles for regulatory impact analysis.
4. Promoting and communicating the PSMR across and beyond government through the development of a communication strategy as well as plans and programmes to enhance institutional culture and change management across public administration.
While the PMIO currently concentrates on providing technical support to line ministries and implementing selected projects, its tasks for public sector modernisation reflect the four most frequently found responsibilities centres of governments play in public administration reforms across the OECD. As shown in Figure 1.4, in a majority of surveyed OECD countries, centres of government (typically the Prime Minister's Office, government offices and/or presidential administration) support the implementation of reforms, provide advice or guidance on reforms to ministries (62%), promote reforms (58%) and monitor the progress of reforms (54%) (OECD, 2024[1]).
Note: n=26. Respondents to the survey were asked: “What activities does the centre of government do in public administration reforms in your country?”.
Source: OECD (2024[1]), Steering from the Centre of Government in Times of Complexity: Compendium of Practices, https://doi.org/10.1787/69b1f129-en.
To support the implementation of the PSMR, the PMIO provides capacity, resources and guidance to line ministries and agencies. For the 51 priorities chosen for 2023, the PMIO developed project cards that constitute action plans, detailing the institutional responsibility, donor support as well as implementation milestones. Moreover, the PMIO sometimes hires external consultants to provide expertise and support ministry work, while in other cases, they organise capacity building and training. Initially, this relatively new approach was reported to be met with resistance. However, following the consolidation of the work and political support, the PMIO is now perceived to bring value to the work done by line ministries and agencies.
The PMIO’s latest institutional structure is organised around the priorities and components of the PSMR and of public administration reforms in Jordan, particularly on digitalisation. One unit supervises the digital transformation of the public sector while the Public Sector Modernization Program Management and Implementation Unit is structured around three teams working on government services, HR and institutional development. Under the latter unit, a dedicated office is also tasked with following-up and evaluating the implementation of PSMR. While the structure corresponds to the key missions and activities of the PMIO, it will be important to ensure that the PMIO has the authority, political support and capacity to deliver on its priorities across the administration.
The PMIO has reported at the end of 2024 on the progress and achievements made under the Public Sector Modernisation Roadmap for 2024. The creation of Service Centres and the further digitalisation of services, with 60% of all services digitalised as of 2024, are contributing to the enhancement of government services for citizens. The overall public sector model is currently being modernised and restructured to enhance its impact, effectiveness and capacity. As part of these efforts, ministries are being restructured, including the Ministry of Investment and MoPIC with new models and units. In particular, MoPIC is currently developing a new structure and its capacities, with the aim to reinforce its role, mandate and capabilities in strategic planning. Capabilities across the administration are being enhanced, including on data with the creation of the National Interactive Data Center that could further support evidence and data-based policymaking, and on HR and public administration reform with the development of SPAC and of new HRM systems and tools. Further efforts to implement these new developments in the following years, particularly in the strategic planning and public administration reform systems, will be crucial to ensure the achievement of long-term objectives of Jordan.
Towards monitoring and evaluating the implementation of public sector modernisation
A key responsibility of the PMIO, which is still in the process of being fully developed, is the implementation of the PSMR. Setting up a monitoring system across numerous ministries and agencies for the plethora of objectives included in the roadmap is a significant task that requires time and expertise. Together with its designated counterparts in each ministry, the PMIO has developed project cards to track the progress made on the roadmap through regular updates, requests for evidence of implementation and verification of the reports. A particular challenge for tracking progress that was reported during interviews is the definition of suitable and sufficiently specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART) indicators. Providing counterparts with guidelines and training on collecting, managing and reporting implementation data and evidence could help ensure monitoring quality and contribute to developing a more sustainable monitoring ecosystem.
The PMIO could consider formally setting up a network of liaison staff working on public sector modernisation in line ministries and agencies. By designating liaison staff and setting up a network, the PMIO could establish a structured and organised mechanism for sharing information, updates and feedback, enhancing the efficiency of the monitoring process. This formal network can ensure that relevant data and insights are systematically communicated among stakeholders, facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the monitored activities. It also promotes the exchange of experience and practices, fosters co-operation and helps maintain consistency in monitoring methodologies, contributing to a more effective and cohesive monitoring effort.
In terms of tools, the intra-PMIO plans to replicate the PMDU’s new monitoring dashboard to track progress on the EMV, which could significantly ease the PMIO’s work, help set up an efficient monitoring system and create further momentum for public sector modernisation. Regular automatic updates on implementation could inform the technical and political counterparts in ministries, complement the current monthly reporting to a unit in the Royal Hashemite Court’s economic department and help flag delays and challenges with implementation.
With regard to the evaluation of public sector modernisation initiatives, the PMIO has started work to determine their effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and impact. A mid-term review of the PSMR’s implementation, which includes an evaluation of the initiatives implemented to date, is underway.
Further institutionalising the PMIO and co-ordinating with SPAC
Jordan’s PMIO was created by a Prime minister’s administrative bylaw that defines the unit’s mandate and has helped steer and ensure the implementation of the PSMR since its establishment. Several areas of opportunity emerged from OECD-led interviews and exchanges with stakeholders: indeed, the government of Jordan may consider supporting the further institutionalisation of the PMIO’s work, especially given the new changes in reporting mechanisms. In addition, while the bylaw is publicly available, it must be widely known across government and with regard to counterparts and international donors to strengthen the unit’s legitimacy and promote accountability and transparency.
Enshrining an institution’s roles and responsibilities, in particular related to tasks and processes that span the administrative boundaries of one or more institutions, can be beneficial for several reasons. First, a law, bylaw, regulation or policy document can provide a (legal) foundation for the institution’s work, clearly defining its purpose, functions and authority, which is essential to establish legitimacy to work across government and maintain accountability and transparency. A clear mandate ensures that the institution operates within defined parameters, preventing arbitrary actions and promoting consistency. Additionally, having a clearly defined mandate strengthens the unit’s legitimacy, instils public trust and helps safeguard against undue political influence. It also offers a basis for evaluating the unit’s performance and holds it accountable to both the government and the citizens it serves. Overall, embedding a unit’s mandate in a legal or policy document establishes a robust framework for its existence, operation and adherence to established principles, contributing to the overall stability and effectiveness of the government. A mandate could also help ensure that “the division of functions and responsibilities between institutions involved in implementing and co-ordinating [public administration reform] is clear, and there is no duplication or overlap; institutions involved are aware of their functions and responsibilities” (OECD-EU SIGMA, 2017[27]).
Temporary government co-ordination and implementation units for public administration reform can be established to strategically focus and expedite reform initiatives to ensure efficient co-ordination and timely execution within a defined timeframe. At the same time, the establishment and maturation of new government units often take considerable time due to the complexities involved in organisational structuring, resource allocation, personnel recruitment and the development of effective operational procedures. In line with the end date of the first action plan of the PSMR in 2025, the PMIO is only established on a temporary basis. After three years of operation, in 2025, a comprehensive performance and impact assessment study of the PMIO’s work is planned. For the sake of ensuring reform continuity and keeping momentum for public sector modernisation beyond the end of the current PSMR, the government of Jordan could consider strengthening the PMIO’s operational existence to secure reform continuity and sustain the momentum of public sector modernisation beyond 2025.
The PMIO should be further institutionalised in the context of a new public administration reform entity, the Public Service and Administration Commission (SPAC). Following public sector modernisation endeavours, the government of Jordan created SPAC in November 2023, with the mission to develop and unify the administrative services provided by the public departments and administration and to establish principles of governance and compliance within the public service and administration. This includes tasks related to the management of policy and standard development in human resources, leadership, institutional culture, organisation transparency and performance, compliance, advisory support and job evaluation in the civil service. Replacing the Civil Service Bureau as a high-level entity reporting directly to the Prime Minister, SPAC reports to the prime minister and its president has the same rank as a minister (Government of Jordan, 2023[16]).
The roles, responsibilities and activities of the PMIO and SPAC need to be delineated and co-ordinated, which reinforces the need for a clear mandate for the PMIO. From their respective tasks and devoted activities, the PMIO can play a strategic role in steering, supporting and guiding line ministries, as well as monitoring the implementation of the PSMR and public administration reform initiatives as a whole, while SPAC can play a crucial role on the standards, organisation and performance assessment of the administration, including operational support to ministries in these areas. The co-ordination between both entities can be supported through direct and formal governance arrangements, including a regular board meeting between the management of both entities and their teams to align activities and needs and ensure consistency between PSMR objectives and the SPAC mandate.
The government of Jordan is considering the creation of a Public Sector Modernisation Committee that could play this function. Some OECD countries have established a “formal administrative co-ordination structure that handles operational [public administration reform] management issues, provides regular reports on progress in [public sector modernisation], identifies obstacles to progress and devises possible ways to overcome them” (OECD-EU SIGMA, 2017[27]). Such a co-ordination structure could help gather all relevant stakeholders with relevant competency and capacity. While this would first and foremost include line ministry representatives, Jordan could include non-governmental actors such as academic, civil society organisation or private sector and donor representatives, in regular consultation. Responsible for co‑ordinating PSMR implementation, the PMIO could carry out secretariat functions in support. Examples of such co-ordination structures for public administration reforms can be found in Chile, Czechia, France or the United States (Box 1.8). The structure in Jordan could be headed by the deputy prime minister in charge of public administration and gather key entities involved in public administration reform, including the PMIO, SPAC, the Institute of Public Administration, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Entrepreneurship, MoPIC as well as other relevant agencies.
Chile’s Permanent Advisory Council for State Modernisation acts as an advisory and co-ordination body. Being administratively dependent on the Ministry General Secretariat of the Presidency, it comprises 12 councillors and a president, all appointed by the president of Chile and with recognised experience in public and/or private management. The councillors are representatives from government, municipalities, academia, civil society organisations, think tanks and the private sector. As an advisory body, the council provides a long-term vision and contributes to a sense of urgency and continuity to the modernisation process. Its co-ordination functions consist of aligning with other government advisory entities whose objectives are directly related to state modernisation and public management.
In Czechia, the Government Council for Public Administration is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the PAR Strategy 2030 and supporting the joint model of public administration. Established by government resolution in 2014, the council is located in the Ministry of the Interior and its president is always the Minister of the Interior. The council brings together representatives from line ministries (Ministry of Regional Development, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Ministry of Industry and Trade, at least at the level of deputy ministers) and regional and local governments. The council is mandated to monitor the PAR Strategy 2030 through a dedicated working group and make proposals to the government for decision.
France has a high-level Inter-ministerial Council for Public Transformation that is headed by the prime minister and brings together all ministries. The council meets once a year to determine the reform priorities for public sector transformation in France, discuss progress and make decisions on key activities and next steps. The council has recently defined 12 priority commitments to reform the public administration and services in replacement to the former public administration modernisation plan, Action Publique 2022. Its secretary is the director of the Inter-ministerial Directorate for Public Transformation.
In the United States, the President’s Management Council (PMC) is an inter-departmental entity responsible for improving government-wide management and co-ordination practices. The council is made up of high-ranking administration officials from major executive branch agencies, primarily deputy secretaries, deputy administrators and agency heads from the General Services Administration and Office of Personnel Management. The PMC is tasked with overseeing the implementation of policies and programmes as well as performance and management leadership provision throughout government bodies. Moreover, it advises the president and the Office of Management and Budget on reform initiatives. Given that the PMC’s members come from key administrative institutions and the PMC plays a crucial role in the development of government plans, it provides the highest level of accountability for both the improvement of internal processes and the implementation of plans.
Source: OECD (2023[3]), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Czech Republic. Towards a More Modern and Effective Public Administration, https://doi.org/10.1787/41fd9e5c-en.
Building capacity and providing resources for reform
A crucial success factor for public sector modernisation is that the lead unit also has the capacity to carry out its responsibilities. It requires adequate financial resources and staff in charge of managing and co‑ordinating reforms need to be “experienced with knowledge and skills in communication, teamwork, development, planning, organisation and conceptual, analytical and creative thinking, and they receive regular training” (OECD-EU SIGMA, 2017[27]). The PMIO is equipped with its budget and currently counts on sufficient financial means from donors to fund its work. At the same time, the limiting character of the current office space in the Prime Minister’s Office was reported to undermine the unit’s functioning. The PMIO’s recent setup at the beginning of 2023 was followed by an institutionalisation phase to build the necessary capacity. Enabled through sufficient resources and the ability to pay salaries in line with remuneration standards at the Royal Hashemite Court, the unit is now comprised of a recently established small team of staff with a broad array of skills to fulfil the PMIO’s various roles. Nevertheless, recruitment and human resource management are major challenges for the unit’s future work. Interviews confirmed that the PMIO requires further expertise in communication, donor co-ordination and technical knowledge to implement specific public sector modernisation initiatives. The PMIO is currently working to provide for internal organisation capacities within the unit.
In the meantime, the creation of SPAC has also expanded the capacity to support developments and enhancements in public administration in Jordan. It is expected to have a relatively large staff of experts compared to the PMIO. It could also provide direct support to line ministries and help them expand their competencies and instruments while adhering to the highest standards of public administration quality. These standards could mirror the OECD SIGMA principles and more operational public administration quality tools such as the Common Assessment Framework (CAF, see Box 1.9) and Jordan’s own KACE 5.0 assessment model. The CAF is a self-assessment quality tool for individual public sector organisations that is widely used in European Union member states and elsewhere. It can help support and improve public sector organisations’ performance, quality and resilience over time by exploring criteria for leadership, people management, strategy and planning, partnerships and resources, processes and results (EUPAN, 2020[29]). More than three-quarters of CAF users surveyed by the OECD confirmed that their experience with the framework helped during the COVID-19 crisis (OECD, 2023[30]).
The CAF is a quality management and organisational development tool that aims to reinforce operational performance, organisational excellence, positive societal outcomes of public sector organisations and resilience. Despite not being designed from the perspective of resilience, the CAF can nonetheless help assess the preparedness and adaptation of public organisations to the crisis and help them to be more resilient by looking at measures needed across its various criteria.
The CAF has been embedded in public administrations in European Union member states for more than 20 years and is a model applicable to all types of public sector organisations. More than 2 000 CAF users are registered in the European Institute of Public Administration database, representing a wide range of public sector organisations.
The model, aimed to facilitate self-assessment as an initial step to trigger a process of continuous improvement, includes nine overall criteria that are split between enablers and results. Each of these criteria are split into sub-criterion to make the assessment more precise and comprehensive. Eight horizontal principles of excellence are also defined and mainstreamed across different criteria, such as results orientation, citizen/customer focus, continuous learning, innovation and improvement. The model was last updated in 2020, right before the COVID-19 crisis, and included focuses on resilience, agility and digitalisation.
Note: For more details about the CAF model, please consult: https://www.eipa.eu/caf-resource-centre/ and https://www.eupan.eu/caf/.
Source: OECD (2023[30]), “More resilient public administrations after COVID-19: Lessons from using the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) 2020”, https://doi.org/10.1787/8d10bb06-en.
Depending on the future institutionalisation and developments of both entities, the competencies of the PMIO and SPAC call for developing different levels and types of capacities in each institution to support public administration reform, with a focus on strategic, analytical and monitoring skills in the PMIO and technical and operational expertise as well as standard setting and development and auditing in SPAC.
A number of OECD member countries have developed specific agencies and entities to steer, co-ordinate and implement public administration reform. For instance, France has established the Inter-ministerial Directorate for Public Transformation (Direction interministérielle de la transformation publique, DITP), which combines both strategic and monitoring roles with operational functions and support to line ministries on key reforms, as well as innovation development and dissemination across the administration (Box 1.10). This model might help Jordan delineate the activities of each institution involved in public administration reform.
In France, the DITP plays a central role in driving public administration reform plans and efforts, providing support, guidance and capacity building to line ministries and public agencies and monitoring. The DITP directly reports to the Minister for Public Sector Transformation and the Civil Service and has a staff of 120 experts and consultants. The DITP has recently undergone internal transformation with the creation of an in-house consulting agency for the public sector, grouping 60 agents dedicated to the day-to-day support of public administration bodies in their transformation projects.
Regarding the implementation of policy and public administration priorities, the DITP’s mission is twofold: monitor the government’s priority policies and their territorialisation; and provide direct support to public sector players in their transformation projects. Working closely with ministries and agencies, this support aims to promote innovation, skills development and the transformation of organisations, managerial practices and public management, and accelerate high-impact administrative projects with the support of its teams of in-house experts and consultants.
The DITP supports public sector players in implementing the government’s priority policies, transforming their organisation, improving their operational efficiency, simplifying administrative procedures or processes, and involving citizens and civil society. It offers support services in more than ten areas of expertise, including strategy and transformation consulting, behavioural sciences, operational efficiency and process re-engineering, user experience and administrative simplification, citizen participation and civil society association, collective intelligence, service design, co‑development, coaching, open innovation and experimentation.
In general, the projects in which DITP teams are involved are carried out over short periods, based on targeted objectives and with a concern for impact. They are characterised by a strategic alignment with the government’s public transformation programme and priorities, a strong commitment from the partner administration, positioning as a partner of the supported administration and an objective of transfer and development of skills towards the administrations.
Source: French Government (2024[31]), Qui sommes nous, https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/qui-sommes-nous.
Despite the PMIO’s need to hire staff with experience in project implementation in specific areas, it cannot currently recruit officials from line ministries or agencies who may bring in their much-needed experience and expertise. The creation of a staff mobility programme could be instrumental in addressing the lack of expertise and facilitating the exchange of personnel with specialised skills and knowledge from line ministries. By temporarily deploying staff members with the relevant expertise, such a programme could help inject fresh perspectives, good practices and new skills into the unit and allow line ministries and agencies to profit from the staff’s return. This cross-pollination of talent can promote collaboration and knowledge sharing, enabling both the PMIO and the line ministry to benefit from a broader range of experiences and insights, ultimately contributing to building capacity. Box 1.11 provides an overview of a few staff mobility programmes in OECD countries that could be of interest to the government of Jordan.
In Canada, departments or functional communities may offer a variety of rotation programmes. One example of a centrally managed rotation programme is the Mosaic Leadership Development Programme. The targeted population is employees a level below the executive ranks belonging to the four employment equity groups (women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and members of marginalised groups). The approximate size of the first cohort is 40. Experience-building assignments within the ministry or others within the public service are a required part of the programme.
Belgium’s Talent Exchange is a mobility programme for Belgian public servants from all levels of government, mostly used by federal entities. Talent Exchange allows participating organisations to exchange talent for specific initiatives or projects with a duration of between 6 and 12 months, thereby giving public servants new challenges aligned with their skills and competencies. In 2021, 199 exchanges were published.
Japan conducts exchanges between the public and private sectors and between levels of government, although these programmes are not necessarily two-way exchanges. Thirty-five national public servants were dispatched to the private sector in 2021, while 308 private sector personnel were newly appointed to the government. In addition, 1 788 employees were transferred from the national government to local governments and 3 031 local government employees were accepted by the national government (as of 1 October 2020).
Source: OECD (2023[32]), Public Employment and Management 2023: Towards a More Flexible Public Service, https://doi.org/10.1787/5b378e11-en.
SPAC’s work and responsibilities in evaluating public administration performance can also be linked to the assessment and activities carried out by KACE (Box 1.12). KACE can provide a handful of important resources and public sector analyses that can help reorganise, enhance the processes and upgrade skills in organisations, including in key functions such as strategic planning.
KACE is an institution in Jordan dedicated to fostering a culture of excellence and innovation across public and private sectors, including non-governmental organisations. Established in 2006, KACE develops national excellence frameworks and evaluation criteria, assesses organisations’ performance, advances skills in excellence and innovation, and manages King Abdullah II Awards for Excellence. KACE leverages international best practices in its assessments and guidance and the organisation has extended its expertise by providing technical assistance to other countries in the region.
In 2023, KACE launched the Fifth Generation Excellence Model, a new Jordan Government Excellence Model designed to enhance the responsiveness of governmental entities and service quality of government entities. This model equips institutions with information on efficiency principles, strategic planning, policy implementation, change management, innovation and government modernisation. The model is structured in three pillars: planning, implementation and transformation. Each pillar is supported by main and sub-criteria further divided into capabilities and their corresponding outcomes. In other words, the model connects relevant inputs, outputs and outcomes through the identified criteria. Overall, the Fifth Generation Excellence Model is expected to serve as a practical roadmap for institutions to elevate their performance.
Source: Information provided by KACE.
The Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit
Over the past 20 years, many governments have decided to establish delivery units (DUs) to support the implementation of a number of high-level priorities at the sectoral level. More than 25 countries worldwide have opted to set up DUs at their centre of government (Brown, Kohli and Mignotte, 2021[33]). Evidence from countries suggests that DUs can take various forms and be placed at different levels of government, thus reflecting variations in administrative and performance management traditions (World Bank, 2010[34]). Acting as more formal or informal entities, they are usually integrated into existing networks of planning, strategy development, policy co-ordination, monitoring and evaluation units. Currently, DUs exist in OECD member and partner countries such as Australia, Canada, France, Madagascar, Malaysia, Singapore and Uganda. Often located at the centre of government and usually composed of a small number of staff, DUs are expected to monitor progress on government priorities and help line ministries and agencies deliver their objectives. They typically choose a handful of performance indicators and employ regular progress-tracking methods.
Due to the nature of their work across government, DUs need explicit political backing and endorsement from senior government figures, often the president, prime minister or deputy, to convene across government to address challenges, solve problems and take decisive measures for implementation. Due to their proximity to the centre, they are closely associated with the leader in question (Brown, Kohli and Mignotte, 2021[33]). Access to the head of the executive is crucial to call for binding problem-solving meetings and convening senior policymakers and senior civil servants. Such close association can also become a challenge in the case of government transitions and political leadership changes.
DUs tend to bring new and/or additional perspectives, tools and resources to the table, increase awareness and focus on priority goals, altogether breaking down barriers to achieving results. While DUs intervene in the policymaking process and work closely with different ministries and agencies, the responsibility for end-to-end policy implementation usually rests within the standing institutions (Brown, Kohli and Mignotte, 2021[33]). Therefore, DUs are generally considered to be complementary facilitators to line ministries and agencies’ work rather than being the lead implementers of priorities. In general, DUs take on some or all of the following functions:
Monitoring the implementation of priorities across government.
Promoting and communicating key government priorities across and beyond the public sector.
Maintaining and channelling a focus on results on behalf of the head of the executive.
Sending a clear message that the government is holding ministers and senior staff accountable for achieving the government’s priorities.
Supporting innovation and co-ordination for implementation and providing technical support and a forum for problem solving if required.
Providing financial resources or support the search for funding through internal and external fundraising efforts.
Despite the above-mentioned common features, the rationale for creating the respective unit, the priorities set and the scope of work differ from country to country. For instance, in the United Kingdom, under the Blair administration, the DU focused on the issues citizens were the most dissatisfied with, while in Malaysia, the unit was primarily tasked with long-term economic and government transformation reforms. Moreover, DUs can also be deployed at the subnational level, as is the case for Australia.
In Jordan, the government has sought to operationalise a DU approach on several occasions. Several subsequent DUs existed between 2010 and 2019 and underwent multiple changes to their structure, staffing, functions and mandate under different prime ministers and governments (Qarout, 2022[35]). From 2010 to 2013, a DU staffed with consultants was given a cross-sectoral mandate to follow up on national plans. The unit took on the responsibility of tracking a large number of projects and eventually became a project management office (Gold, 2017[36]). Limited institutionalisation and dwindling political support led to the DU’s eventual abolishment. Re-established in 2015, the DU had a narrower focus on tracking and enabling priority initiatives within the Jordan 2025 strategy. To increase the unit’s institutionalisation and position as regards ministries, it was integrated into the organisational hierarchy and staffed with civil servants instead of external consultants. This institutionalisation aimed to enhance the DU’s role as a supervisory entity, ensuring that ministries were responsible for meeting their sector-specific KPIs. It also addressed the reporting structure and position of the DU within the bureaucratic hierarchy. At the same time, the DU encountered challenges related to its responsibility to follow up with institutions from across the government on more than 100 KPIs (Qarout, 2022[35]). Paired with limited capacity and human resources, the broad mandate impeded the unit’s meaningful engagement in the implementation process and tackling the challenges of single sectors and ministries – a challenge that had persisted from its inception in 2010. Furthermore, there was a need to increase the incentives and levers available to the unit to influence underperforming ministries and agencies (Qarout, 2022[35]). The second DU ceased to exist in 2019.
The government of Jordan established its third DU in 2022. It was initially created to follow up on the Government’s Economic Priorities Programme 2021-23. Later, with the political support of the prime minister and the Royal Hashemite Court, the PMDU became the central government entity responsible for the implementation and delivery of Jordan’s EMV. In line with the PSMR, the government of Jordan also established “central institutional units that enhance follow-up, oversight and accountability over performance, and performance and achievement follow-up units in various ministries” (Government of Jordan, 2022[13]). These specific monitoring units (or performance improvement officers) at the ministerial level directly collaborate and liaise with the PMDU. With the help of MoPIC, all ministry staff members in these mini DUs have received extensive training on the new performance dashboard.
Further institutionalising the PMDU
While it was set up by the same bylaw as the PMIO (see previous section), the PMDU was established permanently (Government of Jordan, 2022[28]). To ensure that the unit’s existence does not depend on political support from individual governments and that the PMDU continues to exist beyond single government cycles, the PMDU has been tied to the vision unit in the Royal Hashemite Court.
Contrary to other countries, no additional legislation or policy framework defines or guides the monitoring and implementation work of the unit. The majority of OECD countries have developed a legal framework that guides the work of units working on policy evaluation, defines approaches and scopes of practices and institutes the work of a long-term policy beyond single electoral mandates. The legal anchors of evaluation can vary substantially across countries. Some countries have specific stipulations in their constitutions (as in the case of Colombia, Costa Rica, France, Germany, Mexico and Switzerland), while others focus on primary or secondary laws. To provide Jordan’s DU with the necessary legitimacy to work across government, the government needs to ensure the DU’s role is sufficiently defined. A clear mandate could help create clarity within the government and communicate the role externally, for instance, to international donors.
In order to further institutionalise DUs, they can be equipped with their own budget and independent financial resources. While such an arrangement depends on their specific organisational and legal status, they operate with a dedicated budget allocated to their functions in some countries. In contrast, others draw resources from the overall budget of the larger government entity they are part of. The financial arrangement can vary based on the goals, priorities and policies of the organisation or government implementing the DU. In Jordan, the PMDU currently does not count on its budget and funding constraints are reported to be a major challenge to the unit’s operation. The government of Jordan could thus consider providing the DU with its own financial resources. In light of the lack of funding, it is particularly important that the DU closely co-ordinates with the Ministry of Finance or budget office, as the implementation of priority projects often requires additional funds for line ministries. The PMDU can help guide additional allocations or use discretionary funds (Brown, Kohli and Mignotte, 2021[33]).
Driving performance through the centre of government monitoring
A core task of many DUs is to track the progress of priorities across the government. “Light, nimble data collection and reporting systems that [are] not expensive or onerous to operate and maintain” as well as “systematic, regular monitoring of performance to assure responsible ministers maintain a continual focus on the objective” are two key factors for successful performance monitoring (World Bank, 2010[34]).
With a view to amending existing monitoring tools such as monthly, quarterly and semi-annual reports and to create a simple and direct monitoring mechanism for the deliverables included in the EMV, the PMDU recently completed the Prime Minister’s Office development of an online monitoring system and corresponding dashboard (www.pmdu.gov.jo). This can help create further momentum for monitoring and build commitment to the cause of performance management.
Since August 2023, this detailed dashboard has served internally to track progress on more than 442 priorities and projects, with the longest breakdown of 3 months. This allows the DU to detect potential problems or challenges related to implementation in a timely manner. Each ministry is granted full access to its projects. A version that tracks all government programmes is also publicly accessible.
The digital dashboard tracks the economic development priorities and initiatives outlined in the EMV’s Executive Programme (2023-25). The tool presents KPIs, responsible ministries and agencies, and respective implementation timeframes. It allows to see the current status of programme delivery and shows how many are completed, not started, delayed or making progress and what the reasons for delays in the implementation of certain projects/priorities are. Users can filter projects by responsible entity, sectors or growth drivers. In addition, the platform offers an up-to-date overview of the country’s macroeconomic development. Lastly, quarterly performance reports are readily accessible on the website.
The dashboard allows line ministries and agencies to directly input their data into the system and submit the progress reports digitally. The minister or delegate validates data before they are shared with the PMDU. The PMDU then checks the quality of the report and submits it to the dashboard. This new approval procedure places more responsibility on ministries and creates a more efficient monitoring environment. Interviews with government officials further confirm that the new dashboard has led to a renewed focus on indicators in line ministries and increased attention to progress by ministers. Moreover, the media and international donors are reported to be frequent users of the new publicly available dashboard.
As a result of the creation of the dashboard and corresponding system, implementing agencies submit monthly reports online; the PMDU reviews the monthly progress reports (for all activities within those priorities) every month. In addition to these, entities are required to submit quarterly reports on the overall progress of implementation on the internal dashboard, which detail challenges observed and interventions needed. Based on these internal reports, the PMDU prepares a quarterly report that is published on the dashboard. Tying expenditures to the results obtained by adding financial indicators could also further support economic assessment and cost efficiency of the measures implemented and help inform resource reallocation.
Moving from monitoring to delivery through further prioritisation
There is a growing consensus that DUs are most effective when they focus only on a limited number of explicit and well-defined priorities they help achieve (World Bank, 2010[34]). Without a clear set of projects and initiatives to work on, DUs can be forced to stretch their capacity over a plethora of government activities. They cannot provide the in-depth technical assistance and support they were established for. To prevent such situations and build additional legitimacy across the public sector, DUs need to focus on mission results and a clear mandate on what to focus on and why (Brown, Kohli and Mignotte, 2021[33]). This requires the selection and prioritisation of policies and activities. In this process, it is particularly crucial to focus on priorities that are neither too broad nor too ambiguous, shared by the majority of stakeholders involved in delivery, operationalised through measurable indicators and whose outcomes matter to citizens (Shostak et al., 2023[37]).
Due to its recent establishment, with the absence of a mandate set in a policy document and of a prioritisation mechanism, Jordan’s PMDU is currently responsible for tracking a total of 514 government priorities linked to the implementation of the EMV and could further focus its role and activities on a limited set of priorities. Moreover, the number of priorities has continuously increased over time. To enable the PMDU to move from a mere monitoring unit to a results-oriented unit that facilitates the implementation of policies, solidifying priorities would allow staff to look at a small set of priority projects and deep dive into implementation. By assisting with the removal of implementation barriers, supporting co-ordination and providing help to increase performance, the PMDU could provide added value to line ministries and agencies (World Bank, 2010[34]). In similar structures in OECD member countries, the prime minister sets the list of focus priorities for DUs based on their mandate’s key strategic plans, government programmes or policy priorities.
Governments have a number of tools and approaches at their disposal that can be applied to prioritise initiatives and interventions. Box 1.13 provides an overview of different practices in Canada, Colombia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. While the PMDU has started to develop an internal scoring system to determine potential future priorities based on impact, no decision has been made. In a move toward a more delivery-oriented approach, Jordan’s PMDU has started to experiment with project implementation support. Still, there is a further need to systematise the technical assistance provided to ministries and agencies. It will also be important to clarify the relationship between the PMDU and its partner organisations. In addition to informal contacts, institutional relations must be clarified to ensure the PMDU can attend relevant line ministry meetings and receive project-related communication and information. A partnership approach, where the PMDU facilitates and supports delivery but line ministries are responsible for implementation and receiving the credit for successful delivery, has proven to work well in many countries. Further focus on prioritisation could thus help Jordan to focus on a delivery approach and leverage the potential of its DU.
Translating strategy into a set of priorities in Colombia
In Colombia, the National Development Plan (2014-18) consisted of 831 indicators that were monitored by responsible ministries, departments and agencies. Within those, the centre of government’s delivery unit focused on 21 selected priorities (or “mega-goals”) and an additional set of sectoral goals. From the centre, the plan was monitored by the National Planning Department (Departamento Nacional de Planeación).
A focus on an outcomes approach in the United Kingdom
In 2010, the United Kingdom government created a dedicated Cabinet sub-committee to identify the top priorities from a whole-of-government perspective. The previous approach, which asked individual departments to identify priorities, was replaced by the committee’s work to create a centralised vision, relying on cross-departmental agreement and progress measurements.
Outcome delivery plans (ODP), introduced in 2021, lay out specifics of how each department works to achieve its priority outcomes. Instead of the narrow departmental priorities from the previous single department plans, the ODP emphasises inter-departmental work. This enables better outcomes for cross-cutting priorities and centralised monitoring.
The ODP is a helpful tool for the prime minister to oversee performance across institutions and to hold ministers and the civil service accountable. Key enablers are setting clear responsibilities and consistent co-ordination mechanisms, and ensuring departmental equality in terms of visibility and contribution to the plans.
Boosting performance through focused priorities in New Zealand
Cross-cutting issues can create a challenge requiring comprehensive views and multi-agency co‑operation. To address this, in 2012, New Zealand adopted the Better Public Services programme with a limited number of priorities and gathered institutions around their achievement.
The government of New Zealand met several times to agree on the ten most persistent social problems to be addressed by the public administration over a five-year term. The plan prescribed ambitious targets and set out baseline progress indicators. Public reports were published every six months, making the group collectively accountable. Performance increased in all areas.
This approach required the public administration, including the centre of government (the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Treasury and the Public Service Commission) to overcome agency barriers and silos. Commitment to the goals set out and a relatively stable political environment were key enablers.
Source: Shostak, R. et al. (2023[37]), The Center of Government, Revisited: A Decade of Global Reforms, https://publications.iadb.org/en/center-government-revisited-decade-global-reforms.
Once a certain prioritisation has taken place and the DU increases its focus on delivery, the overall task of monitoring progress on the EMV could be relocated to another institutional entity. A 2018 OECD Survey on Policy Evaluation found that units in the centre of government (in 27 countries), the Ministry of Finance (in 26 countries) and the Ministry of Planning (in 7 countries) are the most common institutions in charge of policy monitoring and evaluation across government (OECD, 2020[38]). In the case of Jordan, the Ministry of Finance or MoPIC could, for instance, take over this role.
Performance dialogue and management are crucial and powerful enablers to deliver on priorities (OECD, 2024[1]). This involves creating a system that structures routines, standardised tools and organisational arrangements for steering and monitoring progress in implementing priorities. In practice, governments have established defined procedures, shared tools (e.g. dashboards, KPIs), and inter-ministerial co‑ordination meetings focusing on delivery that can discuss, review and accelerate the progress on specific items and priorities based on monitoring tools and results. For instance, the United Kingdom’s Cabinet Office organises monthly meetings of key contact points in each ministry in charge of the ODP and of senior management, as well as quarterly meetings with state secretaries of the various ministries to ensure that the government is on track with the priorities defined in the ODP and monitored through the joint online Grip dashboard. These practices underline the need for the PMDU to also set up the relevant dialogue performance mechanisms to support discussions and decisions on the progress of key priorities that are outlined by the dashboard. This would call, for instance, for structured meetings with contact points and senior management in line ministries.
A reinforced focus on delivery and results also requires different human resources and skills to establish a team that monitors and understands sectoral projects and facilitates their implementation to foster impact. A DU’s staff needs to be capable of examining complex policy issues through a whole-of-government perspective and assist in overcoming implementation obstacles that may exist in single institutions across the public sector or originate outside of the government (Brown, Kohli and Mignotte, 2021[33]). While DUs are often only equipped with a small team, sometimes recruited from the public and private sector, they usually count on highly skilled staff members, a DU’s greatest asset. These may be recruited on a permanent basis, provided with temporary contracts (for instance, in the case of Malaysia) or seconded from line ministries or agencies involved in delivery. To attract high-skilled individuals, some countries allow DUs to recruit on competitive salaries that may exceed public sector remuneration standards. In Jordan, the PMDU is currently composed of ten staff members, including the director of the DU. Currently, no secondments from line ministries or agencies form part of the PMDU. The government of Jordan could consider establishing a staff mobility programme to temporarily provide the PMDU with highly skilled line ministry staff (for additional information, see Box 1.11).
Following decades of planning practices, Jordan has embarked on a major reform path with a new generation of comprehensive national strategic documents supported by executive and action plans, dedicated support and monitoring units and a new planning law that can help consolidate roles. Jordan could further reinforce its policy framework for strategic planning and the implementation of strategic documents. This would aim to streamline the number of national and sectoral plans that exist in various formats, which can create difficulties in implementation and ensuring coherence. Such efforts could involve cancelling outdated or irrelevant plans. Furthermore, Jordan lacks a clear hierarchy and complementarity between its numerous strategic documents, making it more difficult to follow up and evaluate policies prescribed in the plans.
Current reform efforts, including through the new planning law, can contribute to clarifying roles, ownership and guidance. While national plans benefit from clear assignments and follow-ups, such as the EMV by the PMDU, the PSMR by the PMIO and the Reform Matrix by MoPIC, this is not always the case across all sectoral plans and strategies. Further efforts could be needed to establish a robust monitoring and evaluation system, particularly at sectoral levels, as many sectoral strategies lack implementation documents and KPIs, making progress measurement unclear.
Jordan has shown its commitment to strengthening the strategic planning system and overcoming strategic gaps, notably in terms of alignment, instruments, sectors and roles between different government entities. Through an improved complementarity of strategic plans and a renewed focus on implementation as well as the public sector’s capacity, the government aspires to improve the delivery of its priorities and policies. The OECD has identified several areas to further enhance the country’s strategic planning, implementation and performance management processes to support Jordan’s commitments. These opportunity areas are outlined below, suggesting practical steps for key entities, particularly MoPIC, the PMIO and PMDU.
The Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation
To align and integrate Jordan’s strategic planning system, MoPIC could consider:
Implementing and enforcing the law on strategic planning, which includes principles for strategic planning, high-level co‑ordination and alignment mechanisms, and a hierarchy of strategic planning documents.
Defining the hierarchy and complementarity of all national strategic plans and their objectives in a separate planning document or legislation; this could take the format of detailed and separate rules and procedures on the typology, preparations, development and approval processes of strategic plans.
Undertaking a new stocktaking exercise of Jordan’s whole-of-government and sectoral planning documents, including their time frames, objectives, reviews and related action plans to streamline strategic planning; encouraging ministries to address overlaps and finding synergies on specific plans and eliminate outdated, superfluous or not implemented whole-of-government strategic documents for more effective government action; ensuring that all documents are available and centralised in one database for reference.
Ensuring that all remaining and future short-, medium- and long-term whole-of-government and sectoral strategies include cascading activities and goals from the highest-level national plans to ensure short-term goals are aligned and feed into medium-term goals, which contribute to long-term goals, or at the very least are not in contradiction with them.
Establishing an online registry of strategies and portals, including templates for strategies and methodological guidance, displaying documents, their goals and measures, responsibilities for fulfilling them and indicators of success.
To enhance alignment, co‑ordination and challenge functions at the centre of government, several steps could be considered. These measures aim to better integrate both sectoral and whole-of-government strategies, thereby consolidating a unified strategic planning system:
Integrating MoPIC into the systematic review of new strategic plans is essential. This integration would focus on improving the quality of plans, ensuring consistency with other plans and aligning them with national priorities:
Developing and enforcing the mandate of a MoPIC unit (National Policy Department) to steer the whole-of-government strategic planning process, co‑ordinate the preparations of key national strategies, support the alignment of national and sectoral documents, review and challenge all future national strategic planning documents before finalisation to ensure they link effectively to whole-of-government priorities and the existing planning framework, ensure that sectoral strategies are established in all relevant areas, harmonise strategic documents, co‑ordinate the work of strategic units in line ministries (and support their creation when they do not exist) and progressively develop capabilities in the entire administration.
Preparing a strategic planning manual within the new MoPIC unit that would help unify the planning system, can be shared across the government and provide more detailed guidance to help public bodies responsible for the development of strategic plans; the manual could include a typology and hierarchy of strategic documents and templates, and guidelines on KPIs, objective setting, how to link with other national and sectoral plans, action plans and implementation mechanisms.
Improving intrinsic capacity for sectoral planning in Jordan, in particular, to remedy the asymmetry in skills and resources across line ministries by identifying partners and potential gaps in line ministries and by providing resources to the MoPIC unit to support the development of strategic capabilities in all line ministries and agencies, for instance by organising training and coaching sessions on strategic planning.
To enhance co‑ordination with other institutions responsible for strategic planning:
Establishing a network of strategic planning units and contacts across line ministries led by MoPIC to discuss the strategic alignment of documents, share guidelines, tools and expertise and help build capacities across the administration; the network could meet every month.
Strengthening collaboration with the GBD to ensure efficient fund allocation and alignment between strategic objectives, KPIs and allocated budget. In that regard, developing clear processes and mechanisms linking strategic planning and budget, for instance, ensures: the involvement of MoPIC, GBD and the authoring line ministry during the design phase of strategic plans; that costs of measures are assessed and priorities funded through a formal strategic review meeting at the concept phase; the appointment of contact points on strategic planning and budget in line ministries, or the creation of a working group following the financing of strategic plans within the budget process with the same interlocutors; the alignment of objectives, KPIs and financial allocations in strategic plans and implementation plans during their preparation and in the budget process; the systematic measurement and evaluation of plans against KPIs and allocated funds.
To develop consistent and harmonised outcome-focused KPIs across strategic plans and objectives:
Refining KPIs to emphasise outcomes rather than solely focusing on progress or inputs.
Ensuring that all strategic documents include well-defined and SMART KPIs with targets and timelines.
Creating and reviewing connections and cascading between high-level KPIs from national plans into sectoral strategies.
To create detailed guidelines and toolkits to integrate stakeholder engagement and citizen participation within the planning cycle:
Promoting and facilitating a supportive administrative culture for stakeholder engagement in strategic planning, for instance by providing guidance and templates on how to design stakeholder and citizen engagement strategies, which can range from information to co-creation or holding public consultations and hearings at the sectoral or agency level.
Reinforcing the institutional framework for stakeholder engagement by building effective feedback loops by ensuring stakeholder and citizen engagement activities (national conferences, consultations, hearings, community scorecards) are carried out at a time that enables their outputs to be included in the process.
Requiring institutions to provide feedback to stakeholders on how their input was used.
The Prime Minister’s Public Sector Modernisation Project Management and Implementation Office
To effectively support and modernise the public sector, the PMIO could consider:
Reinforcing the co-ordination, monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of public sector modernisation:
Providing PSMR implementation counterparts with precise guidelines and training on collecting, managing and reporting implementation data and evidence, enhancing the quality of monitoring efforts and establishing a more sustainable monitoring ecosystem.
Considering the formal establishment of a network of liaison staff working on public modernisation in line ministries and agencies. This structured and organised monitoring mechanism would ensure systematic and consistent monitoring of information exchange and foster co‑operation between different stakeholders.
Continuing work on a monitoring dashboard and publishing the results of progress made on KPIs that will be particularly helpful for the PMIO’s Roadmap Achievement Office; sharing these results with the whole government and selected ones with the general public. Regular automatic updates would flag delays and challenges in the implementation of the PSMR.
Further institutionalising the PMIO and delineating responsibilities with SPAC:
Promoting the PMIO’s mandate and role across government and as regards international donors to strengthen its legitimacy and promote accountability and transparency.
Considering strengthening the PMIO’s operational existence to secure reform continuity and sustain the momentum of public sector modernisation beyond 2025.
Clearly delineating PMIO and SPAC functions on public administration reform, particularly by highlighting the strategic steering, co‑ordination and monitoring functions of the PMIO, including with regard to line ministries and agencies.
Codifying the relationship between the PMIO and SPAC, possibly through a memorandum of understanding, and establishing formal, regular bilateral co‑ordination mechanisms between the two entities to ensure alignment, complementary actions and synergies on public administration reform.
Establishing and organising regular meetings of the Public Sector Modernisation Council, headed by the newly appointed Minister of State for Public Sector Development, composed of line ministry and other representatives to set and review priorities, make decisions with a focus on the PSMR. This body could gather the heads of the PMIO, SPAC, Institute of Public Administration, MoPIC, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Entrepreneurship, and other key agencies on public administration reform (such as KACE). The PMIO could act as a secretariat to support its co‑ordination functions in the implementation of the PSMR. The decisions of the Council should also be shared and submitted to the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers when needed.
Considering also establishing a more operational, quarterly inter-ministerial committee with interlocutors from the same institutions (PMIO, SPAC, Institute of Public Administration, MoPIC, Ministry of Digital Economy and Entrepreneurship) at a more operational level to discuss implementation, identify obstacles to progress and devise possible ways to overcome them.
Considering shared donor mapping to manage fundraising efforts between the PMIO and the MoPIC Foreign Funding Unit to avoid overlaps and ensure a coherent approach across different government entities.
Building capacity and providing resources for reform:
Establishing a staff mobility programme to address limited capacity and expertise by facilitating the temporary exchange of personnel with specialised skills and knowledge from line ministries and supporting current priorities and programmes.
Expanding PMIO and SPAC capabilities in their respective activities to ensure co‑ordination, guidance and support for line ministries in implementing the public administration reform agenda.
The Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit
To enhance the effectiveness and impact of the PMDU, the following steps could be considered:
Further institutionalising the PMDU:
Defining the PMDU’s mandate in a policy or legal document to create clarity regarding the unit’s roles and responsibilities, foster legitimacy and promote its work across government and with regard to international partners and donors.
Considering allocating a dedicated budget or independent financial resources to the PMDU that can be invested in key priorities.
Transitioning from a monitoring focus to a delivery approach:
Encouraging the identification of a few priorities (tentatively five to seven) from the EMV in line with the prime minister’s priorities to focus the PMDU’s intervention on selected measures and topics, including close monitoring and support to line ministries involved in delivering these priorities.
Focusing on the prioritisation of projects and initiatives and solidifying the PMDU’s tasks to move from a monitoring focus to a results-oriented approach to facilitate line ministry project implementation, assisting with removing implementation barriers, supporting co‑ordination and providing help to increase performance.
Continuing to experiment with project implementation support and gradually systematising the PMDU’s technical assistance provided to ministries and agencies.
Clarifying the relationship between the PMDU and its partner organisations and adopting a partnership approach, where the PMDU facilitates and supports delivery but line ministries are responsible for implementation and receive the credit for successful delivery. This can involve the preparation of memoranda of understanding to clarify the responsibilities, activities and resources to be mobilised by each partner.
Developing performance dialogue mechanisms with line ministries and key agencies involved in delivering the EMV on the implementation progress based on dashboard results, for instance monthly meetings with key contact points in each organisation and quarterly meetings with the senior level to discuss priorities, explore solutions and make decisions.
Once the unit’s priorities are solidified, considering relocating the responsibility for general monitoring of the EMV from the PMDU to another institutional entity (e.g. MoPIC, given its role in strategic planning).
Considering establishing a staff mobility programme to temporarily provide the PMDU with highly skilled line ministry staff experienced in policy implementation and delivery.
References
[33] Brown, D., J. Kohli and S. Mignotte (2021), Tools at the Centre of Government. Research and Practitioners Insights, https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2021-09/Tools%20at%20the%20centre%20of%20government%20-%20Practitioners%27%20Insight%202021.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2023).
[2] Bryson, J. (2011), Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, Wiley.
[9] Commission Spéciale sur le NMD (2021), Le Nouveau Modèle de Développement, Rapport Général, avril 2021, https://www.csmd.ma/documents/Rapport_General.pdf.
[15] ESC (2023), Outcomes of National Dialogues on Public Sector Modernisation Plan, Economic and Social Council of Jordan.
[29] EUPAN (2020), Common Assessment Framework 2020 Manual, European Public Administration Network, https://www.eupan.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CAF-2020-English.pdf.
[31] French Government (2024), Qui sommes nous, Direction interministérielle de la transformation publique/Ministry of Public Transformation and Civil Service, https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/qui-sommes-nous.
[25] GBD (2024), Tasks and Duties, Achievements and Activities, Government Budget Department, https://www.gbd.gov.jo/en.
[36] Gold, J. (2017), Tracking Delivery: Global Trends and Warning Signs in Delivery Units, Institute for Government, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Global%20Delivery%20report.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2023).
[26] Government of Jordan (2024), Official Site of the e-Government of Jordan, General Budget Department, https://form.jordan.gov.jo/wps/portal/Home/GovernmentEntities/Ministries/Ministry/Ministry%20of%20Finance/General%20Budget%20Department?current=true&nameEntity=General%20Budget%20Department&entityType=sub#:~:text=in%20terms%20of%3A-,1.,programs%20and%20financing%20is%20eliminated. (accessed on 18 December 2023).
[16] Government of Jordan (2023), Public Service and Administration Authority system, Regulation No. (80) of 2023.
[6] Government of Jordan (2022), Economic Modernisation Vision: Unleashing Potential to Build the Future, https://www.jordanvision.jo/img/vision-en.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2023).
[28] Government of Jordan (2022), Law on the Administrative Organisation of the Prime Minister’s Office.
[13] Government of Jordan (2022), Public Sector Modernization: The Roadmap, https://govreform.jo/EBV4.0/Root_Storage/EN/EB_Info_Page/Road_map.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2023).
[20] Government of Jordan (n.d.), “Planning and International Cooperation Law”.
[21] MoPIC (2023), About the Ministry, Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation.
[11] MoPIC (2023), Jordan’s Reform Matrix (2018-2024), Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation, https://www.mop.gov.jo/ebv4.0/root_storage/en/eb_list_page/jo_updated_reform_matrix_final_eng_may2023-0.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2023).
[23] MoPIC (2023), Reform Matrix, Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation, https://www.mop.gov.jo/EN/List/Reform_secertariat?View=1088.
[24] MoPIC (2022), Reform Matrix: 2021 - At a Glance, Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation.
[22] MoPIC (n.d.), Organizational Structure, Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation, https://mop.gov.jo/En/Pages/Organizational_Structure (accessed on 9 October 2023).
[10] OECD (2024), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Palestinian Authority: Strengthening Public Administration for Better Outcomes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7425e72f-en.
[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.
[8] OECD (2023), Examens de l’OCDE sur la gouvernance publique : Maroc: Pour une administration résiliente au service des citoyens, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1a0272c0-fr.
[30] OECD (2023), “More resilient public administrations after COVID-19: Lessons from using the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) 2020”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 29, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8d10bb06-en.
[3] 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.
[32] OECD (2023), Public Employment and Management 2023: Towards a More Flexible Public Service, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5b378e11-en (accessed on 17 October 2023).
[19] 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.
[4] OECD (2022), Centre of Government Review of Brazil: Toward an Integrated and Structured Centre of Government, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/33d996b2-en.
[18] OECD (2020), Building resilience to the Covid-19 pandemic: the role of centres of government, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/883d2961-en.
[38] OECD (2020), Improving Governance with Policy Evaluation: Lessons From Country Experiences, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/89b1577d-en.
[14] OECD (2017), OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, OECD/LEGAL/0438, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438#dates.
[5] OECD (2016), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Peru: Integrated Governance for Inclusive Growth, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264265172-en.
[7] OECD (n.d.), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Egypt, OECD Publishing, Paris, forthcoming.
[27] OECD-EU SIGMA (2017), The Principles of Public Administration, OECD, Paris, https://sigmaweb.org/publications/Principles-of-Public-Administration_Edition-2017_ENG.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2023).
[35] Qarout, D. (2022), “The accountability paradox: Delivery units in Jordan’s education sector 2010-2019”, DeliverEd Initiative Working Paper, https://educationcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/The-Accountability-Paradox-Delivery-Units-in-Jordans-Education-Sector.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2023).
[17] Royal Committee to Modernize the Political System (2021), Reform Recommendations to Modernize the Political System.
[37] Shostak, R. et al. (2023), The Center of Government, Revisited: A Decade of Global Reforms, https://publications.iadb.org/en/center-government-revisited-decade-global-reforms (accessed on 11 December 2023).
[12] World Bank (2023), Project Information Document (PID). Strengthening Reform Management in Jordan: Additional Financing, World Bank, Washington, DC.
[34] World Bank (2010), GET Note: Center of Government Delivery Units, “Recently Asked Questions” Series, World Bank, Washington, DC.