OECD Public Governance Reviews: Palestinian Authority

3. Review of the Institutional Framework for Public Administration Reform in the Palestinian Authority

Abstract

The institutional framework for PAR matters. For the reforms to succeed, the strategic framework needs to find its place in a country’s institutional architecture and have support from all the relevant institutions. This section analyses the existing institutional framework for PAR in the Palestinian Authority.

Overview of relevant PAR institutions and committees

PAR Institutions

In the Palestinian Authority, several bodies share functions and competences for public administration reform. However, overlapping and in some cases unclear mandates hamper the effectiveness of subsequent PAR efforts. Based on the desk research, the survey responses and the fact-finding missions the following key institutions could be identified as relevant for public administration reform.

Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)

The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) was created in 2003 to manage the day-to-day activities of the PA and supports the Office of the President (OoP) with the development of policies. Its main functions are the following:

• Preparing the government programme, setting out annual strategic priorities, and development and implementation of the multi-year priorities for the whole-of-government.

• Co-ordinating the strategic planning process for the National Development Plan (NDP) and the related thematic strategies.

• Monitoring the progress of public policies and sectoral strategies.

• Ensuring alignment of the National Development Plan and the different sectoral and crosscutting strategies with the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

• Leading the implementation and monitoring of the SDGs in the PA.

General Secretariat (GS) of the Council of Ministers

The GS provides legal, technical, administrative, and logistical support to the CoM. Its main functions are the following:

• Providing proposals for legislative, financial, or legal reform to the cabinet which are then discussed in preliminary meetings and subsequently ratified or adopted.

• Ensuring coherence, implementation, and monitoring of the GRA.

• Co-ordinating the implementation of e-government and e-services related reforms.

• Issuing instructions towards the monitoring units established in most of the ministries.

• Overseeing monitoring and reporting against the indicators of the NDP’s Strategic Results Framework.

General Personnel Council (GPC)

The GPC ensures the application of civil service law. Its main functions are the following:

• Overseeing recruitment planning (e.g., reviewing organisational structures of institutions and suggesting staffing requirements), recruitment processes (exams, interviews, selection, etc.), training public sector staff, and employee evaluation.

• Steering the implementation of the Sectoral Strategy of the Civil Service 2021-2023.

• Upgrading and developing public administration.

Ministry of Finance (MoF)

The Ministry of Finance prepares financial policies and manages the public budget. It reviews the financial impacts of legislative drafts prepared by other ministries on an ad hoc basis and provides recommendations to the CoM. Its main functions related to PAR are the following:

• Proposing programmes towards public institutions to support good governance in the management of funds.

• Steering the implementation of the Sectoral Strategy for Public Finance Management 2021-2023.

State Audit and Administrative Control Bureau (SAACB)

Following specific request from the PMO or the Office of the President (OoP), the State Audit and Administrative Control Bureau conducts financial and performance audits based on the PA’s main strategic frameworks the NPA, NDP, the Strategic Results Framework and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Palestinian Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC)

The Commission for the Elimination of Illegal Gains was established in 2005. It was replaced by the Palestinian Anti-Corruption Commission in 2010 by Presidential Decree. The Commission enjoys juridical personality and administrative and financial independence. The PACC has execution, co-ordination, and oversight responsibilities for the Cross-Sector Strategy for Integrity and Anticorruption.

PAR Committees

Based on evidence provided to OECD the following committees have been identified as relevant for PAR in the PA:

Higher Committee for Administrative and Legal Reform

This committee on PAR was created by Presidential Decree in October 2021 with a mandate of one year to enhance the co-ordination of administrative reforms. In October 2022, the duration of the committee was prolonged by six months. In December 2022 it was decided that the committee will seize its operations by June 2023. The committee is chaired by the legal advisor of President Abbas and further includes the Secretary-General of the Council of Ministers, the head of the GPC, the head of the Financial and Administrative Oversight Bureau, the head of the Palestinian Pension Agency, the Minister of Justice, a representative of the National Security Council, a representative of the MoF, a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriate Affairs, and a representative of the General Intelligence Service.

The Committee reviews all organisational and legal aspects of public institutions to minimise overlaps and redundancies in mandates and to reduce financial burdens. It mainly deals with highly political and pressing issues like the merging of institutions, the civil service law, and the public wage bill (including reviewing salaries, early retirements, lowering pensions, etc.). It regularly meets every Tuesday and presents monthly reports to the President.

Permanent Administrative Committee of the Council of Ministers

The Administrative Committee is one of the permanent committees of the CoM and was created by Decree no. (21) of 2020 concerning the Regulation of the Prime Minister’s Office. It is chaired by the Secretary-General and includes the Official Gazette Bureau (Diwan), the GPC, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the MoF, and the Ministry of Justice. It is a technical committee which reviews suggested organisational changes and restructuring of the public administration. This committee officially adopted the Government’s Reform Agenda in April 2022.

National Committee for Planning

Chaired by the PMO and created by a bylaw of the GS, the National Committee for Planning groups the different focal point for planning in the line ministries to guide the National Development Plan.

National Committee for Gender

Chaired by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, this technical committee gathers all 22 ministries, it can also invite relevant Civil Society Organisations to its meetings. The committee forms the main forum to discuss gender policy in the PA.

Higher Committee for Job Planning

Chaired by the GPC and established in 2015 through a Cabinet Decision, this technical committee brings together representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the PMO, and the MoF. It ensures linkages between the various planning processes for human resources within the public institutions. In that sense it deals with issues like job descriptions, job classification, promotions at the most senior level, and organisational structures.

Evaluation Commission for administrative mergers

Chaired by the GS, this commission was formed by the Cabinet to evaluate the possibility for administrative mergers when new institutions are created.

Committee to Review Non-Ministerial Institutions

Formed in 2020 by the CoM, this committee reviews the functioning of different non-ministerial authorities. It recommends mergers to relieve the financial burden on the public administration.

Committee for Technology and Public Administration

Formed by the CoM, this committee is mandated to follow-up on the implementation of the “Technology and Public Administration Strategy 2021-2023”. It is chaired by the GS, and composed of all relevant public institutions, as well as the academic and private sectors.

In future, it would be important to verify the mandates of the above-mentioned CoG institutions and Committees in light of the envisaged shift from the comprehensive NDP to the narrower and more targeted GP, and the new focus of the Strategic Results Framework, which is also expected to move from the NDP to the GP.

A fragmented institutional framework and leadership for PAR

As recognised in the OECD Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance (OECD, 2020[1]) and the SIGMA Principles of Public Administration (OECD, 2017[2]), the centre of government can play a key role in mainstreaming reform across the public administration. Therefore, in OECD Member countries, the CoG is playing an increasingly vital role in driving strategic priorities, intricately linked with their increasing responsibilities on policy co-ordination. In the Palestinian Authority, diverging answers to the OECD questionnaire, in particular regarding the role of the different CoG institutions in policymaking, revealed that there is no uniform understanding of the responsibilities at the centre of government (see Table 3.1). This was further confirmed by interlocutors during the OECD’s fact-finding missions. The lack of formal process, clear institutional mandates, and responsibilities for policy formulation are among the key issues affecting the design and implementation of administrative reforms. While the PMO and the GS are two separate entities, they seem to have competing responsibilities and would benefit from improved co-ordination and communication.

According to the CoM’ Decree no. (21) of 2020 Concerning the Regulation of the Prime Minister’s Office, the PMO is responsible for the preparation of the government programme by setting out annual strategic priorities and through the development and implementation of the multi-year priorities for the whole-of-government. The PMO co-ordinates with the different ministries via focal points in each ministry and within the National Planning Committee. The PMO’s planning team reviews the draft policy documents to identify whether they are in line with government priorities. If this is not the case, they provide comments to the ministries so that they make changes before the definitive version gets submitted towards the Cabinet for review and adoption. It is also mandated to oversee the performance of the ministries and other administrative bodies and to co-ordinate between them. The PMO also establishes Permanent Ministerial Committees to deal with specific policy areas as specified in the decree, and ad-hoc committees to deal with issues outside the scope of these areas.

Respondents to the OECD questionnaire attribute similar responsibilities to the GS, clarifying that the GS is responsible for the elaboration of policy options and proposals for government decisions, policy co-ordination across government, defining thematic annual and multi-annual strategic priorities, the preparation of the government programme, designing and implementing public administration reforms, monitoring and following-up on the implementation of thematic annual plans in line with the NDP and the resulting strategic sectoral result frameworks, and finally of managing the relationship with non-state actors (civil society, academia, think tanks, and the private sector). This is confirmed by the GRA which identifies the GS as the main responsible institution to ensure coherence, implementation, and monitoring of the agenda itself.

Questionnaire respondents did not identify the Office of the President as a major player in policymaking, with its role focussed mainly on the law-making process1. However, to boost the implementation of administrative reforms the President promoted the elaboration of the GRA. In addition, the legal advisor of the President chairs the recently established Presidential Higher Committee for Administrative and Legislative Reforms, which is identified as the main PAR committee by some stakeholders.

During the OECD’s fact-finding missions, government interlocutors also identified overlapping mandates, unclear responsibilities and gaps between official mandates and actual practices among the main challenges for sound policy development.

Table 3.1. Shared responsibilities between the CoG in the PA

Mandate and functions of the Prime Minister Office	Mandate and functions of the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers
Policy development and co-ordination
Setting of annual and multi-annual strategic priorities of the government	Co-ordinating the identification of thematic annual and multi-annual strategic priorities, elaboration of policy options and proposals for government decision, and preparation of the government programme
Guidance and co-ordination of ministries and other administrative bodies for the preparation of the NDP and of sector and cross-cutting strategies, and for the integration of priority SDGs’ targets into the NDP and sector and cross-cutting strategies
Review of draft policy documents to identify whether they are in line with governmental priorities	Review of the action plans for the implementation of the GRA
Co-ordination between ministries and other administrative bodies in relation to implementation of the NDP and related sector and cross-cutting strategies	Policy co-ordination across government for the implementation of the GRA and related sector-specific action plans
Establishment of Permanent Ministerial Committees to deal with specific policy areas specified in the decree no. (21) for 2020, and ad-hoc committees to deal with issues following outside these areas	Establishment of committees to co-ordinate the implementation of the GRA
Monitoring
Oversight of the performance of the ministries and other administrative bodies	Development of the Strategic Sectoral Result Framework to monitor implementation of the NDP
	Issuing instructions to the attention of the monitoring units established in all ministries monitor implementation of thematic annual plans and programmes in line with the NDP and the resulting Strategic Sectoral Result Framework
	Monitoring and following-up the implementation of thematic annual plans in line with the NDP and the resulting Strategic Sectoral Result Framework
	Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the GRA through an inter-institutional governmental team and co-ordination among thematic teams
Monitoring and oversight of the implementation of SDGs
PAR-related competences
Policy development and co-ordination	Relationship with non-state actors (civil society, academia, think tanks, private sector)
	Service delivery

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Regarding PAR, interlocutors reported there is no dedicated institution at the CoG leading the overall PAR agenda. Instead, more than one institution has a potential for leading the PAR efforts:

• The GPC, which is identified by article 87 of the Basic Law as the body in charge of “upgrading and developing public administration”.

• The GS as the institution mandated to steer the implementation of the GRA, to monitor the implementation of public policies, and that chairs the Council of Minister’s permanent Administrative Committee.

• The PMO, in its role of leading the strategic planning process.

• The OoP, which has recently established the Higher Committee for Administrative and Legislative Reforms.

Lacking a clear political decision, the absence of one lead institution steering the co-ordination of PAR efforts in all the different areas (civil service, organisation, policy development, service delivery, transparency, accountability, and public finance management) affects the overall coherence of the planned and undertaken reform efforts.

At the level of thematic PAR strategies, the five identified PAR-related strategies pinpoint lead institutions which are further confirmed by the GRA. In most cases, the strategic documents also identify the main stakeholders contributing to the implementation and management of the strategy (see Table 3.2). In the case of the Cross-sectoral Strategy for Integrity and Anti-Corruption 2020-2022, the various institutions and non-public partners are associated with specific programmes and measures, and for each programme and measures they are assigned with leadership or contributing responsibilities. In the Sectoral Strategy for Technology and Public Administration the Ministry of Telecommunication and Information Technology is the lead institution for all strategic objectives, though the overall leadership is with the GS. For each of them, the strategy provides a list of contribution institutions although a repartition of roles among them is not clarified. The Cross-Sectoral Gender Strategy 2021-2023 provides for a general description of roles, without linking them to specific objectives or measures. No description of contributing responsibilities to be performed by other institutions are presented in the Sectoral Strategy for Public Finance Management 2021 – 2023. The State Audit and Administrative Control Bureau, the High Council of Public Procurement Policies, and the Anti-Corruption Commission are mentioned as relevant institutions, but their role is not described.

Table 3.2. Identified stakeholders contributing to the implementation and management of thematic PAR-related strategies

Sector/cross-sector strategies	Lead institution	Partner institutions and organisations
Sectoral Strategy of the Civil Service 2021-2023 (SSCS)	The General Personnel Council	None
Sectoral Strategy for Technology and Public Administration	The Ministry of Telecommunication and Information Technology	Palestinian Investment Fund, Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Public Works, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, Ministry of State for Entrepreneurship and Empowerment, Ministry of Labour, Ministry of National Economy, Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Ministry of education, General Personnel Council, Vocational Training Authority, Vocational University, Monetary Authority, Ministries and service departments, private sector, General Secretariat of the Cabinet.
Cross-Sectoral Strategy for Integrity and Anti-Corruption 2020-2022	The Palestinian Anti-Corruption Commission	Ministry of Interior, CSOs, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Women Affairs, Ministry of Telecommunications, Ministry of Social Development, Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Local Governance, Ministry of Education, Ministry of High Education, Custom Police, Border and Passages General Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Economic Crimes Prosecution, Municipal Development and Lending Fund, General Personnel Council, State Audit and Administrative Control Bureau, High Council of Public Procurement Policies, CoM, Legislative Council, Central Elections Commission, Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorists Financing Unit, Higher Council for Youth and sport, Cooperative Work Agency, Public Prosecution, security services, political parties, media, Journalists trade union, and some CSOs (including schools, universities, research centres, and the private sector), and others.
Cross-Sectoral Gender Strategy 2021-2023	The Ministry of Woman Affairs	Ministry of Social Development, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Employment, other ministries and public institutions, PLC, civil society organisations (i.e., General Union of Palestinian Women, Feminist Framework, education institutions, public and private universities, research centres), media, private sector, United Nations agencies.
Sectoral Strategy for Public Finance Management 2021 – 2023	The Ministry of Finance	State Audit and Administrative Control Bureau, High Council of Public Procurement Policies, Anti-Corruption Commission

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Limited inter-institutional co-ordination on PAR

As highlighted by the OECD Review Rule of Law and Governance in the Palestinian Authority: Delivering Better Policies and Legislation for People (OECD, 2022[3]), the PA confirmed the existence and frequent use of ad hoc, temporary, working groups that deal with a wide variety of policy issues. At the level of the centre of government, there are two main committees which seem particularly relevant to ensure co-ordination of PAR efforts. Notably, the CoM Permanent Administrative Committee and the presidential Higher Committee for Administrative and Legal Reform (see Table 3.3 for an overview of the organisational differences between the Administrative Committee and the Higher Committee for Administrative and Legal Reform).

Despite having the potential to give an additional impulse to the PAR agenda and to promote closer inter-institutional co-ordination, the two committees cannot be considered as a full-fledged PAR co-ordination body in line with OECD practices for several reasons.

Firstly, regarding the mandate, none of the two committees covers all PAR substantial areas. They mainly focus on financial, organisational, and civil service-related issues. While their mandate is similar, they work at different levels, the Administrative Committee being a technical body and the Higher Committee for Administrative and Legal Reform being a political committee (although some of its members are senior civil servants). There are no direct lines of accountability and of communication between the two. The only direct link between the two committees is the involvement of the Secretary-General and the Head of the GPC.

Secondly on the composition, their membership does not encompass all institutions leading PAR efforts. Several actors who have a key role are not involved such as the Ministry of telecommunication and Information Technology, the Anticorruption Commission, and the Ministry of Women Affairs. Most notably the PMO, which could play a key role for reforms in policy development, and co-ordination, is also not involved.

Finally, both the civil society and the private sector are not involved in either of these committees. Interviewed civil society organisations during the fact-finding missions reported a lack of transparency in relation to the committees as no documents, including the agendas or reports, are publicly available.

Table 3.3. Comparing the co-ordination bodies for PAR at the CoG in the PA

	Administrative Committee	Higher Committee for Administrative and Legal Reform
Permanent/ temporary Political / technical	Permanent Technical	Temporary, to finalise its work by June 2023 Political
Composition (inclusion or exclusion of the main PAR institutions)	General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers (chair), General Personnel Council, Official Gazette Bureau, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Justice Main PAR institutions not included: PMO, Ministry of Telecommunication and Information Technology, Ministry of Women, Anticorruption Commission	Office of the President (chair), General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers, General Personnel Council, the head of the Financial and Administrative Oversight Bureau, Public Retirement Authority, Ministry of Justice, National Security Council, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriate Affairs, General Intelligence Service Main PAR institutions not included: PMO, Ministry of Telecommunication and Information Technology, Ministry of Women, Anticorruption Commission
Mandate (included or excluded PAR areas )	Included PAR areas: Civil Service and Human Resources Management; Organisation and functions of public Administration Administrative issues: upgrade of employees, (mainly at the senior level), job descriptions, job classification, promotions, and departmental organisation Excluded PAR areas: Service delivery (including e-services), gender mainstreaming, integrity, anti-corruption, engagement with the civil society	Included PAR areas: Civil Service and Human Resources Management; Organisation and functions of public Administration Organisational and legal aspects of public institutions to minimise overlaps and redundancies in mandates and to reduce financial burdens: the merging of institutions, public wage bill (including recruitment, salaries, early retirements, pension system, etc.). Excluded PAR areas: Service delivery (including e-services), gender mainstreaming, integrity, anti-corruption, engagement with the civil society
Accountability line	CoM	President

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

The new strategic planning approach put forward in late 2022 is expected to replace the too comprehensive NDP with a narrower, and more focused GP. It introduces the possibility for the PMO to “establish an inter-ministerial co-ordination group for each main pillar” of the GP “to oversee the identification and development of strategic projects to deliver the envisioned results and ensure the proper inclusion in the LMA strategy and (joint) policy interventions”. The composition of these groups is not anticipated. The way these committees integrate with the existing ones remains to be seen.

Co-ordination of individual PAR strategies

Sectoral Strategy for Civil Service (SSCS)

The GPC liaises with the different ministries through focal points within the HR (Human Resources) departments of each ministry and non-ministerial institution. The SSCS moves the functioning of the GPC towards a more strategic role focused on the formulation of the policy and legal framework, including monitoring and evaluation, while the responsibility for implementation is being brought towards the individual institutions.

The GPC participates in the Cabinet’s Administrative Committee, which mainly deals with administrative issues. In addition, the GPC chairs the Higher Committee for Job Planning, which was established in 2015. This technical committee ensures linkages between the planning process for human resources management and the financial and human resources available. Annually, it prepares a table of jobs and related job descriptions for all institutions and presents it to the Prime Minister for adoption. During the OECD’s fact-finding missions, no other technical or political fora to discuss progress for the SSCS could be identified.

Finally, the GPC is also member of the Higher Committee for Administrative and Legal Reform, which deals with highly political issues related to organisational and legal aspects of public institutions to minimise overlaps and redundancies in mandates and to reduce financial burdens.

Cross-Sectoral Gender Strategy

To co-ordinate the Cross-Sectoral Gender Strategy, a National Committee for Gender was established. Chaired by the Ministry of Women affairs it brings together the 22 ministries of the PA. The National Committee includes dedicated working groups that deal with specific programmes of the gender strategy, selectively involving the relevant institutions. Besides the meetings of the CoM, there are no other co-ordination fora to discuss gender policies at the political level (see Annex C).

Cross-Sectoral Strategy for Integrity and Anticorruption

The Palestinian Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) has execution, co-ordination, and oversight responsibilities. The Cross-Sectoral Strategy for Integrity and Anticorruption envisages the establishment of a National Technical Team, chaired by the PACC itself, to oversee, co-ordinate, and monitor the implementation of the strategy. This Team, supported by the PMO, is composed of a group of experts on combating corruption and good governance from the main implementing partners. It forms the main technical co-ordination body where parties discuss and review the progress reports and the expenditures and overall budgetary issues. Interlocutors during OECD’s fact-finding missions identified the functioning of the National Technical Team as challenging, with the COVID-19 pandemic further disrupting the work. To combat this, the PACC started an annual national workshop for the annual implementation reports. Unfortunately, due to scarce resources interlocutors could not confirm the yearly organisation. As a result, most of the work is organised within 13 thematic working groups, with each working group chaired by the institution in charge of the programme. Nevertheless, interlocutors identified the frequency and regularity of the meetings as uneven.

Strategy for Technology and Public Administration

In 2020, through Cabinet Resolution No. (44/17/M18/M.W/M.A.) of 2020, the Cabinet established a Ministerial Committee with its main purpose co-ordinating the elaboration of the “Technology and Public Administration Cluster 2021-2023”. The committee is composed of the Secretary General of the Cabinet as a rapporteur, the Minister of Telecommunication and Information Technology, the Minister of State for Entrepreneurship and Empowerment, the Minister of Finance, the Minister Higher Education and Scientific Research, Minister of the National Economy, President of the GPC, and the President of the Monetary Authority. The committee was mandated to outline a clear plan for building and guiding a Palestinian ecosystem that enables the advancement of the technological sector and public administration in all its technical, legal, human, and financial aspects, in co-operation with the relevant partners.

The Ministerial Committee established a technical committee consisting of representatives of the ministries participating in the Ministerial Committee, further adding the Ministry of National Economy and representatives from the private sector. These partners being the Palestinian Information Technology Association of Companies, PALTEL Group, Ooredoo, the Federation of Palestinian Chambers of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture, the Association of Banks, the Federation of Consulting and Administrative Companies, and the Engineers Association. This technical committee was meant to analyse the reality of technology and public administration in the PA. And to support the development of a vision and a comprehensive strategy for the technology and the public administration cluster, including interventions, statistical indicators and KPIs, and defining programmes and operational plans.

A Support Team within the GS was formed by the Secretary General in his capacity as rapporteur of the ministerial and technical committees. Based on directions and inputs provided by the two committees, its mission was preparing a draft of the Technology and Public Administration Cluster 2021-2023. It also supported the work of the technical committee. Given the temporary nature of these committees, the OECD could not verify whether this institutional set-up was dismantled after the finalisation of the strategic document, or if it is taking up a co-ordination role.

Sectoral Strategy for Public Finance Management 2021 – 2023

There is no information about any co-ordination arrangements. It seems that co-ordination will entirely be done by the MoF and performed by the Planning and Budgeting Department, and the Public Finance Management Development Department, which support the PBMG. The strategy document outlines the main tasks of the PBMG, but it is silent about the involvement of other concerned parties, either internal or external to public administration. A “Technical Committee” is also mentioned, but its composition, mandate, and functions are not described.

Co-ordinating and engaging with local levels

The strategic alignment and co-ordination between central and local levels, and across local levels, are crucial to support the effective design and delivery of public policies and services and ensure that they are properly funded, ultimately contributing to raising the living standards of citizens across the country. OECD Member countries are using a wide range of co-ordination approaches and instruments, including institutionalised task forces and committees to align across the different levels of governance (see Box 3.1). While dedicated task forces and committees are essential at the local level, there is a strong co-ordination need with the central government, that can be a responsibility of a line Ministry (typically Ministries of Interior or of Regional development) or of the centre of government (mostly in federal states) (OECD, 2017[4]). In more than half of OECD Member countries, co-ordination across the levels of government is not a function of the centre.

Besides co-ordination, a number of mechanisms support vertical co-ordination, including support to capacity building, funding instruments and contractualization. For instance, France and Poland rely on systems of contracts for investments and co-financing. While France is using State-region planning contracts (CPER), Poland more specifically has developed “territorial contracts” between line Ministries and local governments, that aim to support “co-ordination of pro-development activities undertaken by the national and local government targeted at achieving common objectives established in relation to the area defined in it”, and help redistribute state budget and fund activities to realise national objectives and co-fund investments (OECD, 2021[5]).

Based on the responses provided by interlocutors, local level co-ordination within the PA is characterised by several key points. These include recognition of the need for reform and restructuring within the local government sector, a desire to enhance decentralisation in service provision, calls to expand the powers of local authorities particularly in taxation and resource management, and emphasis on local economic development. However, challenges such as lack of participation processes, alignment issues with sectoral plans, and centralised influence from the Office of the President are apparent. These insights underscore the importance of addressing co-ordination gaps and empowering local governance structures for effective development planning and service delivery. By implementing this, the PA can enhance co-ordination and engagement with local levels, thereby facilitating better governance.

Box 3.1. Intergovernmental consultation for effective prioritisation and development at central and local levels

Sweden

In Sweden, it is the job of regional development policymakers to convince other ministries that they should wear their “territorial lenses” when planning and designing sector policies. The Forum for Sustainable Regional Development 2022-2030 is one important co-ordination platform. It is positioned as part of the implementation of the National Strategy for Sustainable Regional Development throughout Sweden 2021-2030. The forum is chaired by the secretary of state for regional development. It is divided into two groups: one that promotes dialogue between national- and regional-level politicians, and one that fosters dialogue between national- and regional-level civil servants (director-level). Sweden has also created policy labs. There is one dedicated to exploring concrete policy methods for rural development. In addition, Sweden also relies on involving state agencies – both public servants/operational staff and decision-makers – in regional matters because these agencies support the implementation of regional development policy by different sectors while taking into account regional specificities that affect meeting sectoral aims.

Italy

Italy’s Strategy for Inner Areas is an integrated strategy tailored to reduce demographic decline and land abandonment in many rural areas by improving the quality of essential services – education, health and mobility – and promoting opportunities for economic activity and jobs. Within the framework of this strategy, the national government defined a set of integrated projects and their expected outcomes through an inter-ministerial committee to align objectives, adapt sectoral policies to specific territorial needs and match different sources of financing. This committee consists of representatives from the Ministries of Education, Health and Agriculture; the Department for Cohesion Policy; and subnational levels of government. For each policy area, the national government also identifies an alliance of municipalities willing and capable of working together towards a long-term strategy, including by unifying the management of functions relevant to the common strategy.

Poland

Poland established the Co-ordinating Committee for Development Policy as a permanent inter-ministerial committee led by the Minister of Funds and Regional Policy with sub-committees linked to regional development issues (e.g. Sub-committee for Rural Areas Development, Sub-committee for Territorial Dimension). The committee carries out analysis and drafts documents to facilitate the implementation of the country’s Strategy for Responsible Development, which has a strong territorial dimension, and to align national and local priorities. Poland has also established the Joint Committee of National Government and Territorial Self-government that discusses issues related to the functioning of municipalities and the state policy on local government.

Source: (OECD, 2021[6]).

References

[3] OECD (2022), Rule of Law and Governance in the Palestinian Authority: Delivering Better Policies and Legislation for People, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/68ffa992-en.

[6] OECD (2021), Better Governance, Planning and Services in Local Self-Governments in Poland, https://www.oecd.org/publications/better-governance-planning-and-services-in-local-self-governments-in-poland-550c3ff5-en.htm.

[5] OECD (2021), Better Governance, Planning and Services in Local Self-Governments in Poland, https://doi.org/10.1787/550c3ff5-en.

[1] OECD (2020), Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance, https://www.oecd.org/governance/policy-framework-on-sound-public-governance/ (accessed on 21 July 2020).

[4] OECD (2017), OECD Centre Stage: The organisation and functions of the centre of government in OECD countries.

[2] OECD (2017), “The Principles of Public Administration: 2017 Edition”.

Note

← 1.  Since 2007, legislative competences have been assigned to the President due to the absence of a functioning legislature. Article 43 of the Basic Law gives authority to the President – in cases of necessity that cannot be delayed and when the legislature is not in session - to issue decree-laws that have power of legislations and that are enforceable until the role of the PLC is resumed.