Whole‑of‑Government Approaches to Development Co‑operation

7. Are DAC systems fit-for-purpose in today’s development co‑operation landscape?

Abstract

This chapter explores how governments can build fit-for-purpose approaches to whole-of-government co‑ordination. As development outcomes are increasingly shaped by actors and instruments beyond ODA, fit-for-purpose systems help align resources, expertise and policy objectives while safeguarding accountability for development objectives. The chapter concludes by identifying the institutional conditions, incentives and practices that enable whole‑of‑government approaches to contribute to more coherent and effective development co‑operation

What does “fit-for-purpose” mean for whole‑of‑government approaches today?

Whole‑of‑government approaches can help governments respond more coherently to the changing realities of development co‑operation. Governments are being called upon to assess what has worked, what has not, and how development co‑operation is evolving. In this context, whole‑of‑government approaches provide a way to situate development co‑operation within a broader policy framework. A fit-for-purpose whole‑of‑government approach depends on whether governments can align financial and non-financial resources behind development objectives, manage trade-offs transparently, reduce duplication and provide partner countries with a coherent partnership offer. Co‑ordination should not be pursued as an end in itself. It is most valuable when different policies and actors can achieve improved development outcomes if they are aligned.

The scope of whole‑of‑government co‑ordination increasingly extends beyond ODA, covering the wider range of financial, policy and technical instruments that shape development and sustainable development outcomes. Beyond concessional finance, partnerships and development outcomes are increasingly shaped by policy dialogue, non-ODA spending, export promotion, technical assistance, and technology transfers (OECD, 2026[1]). Bringing these instruments into a more coherent policy frame helps governments manage the risk of subordinating the core mandate of development co‑operation to other foreign or domestic policy goals.

Putting in place the right incentives is key for governments to reap the benefits of whole‑of‑government co‑ordination. Co‑ordination is often deprioritised due to the visible short-term transaction costs in terms of time, resources and concerns about mandate dilution. Its long-term benefits often take longer to materialise. Looking ahead1, in a context of constrained budgets and increasingly diverse development actors, governments need to take a realistic and proportionate approach to co‑ordination, weighing its costs against the risks of fragmented action. For a country to advance its broader objective, having a coherent, agile and effective approach can help maintain credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of partners and domestic constituencies.

Key elements for successful whole‑of‑government co‑ordination in development co‑operation

Be selective about when co‑ordination is needed

Improved development outcomes is one of the objectives that motivates co‑ordination. Prioritising where trade-offs, fragmented budgets or multiple delivery actors create risks for coherence, effectiveness or partner-country engagement is key. Lighter forms of co‑operation or complementarity may be sufficient where mandates and objectives are clearly distinct. This is particularly relevant for private sector engagement where the benefits of increased co‑ordination and alignment may take longer to materialise because participating institutions often have distinct mandates. Pilot approaches can help build trust, test working arrangements and demonstrate practical benefits before more systematic mechanisms are developed.

Develop shared objectives to provide a basis for stronger coherence

The value add of whole‑of‑government approaches also lies in making trade-offs visible and deliberate. Whole‑of‑government co‑ordination can act as an important platform for supporting policy coherence. Preserving the long-term objectives of development co‑operation while allowing other parts of government to contribute where they add value can be supported through whole‑of‑government co‑ordination. For example, this may involve aligning public institutions around shared development objectives without assuming that all actors have the same mandate, risk appetite or decision-making process.

Design mechanisms around institutional contexts

Co‑ordination arrangements need to reflect how policy making authority, budgetary oversight and implementation responsibilities are distributed. Cross‑government mechanisms therefore should be realistic, proportionate to the government context and have a mandate to link to decisions on strategy, budgets and delivery. Even in context of integrated foreign and development policy systems there is a need for cross-government co‑ordination. In more complex institutional set-ups, dedicated mechanisms are needed to connect actors that operate under different mandates, both at headquarters and country level. Such mechanisms can help align priorities, reduce duplication and improve engagement with partner countries. Co‑ordination mechanisms are weaker when they remain limited to information-sharing or operate too late in the decision-making cycle. Arrangements for crisis response can also provide useful lessons, as they often reveal what is institutionally possible and could be embedded into common practice.

Use budgets and set incentives to support co‑ordination

Budget processes can be useful tools for whole‑of‑government steering because they translate priorities into resource allocation. Linking internal deliberation and financial decision-making early can help align actors, reduce duplication and consolidate efforts. While co-ordination around resource allocation alone is not sufficient, it can be a helpful element when paired with governance arrangements and the right incentives. Line ministries and specialised entities like DFIs are more likely to work towards shared goals when budgets, performance expectation, and clear guidance reinforce collaboration.

Mobilise expertise to support development objectives

To work across government effectively lead ministries and agencies can benefit from deliberate investments in the resources needed for co-ordination such as staffing, budget and analytical capacity. Similarly, line ministries and specialised agencies can strengthen development co‑operation by bringing sectoral knowledge, technical capability and additional instruments. Contributions from line ministries are most valuable when anchored in shared priorities, country strategies and expected results. Good practice includes mapping available expertise, facilitating common country presence, supporting staff mobility, providing targeted capacity-building, and clarifying how sectoral and financial contributions support development co‑operation objectives. Multiple actors can improve impact when their roles are complementary and clearly understood.

Build shared evidence, learning and accountability

Shared results frameworks, evaluation and learning systems help align actors around common objectives and clarify institutional contributions. Strong results and evaluation functions often exist within lead ministries or agencies, but scaling quality assurance and learning across government remains difficult. Setting cross-government standards for information systems, sharing resources and setting clear priorities from the centre of government can help sustain cross-government collaboration and learning in the long term. Knowledge mobilisation, interoperable data systems and strategic communication also support a common approach. Technological advancements, including artificial intelligence where appropriate, can support evidence-based decision-making and improve communication, if supported by clear governance and accountability arrangements.

Use country-level engagement as the test for coherence

Whole‑of‑government co‑ordination ultimately has to work for partner countries. Fragmentation inside provider governments can create multiple interlocutors, inconsistent messages, parallel reporting requirements and unclear links between financing, policy dialogue and implementation. Country strategies, embassy leadership and in-country co‑ordination are therefore central to an effective approach. Partner country perspectives that inform assessments of whether whole‑of‑government approaches are improving coherence or adding complexity can be informative. The test is whether partner countries can engage with a coherent counterpart.

References

[1] OECD (2026), Insights from senior leadership interviews: enduring changes, current pressures, and building for the future, Background paper prepared for the OECD Conference The Future of Development Co-operation: Charting Strategic Directions 11-12 May, 2026, https://www.oecd-events.org/e/future-of-development-co-operation/en/content/resources.

[3] OECD (2025), Global Perspectives on Triangular Co‑operation 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f713f2ce-en.

[2] OECD (2025), Strategic Foresight Toolkit for Resilient Public Policy: A Comprehensive Foresight Methodology to Support Sustainable and Future-Ready Public Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bcdd9304-en.

Note

← 1.  Foresight methodologies can support governments in thinking strategically whether current systems are prepared for future pressures. Through the early identification of emerging trends, potential disruptions and transformative drivers of change, foresight enables decision makers to anticipate and prepare for future challenges and opportunities before these fully materialise. For more information see Strategic Foresight Toolkit for Resilient Public Policy (OECD, 2025[2]) and Global Perspectives on Triangular Co‑operation 2025 (OECD, 2025[3])