Interagency synchronisation

Interagency synchronisation is the lawful coordination of objectives, authorities, intelligence, instruments, timing, diplomacy, implementation and assessment across public bodies responsible for economic statecraft. It is an enabling governance function. It does not prescribe a military command model, and its appropriate form depends on the constitutional and administrative system.

Strategic position and mechanism

Economic statecraft often distributes authority across finance, trade, industry, foreign affairs, intelligence, development, law enforcement and defence bodies. Synchronisation connects these mandates without erasing them. It should establish a defined strategic objective, identify the competent authority for each measure, test interactions among instruments, coordinate partners, communicate requirements to implementing organisations and assess intended and unintended effects.

The US Treasury 2021 Sanctions Review illustrates this logic in one domain. It calls for clear policy objectives, multilateral coordination, calibration, enforceability and mitigation of unintended economic, political and humanitarian effects. The US Government Accountability Office found that agencies use varied methods to assess sanctions impacts and that evidence on effectiveness remains limited. These sources support coordination and evaluation, not a universal organisational template.

Governance and limits

Coordination is not centralisation. Ministers, agencies, regulators and courts retain distinct legal responsibilities. Effective arrangements should map statutory powers, ministerial accountability, legislative oversight, information-sharing authority and review mechanisms. They should also incorporate diplomatic, commercial and humanitarian expertise before measures are launched.

The Financial Action Task Force's work on domestic information sharing in counter-proliferation finance demonstrates a bounded coordination model for a defined purpose. Daniel Drezner's analysis of sanctions design likewise shows why objectives, instruments and political strategy must remain coherent.

Failure can take several forms: incompatible agency objectives, measures announced before guidance is ready, weak allied consultation, conflicting obligations for firms or the absence of an agreed assessment framework. These are diagnostic possibilities, not proof of failure in any named government. Claims about dedicated commands, intelligence access or allied targeting arrangements require a public authority and direct evidence.

See also

Economic statecraft · Whole-of-government economic statecraft · Tool selection and sequencing · Fused intelligence · Allied financial targeting coordination · Public-private coordination (aligning incentives)

Sources

• US Department of the Treasury, *The Treasury 2021 Sanctions Review*, October 2021.
• US Government Accountability Office, *Economic Sanctions: Agencies Assess Impacts on Targets, and Studies Suggest Several Factors Contribute to Sanctions' Effectiveness*, GAO-20-145, 2 October 2019.
• Financial Action Task Force, *Best Practices Paper on Recommendation 2: Sharing Among Domestic Competent Authorities Information Related to the Financing of Proliferation*.
• Daniel W. Drezner, "How Not to Sanction," International Affairs 98, no. 5 (2022): 1533-1552.