Coordination
#12Key Findings
In the category of coordination, Spain falls into the sample’s upper-middle ranks (rank 12).
The Government Office and Prime Minister’s Office play key roles in evaluating ministry proposals, with the former focusing on technical issues and the latter on political and strategic aspects. While ministries are formally autonomous, the prime minister’s team is often consulted during policy preparation.
Senior bureaucrats from the various ministries routinely meet to coordinate policy initiatives. However, each ministry tends to act only within its area of competence. Informal meetings across levels of government take place frequently. The lack of experience with coalition government led to coordination issues during the 2022 – 2023 period.
The central government aims to ensure uniform national standards, but this is not always effective. Regional governments sometimes implement policies independently. Subnational self-government officials frequently express dissatisfaction with the lack of institutionalized participation in central government decision-making processes.
The Government Office and Prime Minister’s Office play key roles in evaluating ministry proposals, with the former focusing on technical issues and the latter on political and strategic aspects. While ministries are formally autonomous, the prime minister’s team is often consulted during policy preparation.
Senior bureaucrats from the various ministries routinely meet to coordinate policy initiatives. However, each ministry tends to act only within its area of competence. Informal meetings across levels of government take place frequently. The lack of experience with coalition government led to coordination issues during the 2022 – 2023 period.
The central government aims to ensure uniform national standards, but this is not always effective. Regional governments sometimes implement policies independently. Subnational self-government officials frequently express dissatisfaction with the lack of institutionalized participation in central government decision-making processes.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent do established coordination mechanisms between the government’s office and line ministries effectively enhance policy coherence?
10
9
9
Functional coordination mechanisms between line ministries and the GO/PMO, aimed at enhancing policy coherence, are in place.
8
7
6
7
6
Largely functional coordination mechanisms between line ministries and the GO/PMO, aimed at enhancing policy coherence, are in place.
5
4
3
4
3
Coordination mechanisms between line ministries and the GO/PMO, aimed at enhancing policy coherence, are only somewhat functional.
2
1
1
Coordination mechanisms between line ministries and the GO/PMO, aimed at enhancing policy coherence, are not at all functional.
Spain’s Government Office (Ministry of the Presidency) and Prime Minister’s Office (Gabinete) play crucial roles in evaluating proposals from line ministries, focusing on political, strategic, and technical aspects. The Government Office typically handles drafting and technical issues, while the Prime Minister’s Office concentrates on political and strategic considerations. This institutionalized process occurs weekly, with representatives from all ministries meeting at the cabinet meeting preparatory committee. Advisers from the Prime Minister’s Office also participate in this committee and in the specialized ministerial committee on economic affairs, which assists the Council of Ministers (see “Cabinet Committees”).
The Prime Minister’s Office is structured somewhat to reflect various ministerial portfolios but lacks comprehensive policy expertise for thorough executive oversight. The Government Office, which organizes Council of Ministers’ sessions and is headed by the minister of the presidency, evaluates the substantive content of draft bills to some extent, despite lacking sectoral policy expertise. Ministries are expected to involve the Prime Minister’s Office informally in preparing policy proposals. Although these ministries are formally autonomous, the legal and political hierarchy within the government facilitates and encourages this consultation pattern with the prime minister’s team.
The Annual Regulatory Plan of the General State Administration outlines the legislative or regulatory initiatives that various ministerial departments plan to submit each calendar year to the Council of Ministers for approval.
Two powerful ministerial committees prepare cabinet meetings in Spain: the Committee for Economic Affairs and the Committee of Undersecretaries and Secretaries of State. The Committee for Economic Affairs reviews and schedules economic or budgetary interministerial coordination. The Committee of Undersecretaries and Secretaries of State filters and settles issues before cabinet meetings, preparing the Council of Ministers’ weekly sessions held every Tuesday. The minister of the presidency chairs this committee.
To implement the Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP), existing departments have been assigned new responsibilities. For example, the Economic Office of the Prime Minister serves as a monitoring unit, the Ministry of Finance’s department for EU funds acts as the managing unit, and the General Intervention Board of the State Administration functions as an oversight and audit unit.
During 2022–2023, the lack of experience in managing coalition governments and partisan differences impacted the effectiveness and coherence of policy formulation, leading to coordination problems among line ministries. To streamline consultation, the Prime Minister’s Office increased personnel and financial resources to evaluate line ministries’ policy proposals.
Citations:
Royal Decree 890/2023 of 27 November, approving the structure of the Presidency of the Government
The Prime Minister’s Office is structured somewhat to reflect various ministerial portfolios but lacks comprehensive policy expertise for thorough executive oversight. The Government Office, which organizes Council of Ministers’ sessions and is headed by the minister of the presidency, evaluates the substantive content of draft bills to some extent, despite lacking sectoral policy expertise. Ministries are expected to involve the Prime Minister’s Office informally in preparing policy proposals. Although these ministries are formally autonomous, the legal and political hierarchy within the government facilitates and encourages this consultation pattern with the prime minister’s team.
The Annual Regulatory Plan of the General State Administration outlines the legislative or regulatory initiatives that various ministerial departments plan to submit each calendar year to the Council of Ministers for approval.
Two powerful ministerial committees prepare cabinet meetings in Spain: the Committee for Economic Affairs and the Committee of Undersecretaries and Secretaries of State. The Committee for Economic Affairs reviews and schedules economic or budgetary interministerial coordination. The Committee of Undersecretaries and Secretaries of State filters and settles issues before cabinet meetings, preparing the Council of Ministers’ weekly sessions held every Tuesday. The minister of the presidency chairs this committee.
To implement the Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP), existing departments have been assigned new responsibilities. For example, the Economic Office of the Prime Minister serves as a monitoring unit, the Ministry of Finance’s department for EU funds acts as the managing unit, and the General Intervention Board of the State Administration functions as an oversight and audit unit.
During 2022–2023, the lack of experience in managing coalition governments and partisan differences impacted the effectiveness and coherence of policy formulation, leading to coordination problems among line ministries. To streamline consultation, the Prime Minister’s Office increased personnel and financial resources to evaluate line ministries’ policy proposals.
Citations:
Royal Decree 890/2023 of 27 November, approving the structure of the Presidency of the Government
To what extent are there positive (formalized) forms of coordination across ministries that aim to enhance policy coherence?
10
9
9
Interministerial coordination mechanisms targeting policy coherence provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities.
8
7
6
7
6
Interministerial coordination mechanisms targeting policy coherence sometimes provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities.
5
4
3
4
3
Interministerial coordination mechanisms targeting policy coherence rarely provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities.
2
1
1
There are no interministerial coordination mechanisms targeting policy coherence that provide incentives for identifying synergies and opportunities.
The two most important senior bureaucratic positions in the ministries are the secretaries of state, akin to junior ministers but not formally part of the cabinet, and the undersecretaries, career civil servants acting as department administrators. These officials meet in the General Committee of Undersecretaries and Secretaries of State to coordinate upcoming policy initiatives, often the first time other ministries learn of a policy initiative from a different department. This committee effectively prepares the Council of Ministers’ weekly sessions held on Tuesdays.
The head of the Government Office chairs the preparatory committee meetings, where all draft bills, appointments, and other ministerial proposals are discussed and scheduled for the Council of Ministers’ agenda. A provisional agenda is published a week before the cabinet meeting, and the Government Office circulates all relevant documents for discussion by the line ministers.
On Tuesday mornings, the prime minister’s advisers assess the relative importance of agenda items and identify likely divergent positions. The preparatory committee performs an important gatekeeping function by returning problematic proposals to the appropriate line ministry and forwarding the remaining proposals to the Council of Ministers.
High-ranking civil servants play a crucial role in preparing policy proposals within each line ministry but have limited involvement in horizontal coordination with other ministries. Due to strong departmentalization, each ministry tends to act within its area of competence, avoiding proposals that may involve other ministries. Although many administrative interministerial committees exist formally, they do not effectively coordinate policy proposals or decision-making between ministries.
Under the Digitalization Plan for Public Administrations 2021–2025, all ministries must draft digital-transformation action plans to simplify interdepartmental working procedures, electronically exchange information, address information classification, and implement information exchange standards. The Digital Agenda 2026 fosters digital transformation of interministerial coordination, introducing a corporate data warehouse to break down information silos between various ministerial departments and creating a strategic framework for vertical inter-administrative coordination.
Civil servants exchange information across ministerial boundaries in their daily work at both the vertical and horizontal levels. The High Commission for Personnel and the National Institute for Public Administration provide incentives for interministerial exchange. However, specialized corps tend to aggravate administrative fragmentation, as each seeks to control a department according to its specialization, leading to a “silo” structure, where each ministry, department, agency, organism, or public entity follows its own operating logic.
Citations:
Royal Decree 126/2022 of 15 February
The head of the Government Office chairs the preparatory committee meetings, where all draft bills, appointments, and other ministerial proposals are discussed and scheduled for the Council of Ministers’ agenda. A provisional agenda is published a week before the cabinet meeting, and the Government Office circulates all relevant documents for discussion by the line ministers.
On Tuesday mornings, the prime minister’s advisers assess the relative importance of agenda items and identify likely divergent positions. The preparatory committee performs an important gatekeeping function by returning problematic proposals to the appropriate line ministry and forwarding the remaining proposals to the Council of Ministers.
High-ranking civil servants play a crucial role in preparing policy proposals within each line ministry but have limited involvement in horizontal coordination with other ministries. Due to strong departmentalization, each ministry tends to act within its area of competence, avoiding proposals that may involve other ministries. Although many administrative interministerial committees exist formally, they do not effectively coordinate policy proposals or decision-making between ministries.
Under the Digitalization Plan for Public Administrations 2021–2025, all ministries must draft digital-transformation action plans to simplify interdepartmental working procedures, electronically exchange information, address information classification, and implement information exchange standards. The Digital Agenda 2026 fosters digital transformation of interministerial coordination, introducing a corporate data warehouse to break down information silos between various ministerial departments and creating a strategic framework for vertical inter-administrative coordination.
Civil servants exchange information across ministerial boundaries in their daily work at both the vertical and horizontal levels. The High Commission for Personnel and the National Institute for Public Administration provide incentives for interministerial exchange. However, specialized corps tend to aggravate administrative fragmentation, as each seeks to control a department according to its specialization, leading to a “silo” structure, where each ministry, department, agency, organism, or public entity follows its own operating logic.
Citations:
Royal Decree 126/2022 of 15 February
How effectively do informal coordination mechanisms complement formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination?
10
9
9
Informal coordination mechanisms complement formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, informal coordination mechanisms complement formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination.
5
4
3
4
3
In some cases, informal coordination mechanisms undermine formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination.
2
1
1
Informal coordination mechanisms undermine formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination.
When interministerial problems cannot be solved through informal contacts, meetings between officials from the involved ministries are organized, often relying on the fact that senior civil servants belong to the same specialized corps or share a network of former colleagues. To foster informal mechanisms within the coalition cabinet, meetings of the heads of ministers’ private offices were introduced, although their communication flow is limited.
Informal meetings across various levels of government are frequent. Several sectoral conferences have established working groups to foster vertical informal coordination and support formal coordination. In the context of the coalition government, these informal arenas have become very useful, but their effectiveness depends on the ministers’ personality and political status. For example, they could not avoid the internal controversy and cabinet division over the law on sexual abuse, leading to Podemos’ cabinet ministers voting against their own government in parliament.
Informal meetings across various levels of government are frequent. Several sectoral conferences have established working groups to foster vertical informal coordination and support formal coordination. In the context of the coalition government, these informal arenas have become very useful, but their effectiveness depends on the ministers’ personality and political status. For example, they could not avoid the internal controversy and cabinet division over the law on sexual abuse, leading to Podemos’ cabinet ministers voting against their own government in parliament.
Graph View
To what extent does central government ensure that subnational self-governments meet national (minimum) standards in delivering public services?
10
9
9
The central government effectively ensures that subnational self-governments successfully meet national standards for public service delivery.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the central government ensures that subnational self-governments successfully meet national standards for public service delivery.
5
4
3
4
3
The central government rarely ensures that subnational self-governments successfully meet national minimum standards for public service delivery.
2
1
1
The central government does nothing to ensure that subnational self-governments successfully meet national standards for public service delivery.
Increased territorial inequalities among public administrations constrain subnational self-governments from meeting national minimum standards for delivering public services. The central government has always aimed to ensure uniform national standards, but this has not been completely effective. Regional governments sometimes design and implement their own public policies without following clearly defined national standards. Few national standards or performance indicators exist for important policy areas such as social services, education, or transport.
In some policy fields, subnational governments use key performance indicators to implement reforms with minimum standards. In other fields, like open government or climate governance, some autonomous communities have adopted higher standards than the national government. As a result, variations in the quality of public services offered by autonomous communities exist, as reflected in recent education (PISA 2023), public health (FADSP 2023), and quality of government (European Commission 2021) reports. Minimum standards are set by basic framework national legislation but are not enforced effectively. The High Inspectorate has not been particularly effective in monitoring the provision of services by autonomous communities.
Regulations on financial sustainability within public administration and local governments have strengthened the central government’s tools to ensure regional and local governments meet national minimum standards. Sanctions for noncompliance are limited. Article 155 of the constitution allows the central government to intervene in an autonomous community, but this instrument has been applied only twice.
In 2022–2023, the national Ministry of Health developed a reform to enhance coordination and multilevel governance within the national health system. The government is establishing a National Public Health Center to improve governance and foster cooperation between the autonomous communities’ healthcare and public health services. The Sectoral Conference for Public Health monitors compliance with minimum standards in the NHS. Other sectoral conferences monitor the implementation of common agreements, especially regarding the execution of the RRP, where compliance is tied to fund transfers.
Citations:
European Quality of Government Index. 2021. “European Quality of Government Index 2021.” https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information-sources/maps/quality-of-government_en
Federación de Asociaciones para la Defensa de la Sanidad Pública. 2023. “Los servicios sanitarios de las CCAA.” https://fadsp.es/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/InformeSerSanCCAA2023.pdf
OECD. 2023. “PISA 2022 Results.” https://www.oecd.org/publication/pisa-2022-results/
In some policy fields, subnational governments use key performance indicators to implement reforms with minimum standards. In other fields, like open government or climate governance, some autonomous communities have adopted higher standards than the national government. As a result, variations in the quality of public services offered by autonomous communities exist, as reflected in recent education (PISA 2023), public health (FADSP 2023), and quality of government (European Commission 2021) reports. Minimum standards are set by basic framework national legislation but are not enforced effectively. The High Inspectorate has not been particularly effective in monitoring the provision of services by autonomous communities.
Regulations on financial sustainability within public administration and local governments have strengthened the central government’s tools to ensure regional and local governments meet national minimum standards. Sanctions for noncompliance are limited. Article 155 of the constitution allows the central government to intervene in an autonomous community, but this instrument has been applied only twice.
In 2022–2023, the national Ministry of Health developed a reform to enhance coordination and multilevel governance within the national health system. The government is establishing a National Public Health Center to improve governance and foster cooperation between the autonomous communities’ healthcare and public health services. The Sectoral Conference for Public Health monitors compliance with minimum standards in the NHS. Other sectoral conferences monitor the implementation of common agreements, especially regarding the execution of the RRP, where compliance is tied to fund transfers.
Citations:
European Quality of Government Index. 2021. “European Quality of Government Index 2021.” https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information-sources/maps/quality-of-government_en
Federación de Asociaciones para la Defensa de la Sanidad Pública. 2023. “Los servicios sanitarios de las CCAA.” https://fadsp.es/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/InformeSerSanCCAA2023.pdf
OECD. 2023. “PISA 2022 Results.” https://www.oecd.org/publication/pisa-2022-results/
To what extent do national policymakers effectively collaborate with regional and local governments to improve the delivery of public services?
10
9
9
National policymakers work effectively with regional and local governments to improve the delivery of public services.
8
7
6
7
6
In general, national policymakers work effectively with regional and local governments to improve the delivery of public services.
5
4
3
4
3
National policymakers rarely work effectively with regional and local governments to improve the delivery of public services.
2
1
1
There is no effective multilevel cooperation between the central and subnational governments.
The constitution does not establish an institutional framework for shared government, continuous political dialogue, legislative cooperation, or conflict resolution among different government levels. Autonomous communities do not participate in central state decision-making, even in matters directly affecting them. Sectoral conferences have assumed the role of facilitating cooperation between the central government and AC governments. Each conference establishes a specific framework for cooperation among administrative levels, with some having a permanent organizational structure and meeting regularly, while others have never convened.
Although sectoral conferences have a political composition, they focus on technical matters and do not serve as channels for political relations. They operate hierarchically, and some have adopted internal rules of procedure allowing shared decision-making. These conferences have been crucial for implementing the RRP. Since December 2022, 139 sectoral conferences and over 35 bilateral meetings with autonomous communities have been held regarding RRP implementation. These meetings have seen the adoption of criteria for fund distribution and monitoring.
The Conference of Presidents represents the highest level of multilateral cooperation between the central government and autonomous communities. The new standing order for the conference, adopted in March 2022, establishes a permanent secretariat and specific rules for adopting common agreements, though the planned number of meetings has not been met.
Coordination and consultation mechanisms do not include local self-government. Intergovernmental relations between the central government and autonomous communities concerning local matters were organized through the Sectoral Conference for Local Affairs, which was dissolved in June 2022 due to inactivity. The National Commission for Local Administration is the permanent body for collaboration between the General State Administration and local administration. The Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces (FEMP) cooperates with the government in several dialogue forums on local government matters.
Subnational self-government officials frequently express dissatisfaction with the lack of institutionalized participation in central government decision-making processes, particularly in education policy. Institutionalized participation would reduce conflict and improve framework legislation. Local self-government political decision-makers often express dissatisfaction at not being able to participate in central and regional government decision-making processes, such as those related to immigration.
Although sectoral conferences have a political composition, they focus on technical matters and do not serve as channels for political relations. They operate hierarchically, and some have adopted internal rules of procedure allowing shared decision-making. These conferences have been crucial for implementing the RRP. Since December 2022, 139 sectoral conferences and over 35 bilateral meetings with autonomous communities have been held regarding RRP implementation. These meetings have seen the adoption of criteria for fund distribution and monitoring.
The Conference of Presidents represents the highest level of multilateral cooperation between the central government and autonomous communities. The new standing order for the conference, adopted in March 2022, establishes a permanent secretariat and specific rules for adopting common agreements, though the planned number of meetings has not been met.
Coordination and consultation mechanisms do not include local self-government. Intergovernmental relations between the central government and autonomous communities concerning local matters were organized through the Sectoral Conference for Local Affairs, which was dissolved in June 2022 due to inactivity. The National Commission for Local Administration is the permanent body for collaboration between the General State Administration and local administration. The Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces (FEMP) cooperates with the government in several dialogue forums on local government matters.
Subnational self-government officials frequently express dissatisfaction with the lack of institutionalized participation in central government decision-making processes, particularly in education policy. Institutionalized participation would reduce conflict and improve framework legislation. Local self-government political decision-makers often express dissatisfaction at not being able to participate in central and regional government decision-making processes, such as those related to immigration.