Coordination

Goals and Means

The word coordination is sometimes used to describe a class of policy goals or outcomes, loosely labeled as “coherence.” This entry distinguishes several distinct goals that fall under this general term. Each of these goals, though, consists to some degree in the reduction or even removal of tensions among policies, so that they do not undermine each other and, perhaps, instead even support each other.

Because coordination covers a range of initiatives designed to combat certain types of problems, one way to understand its meaning is as something offered as the opposite of any or several of those problems. Broadly, the problems for which greater coordination is presented as a solution can be divided into six kinds, ranked here in order of declining ferocity of conflict between the imperatives set out in the institutional or organizational guidelines, organizational or professional goals, incentives, regulatory requirements, and legal duties (see Christopher Pollitt, 2003):

Conflict. Mutually undermining imperatives lead to conflict. For example, goals of promoting economic growth and limiting the environmental impact of human activity quickly come into conflict, but almost every government is expected to promote both to some degree, and they are often given to distinct agencies to pursue. Another such case arises when one regulatory agency demands adaptations to buildings to enable wheelchair access, while another regulatory body forbids it on the ground that they would violate the integrity of a historic building.

Contradiction. This entails inconsistent imperatives that have not actually come into direct conflict but may do so. For example, consider the goal of designing welfare systems to get people who have few skills and some disadvantages, such as learning difficulties or mental health problems, into the work force. Such a program may conflict with the imperative of productivity even in a strong economy, but the conflict may remain latent. However, in a weak economy, the inconsistency in goals may become important and constitute an actual conflict.

Competition. This involves imperatives that are not strictly inconsistent but, in practice, come into conflict or at least are in rivalry for priority or resources. This is a perennial problem, in which the competition between emphasizing investment in secondary and tertiary education and between crime reduction and reduction of the fear of crime can serve as examples.

Incoherence and Fragmentation. Imperatives that are neither mutually contradictory nor in competition may have little to do with each other, when arguably gains could be achieved if they were brought together. The frequent complaints of “departmentalism,” “silo mentality,” and “territorialism” between neighboring local authorities are all examples of this kind of problem.

...