Both dimensions are inseparable and as such are present in every coordination process, which becomes a “mode of governance” to generate legitimacy, learning and effectiveness. It is a political process because it is developed with intergovernmental participation and because it aims to achieve convergence and agreements at the highest political levels, both around ideas and in the area of ​​policy implementation. It is technical because it requires specialized experts to diagnose problems and develop options and decisions.

The participatory and concerted approach to coordination responds to the need to articulate intersectoral and intergovernmental actions, on the one hand, and between the government and civil society organizations, on the other. The participatory nature of coordination arises so that it is genuinely open to the relevant actors in each sector and aims to establish fundamental agreements between them that express themselves. Participatory and concerted coordination seeks to rely on an incentive structure to include national and local actors.

Firstly, central governments are seen as decision-makers and the coordination they exercise is vertical. Secondly, subnational governments are seen as the implementers and the coordination they exercise is horizontal. It is intended to alter this vision to consider that central governments are also involved in implementation and that consequently vertical coordination, also called intergovernmental, must be seen as an indispensable condition for horizontal coordination, both being inseparable (Peters, 1998). In vertical coordination, the top level of government plays a regulatory, financing and monitoring role. Horizontal coordination is also called intersectoral, and articulates the action of the different sectoral agencies (Serrano, 2003).

Coordination can be macro in scope when they are intersectoral and intergovernmental, at the national level; meso when it occurs at the regional level and; micro when the scope is at the local level, in addition, it responds to various levels of political and technical management, according to the scales and areas of intervention required. Regardless of its scope and level, coordination constitutes a process that uses multiple mechanisms, instruments, standards and management procedures that depend on the degree of pre-existing institutional development.

Both dimensions are inseparable and as such are present in every coordination process, which becomes a “mode of governance” to generate legitimacy, learning and effectiveness. It is a political process because it is developed with intergovernmental participation and because it aims to achieve convergence and agreements at the highest political levels, both around ideas and in the area of ​​policy implementation. It is technical because it requires specialized experts to diagnose problems and develop options and decisions.

The participatory and concerted approach to coordination responds to the need to articulate intersectoral and intergovernmental actions, on the one hand, and between the government and civil society organizations, on the other. The participatory nature of coordination arises so that it is genuinely open to the relevant actors in each sector and aims to establish fundamental agreements between them that express themselves. Participatory and concerted coordination seeks to rely on an incentive structure to include national and local actors.

Firstly, central governments are seen as decision-makers and the coordination they exercise is vertical. Secondly, subnational governments are seen as the implementers and the coordination they exercise is horizontal. It is intended to alter this vision to consider that central governments are also involved in implementation and that consequently vertical coordination, also called intergovernmental, must be seen as an indispensable condition for horizontal coordination, both being inseparable (Peters, 1998). In vertical coordination, the top level of government plays a regulatory, financing and monitoring role. Horizontal coordination is also called intersectoral, and articulates the action of the different sectoral agencies (Serrano, 2003).

Coordination can be macro in scope when they are intersectoral and intergovernmental, at the national level; meso when it occurs at the regional level and; micro when the scope is at the local level, in addition, it responds to various levels of political and technical management, according to the scales and areas of intervention required. Regardless of its scope and level, coordination constitutes a process that uses multiple mechanisms, instruments, standards and management procedures that depend on the degree of pre-existing institutional development.