Coordination and Collaboration in Government

Faculty of Law

University of Zagreb26 September 2012

Questions about coordination & collaboration

Why this focus?

• Horizontal, connecting trend

• Need

• Frontier question

Three parts:

1. Standard types of coordination

2. Joined-up and horizontal government

3. Collaborations on challenging problems

– System-wide and collaboration

1. Basic modes of coordination• Political coordination

– Cabinet (about 20 of ministry of 30+) = government– Cabinet committees (eg Expediture Review Committee)– Prime minsters office

• Central agencies (Australia)

– Policy, financial management, personnel etc

• Senior officials comittees – e.g. Management Advisory Board/Committee

• Interdepartmental committees

Central coordination

• Weak and strong centres of government

• Relationship between central agencies and with line ministries (or departments and agencies)

• Australian central agencies– Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet– Department of Finance– Public Service Commission

Explanations for & drivers of change• External

– Policy challenges & complexities in environment– External threat– Diffusion - international trends

• Internal – Reform correction of new public management

• Devolution and disaggregation

– Growing interdependencies – Agendas on improving performance, service

delivery & e-government

Steering & coordination approachesStrategy Feature

1. Integrated hierarchical

Traditional bureaucracy, strong control of centre but transactions based

2. Prototype steering & rowing

Reconfiguring of roles around strategic centre conception, enhanced political executive

3. Devolved Department focus & reduced central agency roles

4. Integrated control

Rebalancing of roles; central control

5. Strategic governing

Strategic emphasis, national governing

Australian context - integrated governance• Central agency resurrection

– Budgeting & estimates (DoFA)– Monitoring performance & values (APSC)– Strategic, integrating & monitoring (PM&C)

• Central monitoring of delivery– Cabinet implementation, gateway & checkpoint– Delivery & outcomes

• Departmentalisation– Corporate governance review & reabsorbing agencies– Comprehensive ministerial department?

• Whole of government– Inter-organisational

2. Joined-up meanings?• International:

– Horizontal, whole-of-government, integrated governance

– Common themes & variations

• Coordination recycled or new forms?

• Questions of joined-up government– Centrality to reform program?– Central agency driven?

• Large investment – task forces etc

– Reporting on initiatives? (eg State of the Service report)

– Commitment to cultural grounding?

Range of options• Instruments

– Taskforces/teams/partnerships– Departments/special agencies/networks

• Time dimension– Short term exercises & crisis or durable partnerships

• Tasks– Policy development, program management & delivery

• Structural solutions– Combining delivery networks (eg benefits)– Combining corporate services (eg shared services)– Merging departments & incorporating agencies– Joint policy & program management

CasesCase Description BoundariesAvian Flu Joint action

response to short-term crisis

Federal agencies

Centrelink Seamless service delivery

Federal agencies

Indigenous service delivery

Delivering on long-term social problems

Federal/state/

Local/NGOs

AGIMO Central steering of e-government

Federal agencies

Strengths and limitations

Strengths & advantages• Balancing vertical focus with horizontal

• Addressing intractable problems

• Boundary spanning

• Promoting collaboration

Limitations & challenges• Level of commitment required

• Resource costs

• Inclinations to obey the functional imperative

• Top-down, centrally driven

• Culture as barrier to change

3. Collaboration & shared accountability• Collaboration

– Assumption about partners and focus on outcomes

– the arrangements for specifying responsibilities and accountabilities within a collaboration based on a formal partnership

• Type of problem: wicked & tame as points on continuum

• Five cases based on: – nature of coordination, policy problem, basis of

partnership,

– outcomes focus, handling of shared accountability

3. Collaboration & shared accountability

• Collaboration – Assumption about partners and focus on outcomes– Arrangements for specifying responsibilities and

accountabilities within a collaboration based on a formal partnership

• Type of problem: wicked & tame as points on continuum

• Five cases based on: – nature of coordination, policy problem, basis of

partnership– outcomes focus, handling of shared accountability

Complexity as a combination of intractability & coordination

Coordination problemIntractability High LowHigh Wicked Agency-centredMedium/Low Range of problems

with elements of intractability

Contradictions in accountability(Australia and New Zealand)

• Strength of vertical accountability in AU & NZ• Shared accountability common, becoming

more formalised in NZ• Cross-agency arrangements for AU core

agencies (including depts of state): 1800– Service delivery– Provision of advice and data– Shared services– Joined program implementation– Governance agreements*

Types and case featuresType Case Features of

coordinationElements of wickedness

Internalisation Various supra, mega and composite departments

Depends on efficacy of internal coordination

NA

Minister-led groupings

Finnish system of policy programs

Cross-ministries from specific programs

PresumedExplicit

Ministry sectors NZ social sector Selected priorities within sectors

Specified

Lead department for shared targets

PSA UK Cross-system Presumed

Lead agency for shared outcomes

Project Wickenby Cross-agencies focus (international element)

Strong in background (tax havens)

Multi-level wicked coordination

Coordinator General for Remote Areas

Governance elementHighly complexCross-agencyCross-jurisdictional

Indigenous SD wickedMultiple, high

Results by caseCase Horizontal

characterAccountability & outcomes

Issues

Various super & composite departments

Internalisation of problems

Vertical. Dependent on internal program structure

Limits to expansion: span of control

Finnish policy programmes

Minister-led programs

Focus on shared outcomes, but lack of shared accountability

Horizontally weakDesign weaknesses

PSA UK Lead dept for shared targets across civil service

Explicitly focused on shared goals & targets

Multiple weaknesses in application

NZ Ministry for Social Development

Ministry-led series of sector programs

Outcomes basis Indeterminate. Being refined in terms of results. Accountability specification of partners

Project Wickenby

Lead agency on project tasks

Focus on project outcomesProject accountability

Information & access at wicked end

Coordinator General for Remote Areas

Specialised agency for coordination of multi-level problem

Outcomes focusedReporting by Coordinator General

Responsiveness of partnersAccountability specifications. Outcomes in communities

Issues

• Developing an effective shared accountability and outcomes approach

• Implications of mainstreaming

• Envisaging inter-connected, multi-level collaborations – national and societal dimensions

• Experiments attest to difficulties with implementing durable schemes, particularly at the systemic (whole of government) level

Conclusions

• International trends support greater emphasis on the horizontal because of complexity problems faced by governments

• Constraint: centrality of functional principle in central government organisation

• More formalised solutions are growing and experiments with coordination and collaboration can be expected to continue