Presidents and prime ministers are without doubt, the most powerful,
influential and visible policymakers in an elected democracy. Depending on
different political traditions and institutional configurations, the executive
branch has strong prerogatives to set the country’s policy agenda, appoint
technical and political staff to implement policy decisions and secure funding allocations
to finance their agenda. Strong executive influence can be decisive to ensure fiscal
discipline, push for legislative reforms or adopt new policy priorities.
The recent political
economy analysis work of nutrition policies underlines the central role of
the executive office to ensure that nutrition strategies are part of national
development plans, to coordinate different sectors and ministries to implement
the nutrition strategy, to secure nutrition funding and to maintain an electoral
commitment to reducing children and maternal chronic malnutrition over time.
Building political commitment: Coordinating ministers and managing coalitions
The existing research, however, has not explained why different cabinet members
would be willing and able to implement the presidents’ agenda? Why would
ministers agree to coordinate around a common policy agenda instead of looking
after their own goals, especially if they come from different parties, regions or
technical backgrounds? And how can the ministers’ incentives be compatible with
the president’s?
There is a remarkable research gap to explore on cabinet management.
Work in the European context and more recently in Latin America has begun to
paint a picture (see references below). We know for example that presidents (as
opposed to prime ministers) usually have greater powers to appoint and dismiss
cabinet ministers from a broad range of collaborators selected from inside and
outside the party in government.
In most Latin American countries, presidential appointments do not even
need validation from congress, which makes cabinet members directly responsible
and responsive to the head of the government. This is a mixed blessing. In Peru,
presidents relied on the support of loyal ministers to execute and implement
his nutrition agenda. On the other hand, this makes ministers less responsive
to demands or issues that are not on the president’s radar.
In coalitional settings, cabinet ministers help ensure that different
political allies are included in the government to influence decision making. In
this context, minority presidents or prime ministers can still remove and
replace “rebel” cabinet ministers to protect their policy agenda. But in doing
so, they affect the balance and stability of their governing coalition. The
implication is that cabinet ministers are more likely to represent the
different demands of the coalition and are less responsive to the priorities of
the executive.
In Brazil, President Lula worked with ministers from different political
parties around his nutrition agenda, while allowing them to take credit for the
success of visible outcomes.
Vertical and horizontal relationships: What’s missing in our understanding of inter-sectoral cooperation?
More systematic research is needed to tell us what produces policy
coordination across different ministries, especially outside a European context.
A useful point of departure is to think whether the relationship between
executives and cabinet ministers is vertical
(hierarchical) or horizontal (collegial) (Hallerberg 2009). At the same time, we still need
to know where ministers are recruited from, how long they remain in office, why
they leave office and where do they go to afterwards.
From a policy perspective, these questions are critical to understanding
why inter-sectoral cooperation takes place.
References
Altman,
David. 2000. "Politics of Coalition Formation and
Survival in Multiparty Presidential Democracies: The Case of Uruguay
(1989-1997)." Party Politics 6: 259-83.
Amorim
Neto, Octâvio, and Kaare Strøm.
2006. "Breaking the Parliamentary
Chain of Delegation: Presidents and Non-Partisan Cabinet Members in European
Democracies." British Journal of Political Science 36: 619.
Hallerberg,
M., Rainer Strauch, R. and von. Hagen, J. 2009. Fiscal Governance in Europe,
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Laver,
Michael, and Kenneth A. Shepsle.
1990. "Coalitions and
Cabinet Government." American Political Science Review 84: 873-90.
Martínez-Gallardo,
Cecilia. 2010. "Inside the Cabinet: The Influence of
Ministers in the Policymaking Process." In How Democracy Works. Political Institutions, Actors, and Arenas in
Latin American Policymaking, edited by Carlos Scartascini, Ernesto Stein
and Mariano Tommasi, 119-45. Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development
Bank.119-45
Schleiter, Petra, and Edward
Morgan-Jones. 2009. "Party Control over European
Cabinets?" European Journal of Political Research 48: 665-93.
This is really interesting. In small states the Prime Minister is the one who have the vision and the power and as agreed more research is needed to unearth the how cooperation is formed and sustained between sectoral ministeries and also between the minister and senior public servants.
ReplyDeleteAndres Mejia Acosta writes:
DeleteThanks for your comment. I would be interested to know if you have a specific example of cabinet coordination led by the Prime Minister in a small state, and what do you think were the motivations for cooperation. Many thanks