Whole-of-Government Analysis
Also known as: Joined-Up Government Analysis, Horizontal Coordination Analysis, WofG Analysis, Cross-Government Integration Analysis
Whole-of-government analysis examines how public organisations coordinate across portfolio, sectoral and jurisdictional boundaries to tackle problems that no single agency can solve alone. Articulated by Tom Christensen and Per Lægreid in their 2007 study of whole-of-government reform, it is a response to the fragmentation produced by decades of New Public Management — the proliferation of single-purpose agencies, contracting and silos. The analysis identifies cross-cutting or 'wicked' problems, maps the actors and boundaries involved, assesses the coordination mechanisms in play, diagnoses where joined-up working breaks down, and recommends integration strategies.
Key highlights
- Directly addresses cross-boundary, wicked problems that single-agency analysis cannot capture.
- Provides a structured way to assess coordination mechanisms along a soft-to-hard spectrum and match them to need.
- Connects coordination failures to the structural legacy of New Public Management, giving a coherent reform narrative.
- Balances the case for integration against its real costs, avoiding naive 'more coordination is always better' prescriptions.
Intuition
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
How it works
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
When to use it
Use whole-of-government analysis when a policy problem spans multiple agencies, levels or sectors and the central difficulty is coordination rather than the performance of any single organisation. It suits cross-cutting challenges — public safety, social exclusion, pandemics, environmental policy — and reviews of fragmentation left by earlier agency-creating reforms. The framework assumes that horizontal coordination can be improved by structural and cultural means, that integration's benefits can outweigh its costs, and that a more joined-up state is achievable. It is less appropriate when a problem genuinely sits within one agency, when the costs of coordination (delay, diffused accountability, turf conflict) exceed its benefits, or when 'joined-up' rhetoric substitutes for real authority and resources. Treat integration as a means, not an end.
Strengths & limitations
- Directly addresses cross-boundary, wicked problems that single-agency analysis cannot capture.
- Provides a structured way to assess coordination mechanisms along a soft-to-hard spectrum and match them to need.
- Connects coordination failures to the structural legacy of New Public Management, giving a coherent reform narrative.
- Balances the case for integration against its real costs, avoiding naive 'more coordination is always better' prescriptions.
- Coordination is hard to measure objectively, so assessments lean on documentary and interview evidence open to interpretation.
- Integration carries real costs — slower decisions, blurred accountability, coordination overload — that are easy to underweight.
- The framework diagnoses fragmentation well but offers no formula for the right degree of integration in a given case.
- Whole-of-government initiatives often fail in implementation, and analysis can mistake structural reform for genuine cultural change.
Common pitfalls
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Applications
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Frequently asked
What is a 'wicked problem' in whole-of-government analysis?
A wicked problem is a complex policy challenge that crosses organisational boundaries, has no single owner, resists simple definition, and cannot be solved by any one agency acting alone — examples include homelessness, climate adaptation, organised crime and public-health emergencies. Such problems are the natural object of whole-of-government analysis precisely because they demand horizontal coordination across ministries, levels of government and sectors, rather than better performance within a single silo.
How does whole-of-government relate to New Public Management?
Whole-of-government emerged largely as a reaction to the fragmentation that New Public Management produced. NPM's emphasis on specialised single-purpose agencies, contracting, competition and vertical performance accountability tended to create silos that struggled to coordinate. Whole-of-government seeks to rebalance toward horizontal integration and coherence. Christensen and Lægreid stress it is not a wholesale rejection of NPM but a corrective layered on top of it, attempting to recover coordination without abandoning the efficiency gains NPM sought.
What coordination mechanisms does the analysis consider?
It considers a spectrum from soft to hard. Soft mechanisms include information-sharing, networks and joint forums; intermediate ones include cross-cutting programmes, joint committees, pooled budgets and co-located teams; harder ones include lead-agency arrangements, super-ministries, structural mergers and strengthened steering from the centre of government. The analytical task is to judge whether the mechanisms in place match the intensity of coordination a problem requires, and to distinguish genuine integration from nominal liaison that exists only on paper.
Sources
- 1.Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). The Whole-of-Government Approach to Public Sector Reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059–1066.
- 2.OECD. Centre of government, policy coherence and public-governance coordination resources. OECD, Paris.
You have read it. What now?
Cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 22). Whole-of-Government Analysis. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/public-administration/whole-of-government-analysis