8. Towards an open state in Romania: Expanding the benefits of an open government across the state
This chapter analyses Romania’s move towards an open state, i.e. the implementation and co-ordination of open government initiatives and strategies at all levels of government and in all branches of the state. It finds that some municipalities are championing open government at the subnational level, and that these efforts could be harnessed with a strategic framework and through additional support from the central level. The chapter also assesses the implementation of transparency and participatory initiatives in Parliament. It concludes with a roadmap to build an open state in Romania.
As detailed in the previous chapters of this Review, open government - based on the idea that citizens should be enabled to understand, influence, monitor and evaluate public decisions and actions - touches upon every single aspect of public governance. For many years, the global open government movement has focused mainly on open government reforms carried out and implemented at the level of central/federal governments (OECD, 2019[1]). However, the principles of open government – transparency, accountability, integrity, and stakeholder participation – are relevant for any public institution from any branch of the State and from any level of government (OECD, 2016[2]). In addition, citizens expect the same level of transparency, accountability, and participation from all branches of the state and all levels of government (OECD, 2020[3]). Recognising the transformative potential of the open government principles, a growing number of countries start to move progressively from silos of open government towards an integrated open state approach. Over the past years, the OECD has gathered evidence and good practices from its member countries that point to different paths to build an open state (OECD, 2019[1]; OECD, 2022[4]). Member countries such as Costa Rica have signed high-level declarations on open state, others such as Colombia have adopted open state policies, and many countries like Spain have built multi-level co-ordination bodies to foster a move towards an open state.
At the national level, Romania has implemented a series of initiatives and strategies to make public administration more open, but currently, the country has not developed or pursued an open state agenda. This means that even if open government practices exist outside the central government, those are not being embedded in a co-ordinated effort at the national level. This chapter focuses on identifying the good practices implemented by subnational authorities and in the legislative branch, and provides recommendations to improve their reach and impact, and suggests a roadmap for Romania to build an open state. This chapter finds that Romania could take advantage of the co-creation process of the future OGP Action Plan, and the forthcoming National Open Government Strategy (see Chapter 6) to build an open state in Romania.
In accordance with the Provisions of the Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (OECD, 2017[5]) (hereafter the “Recommendation”, and based on evidence collected over the years, this chapter suggests that Romania pursues a twofold approach to build an open state. On one side, Romania should encourage the implementation of the open government principles in every public institution at all levels of government. Nevertheless, this chapter focuses on the subnational level (Municipalities and Counties), and in the Parliament. Acknowledging the particularities of the different state actors, it provides recommendations to adapt and implement the open government principles to the specific context of the subnational level, and the legislative branch. In addition, Romania could build a co-ordinated and coherent framework for an open state approach.
This chapter suggests a roadmap which includes fostering high-level commitment, designing an implementation roadmap, and creating a mechanism for multilevel governance of open government initiatives and strategies across the state.
The OECD approach to an open state
The OECD Recommendation on Open Government includes the first international definition of an open state:
When the executive, legislature, judiciary, independent public institutions, and all levels of government – recognising their respective roles, prerogatives, and overall independence according to their existing legal and institutional frameworks – collaborate, exploit synergies, and share good practices and lessons learned among themselves and with other stakeholders to promote transparency, integrity, accountability, and stakeholder participation, in support of democracy and inclusive growth (OECD, 2017[5]).
Adherents to the Recommendation1 recognise that open government strategies and initiatives are a shared responsibility of all branches and levels of government, and that therefore the provisions of the Recommendation are relevant to all of them (OECD, 2017[5]). Provision 10 of the Recommendation2 further highlights the importance of respecting each of the branches and institutions’ respective roles and independence according to the legal framework of the country. An open-state approach should not bypass or alter the equilibrium between branches of the state; it should rather aim at creating synergies to reach a common objective.
The Recommendation understands the creation of an open state as a twofold approach. On one side, it highlights the importance of multilevel governance of open government initiatives and strategies across the state. This includes efforts to co-ordinate the efforts implemented by the central/federal level, the subnational level, the legislature, the judiciary, and independent institutions to ensure collaboration and efficiency in moving towards a common objective. On the other side, the Recommendation aims at supporting the implementation of the open government principles in every public institution and at every level of government. Acknowledging the particularities of the different state actors, it suggests implementing adapted open government initiatives and strategies at the subnational level, the legislature, the judiciary and independent institutions.
Source: Author’s own elaboration based on (OECD, 2017[5]) “Recommendation of the Council on Open Government”, OECD/LEGAL/0438, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438.
The OECD introduced the concept of an open state for the first time in the Open Government Review of Costa Rica (2016[2]), and since then, it has supported countries such as Colombia, Argentina, and Brazil in pursuing integrated open state agenda. In parallel, international organisations such as the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), researchers,3 and civil society organisations have contributed to the development of a common understanding of an open state. The Ibero-American Charter, for example, identifies the need for a broader understanding that actively incorporates the different branches of the State and levels of government in Ibero-American countries (CLAD, 2016[6]).
The rationale for an open state
The necessity to involve the central and sub-national levels of government, the legislature, the judicial branch, and independent institutions in a whole-of-state effort to foster openness is motivated by several reasons:
For open government to be impactful and sustainable, countries need to implement its principles in a co-ordinated and holistic approach across the whole state. For example, the executive power needs the legislature to establish the normative framework for open government. At the same time, the Legislature needs the Judiciary and the Independent Public Institutions to ensure that the legal framework on open government is duly implemented.
Citizens expect the same level of transparency, accountability, integrity, and opportunities for participation from all branches of the state and levels of government. Citizens interact with and have similar expectations of their local authorities, their representatives in Parliament or the judges in the courts.
Open government implies a cultural change; it requires transforming the entire system of decision-making across government, at all levels of government and in all branches of the state. The change towards an open government culture is not exclusive to the executive branch and requires a change in every institution and every individual public official.
Open government aims to transform the relationship between governments and their citizens. In this sense, the executive branch is not the only branch that interacts with citizens and stakeholders. Other public authorities such as sub-national governments or the Legislature often have more direct and constant relationships with citizens and stakeholders.
For open government to build trust and strengthen democracy, all public institutions that are part of the State need to embrace and implement the principles of an open government. Democracy and trust are not limited to the executive branch. Citizens and stakeholders can experience different levels of trust towards different branches of the state. Only a collective effort across the State will ensure a sustainable increase in trust and stronger democratic institutions.
The need to shift towards an open state approach is also closely linked to the challenges identified in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set out by the United Nations in September 2015 (United Nations, 2019[7]). In particular, SDG Goal 16 encourages countries to “promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.” Sub-goal 16.7 makes direct reference to a whole-of-state approach regarding open government and invites countries to “ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.”
The United Nations 2030 Agenda urges countries to implement a new public governance framework based on co-operation between different levels of government and branches of the state (Naciones Unidas, 2015[8]). This vision is directly linked to the concept and principles of institutional co-operation that drive the OECD’s understanding of an open state.
The move towards an open state is a reality, but few countries are taking a co-ordinated and integrated approach
According to data collected by the Open Government Partnership (OGP), between 2011 and 2018, the National Action Plans of OGP members included 461 commitments focusing on the subnational level of government, 107 on the Legislature and 80 about the Judiciary (OGP, 2018[9]). The number of open state commitments has been gradually increasing, with a growing interest in commitments from the subnational level of government (Figure 8.2).
Note: Data refers to OGP Action Plans by 35 OECD countries that are part of OGP.
Source: OGP (2018[9]), OGP Explorer, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/explorer/all-data.html.
According to the results of the 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government, 64.9% (24) of Adherents to the OECD Recommendation already implement joint open government initiatives, while 59.5% (22) share good practices and experience between branches of the state and levels of government, and 48.6% (18) contribute to each other’s policy documents (Figure 8.3). A detailed analysis of answers collected by the OECD highlights certain trends:
Most of the joint initiatives are happening in the context of the OGP process (e.g. OGP events involving different branches of the state in France or subnational commitments in the national OGP Action Plans, as is the case of Spain).
Usually, the initiatives reported are related to a specific principle of open government (e.g. transparency) but are not labelled as open state or open government initiatives. This is the case for example for the national open data platforms reported as joint open state initiatives by Belgium and Greece.
The increase in collaboration across levels of government and branches of the state is a positive trend. However, only a small number of OECD countries are moving towards a fully co-ordinated, structured, and integrated open-state approach. Rather, actions are taken in a scattered and isolated way.
As noted by Oszlak (2014[11]), the executive power (both central/federal and subnational) focuses on ensuring the delivery and implementation of policies and services that respond to the present time. The central/federal government usually concentrates on specific responsibilities such as fiscal management, security, and foreign affairs. Following years of decentralisation, subnational governments have gained new responsibilities and powers through the transfer of regulatory capacities, budgetary resources and decision-making from the central/federal level (UCLG, 2018[12]). Today, many subnational governments are responsible for the delivery of basic services such as water and transport, and others accumulate further responsibilities such as planning, commercial licensing, management of land, taxation, public budgets, education, and in some cases health. For more information on the responsibilities and prerogatives of the subnational authorities in Romania, please refer to Box 8.1.
Under the Constitution of Romania of 1991 and the Framework Law no. 195/2006 on decentralisation, local public administration is based on the principles of decentralisation, local autonomy and deconcentration of public services. Law no.195/2006 was repealed by Emergency Ordinance on Administrative Code 57/2019 which introduced the above-mentioned principles in the administrative code. Romania is a unitary state composed of communes (comune), towns (orase), municipalities (municipii)1 and counties (judete). The administrative division follows a two-layer logic between local and regional. There are also as state territorial administration 42 prefectures (including Bucharest prefecture) and 8 administrative regions for regional development purposes.
The local authorities are composed of 2 861 communes (comune), 217 towns (orase), and 103 municipalities (municipii). Their competences include:
The regional authorities are composed of 41 counties (judete), and their competences include:
← 1. According to the Romanian Explanatory Dictionary, a commune (comuna) is a basic administrative-economic unit, made up of one or more villages and led by a mayor; a town (oras) is a complex form of human settlement, having multiple building facilities, usually with administrative, industrial, commercial, political and cultural functions; and a municipality (municipiu) is a large town, having a significant economic, social, political and cultural role.
Source: Council of European Municipalities and Regions (2021[13]), Territorial, Governance, Powers and Reforms in Europe: Romania, https://terri.cemr.eu/en/country-profiles/romania.html.
This section discusses the implementation of the open government principles at the subnational level of government in Romania, in particular in municipalities (municipii). It finds that larger urban areas are already implementing a wide range of initiatives that aim at making public decisions more transparent and participatory but are usually not labelled as open government. In addition, evidence collected by the OECD shows a lack of systemic or co-ordinated approach, as these initiatives are being implemented in isolation. This section provides subnational authorities with different paths to move from isolated practices to a co-ordinated and coherent agenda, that contributes to the national open government agenda, and that delivers its strategic objectives such as building trust and changing the relationship between citizens and the state. The evidence of this section is based on desk research, the OECD Survey on Open Government for Romanian Municipalities, which gathered answers from 25 municipalities across the country, and a series of fact-finding interviews.
The subnational level –and municipalities in particular– can create meaningful and impactful opportunities for citizens to participate in public decisions and services
Subnational governments are a vital piece in the mechanisms of public governance. The subnational level is closer to the people, both in terms of decision-making and in the provision of basic services, so interactions between government and citizens are more direct and recurrent at this level. Usually, the subnational level is the first, and frequently the only, contact point between citizens and the administration (UCLG, 2018[12]). The subnational level also tends to be more agile and responsive, allowing it to innovate more easily (OECD, 2021[14]). The European Charter of Local Self-Government recognises that the right of citizens to participate in the conduct of public affairs can be most directly exercised at the local level (Council of Europe, 1985[15]).
According to the Organization of American States (OAS), the concept of making subnational governments more open is driven by a desire for greater legitimacy and better management of public affairs through interaction with citizens. The essence of open government at the subnational level involves "exploiting the comparative advantages of its proximity to citizens to deepen interaction and improve the management of local administrations” (OAS, 2014[16]). For United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) subnational governments are a natural space for advancing open government, mainly because of the following reasons (2018[17]):
Many innovations and open government reforms occur at the local and regional level, because that is where governments can collaborate with citizens more directly.
They are level of government closest to people and often they are the first (and frequently the only) point of access to government.
They have a wider knowledge of their territories and are the entities that directly connect national and global strategies with local realities, and with the citizens.
They are in charge of the provision of a large part of public services and are key to define the development and creation of the main public policies.
Citizen participation is greater at the local level and so citizens can assume a key role in the co-creation and implementation of solutions.
They have become laboratories to promote open innovation and collaborative work between citizens and governments and have important potential to improve the quality of the public sector and democracy and renew trust.
To answer the growing interest from subnational governments to be part of the open government agenda, the Open Government Partnership created a dedicated cohort and methodology to support them in the implementation of open government initiatives and strategies (Box 8.2).
The Open Government Partnership (OGP) was founded in 2011 by eight governments and nine leading global civil society organisations, with the aim of setting up a unique multilateral platform to co-ordinate and catalyse efforts to transform how public institutions serve citizens, working together to promote a responsible, responsive and inclusive governance model. Today 76 national governments and 106 subnational governments are active members, who have made and implemented over 5 000 specific commitments to enhance open government around the world (OGP, 2018[9]).
In 2016, the OGP introduced a pilot programme expanding the process to include subnational governments acting independently of their national governments, based on the OGP’s theory of change linked to multi-stakeholder co-creation processes and two-year action plans. As of August 2022, 122 local jurisdictions had joined the OGP Local programme (among which 43 were from OECD countries), which now includes a new strategy for the vertical co-ordination of subnational actions with work at the central/national level, and the development of a knowledge, learning and skill-building platform for local actors.
Useful websites and official information about OGP Local
The OGP Local Handbook: This handbook contains the rules for joining and participating in OGP Local. It applies to local jurisdictions that have been accepted as members of OGP Local.
Source: OGP (2022[18]), OGP local, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/ogp-local/ (accessed on 8 August 2022).
Among the subnational level, cities are one of the most dynamic and important administrative units. They have a significant role to play in most of the complex challenges the world is facing from pandemics, democratic crises to climate change. For example, in the context of the COVID-19 crisis, cities were the most affected areas by the pandemic and at the same time, cities were and will remain an essential players in the front-line processes for the recovery and resilience-building (OECD, 2020[19]). Cities and their bordering regions are leading the innovation race towards more impactful and meaningful ways to reconnect citizens and public authorities. For example, many innovations linked to improving public services, citizen participation and integrity have emerged at the city level. Examples include the participatory budgets of Porto Alegre (Brazil), the digital participation platform Decidim of Barcelona (Spain), the more than 400 representative deliberative processes at the local level gathered by the OECD (2021[20]), co-governance and innovation laboratories like in Bologna, and the open data portals of cities like London (United Kingdom).
Involvement at the subnational level is essential to make open government the overarching culture across the public sector and among all public officials. Therefore, subnational governments are not only an ally, but also a key player in the effective construction of an open state. However, a simple copy of the open government model applied at the central/federal level will not work at the subnational level: it is necessary to build a specific approach to openness, designed for different levels of government (whether state, regional/departmental or local/municipal).
Romanian subnational governments are implementing open government initiatives without labelling them as such
In Romania, there are 3 181 local governments (including communes, towns, and municipalities) and 42 regional governments (see Box 8.1 for more information). Open government principles are anchored in existing legislations affecting the subnational level, including:
Laws regarding administration organisation (e.g. Government Emergency Ordinance no. 57/2019 regarding the Administrative Code, the legal provisions regarding local public administration are provided in art. 75 of the Administrative Code, and the Government Decision no. 635/2022 on the consultation procedure of the associative structures of the local public administration authorities when drafting normative acts).
Laws regarding the implementation of transparency obligations (e.g. Law 544/2001 on free access to information of public interest, or Law 52/2003 on decisional transparency in public administration).
Laws opening spaces for citizen participation (e.g. Law no. 273/2006 on local public finance and Law no. 52/2003 on decisional transparency).
In addition, evidence gathered by the OECD, shows that there is a general awareness of the concept of open government among subnational authorities. According to the responses to the OECD Survey on Open Government for Romanian Municipalities (hereinafter “the OECD Survey”), 84% of respondents were familiar with the concept of open government. The Survey also shows that their understanding of open government is close to the OECD definition, as all (100%) respondents associate the pillars of transparency and participation, and 60% of respondents include the concept of accountability. However, only 36% associate the protection of the civic space with an open government. To support a harmonised understanding of open government, the General Secretariat of the Government (GSG) jointly with the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MDLPA) and the Centre for Public Innovation and SmartCity developed the Guide on Open Government for Subnational Authorities, in which it suggests a definition of open government that is based on transparency, participation and accountability4 (Government of Romania, 2019[21]). Even if there is large uptake of the OECD definition of open government, efforts could be made to better integrate pillars of accountability and the protection of the civic space as part of the Romanian understanding of an open government.
These findings are confirmed by subnational governments’ practical implementation of the open government concept. Evidence gathered by the OECD points to a diversity of practices in the areas of transparency, accountability, and participation that are being implemented by municipalities. For example, data collected through the OECD Survey demonstrates that municipal authorities are using different mechanisms to inform citizens about public decisions and services. All respondents declared using the institutional website, followed by 92% that communicate through social media platforms, 84% through in-person open meetings, 56% via boards with information in public space, and 32% through regular newsletters (see Figure 8.5).
Regarding the implementation of access to information obligations, according to the July 2022 monitoring exercise of the General Secretariat of the Government, there is an average of 70% of compliance among counties (judete). However, a lower degree of compliance can be observed at the level of municipalities (municipii), where it reached on average 51% in 2022 (Government of Romania, 2022[22]).
When it comes to interacting with citizens and stakeholders, as shown in Figure 8.6, public in-person consultations are the most common way to interact with citizens (used by 80% of respondents), followed by agenda-setting mechanisms (76%), participatory budgets (64%) and public meetings (60%). A more detailed analysis of Romania’s participatory agenda both at the national and subnational levels is included in Chapter 4 of the present Review and in Chapter 6 of the Civic Space Review of Romania (OECD, 2023[23]). As for many OECD countries, urban areas in Romania are leading the way in terms of innovative approaches to citizen participation. For example, the city hall of Cluj Napoca (see Box 8.3) led the implementation of participatory budgets at the local level in Romania, a practice that has spread to more than 20 municipalities across the country (Participatory Budgeting Atlas, 2021[24]).
Similarly, public authorities use different mechanisms to gather citizens’ feedback on the delivery of public services at the municipal level. Most of those mechanisms are based on online tools, with social media being the most common approach (used by 88% of respondents), followed by a section in the institutional website (72%), a dedicated online tool (64%) and the use of kiosks (32%) (Figure 8.7).
Participatory budgeting in the municipality of Suceava
The municipality of Suceava’s e-portal (https://eportal.primariasv.ro/dm_suceava/servicii.nsf) allows citizens to submit electronic petitions and take part in participatory budgeting processes. The platform website states that the participatory budget serves as a “framework of a partnership relationship between the public administration and the citizens, in order to actively involve them, through ideas, suggestions, proposals, to improve the quality of life at the level of the local community”. Citizens can submit any projects of local interest via the website (Suceava City Hall, n.d.[25]).
Digital platforms in the municipality of Timișoara
The municipality of Timișoara has developed a series of digital platforms to increase transparency and participation. Decidem Timișoara (https://decidem.primariatm.ro/), through which citizens can organise themselves democratically by presenting proposals, participating in meetings and debates, encouraging discussions on the decision-making process, making decisions through various forms of voting and by monitoring the implementation of decisions (Timișoara City Hall, n.d.[26]). Timisoara published its first Data Portal (https://data.primariatm.ro) in March 2021 with 30 datasets (health, education, culture, infrastructure, environment, mobility, etc.). In addition, more targeted platforms have allowed Timisoara to better inform citizens during the COVID-19 pandemic (https://covid19.primariatm.ro) or help connect citizens with Ukrainian refugees to facilitate support and emergency housing (https://timisoarapentruucraina.ro).
Source: Suceava City Hall (n.d.[25]), ePortal; Timișoara City Hall (n.d.[26]), Decidem Timișoara; Iași City Hall (n.d.[27]), Collaborative Solutions Platform; Com’ON Cluj-Napoca (n.d.[28]), “About”.
Certainly, Romania has champions of open government among its subnational authorities, but as for many other OECD countries, important differences between urban areas and rural areas persist. The evidence collected by the OECD shows a disparity in the implementation of such practices between municipalities (municipii), where most of these practices occur, and less urbanised areas in communes (comune) or towns (orase). For example, according to the Participatory Budget Atlas (2021[24]), participatory budgets are mostly implemented at the level of large urban areas. In addition, innovative use of digital technologies to better inform (transparency) and connect with citizens (participation) are mostly being implemented by large cities such as Bucharest, Alba Iulia, Timisoara, Cluj Napoca and Iași, and to lesser extent by smaller municipalities or towns.
The efforts from GSG in raising awareness and supporting the subnational level towards more open government, should reflect this disparity, and focus too on bringing communes (comune), towns (orase) and counties (judete) on board. GSG has taken steps in this regard, mainly by including a commitment in the OGP National Action Plan 2022 – 2024 which seeks to increase the number of local authorities implementing a participatory budget through guidelines, trainings, and peer-learning (Government of Romania, 2022[29]). Concrete support from GSG could facilitate the development of open government initiatives at the subnational level, for example, GSG could develop and facilitate ready-to-use digital platforms to set up a participatory budget or a consultation, or provide dedicated funding for communes (comune) or towns (orase) that wish to experiment with participatory approaches. In the medium to long term, this suggested top-down support should move towards mutual learning and support between the two levels of government in advancing open government in Romania.
Romania is currently lacking a systemic and integrated approach to open government at the subnational government
As detailed in this chapter, Romanian municipalities are undertaking efforts to implement open government initiatives and strategies. In particular, the implementation of access to information, the existence of several channels of communication between citizens and government, the availability of multiple mechanisms for citizens and stakeholders to participate and to provide feedback to public authorities.
However, such practices are being implemented in isolation, meaning that are not part of a broader agenda to foster open government or transform the public sector. In fact, the majority of municipalities that participated in the OECD Survey do not have a strategic approach to open government. 56% of respondents do not have any policy or strategic document in place to promote open government, 36% have adopted a document covering transparency or integrity, and only 8% have an integrated policy to foster open government (Figure 8.8).
Creating a strategic framework for open government can allow to move on from a mosaic of initiatives to a co-ordinated and integrated approach, enhancing the impact of the open government agenda (OECD, 2020[30]). The differences between open government initiatives and strategies, as defined by the OECD Recommendation (2017), are shown in Box 8.4, and Chapter 6 provides a more detailed discussion on Romania’s forthcoming Open Government Strategy.
Open government initiatives: Actions undertaken by the government, or by a single public institution, to achieve specific objectives in the area of open government, ranging from the drafting of laws to the implementation of specific activities such as online consultations.
Open government strategy (OGS): A document that defines the open government agenda of the central government and/or of any of its subnational levels, or that of a single public institution or thematic area. It includes key open government initiatives, together with short-, medium- and long-term goals and indicators.
Source: OECD (2017[5]), “Recommendation of the Council on Open Government”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438.
Subnational authorities can follow different paths to move from isolated practices to a co-ordinated and coherent open government agenda. Romania’s subnational authorities can develop their strategic open government frameworks in diverse ways but should aim at enhancing the coherence of open government initiatives and their impact. Given the many differences between counties and the diverse nature of communes, towns and municipalities, each entity should develop its strategic documents in line with its own specific circumstances. Strategies must address specific needs in terms of public policy objectives, alignment with government macroeconomic goals, responding to the priorities of the current administration, competences, budgets, available resources, etc.
Two Romanian municipalities (Timisoara and Iasi) are taking steps towards an integrated agenda following the adoption of their own OGP Local Action Plan (see Box 8.5). These documents allow to create a momentum around open government, and to build an ecosystem of public and non-public stakeholders, however, the commitment-based action plan remains a mosaic of practices and does not support a long-term transformation of the public sector (Chapter 6 provides a more detailed discussion on this matter). If subnational governments opt to adopt a dedicated policy document on open government, it should look at the medium to long term, and include a whole-of-government approach (in comparison to the commitment-based action plan). These policy documents should be aligned with the forthcoming National Open Government Strategy to foster synergies and coherence. The General Secretariat of the Government (GSG) published the Guidelines Open Government Recommendations for the local level administration, which provides detailed guidance on how to design and implement a policy document on open government at the subnational level. However, as detailed in the following section, its reach and uptake remain limited. The OECD Guide to Designing and Implementing Territorial Open Government Strategies in Colombia could serve as additional inspiration (2021[14]).
Municipality of Timisoara
As part of its Open Government Partnership (OGP) Local Program membership, Timisoara adopted its first Open Government Local Action Plan (PLA) in 2022 which includes a long-term vision, and a series of commitments to achieve it.
Vision: “Timișoara, as an inspiration for other local communities, is the city where public administration and civil society together create opportunities for any citizen to be involved in public decisions on quality of life and community development. The main goal of open government is to improve citizen’s quality of life.” (Timisoara Municipality, 2022[31])
Timisoara counts on high-level support from the Mayor, and established the Participatory Governance and Neighborhood Management Department as the institutional arrangement to support the implementation of its PLA.
The open government values and principles are integrated into the Mayor’s Government Program.
Municipality of Iași
As part of its Open Government Partnership (OGP) Local Program membership, Iași adopted its first Open Government Local Action Plan (PLA) in 2019, including three main priority areas:
Transparent governance in the Iași Municipality is a whole-of-municipality effort to promote an open government in different policy areas.
Clean city is a project to involve citizens and stakeholders in climate policies in Iasi.
Design4Community is a mechanism to co-create solutions for public issues and promote a culture of citizen participation in the Municipality. This commitment evolved into https://solutiicolaborative.ro – a platform that allows citizens to define most pressing issues and suggest collaborative solutions.
Source: Municipality of Timisoara (2022[31]), Open Government Local Action Plan 2022–2024; Municipality of Iași (2019[32]), Open Government Action Plan 2019–2021.
2. Integrating open government initiatives in policy instruments covering broader public sector reform (e.g. Regional Development Strategy):
As part of the European Union regional policy (also known as cohesion policy),5 European regions and cities have to develop plans and strategies to allocate European funds. In this context, Romanian Development Regions have to design and implement a series of strategies including local territorial development strategies, and integrated urban plans for the programming period. For the current period (2021 – 2027), the European Commission has set five policy objectives to guide this policy instrument, among which: “Europe closer to citizens by fostering the sustainable and integrated development of all types of territories”. This represents an opportunity for Romanian regions to include an open government axis in the forthcoming strategies. OECD countries can provide inspiration to Romanian subnational authorities on how to integrate open government initiatives into instruments covering broader policy issues. For example, in Colombia, subnational authorities have integrated open government initiatives into their Departmental and Territorial Development Plans. For example, this is the case of the Antioquia 2020-2023 Development Plan, which includes a component on transparency and integrity aimed at improving the Department's Open Government Index score and contributing to building an open government culture, or the Bogotá District Development Plan 2020 - 2024, which includes open government elements in one transversal axis, 4 milestones and 6 concrete goals. In this sense, Romanian subnational authorities could build on existing policy instruments such as the Regional Development Plans, to develop a medium-long term vision for open government, and include ongoing initiatives to promote co-ordination and coherence.
Chapter 6 of this Review suggests that Romania adopts an Open Government Strategy (OGS) to move towards an integrated, long-term open government agenda. Subnational authorities could join GSG’s effort by contributing to the co-creation process of the OGS (Figure 8.9), or by adhering to it and adapting its content to their particular local context (Figure 8.10). In addition to providing a framework, this option could foster vertical co-ordination and support the construction of an open state. Apart from ensuring subnational efforts are not happening in isolation, co-ordination with the central level means greater support, the exchange of good practices, better use of resources, etc. Co-ordinating central and subnational strategic documents contributes to the construction of an open state by ensuring the open government agendas of both levels are more coherent and in tune with each other.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
The subnational level is currently not integrated into the national open government agenda
The Romanian Government through the Ministry of Development, Public Works and Administration (MDLPA) and the General Secretariat of the Government (GSG) has undertaken several efforts to promote open government at the subnational level. Romania’s 3rd, 4th and 5th OGP National Action Plan (NAP) included specific commitments to open government at the local level, aiming at increasing the involvement of subnational authorities in the national OGP Process and providing support to subnational authorities to develop more initiatives to foster transparency and citizen participation (OGP, 2018[33]) (Government of Romania, 2022[29]). For example, a commitment included in Romania’s third NAP consisted of training for 111 local authorities and led to the publication of GSG’s Guidelines Open Government Recommendations for the local level administration which included a series of tools for subnational governments to design their own open government agenda. The Guide included a suggested Declaration on Open Government at Local Level that could serve as the political support for the open government agenda, as well as a roadmap for each interested local authority to design and adopt their own action plan on open government (see Box 8.6).
In addition, GSG has undertaken efforts to raise awareness about the concept of open state through for example an essay contest for students on the topic “Open State: Romania's development perspectives for the expansion of open government” (General Secretariat of the Government, 2020[20]).
In 2017, the Government of Romania (Ministry of Development, Public Works and Administration and the General Secretariat of the Government), in partnership with, the Centre for Public Innovation and Smart City Timisoara, developed a Guide for subnational authorities to develop their own open government plan. This document includes a template document (Declaration) to be endorsed by high-level authorities as a way to secure commitment and political buy-in to the concept of open government. In addition, it provides practical guidance to design a strategic framework (action plan) covering the areas of transparency, participation, and accountability. The Guide further suggests a 150 days roadmap to design, and adopt a local action plan on open government, and to establish a co-ordination mechanism to follow up its implementation.
Declaration on Open Government at the local level:
We are committed to respecting and promoting the following principles of open government:
I. Promoting transparency through publication of information of public interest and related datasets
II. Respecting and encouraging citizen participation
III. Collaboration with members of the community (citizens, non-governmental organisations academia, private sector) and other public authorities or institutions
IV. Sharing the experience gained
V. Providing a procedural framework for the implementation of actions necessary to comply with the principles of open government.
Source: Government of Romania (2019[21]), Guidelines Open Government Recommendations for the local level administration, https://ogp.gov.ro/nou/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Recomandari-Parteneriatul-pentru-Guvernare-Deschisa-la-nivel-local_mai19.pdf.
However, the Guide developed by GSG did not achieve its expected outcome, and the majority of the abovementioned activities did not continue after 2020, mainly because of lack of sufficient resources in the central government (human and financial). Evidence collected by the OECD during its fact-finding missions to Romania shows that many subnational authorities are not aware of (and thus not using) the Guide on Open Government for Subnational Authorities; and only two municipalities followed the suggested roadmap to establish a Local Action Plan (Box 8.5). Romania could follow Argentina’s path in the integration of the subnational level in their Federal Open Government Programme (Box 8.7).
Based on the recommendations of the OECD Open Government Review of Argentina (2016), the Federal government develop an initiative to foster the articulation between the Provinces, Municipalities, and the Federal level. The Programme was co-constructed with the participation of representatives of subnational governments, the open government lead in the central government, the Ministry in charge of subnational entities, and civil society organisations.
Through the Programme, the central government provides capacity building, and support for implementation of actions to foster transparency, accountability, open data, innovation, and citizen participation in subnational governments. The Programme is built around three components:
1. Training on open government: A three-week course covering the basics of open government, the concepts, concrete case studies, as well as the open government agenda in Argentina. In the 2021 edition, more than 770 representatives from subnational governments, academia and civil society participated.
2. Methodology and tools: A hands-on course providing concrete tools and methods to design and implement open government projects.
3. Implementation support: the Federal government supports up to 50 projects from subnational governments that aim at building an open government culture.
Source: Government of Argentina (2022[34]), Federal Open Government Programme, https://www.argentina.gob.ar/jefatura/innovacion-publica/servicios-y-pais-digital/gobierno-abierto/programa-federal-de-gobierno.
An additional challenge identified by the OECD is the lack of articulation between the subnational and the central levels of government when it comes to open government. Only 24% of respondents to the OECD Survey have participated in the central government’s open government agenda. Nevertheless, evidence collected by the OECD shows that there is a willingness from the subnational level to be involved more regularly in Romania’s Open Government Partnership (OGP) process, as 52% of respondents declared an interest to be part of the National OGP Process in future occasions. On this matter, it is important to highlight existing efforts from the General Secretariat of Government (GSG) in inviting subnational authorities to participate in the National OGP Process. For example, in the co-creation process of the 2020-2022 and 2022-2024 National Action Plans, GSG organised sessions with subnational authorities to raise awareness and present the co-creation process, which resulted in joint commitments between GSG/MDLPA and local authorities in the current OGP Action Plan (Government of Romania, 2022[29]). However, evidence from interviews conducted by the OECD as part of its fact-finding missions suggests that the following challenges are limiting the participation of subnational authorities in the open government agenda led by GSG:
Lack of awareness or understanding among subnational authorities of the OGP process and its methodology.
Subnational authorities do not have sufficient time and/or resources (human and financial) to participate in the OGP process.
Absence of a dedicated office/officer in charge of open government topics at the subnational level, and lack of clear mandate on who should be part of the co-creation process.
Lack of sufficient human and financial resources in the GSG to effectively communicate and involve the subnational level in the open government agenda (see also Chapter 5).
This challenge is also reflected in the use of digital tools for open government. As discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, the central government deployed the e-consultare platform as centralised platform for citizen and stakeholder consultations. However, several subnational governments have also developed their own digital platforms mainly for participatory budgeting and consultations (see for example Box 8.3). The Romanian government could increase the co-ordination between the e-consultare platform, and the different portals deployed at the local level – with a medium to long-term objective of increased harmonisation and integration of all digital tools for citizen participation in Romania.
In addition, building on the recommendations of Chapter 4 of this Review, and on the recommendations provided by the Open Government Partnership’s Independent Reporting Mechanism (2021[35]), Romania could strengthen its capacity-building efforts on open government to reach additional public authorities at the subnational level. In that sense, the General Secretariat of the Government or the National Institute for Administration (INA) could organise further trainings for subnational authorities and increase the dissemination of existing support materials like the Guide on Open Government for Subnational Authorities and the Guide for an innovative approach to citizens’ involvement in decision-making developed by GSG. In addition, the central government could increase the spaces of interaction with subnational levels to increase awareness of the OGP Process, and GSG’s open government agenda. For example, the Government of Spain organizes regular meetings, and set up a community of practice between authorities at the central and local levels to discuss open government practices and citizen participation initiatives.
To build incentives for subnational authorities, the Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration created an award to recognise champions in the field of integrity which was awarded to 14 subnational governments6 between 2019 and 2020 (Ziarul Unirea, 2019[36]). Most of the awarded projects correspond to open government initiatives, for example, Suceava City Hall’s online portal for participatory budget or Brăila City Hall’s project on transparency of the public and private land auction procedure (Ziarul Unirea, 2019[36]). Romania could continue this practice, and frame it as “Open Government at the Local Level - Best Practice Award” to create incentives for subnational authorities. Evidence shows the impact that positive incentives can have to motivate public authorities in designing and implementing open government initiatives and practices. OECD member and partner countries such as Spain and Brazil have put in place awards to recognise good practices in the area of open government and celebrate civil servants’ commitment.
The central government could exploit synergies with strategic actors at the local level
Romania has a solid network of organisations that bring together key actors of the subnational ecosystem. These organisations usually take the form of non-governmental organisations, associations, or unions, and they have the objective of representing groups of public authorities at the subnational level. For example, the National Union of County Councils of Romania (UNCJR) is a “non-governmental organisation, which brings together the County Councils of Romania, UNCJR represents the interests of County Councils considering their common interests, in the relation with the Parliament as well as with the Government” (UNCJR, 2010[37]). Similar bodies are the Association of Communes from Romania, the Association of Romanian Cities, and the Association of Municipalities from Romania.7 Another set of bodies that could be involved are the Regional Development Councils and Agencies, which are responsible for co-ordinating the development for each region by managing the preparation of regional development programmes, proposing priority areas for intervention, financing, and identifying opportunities, in addition to other activities (European Association of Development Agencies, 2018[38]).
These organisations provide a platform with a multiplier effect. They can support the dissemination of important information, increase the reach, and support the organisation of activities such as trainings or co-creation workshops. In this sense, in an effort to communicate with subnational authorities and engage them in a more continuous dialogue, the General Secretariat of the Government could build strategic partnerships with these organisations. In addition, these actors could support GSG’s efforts to involve subnational authorities in the national open government agenda, whether in future OGP action plans or the forthcoming National Open Government Strategy. GSG could get inspiration from Romania’s National Anticorruption Strategy 2021 – 2025 led by the Ministry of Justice, which involves actors such as the Association of Communes in the co-operation mechanisms put in place to support the implementation and uptake of the Strategy at the local level (see Box 8.8).
Romania’s National Anticorruption Strategy (SNA) 2021 – 2025 was developed following an extensive consultation process with the public sector, but also with civil society and the business environment in Romania. The Strategy recognises that it requires a co-ordinated actions from institutions across the state, and in order to do so, it builds on the existing National Integrity Council (see Box 8.16) and a network of bodies to foster co-ordination and collaboration (co-operation platforms):
the platform of independent authorities and anti-corruption institutions
the platforms will be convened every six months or whenever needed.
The objectives of the collaboration platforms are:
identifying the progress made in the implementation of the Strategy
identifying and correcting practical problems arising in the application of anti-corruption policies and rules
increasing the degree of knowledge, understanding and implementation of measures to prevent corruption, in the public and private sector
supporting the implementation of SNA by public authorities and institutions
documenting and disseminating identified good anti-corruption practices
exchange experience and best practices with the relevant public institutions from the perspective of SNA implementation.
Source: Government of Romania (2021[39]), About the National Anticorruption Strategy.
Citizens interact constantly with all branches and levels of government. Therefore, efforts to increase openness should go beyond the central government and include all other actors as well. The Legislative branch is the cornerstone of representative democracies, as its members have the mandate to represent and voice the needs and concerns of their constituencies. In most countries, the existence of two Chambers allows for different types of representation, in some countries the lower chamber (e.g. Chamber of Deputies) is reserved for popular representation, and the upper chamber (e.g. Senate) ensures a territorial representation. Parliaments have the triple role of representation, law-making and accountability. Parliamentarians can propose, discuss, amend, and vote legislation – including in key areas such as the budgeting. In addition, the Parliament has the institutional responsibility of ensuring oversight of the executive government. The legislative branch can monitor, control, and in some cases dissolve the government in place. The powers and responsibilities of Parliament are usually described in the Constitution and detailed in internal regulations.
The Romanian Parliament is bicameral and consists of the Chamber of Deputies (Camera Deputatilor) and the Senate (Senatul). The composition and prerogatives of the Parliament are detailed in the Romanian Constitution (Chapter I on Parliament), which establishes that “the Parliament is the supreme representative body of the Romanian people and the only legislative authority of the country” (Government of Romania, 1991[40]). Additional details are provided by legislations and internal regulations adopted by the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.
This section discusses the ongoing efforts of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate in Romania in opening the Legislature’s work to the public through transparency and participatory initiatives. It finds that the Parliament is already implementing a series of initiatives to move towards an open parliament, mainly through the provision of legislative information, public consultations, and petitions. However, the section also finds areas of opportunity to increase the impact of such initiatives, and points to two specific actions the Parliament could take to move from scattered initiatives to a strategic approach to open parliament: improving the existing mechanisms and adopting a strategic framework to move from isolated actions to an open parliament.
An Open Parliament can be a catalyst for the national open government agenda
Parliaments have a double role to play in building an open state: adopting an open parliament agenda and supporting other branches of the state in their own reforms. Beyond its constitutional role, Parliament can strengthen the democratic system through different means. Legislation is essential to protect the civic space, secure freedoms, and liberties, and ensure an equal basis for everyone to participate in public life. Parliament has a key role to play in creating an enabling environment and providing protection to civil society organisations, the media, journalists, and activists. In addition, the legislative branch can support the participation of citizens in the legislative process beyond the ballot box, through different mechanisms such as petitions, consultations and or public hearings. In sum, the Parliament is not only a core element in the democratic system, but it can also play a role in strengthening it by adopting an open parliament agenda.
The OECD understands open parliament as the implementation and the promotion by Parliament (the institution) and its elected members (individuals) of strategies and initiatives to make the legislative work more transparent, participatory, accountable, and protected from undue influence. Concretely, Parliaments can adopt frameworks to foster openness in their work (strategies, action plans, roadmaps), and implement a series of concrete mechanisms such as:
Transparency: information about parliament’s roles and functions, and information generated throughout the legislative process, including draft legislation and amendments, votes, the parliamentary agenda and schedule, open data platform, etc.
Participation: petitions, consultation, access and participation in hearings or committees, open meetings with citizens, deliberative committees, etc.
Integrity: lobby register, code of conduct, publication of asset declaration and conflict of interests of elected members, etc.
The OECD Recommendation on Open Government (2017) and the Declaration of Parliamentary Openness8 provide a blueprint for legislative institutions in the move towards an open parliament.
Legislative institutions can also advance the open government agenda of other branches of the state by:
Adopting legislation in support of transparency, accountability, integrity and citizen and stakeholder participation. For example, parliaments are necessary to meet the Open Government Partnership’s eligibility criteria which require a country to have access to information law in place (OGP, 2018[42]).
Ensuring the protection of the civic space, through legislation and support to civil society organisations, the media, journalists, and activists.
Secure financial resources for open government initiatives and strategies through the amendment and adoption of the national budget.
Providing sustainability to the open government agenda through political support and institutional buy-in.
Improving the accountability of the open government agenda, by ensuring monitoring and evaluation of the government’s commitments through hearings or enquiries (OGP, 2018[42]).
According to the results of the 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government (2021[10]), in the majority of countries, there is a limited collaboration between the legislative and the central level of government in relation to the OGP Action Plan (Figure 8.11), and only a small number of Parliaments in OECD countries are actively contributing to their countries’ OGP processes by including commitments (19.3%) like in Romania, or by passing specific legislation to support the implementation (9.6%). The situation is similar when it comes to the design and monitoring of other main policy documents on open government. Across Adhering countries, legislative institutions were consulted in only 19.4% of the policy documents, and the judiciary in 21.8%. As for the monitoring of the main policy documents on open government, the Legislative is involved in 7.7% of the policy documents submitted to the 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government.
Legislation is key to advance open government reforms
As noted by the OGP (2018[42]), as law-making institutions, Parliaments can help create the conditions for open government. The legislative branch can translate concepts into concrete action, and by doing so, it is instrumental in putting open government principles into practice. For example, transparency needs freedom of information and open data legislation to be operational. Asset disclosure or lobby registration are normative acts that translate the principle of integrity into concrete actions. Laws on petitions or public consultations can establish standards to implement the right of citizens to participate in public decisions. Indeed, according to the OGP (2018[42]), 23% of commitments in National Action Plans require legislative action to be effectively implemented.
Besides their role as enablers, Parliaments can anchor open government reforms in the long term. Legislation can institutionalise the principles of open government, and protect their implementation from short termism, or political transitions. In addition, securing funding through budget lines, and political buy-in can support a change of culture both at the institutional and individual level in Parliament, as well as in other branches of the state.
Parliamentarians can build bridges between national and local levels – as ambassadors of openness
Through its members, the Parliament can increase the visibility of the open government agenda, create political buy-in, and build bridges with other levels of government and non-governmental stakeholders. Elected members of Parliament are in constant contact with citizens, and different non-governmental stakeholders (such as the media, journalists, civil society organisations, and private sector representatives) and have a direct link with the subnational level through their constituencies. These interactions can create opportunities to disseminate the concept of open government (or its pillars), raise awareness of current actions, and build support for more ambitious reforms. Their constant interaction with subnational authorities is also an opportunity to better integrate the different agendas and contribute to a co-ordinated approach to open government across the state, thus moving towards an open state.
To increase the political buy-in from elected members, the Legislature should communicate and provide capacity-building opportunities for both parliamentarians, and their staff. In addition, national open government co-ordinators, such as the General Secretariat of the Government in Romania, should use high-level events to invite parliamentarians as an opportunity to build bridges between different branches of the state.
The Romanian Parliament is implementing transparency and participatory practices but a strategic approach to openness is missing
The legislative work can offer diverse opportunities for citizens and stakeholders to better understand the decisions, and to be part of those. For example, information about the legislative activities, the agendas of elected members, and information about the administration of Parliament (expenses, salaries, lobby register, etc.) can help increase trust towards the institution. In addition, information about the legislative process (draft legislation, expert advice on the topic, discussions in Plenary, amendments, and vote record) allows citizens to understand the legislative process and to participate through different mechanisms, such as:
Open meetings or participatory hearings to be informed and express their needs to parliamentarians.
Petitions or citizen initiatives to voice concerns and set the agenda of Parliament.
Co-drafting tools and consultations to influence and shape the law-making process.
Deliberative processes to provide informed recommendations to parliamentarians on specific policy issues.
Revocation of mandate or complaints mechanisms to make elected members accountable.
The Romanian Parliament has implemented different initiatives that aim at increasing transparency of the legislative work and provide opportunities for citizens and stakeholders to participate.
The Parliament publishes information regularly, but more innovative approaches could be tested
The Romanian Chamber of Deputies and Senate have to comply with the national access to information requirements as per Law no. 544/2001 on free access to information of public interest. In that matter, both Chambers regularly publish relevant information for the public to better understand the legislative work, to monitor the activities of elected members of parliament, and to be able to participate in the legislative work, including:
Record of votes in plenary (nominal) to increase accountability of elected members. The publication of this information was part of a civil society campaign led by the Institute for Public Policies (2018[43]).
Information about the budget (as approved by the legislature). This information is important for the public to follow policy priorities, budget allocations, and to understand the fiscal situation of the country. According to the International Budget Partnership (2021[44]), Romania is performing well when it comes to the publication of budget-related information by Parliament and ranks 29 out of 120 countries. It takes into account the publication of documents such as the pre-budget statement, the budget proposal, and audit reports. Romania publishes all the recommended documents, execpt for the Citizens Budget (a simplified, easy-to-read version of the budget) and does not publish the pre-budget on time (International Budget Partnership, 2021[44]).
The Romanian Parliament has undertaken efforts in increasing transparency of its activities, by proactively publishing information and by answering citizens’ requests to access information. For example, according to the self-assessment reports of the Senate, the majority of the requests are submitted verbally through the different in-person mechanisms, and on average the rate of positive response to the requests is of 85%. The category of information that is more frequently requested is about the elected members, including their voting record, expenses, and attendance in Plenary (Romanian Senate, 2022[45]).
Source: Author’s own elaboration based on (Romanian Senate, 2022[45]) Access to Information Reports, https://www.senat.ro/AfisareListaFisiere.aspx?Pagina=c0103416-ed45-479c-ad30-239462ab974b.
However, the Parliament could improve the accessibility and user experience to find, and access relevant information. For example, in both Chambers, OECD research shows that it is difficult to find the information regarding the nominal votes of the elected members and the budget of the institution. On this matter, the Chamber of Deputies has launched a pilot platform to ease the access to information for citizens. The #eCdep platform is a one-stop-shop entry to access information regarding public meetings of the Chamber of Deputies, accreditation of journalists, public consultations, and petitions among others.
Furthermore, the Parliament could make use of public communication to better inform the public about its activities, increase the uptake of information and disseminate opportunities to participate. Both Chambers in Romania publish weekly newsletters with information about recent legislative activity such as the status of legislations, the agenda, and opportunities for citizens to participate. The Senate uses a more interactive format, with a dedicated webpage “InfoSenate”,9 making navigation more user-friendly. The Parliament also makes regular use of social networks such as Twitter to communicate about the daily activities of both Chambers. To continue improving its communication efforts, the Romanian Parliament could diversify the formats and channels, to appeal to a broader public. For example, the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies uses diverse formats including videos, infographics, and plain text (no jargon or technical vocabulary) to explain legislative procedures (see Box 8.9).
The Parliament is not leveraging the power of data to increase transparency and participation
As part of their activities and tasks, Parliaments – as all other public institutions - generate, collect, access, share and use different types of data. Some of these are particularly significant as a resource for increased transparency, access to public information, citizen and stakeholder participation, and public sector accountability. When data is shared in open and machine-readable formats (Open Government Data, OGD), it can help the public better understand what public institutions do and how well they perform, and to hold them accountable for wrongdoing or unachieved results (Ubaldi, 2013[46]). Currently, the Romanian Parliament is not publishing information in an open data format – which limits the impact of the information and reduces opportunities for collaboration.
The Romanian Parliament could get inspiration from international good practices (see Box 8.9) and publish information in an open data format, in addition to the information currently published in PDF format. This could increase the re-use of public information such as vote records, or the amendments adopted by parliamentarians and promote more active participation of the public. For example, publishing the Senate’s budget is a good practice, however, the fact that the budget is currently only available as a PDF reduces its usability by third parties. The creation of an open data portal (a one-stop-shop gathering all the datasets published by the Parliament) as in Canada and Scotland – or the integration into Romania’s national open data portal (data.gov.ro) could ease the access and usability of this data by the public. For example, in France, to increase transparency and accountability, a civil society organisation used the data published by the French National Assembly to create a monitoring tool (nosdeputes.fr) for citizens to keep track of the votes and the presence of their representatives.
Brazil – use of plain language and infographics to inform about the legislative process
The Brazilian Chamber of Deputies uses a diversity of formats and channels to communicate about the functioning of Parliament, the legislative process, and to inform about specific legislations. For example, in describing the law making process, the Chamber uses infographics, videos, plain language, and an interactive questionnaire for the public to test their knowledge. To inform about a specific legislation, which can support an informed participation, the Chamber publishes a simplified description of the draft legislation, with context about the policy issue, the suggested approach, and international best practices. In addition, this note is complemented by a podcast, a radio interview, and comprehensive campaign on social media. As a step further, the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies launched a mobile application (Infoleg) to help the public follow the legislative process, a similar interface is available for the UK Parliament (https://now.parliament.uk/).
Open data portals to increase the use of legislative information
Several Parliaments around the world are using data and digital tools to increase the impact of public information. The House of Commons in Canada publishes data about all paper and electronic petitions for the current Parliament. In its open data portal, the Chamber of Deputies in Argentina publishes, among other datasets, information about the institutions’ budget and expenses. The Scottish Parliament’s open data portal includes information on core parliamentary business like motions and questions, details of upcoming business in committees and the chamber, petitions and information on bills, and details about members including their contact details and their Register of Interests.
Source: Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (2021[47]), Understand the Legislative Process, https://www.camara.leg.br/entenda-o-processo-legislativo/.
The Romanian Parliament involve citizens through consultation and petitions – but these mechanisms could be improved to increase their impact
The Romanian Parliament offers different opportunities to involve citizens and stakeholders to interact with elected members, set priorities, and comment on legislation. The three main instruments for citizens and stakeholders to participate are petitions, consultations, and hearings.
According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (2022[48]), petitions are the most widespread tool for citizen and stakeholder participation in Parliament, with 79% of the Global Parliamentary Report Survey respondents stating that they have a petition process. 72% of parliaments used committee meetings for stakeholders to provide inputs, followed by 30% that involved the public in budget decisions (see Figure 8.13). Fewer Parliaments are using more innovative approaches, such as digital platforms for consultation (28%) and deliberative processes (13%).
Source: Author’s own elaboration based on IPU (2022[48]), Global Parliamentary Report, https://www.ipu.org/our-impact/democracy-and-strong-parliaments/setting-standards/global-parliamentary-report/global-parliamentary-report-2022-public-engagement-in-work.
In Romania, citizens and stakeholders can participate in the legislative work mainly by addressing petitions, participating in hearings, and providing inputs through consultations. The right to petition is guaranteed by the Romanian Constitution (Article 51) and detailed by the Government Ordinance 27/2002, and the internal regulations of both chambers. Citizens can address, individually or in association with other persons, petitions to the Romanian Parliament in relation to subjects that concern them directly and that are related to the fields of activity of the parliamentary institution. Also, any company, organisation or association can exercise its right to address petitions (Romanian Chamber of Deputies, 2015[49]). Petitions can be submitted in person, by post, by e-mail or through an electronic format available only for the Chamber of Deputies.
Implementing the right to petition is a positive development, however, certain elements of the process could be improved to increase the impact of this right. First, as noted by the OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes (OECD, 2022[50]), prior to involving citizens, public authorities should state and clearly communicate the rules to participate and the expected impact. The Romanian Parliament could increase the information and communication around the petition process, and the outcome that citizens can expect. The regulation of the Chamber of Deputies foresees that the Petitions and Hearings Department within the Registry and Archive Office compiles the record of petitions as well as the responses received and prepares annual reports for the General Secretary of the Chamber of Deputies (Romanian Chamber of Deputies, 2015[49]). This information is not public and could be beneficial to increase accountability on this process and have metrics to evaluate and improve the process. As highlighted in Chapter 7, this is part of the efforts that Romania could take to increase monitoring and evaluation of its open government agenda.
Furthermore, in a majority of Parliaments, the public (beyond the petitioner) can access the existing petitions and their outcome (IPU, 2022[48]). This supports transparency in the process, and awareness of the already submitted petitions. In Romania, there is no record of the petitions received by the Chambers, and the answers provided by the Committee or the Chamber are not filed. In certain cases, Parliaments allow for petitions to be openly discussed and supported by other citizens. For example, in the United Kingdom, petitions can be signed by other citizens, and if a petition gets 10 000 signatures it gets a public response, and with 100 000 signatures it is discussed in Parliament (see Box 8.10 for more examples). Romania could take inspiration of these practices to increase the impact of its petition system. Finally, publishing information and data about the petitions received and their outcome.
United Kingdom – Chamber of Commons
The UK Parliament has a dedicated website for its petitions (petition.parliament.uk) where citizens can learn about the procedure, submit their petitions, search and consult among all the petitions received, and support a petition. In addition, the Parliament publishes the status of the petitions, and the answer given. The system of petitions in the United Kingdom establishes thresholds that define the outcome of the petitions:
If the petition gets 10 000 signatures, the Government responds
If the petition gets 100 000 signatures, the petition is considered for debate in Parliament.
The Parliament has a dedicated Committee in charge of reviewing and following up on the petitions. The Petitions Committee is formed by 11 Members of Parliament.
Ireland – Houses of the Oireachtas
In Ireland, the petitions system gives citizens an opportunity to interact with the parliamentary system on matters of general public concern or interest. Members of the public may submit petitions to the Joint Committee on Public Petitions, and only one signature is needed to submit a petition. The Committee reviews the petitions received, can seek oral or written evidence from relevant Government Departments and other bodies and agencies. The Committee has the power to invite Ministers to attend meetings and answer questions about the petition and may also invite the petitioner to speak on the matter. In addition, the Parliament has a dedicated website for citizens to get information about the submission of a petition, review other petitions, and follow the answer given by the Committee.
Source: House of Commons (n.d.[51]), “Petitions”; Houses of the Oireachtas (n.d.[52]), “Public petitions”.
Like most Parliaments around the world, the Romanian Parliament also involves citizens and stakeholders through public consultations.10 Public consultations are used to either gather ideas, feedback, inputs or opinions about a regulation, a policy question, or a draft proposal (legislation, strategy, etc.). Public consultations can be used to involve both citizens and/or stakeholders. When involving stakeholders (such as civil society organisations), public authorities can send targeted invitations, but when public consultations are open to the broader public, organisers need to prepare a robust communication strategy to ensure high levels of participation and to reach a diverse range of participants (OECD, 2023[23]).
Both Chambers allow citizens and stakeholders to provide inputs to draft legislations in writing by post, fax, email, in-person, and by filling out an online form (Romanian Chamber of Deputies, 2015[49]). In the Senate, the public can see the inputs filled by other citizens or stakeholders, however, this function is not available in the Chamber of Deputies. Both Chambers are not providing feedback on the use of the inputs received or the impact that the consultation had in the final adopted text. Furthermore, accessibility of both online processes could be enhanced, for example by creating a direct access that is easily identifiable on the main page of the website. The Romanian Parliament could update its online procedure for consultations by taking inspiration from good practices collected by the OECD such as the E-democracia platform implemented by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (Box 8.11) or the Leyes Abiertas platform in the Argentinean Chamber of Deputies. In both cases, every input received is public, and receives an answer which states if the proposal has been integrated or not, and why. To bridge the digital divide and increase inclusion of online consultations, the Romanian Parliament could put in place in-person mechanisms such as workshops, or open meetings at the local level to gather inputs.
In terms of areas covered by consultations, the Romanian Parliament could expand these participatory mechanisms to involve citizens and stakeholders in budget decisions. As pointed out by the International Budget Partnership (2021[44]), Romania only scores 7 out of a maximum of 100 points when it comes to participation in the budget cycle, mainly because there are no opportunities for citizens and stakeholder to influence how the budget is decided in Parliament.
Lastly, the public can interact with parliamentarians through hearings or audiences in their constituencies. According to Law no. 96/2006 regarding the Statute of deputies and senators, parliamentarians are mandated to organise public hearings in their constituencies to discuss current issues or receive proposals from citizens. However, there is almost no information about the outcome of such meetings, nor sufficient communication prior to the hearings to ensure diversity among participants.
An integrated digital ecosystem for participation in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies
The Brazilian Chamber of Deputies has an interesting approach to the use of digital tools for transparency, accountability and participation. Developed through a collaborative approach (in the Hacker Lab -a permanent hackathon where tech communities and public officials can collaborate and create digital solutions for legislative problems), the Parliament has built a digital platform to foster citizen participation. Similar approaches can be found in Argentina and Chile.
The E-Democracia platform is an integrated digital ecosystem that allows citizens to interact with parliamentarians through different mechanisms:
The Interactive Hearings (Audiêncas interativas) allows the public to follow in real-time the sessions held in Parliament, whether the plenary or the committees and to submit questions to the parliamentarians.
The WikiLegis tool allows parliamentarians to consult and co-write the legislation with citizens and stakeholders in real time.
The Participatory Agenda (Pauta Participativa) enables citizens to suggest topics to discuss and prioritise elements in the Chamber’s agenda.
A virtual Parliament in Colombia
The Colombian Senate developed the mobile app “Mi Senado” (my senate), as an effort to increase participation in the legislative work. Through the app, users can connect with senators, check for their attendance rate, and vote on the agenda and bills of the day, which in turn is displayed in the plenary for senators to consider when voting.
Source: Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (2021[53]), E-democracia platform (website accessed on 19 December 2021); Colombian Senate (n.d.[54]), “Mi Senado”.
Other innovative approaches are also being implemented by several Parliaments across the OECD to make the legislative work more open to citizens and stakeholders. As highlighted by the 2022 Global Parliamentary Report (2022[48]), 13% of Parliaments that responded to IPU’s survey11 are using representative deliberative processes, where a broadly representative body of people weighs evidence, deliberates to find common ground, and develops detailed recommendations on policy issues for public authorities (OECD, 2021[14]). As shown in Box 8.12, these practices have for example been implemented in Belgium and the United Kingdom.
Mixing citizens and elected members in deliberative committees – Brussels Region Parliament (Belgium)
Deliberative Committees are the first mixed committees, comprised of 45 randomly selected citizens and 15 elected members of Parliament (MP) - from the relevant Parliamentary Committee to the topic to be discussed. A Committee can be called in two ways: either MPs decide that a citizen contribution to a certain public issue could be valuable, or the initiative comes from citizens, as a citizen suggestion through a digital platform. The recommendations of the Deliberative Committees are then voted on both by the citizens and the MPs and the accepted ones have to be discussed in the Plenary of the Parliament with the rest of the elected members.
Public deliberation and civic lottery in parliamentary committee inquiries – Scottish Parliament (United Kingdom)
In 2017, the Commission on Parliamentary Reform published a set of recommendations on how to better involve citizens in the legislative work, and concluded that “as part of moving towards a more participative approach to scrutiny, the Committee Engagement Unit should pilot deliberative approaches”. In 2019, the Scottish Parliament implemented two pilots to experiment with the use of deliberative processes in parliamentary committee inquiries: the Citizens’ Jury on Land Management and the Natural Environment and the Citizens’ Panels on the Future of Primary Care. The Health & Sport Committee received recommendations from three citizens’ panels on primary care, and the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee received inputs on land management and natural environment from a citizens’ jury. In the two cases, a small group of randomly selected citizens received information about the policy issues from diverse sources, engaged in facilitated deliberation, and developed collective recommendations.
Source: Cesnulaityte (2021[55]), Deliberative Committees: When parliament and citizens work together, Elstub and Carrick (2020[56]), Comparing Mini-Publics in the Scottish Parliament.
The legislative does not have a strategic approach to open government
As shown above, the Romanian Parliament is already implementing a series of initiatives to make the legislative work more transparent and participatory. These initiatives could become part of a co-ordinated and strategic agenda to make the Romanian Parliament more open to the public. By connecting the dots between the initiatives that are currently implemented in isolation, both Chambers could create synergies, and foster the move towards an open parliament. As discussed in this chapter (see Section “Romania is currently lacking a systemic and integrated approach to open government at the subnational government”), public authorities can adopt policy documents to agree on a common vision for the institution, set clear objectives, and commit to tangible and measurable actions that will gradually build a culture of open government. In the case of the Legislature, these strategic frameworks can take the form of an action plan, a roadmap or a strategy that sets the vision for an open parliament, including the existing actions to foster transparency, participation, accountability, and integrity, as well as seizing the areas of opportunities to improve. Parlamericas (2019[57]) define an open parliament action plan as “a mechanism through which a parliament commits to advancing openness and strengthening representation and oversight, in collaboration with civil society”. It further highlights that “a co-creation process allows parliament and civil society to identify priorities to implement, and to monitor and evaluate progress towards these commitments”.
Moving forward, Romania’s Parliament could define a strategic framework to ensure a co-ordinated action across the institution. More and more Parliaments in OECD Member and Partner countries are adopting strategic frameworks on open parliament. For example, in Argentina, the Parliament of the Province of Cordoba (2022[58]) adopted a very ambitious Open Parliament Strategy12 that includes:
A vision: “The Legislature of Cordoba will develop its Open Parliament approach based on the pillars of transparency, innovation and articulation with society”.
Four strategic axes: Legislative openness (access to information, and accountability mechanisms), Collaboration and citizen participation, Institutional strengthening (collaboration with other actors of the state), and Digital transformation (strategic use of digital tools and innovation methods).
Tangible actions: to implement the vision and the strategic axis, the Strategy includes 3 concrete commitments, and a series of recommendations to improve existing initiatives.
Other Parliament can also offer inspiration, in particular, the Chilean Parliament which launched its open parliament agenda in 2013 and has published three Action Plans since then (see Box 8.13 for more information). Another option for Parliaments is to include commitments for their own institution in the Open Government Partnership’s National Action Plan.13 This is the case for example in Estonia. In the country’s 2018-2020 Action Plan, the National Parliament (Riigikogu) included a commitment to increase legislative transparency (OGP, 2018[59]).
National Congress – Colombia
In 2015, the Colombian Congress (including the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate), with support from the Secretary of Transparency (Presidency of the Republic), signed the Declaration for an Open and transparent Parliament which established 14 commitments around three strategic objectives: integrity, participation, and transparency. Since then, the Congress has co-constructed six action plans with civil society representatives. In the latest action plan 2021–2022, the Congress includes five strategic areas (transparency, participation, accountability, integrity and use of digital tools and data), and 29 concrete activities. As part of its open parliament action plan, the Congress foresees to increase the use of plain language and infographics to better communicate about the legislative work, and increase awareness and skills of staff and elected members through trainings on citizen participation. The open parliament agenda is co-ordinated at the level of the Presidency of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies.
National Assembly – France
In France, the Chamber of Deputies (National Assembly) published its first open parliament action plan in 2018 building on recommendations made by an internal working group on the renewal of democratic institutions. The Action plan includes four areas of action (reform the parliament with citizens and civil society, promote transparency and openness, increase citizen participation, and better communicate the legislative action) and 17 commitments. The action plan was co-ordinated and implemented by the Presidency of the Chamber, and supported by an-hoc working group on “Digital democracy and new ways of citizen participation”.
National Congress – Chile
The National Congress in Chile is a champion of open parliament, and has been very active since 2012, being the first parliament to adopt an action plan. To increase its impact, the Congress decided to integrate its commitments into the National Open Government Action Plan led by the executive branch. The co-creation process includes a series of workshops in the different regions of the country with the participation of civil society and representatives from other branches of the state, and a digital consultation for the public to provide inputs. The open parliament action plans are co-ordinated by a bi-cameral working group on transparency.
Source: Colombian Senate (2021[60]), Sexto Plan de Acción Congreso Abierto y Transparente Legislatura 2021-2022; French National Assembly (2018[61]), Ouverture, transparence et participation citoyenne – premier plan d’action de l’Assemblée nationale; Chilean Congress (2019[62]), Plan de Acción de Parlamento Abierto 2019-2020.
In addition to establishing a strategic framework, the move towards an open parliament requires institutional stewardship and a proper mandate to implement initiatives that foster transparency, participation, accountability, and integrity at the level of the Parliament. In Romania, both a political and an institutional body could be identified or created to provide political support and institutional leadership to the process. The distinction between the two types of bodies is important to ensure political representation and buy-in whilst ensuring sustainability beyond political cycles. The political body can be an existing or new standing parliamentary committee, a special ad-hoc committee, or a cross-party working group. The institutional body should be led by civil servants and could be located in an office in the Office of the President, the General Secretariat or, the office in charge of public relations or institutional reform.
In the case of Romania, the political body could be part of the Commission on Public Administration (present in both Chambers), or in a new ad-hoc body in charge of the open parliament agenda. The institutional body could be placed in the current Public Relations Office (Senate) and Directorate for Communications and Public Relations (Chamber of Deputies) which currently oversees the petitions, the access to information requests, and other attributions that could be part of an open parliament such as the educational programmes for young people. To increase the visibility and support of the agenda, the institutional office could be placed in the General Secretariat. Romania has a particular institutional setting, with an additional body in charge of ensuring co-ordination and coherence among the two Chambers. The Legislative Council could also play the institutional mandate to oversee the open parliament agenda if the decision is to have a joint action between the two Chambers. Romania could get inspiration from international good practices on this matter (Box 8.14). For example, the United Kingdom’s Commission on Digital Democracy has the mandate to identify how the UK Parliament can advance towards digital transformation. The Parliament also counts on an actionable digital strategy and has a team in charge of bringing it to life.
Scotland: Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
The Scottish Parliament established a dedicated Committee to oversee the actions towards greater citizen involvement in the legislative work. The Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee was established in June 2021, and focuses on:
all public petitions submitted to the Parliament and determines if they meet the rules
deciding what actions should be taken for all public petitions which meet the rules
any other forms of public engagement the committee decides to undertake.
The Committee has gradually increased its scope to go beyond petitions and cover more areas related to citizen participation, including deliberative democracy and consultations.
Chile: Bicameral group on transparency
The Chilean Congress opted to create a joint office between the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies to oversee the transparency and open parliament agenda. The bicameral group is composed of an equal number of deputies and senators and staff, and is in charge of developing and implementing the open parliament commitments included in the national OGP Action plan, as well as other activities to foster transparency and participation in both chambers of the Congress.
Source: Scottish Parliament (2022[63]), Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee Report.
The move towards an open state is based on the articulation and the co-ordination of the initiatives and strategies implemented by all the actors across the state. This chapter discusses the open government agendas at the subnational level and in the Parliament in Romania, and provides recommendations on how to better advance transparent, participatory, and accountable institutions. Beyond the implementation of the principles of open government in all state institutions, it is important to ensure a co-ordinated and coherent approach among all state actors.
When defining an open state, the OECD Recommendation on Open Government (2017[5]) invites adherents to promote collaboration, synergies, and sharing of good practices among all state actors to promote transparency, integrity, accountability, and citizen and stakeholder participation, in support of democracy and inclusive growth, This section provides a roadmap to Romania to move from isolated open government agendas to an integrated whole-of-state effort.
Commitment and roadmap for implementation are the building blocks of an open state
Political support for a joint agenda from all the actors involved in building an open state is needed to secure commitment and facilitate co-operation among institutions. This support can be secured through different means, depending on the political and institutional context of every country. It usually takes the form of a document that is endorsed by all the actors involved. This document should cover certain elements, namely:
A common understanding of the concept of open state, and the objectives this agenda should pursue.
Commitment to undertaking joint efforts among different state actors in building an open state.
Clear mandate to the institutions involved in the open state agenda, and when possible, the appointment of a body in each institution that will serve as point of contact.
Creation or appointment to an existent body to ensure co-ordination of the actions listed in the document.
A list of common commitments that set the direction of the open state agenda.
Concretely, countries can adopt different types of high-level documents. No particular value is given to any of the above-listed options.
An Open State Declaration or Agreement is a high-level document signed and endorsed by public institutions from different branches of the state, which can include the executive’s central and subnational governments, the legislative branch, the judiciary, and independent institutions. Declarations or Agreements are usually short documents that state an intention to establish further collaboration, and provide a mandate to the institutions represented in the document. Usually, these documents are complemented by an action plan, or a roadmap that translates the high-level commitment into concrete actions. This type of document was adopted in Costa Rica, Colombia, and Honduras (see Box 8.15).
An institutional endorsement from different actors to existing policy or strategical documents in the area of open government such as the National OGP action plan, as done by countries like Spain and Chile. This endorsement can take the form of a preface, or an introduction to the Action Plan signed by representatives of different branches of the state. For example, in Spain, the fourth OGP Action Plan 2020-2024 was endorsed by the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Public Management, by 19 subnational governments, and by the Federation of Spanish Provinces and Municipalities.
In the case of Romania, a high-level document (Declaration or Action Plan) could be endorsed by the President, the Prime Minister, or the General Secretary of the Government. Support from both the Prime Minister’s Chancellery and GSG could give this document both political support and technical expertise. In addition, it could be endorsed by intermediary bodies representing the subnational level of government such as the Association of Romanian Municipalities. Finally, it is important that other branches of the state are involved, such as the Presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament, the High Council of the Judiciary, and independent institutions such as the Court of Accounts. This document could include a joint commitment to implement initiatives and strategies aiming at making public institutions more transparent, accountable, and participatory, as well as a list of common actions.
In addition, this high-level document could be translated into action by the suggested National Open Government Strategy (see Chapter 6 for more information) and by future OGP action plans that include commitments from other branches of the state as done in countries such as Chile, Spain, or Colombia.
Costa Rica was the Open State pioneer in the region. The 2015 Declaration for the Creation of an Open State, signed by the President of the Republic, the President of the Legislative Assembly, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court of Elections, formed the basis of the 2017 Framework Agreement to promote an Open State in the Republic of Costa Rica between the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, the Judiciary and the Supreme Court of Elections. The Framework establishes policies for building an Open State through joint commitments to ensuring transparency, access to information, citizen participation and the fight against corruption in the four branches of the State. It was the first agreement in the world on Open State, and it was developed using a multi-sector process with substantial technical support from the OECD.
Colombia’s Commitment Declaration for an Open State was signed by representatives of every branch of the State in 2017. Guided by this Declaration, institutions, including national electoral and supervisory bodies, are developing approaches to their work and structure based on the pillars of transparency and accountability, to prevent corruption and guarantee rights. At the same time, systematic efforts have been made to include subnational levels of government in this process.
Source: OECD (2016[64]), Open Government in Costa Rica; OECD (2019[65]), OECD Public Governance Scan Colombia; OECD (2019[66]), Open Government in Argentina; Ramírez-Alujas, Álvaro (2020[67]), El estado del Estado abierto en América Latina: avances, alcances y perspectivas.
Multilevel governance and co-operation among State actors
While the different branches of the state are and must be independent of each other, in a country with an open state approach the whole of society works together to develop a common understanding and a commitment to greater openness (OECD, 2016[68]) (OECD, 2021[14]). The different branches of state and levels of government can collaborate in a number of ways as part of their efforts to create an open state. The OECD (2019[1]) recognises that each actor can and should independently implement its own open government agenda. However, the full potential of an open-state approach can only be realised by joining forces and working together. An open-state approach, therefore, involves collaboration on various levels:
Horizontally: between separate branches and public institutions (e.g. between the judiciary and the legislative).
Vertically: between levels of government (e.g. between the central/federal government and local governments).
Internally: between institutions that are part of the same branch (e.g. all the ministries of the executive branch and the chambers of the legislative branch).
Different branches and levels of government can interact in several ways. These range from mutual recognition – in which the different institutions recognise each other’s efforts and push their own agendas, to a joined strategy, in which decisions are shared and initiatives are made in constant synergy (see Figure 8.14).
Source: OECD (2019[66]), Open Government in Argentina, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1988ccef-en.
Vertical and horizontal co-ordination and collaboration between levels of government and branches of the state can be the first step towards an open state
As discussed in this chapter, the subnational level of government is currently implementing several initiatives to foster an open government. However, these actions are not co-ordinated vertically, with the national agenda led by the General Secretariat of the Government, as Romania does not have any formal or informal mechanism to co-ordinate open government reforms among central and subnational authorities. Moreover, this space could also include the Prime Minister’s Chancellery (PMC), and actors from other branches of the state (parliament and independent institutions) to foster a national co-ordination on open government.
The forthcoming National Open Government Strategy offers an opportunity to set up a mechanism where both levels of government and other branches of the state can share experiences, collaborate on joint actions, and co-ordinate the different agendas to ensure coherence and avoid overlaps. Romania could follow the lead of OECD countries that have successfully established similar co-ordination mechanisms. For example:
Colombia: The OGP Process in Colombia is co-ordinated by the Open State Committee, which involves the open government co-ordinator at the central level (Secretary of Transparency), other public institutions at the central level (Ministry of Environment), champions of open government at the subnational level (Municipality of Santiago de Cali), Independent institutions (High Court of State), and civil society representatives. In addition to overseeing the OGP Process, the Open State Committee is in charge of promoting a common understanding and objective at the national level, ensuring communication across the state on issues such as transparency and participation, and foster the involvement of actors beyond the central government. The Committee was instrumental in the co-creation process of Colombia’s Policy on Open State (Alianza Gobierno Abierto Colombia, n.d.[69]).
Spain: The Open Government Forum is a mechanism to create a permanent dialogue between public authorities at the central level, including Ministries (8 representatives), and subnational authorities including autonomous governments (19), and local authorities (4). This space is also open to the participation of civil society (20), and academia (12). Among its responsibilities, the Forum is in charge of organising the Open Government Week and agreeing on common positions of the Spanish public administration regarding open government topics, such as participation14 and inclusive communication (Government of Spain, 2020[70]). The Forum was created in 2018 by a ministerial order and is organised in Plenary and working groups which can focus on specific topics such as open government literacy.
Argentina: The Open Government and Innovation Commission is part of a broader multi-governance mechanism covering several areas of the public administration (Federal Council of Public Management - COFEFUP) bringing together actors from the Federal level, the provinces, and the municipal level. The Commission covers the topics of open government (transparency, collaboration, participation, integrity) and public sector innovation – with roundtables focusing on more specific topics (citizen participation, open data, and integrity). The Commission is in charge of dialogue and learning among peers, and establishing long-term objectives, medium-term priorities, and short-term activities to promote an open government across the public sector.
Romania could follow these examples and set up a mechanism to promote collaboration and co-ordination on open government between levels of government, and branches of the state. As suggested in Chapter 3, as part of the forthcoming Open Government Strategy, Romania could create the National Open Government Committee building on the existing National OGP Coordination Committee which was established in 2016 to oversee and co-ordinate the OGP action plan. This mechanism could include the participation of the central government (GSG, PMC, OGP points of contact, and other public institutions such as Agencies or specific Ministries), subnational authorities (counties and municipalities), the Parliament, and independent institutions such as the High Courts of Accounts. To increase subnational representation and facilitate co-ordination among subnational authorities, this body could include intermediaries such as the National Union of County Councils, or the Association of Romanian Municipalities. For example, the National Integrity Council was established through Law no. 144/2007, adopted by the Romanian Parliament, (Box 8.16) including the local public administration co-operation platforms (Box 8.8) as a mechanism to support the implementation of Romania’s National Anti-corruption Strategy at the subnational level which includes the participation of the Association of Romanian Communes, the Association of Romanian Cities and Municipalities, the National Union of County Councils, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, representatives from municipalities and counties councils.
The National Integrity Council, is the representative body, under parliamentary control, which fulfils the following duties:
proposes to the Senate the appointment and dismissal of the president and vice-president of the National Agency for Integrity
analyses the information and reports presented by the Agency's president regarding its activity, quarterly or whenever requested by the Council, through its president
formulates recommendations regarding the Agency's strategy and activity regarding the activity of verifying assets and conflicts of interest
analyses the annual audit report provided in Art. 33; h) submits to the Senate, annually and whenever it deems necessary, a report on the Agency's activity; i) any other duties provided by law.
The Council is appointed by the Senate and consists of a number of members:
one member designated by each parliamentary group in the Senate, plus the group of national minorities in the Chamber of Deputies
a representative of the Ministry of Justice and Civil Liberties and a representative of the Ministry of Public Finance
a representative of the National Union of County Councils from Romania
a representative of the Association of Municipalities in Romania
a representative of the Association of Municipalities in Romania
a representative appointed by the legally established civil society organisations, with activity in the field of human, legal or economic-financial rights
the President of the Council is elected from among its members, by the secret vote of at least half plus one of the members, within 5 days from the date of the meeting to establish the Council.
Source: Government of Romania (2007), Law no. 144 on the National Agency of Integrity.
This space could also allow for mutual learning among subnational authorities, providing informal spaces where public authorities can share experiences, learn from peers, and mutualise resources. For example:
Spain: In 2021, the Open Government Forum established the Community of Practice (CoP) on citizen participation as a space for mutual learning and resource sharing. This CoP involves the three layers of the administration (national, regional, and municipal), as well as representatives from civil society, and international peers (OECD, Colombia, Italy and Mexico) (Government of Spain, 2020[71]).
Finally, these spaces can facilitate capacity building and the creation of shared resources on open government such as Toolboxes or Guides. This is particularly relevant to help small municipalities or public authorities with limited resources, and to promote a coherent approach to open government through guides or methodological support.
Mexico: The National Institute for Access to Information (co-ordinating the open government agenda at the Federal level) developed the Open Government Toolbox for Municipalities to support uptake, and provide practical guidance to local authorities on the matter. The Toolbox includes a mapping of good practices, methodologies to develop and implement open government initiatives, and tools to facilitate implementation.
Brazil: The Comptroller General of the Union (co-ordinating the open government agenda at the Federal level) provides support to subnational authorities through capacity building, webinars, and technical assistance. Through the Time Program,15 the federal government assists subnational authorities in the development, implementation and monitoring of action plans with tangible objectives to foster awareness and capacities on transparency, integrity and participation.
1. Strengthen the support that the central government (notably the General Secretariat of the Government, the Prime Minister’s Chancellery, and the Ministry of Development, Public Works and Administration) provides to subnational authorities to increase the implementation of open government initiatives.
Promote the concept of open government, in particular in less urbanised areas such as communes and towns, through awareness-raising activities (events, communications, etc.) and practical support (guidelines, handbooks, etc.).
Provide support to facilitate the development of open government initiatives at the subnational level, through ready-to-use digital platforms, or by allocating dedicated funding for communes (comune), towns (orase) or counties (judete).
Develop courses and trainings targeting subnational authorities to provide them with knowledge on ways to design and implement open government initiatives. This could be done by the General Secretariat of the Government or the National Institute for Administration.
Reinstate the awards put in place by the Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration in 2019 and expand its reach by framing it as “Open Government at the Local Level - Best Practice Award” to create incentives for subnational authorities and celebrate civil servants’ commitment. This award could be part of the broader Open Government Award, recommended in Chapter 5.
Increase the human and financial resources in the GSG to effectively communicate and involve the subnational level in the open government agenda (see also Chapter 5).
2. Encourage collaboration and peer learning among subnational authorities.
Create dedicated spaces for subnational authorities to share good practices, learnings and collaborate on open government policies and practices. This can take the form of a community of practice with regular meetings like in Spain, or digital spaces like in France.
Exploit synergies with strategic actors at the local level such as the National Union of County Councils of Romania, the Association of Communes from Romania, the Association of Romanian Cities, and the Association of Municipalities from Romania.
3. Move from isolated practices to an integrated approach to open government at the subnational level.
Promote the design and adoption of dedicated policy documents on open government at the subnational level. Each entity should develop its strategic documents in line with its own specific circumstances, and could follow any of the three options suggested in this chapter:
Adopting a policy document dedicated to open government (e.g. Strategy, Roadmap, Action Plan).
Integrating open government initiatives in policy instruments covering broader public sector reform (e.g. Regional Development Strategy).
Contributing/adhering to the forthcoming National Open Government Strategy led by GSG.
Continue promoting the use of GSG’s Guidelines Open Government Recommendations for the local level administration and the Guide on Open Government for Subnational Authorities which include a series of tools for subnational governments to design their own open government agendas.
Further integrate the subnational level in the national OGP, by expanding the latest efforts to involve a greater number of subnational authorities in the co-creation and implementation phases, through shared commitments, or by inviting them to participate in meetings and events.
Increase co-ordination between the OGP Action plans at the local and national level.
4. Foster the move towards an open state in Romania, by securing political commitment, developing a roadmap of implementation, and promoting multilevel governance.
Adopt a high-level political document on open state that is endorsed by representatives from all the levels and branches of the state. This document could include a joint commitment to implement initiatives and strategies aiming at making public institutions more transparent, accountable, and participatory, as well as a list of common actions.
Transform the high-level commitments into a measurable roadmap for implementation as part of the suggested National Open Government Strategy (see Chapter 6 for more information) or future OGP action plans that include commitments from all branches of the state as done in countries such as Chile, Spain, or Colombia.
Create a permanent space (e.g. roundtable, forum, etc.) for collaboration and co-ordination between levels of government and branches of the state. This mechanism could be part of the recommended National Open Government Steering Committee (see Chapter 5).
5. Create a dedicated agenda to increase the openness of the legislature (“Open Parliament”).
Increase awareness and political buy-in from elected members to the open government agenda by further communicating and providing capacity-building opportunities for both parliamentarians, and their staff.
Create additional synergies between Parliament and other branches of the state by including joint commitments in the forthcoming National Open Government Strategy, or future OGP Action Plans.
Invite representatives of Parliament to be part of the suggested National Open Government Committee.
Innovate and improve the mechanisms for transparency and access to information in Parliament by increasing accessibility and creating an open data platform.
Make use of public communications and increase the diversity of formats and channels to better inform the public about the Parliament’s activities, increase the uptake of information and disseminate opportunities to participate.
Increase the impact of participatory practices, for example by modernising the Parliament’s existing petitions platform or ensuring both Chambers provide feedback on the use of the inputs received through public consultations.
Promote the use of more impactful and innovative participatory practices such as representative deliberative processes or hackathons.
Adopt a policy roadmap to foster openness in the Legislature (e.g. Open Parliament action plan/strategy).
Create a mandate for an Open Parliament Office and provide it with dedicated human and financial resources. In the case of Romania, this Office could be placed in the current Public Relations Office (Senate) and Directorate for Communications and Public Relations (Chamber of Deputies) – or at the level of the Legislative Council.
References
[69] Alianza Gobierno Abierto Colombia (n.d.), Acerca de, https://agacolombia.org/acerca-de/ (accessed on 16 February 2021).
[53] Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (2021), E-democracia platform, https://edemocracia.camara.leg.br/ (accessed on 19 December 2021).
[47] Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (2021), Understand the Legislative Process, https://www.camara.leg.br/entenda-o-processo-legislativo/.
[55] Cesnulaityte, I. (2021), “Deliberative Committees: When parliament and citizens work together”, OECD Participo, https://medium.com/participo/deliberative-committees-when-parliament-and-citizens-work-together-f3e3e2444a6b.
[62] Chilean Congress (2019), Plan de Acción de Parlamento Abierto 2019-2020.
[6] CLAD (2016), Carta Iberoamericana de Gobierno Abierto, https://clad.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Carta-Iberoamericana-de-Gobierno-Abierto-07-2016.pdf.
[60] Colombian Senate (2021), Sexto Plan de Acción Congreso Abierto y Transparente Legislatura 2021-2022, https://www.senado.gov.co/index.php/component/content/article/12-institucional/3613-sexto-plan-de-accion-congreso-abierto-y-transparente-legislatura-2021-2022.
[54] Colombian Senate (n.d.), Mi Senado, https://twitter.com/appmisenado.
[28] Com’ON Cluj-Napoca (n.d.), About, https://www.comoncluj.ro/rules (accessed on 28 October 2022).
[15] Council of Europe (1985), European Charter of Local Self-Government.
[13] Council of European Municipalities and Regions (2021), Territorial, Governance, Powers and Reforms in Europe: Romania, https://terri.cemr.eu/en/country-profiles/romania.html.
[56] Elstub, S. and J. Carrick (2020), Comparing Mini-Publics in the Scottish Parliament.
[38] European Association of Development Agencies (2018), Regional Development Agencies in Romania.
[61] French National Assembly (2018), Ouverture, transparence et participation citoyenne - premier plan d’action de l’Assemblée nationale.
[34] Government of Argentina (2022), Federal Open Government Programme, https://www.argentina.gob.ar/jefatura/innovacion-publica/servicios-y-pais-digital/gobierno-abierto/programa-federal-de-gobierno.
[29] Government of Romania (2022), Open Government National Action Plan 2022 - 2024.
[22] Government of Romania (2022), Transparency and participation in public administration, https://sgg.gov.ro/1/transparenta-decizionala-monitorizare/.
[39] Government of Romania (2021), About the National Anticorruption Strategy.
[21] Government of Romania (2019), Guidance on the Open Government Partnership for subnational authorities, https://ogp.gov.ro/nou/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Recomandari-Parteneriatul-pentru-Guvernare-Deschisa-la-nivel-local_mai19.pdf.
[40] Government of Romania (1991), The Constitution of Romania, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Romania_2003.pdf?lang=en.
[71] Government of Spain (2020), Comunidad de Practica de Participacion, https://transparencia.gob.es/transparencia/transparencia_Home/index/Gobierno-abierto/Comunidad-de-Practica-Participacion.html.
[70] Government of Spain (2020), El Foro de Gobierno Abierto, https://transparencia.gob.es/transparencia/transparencia_Home/index/Gobierno-abierto/foro-GA.html.
[51] House of Commons (n.d.), Petitions, https://petition.parliament.uk/.
[52] Houses of the Oireachtas (n.d.), Public petitions, https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/committees/33/petitions/.
[27] Iași City Hall (n.d.), Collaborative Solutions Platform, https://solutiicolaborative.ro/team (accessed on 13 July 2022).
[43] Institute for Public Policies (2018), Parliament, http://www.ipp.ro/parlament/.
[44] International Budget Partnership (2021), Open Budget Survey - Romania, https://internationalbudget.org/sites/default/files/country-surveys-pdfs/2021/open-budget-survey-romania-2021-en.pdf.
[41] International Parliamentarian Union (2022), Global data on national parliaments – Romania, https://data.ipu.org/node/140/basic-information?chamber_id=13510.
[48] IPU (2022), Global Parliamentary Report 2022 - Public engagement in the work of parliament.
[58] Legislature of the Province of Cordoba (2022), Open Parliament Strategy 2022-2023.
[32] Municipality of Iași (2019), Open Government Action Plan 2019 – 2021, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Iasi_Action-Plan_2019-2021_EN.pdf.
[8] Naciones Unidas (2015), Proyecto de documento final de la cumbre de las Naciones Unidas para la aprobación de la agenda para el desarrollo después de 2015.
[16] OAS (2014), Gobierno Municipal Abierto en América Latina: de la Proximidad Administrativa a la Accion Colaborativa.
[23] OECD (2023), Civic Space Review of Romania, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f11191be-en.
[50] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.
[4] OECD (2022), Open Government Review of Brazil : Towards an Integrated Open Government Agenda, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3f9009d4-en.
[72] OECD (2022), “Strengthening governance processes and mechanisms for an integrated open government agenda in Brazil”, in Open Government Review of Brazil : Towards an Integrated Open Government Agenda, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/32502f2e-en.
[10] OECD (2021), 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government.
[14] OECD (2021), Guía OCDE para diseñar e implementar estrategias territoriales de Gobierno Abierto en Colombia, https://www.oecd.org/gov/open-government/guia-ocde-para-disenar-e-implementar-estrategias-territoriales-de-gobierno-abierto-en-colombia.htm.
[20] OECD (2021), OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions.
[19] OECD (2020), “Cities Policy Responses”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/cities-policy-responses-fd1053ff/.
[3] OECD (2020), “Taking an integrated approach to the promotion of transparency, integrity, accountability and stakeholders’ participation: Towards an Open Government Strategy”, https://one.oecd.org/official-document/GOV/PGC/OG(2020)4/REV1/en (accessed on 21 February 2022).
[30] OECD (2020), “Taking an integrated approach to the promotion of transparency, integrity, accountability and stakeholders’ participation: Towards an Open Government Strategy”.
[65] OECD (2019), OECD Public Governance Scan Colombia, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/Colombia-Scan-Final-Spanish.pdf.
[1] OECD (2019), Open Government in Argentina, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1988ccef-en.
[66] OECD (2019), Open Government in Argentina, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1988ccef-en.
[5] OECD (2017), “Recommendation of the Council on Open Government”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD/LEGAL/0438, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438 (accessed on 18 February 2022).
[2] OECD (2016), Open Government in Costa Rica, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264265424-en.
[64] OECD (2016), Open Government in Costa Rica, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264265424-en.
[68] OECD (2016), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268104-en.
[18] OGP (2022), OGP local, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/ogp-local/ (accessed on 8 August 2022).
[35] OGP (2021), Romania Action Plan Review 2020-2022, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/romania-action-plan-review-2020-2022/.
[9] OGP (2018), OGP Explorer, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/explorer/all-data.html (accessed on 1 December 2020).
[42] OGP (2018), Parliaments as Partners for Open Government Reform.
[59] OGP (2018), Riigikogu Transparency (EE0050), https://www.opengovpartnership.org/members/estonia/commitments/EE0050/.
[33] OGP (2018), Romania - Open Local Government (RO0049), https://www.opengovpartnership.org/members/romania/commitments/RO0049/#_ftn7.
[11] Oszlak, O. (2014), Gobierno abierto: Hacia un nuevo paradigma de gestión pública.
[57] Parlamericas (2019), Executive summary: Guide to Develop Open Parliament Action Plans, http://www.parlamericas.org/uploads/documents/Exec%20Summary_ENG_May2019-online.pdf.
[24] Participatory Budgeting Atlas (2021), PB data World, https://www.pbatlas.net/world.html (accessed on 7 March 2022).
[67] Ramírez-Alujas, Á. (2020), “El estado del Estado abierto en América Latina: avances, alcances y perspectivas”, Revista sobre el Estado, la Administración y las Políticas Públicas, Vol. 4/1, pp. 13-38, http://publicaciones.inap.gob.ar/index.php/EA/article/view/132.
[49] Romanian Chamber of Deputies (2015), Petitions and hearings, https://www.cdep.ro/relatii_publice/site2015.dpetitii?idl=1.
[45] Romanian Senate (2022), Access to Information Reports, https://www.senat.ro/AfisareListaFisiere.aspx?Pagina=c0103416-ed45-479c-ad30-239462ab974b.
[63] Scottish Parliament (2022), Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee Report.
[25] Suceava City Hall (n.d.), ePortal, https://eportal.primariasv.ro/dm_suceava/servicii.nsf (accessed on 13 July 2022).
[26] Timișoara City Hall (n.d.), Decidem Timișoara, https://decidem.primariatm.ro/ (accessed on 13 July 2022).
[31] Timisoara Municipality (2022), Action plan – Timișoara, Romania, 2022 – 2024.
[46] Ubaldi, B. (2013), “Open Government Data: Towards Empirical Analysis of Open Government Data Initiatives”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 22, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k46bj4f03s7-en.
[12] UCLG (2018), Building open, transparent, responsive and inclusive cities: White Paper on Transparency and Open Government.
[17] UCLG (2018), Open government, https://opengov.uclg.org/en/open-government (accessed on 8 August 2022).
[37] UNCJR (2010), National Union of County Councils of Romania, https://cepli.eu/files/public/10000001/description_uncjr_en.pdf.
[7] United Nations (2019), Sustainable Development Goal 16, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/goal-16/ (accessed on 6 April 2020).
[36] Ziarul Unirea (2019), The “Alba Iulia Smart City” pilot project, 1st place at the “Network of Champions in the field of integrity” competition.
Government of Romania (2019), “Emergency Ordinance no. 57/2019 regarding the Administrative Code”, OFFICIAL MONITOR no. 555 of July 5, 2019, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocumentAfis/215925.
Parliament of Romania (2006), “Framework Law no. 195/2006 on decentralisation”, Chapter 2, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/72024
Parliament of Romania (2006), “Law no. 273/2006 on local public finance”, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/73527
Parliament of Romania (2007), “Law no. 144/2007 on the National Agency of Integrity”, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/82317.
Parliament of Romania (2006), “Law no. 96/2006 regarding the Statute of deputies and senators”, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/71194
Parliament of Romania (2003), “Law no. 52/2003 on decisional transparency in public administration”, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/41571.
Parliament of Romania (2001), “Law no. 544/2001 on free access to information of public interest”, OFFICIAL MONITOR no. 663 of October 23, 2001, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/31413.
Notes
← 1. As of 2022, the Recommendation has been signed by all OECD member countries and Brazil, Romania, Peru and Argentina.
← 2. Provision 10 of the OECD Recommendation on Open Government: “while recognising the roles, prerogatives, and overall independence of all concerned parties and according to their existing legal and institutional frameworks, explore the potential of moving from the concept of open government toward that of open state.”
← 3. For more information about academic literature on open state, the reader can consult the work by Oscar Oszlak.
← 4. In the context of an open government, the OECD understands accountability as “a relationship referring to the responsibility and duty of government, public entities, public officials, and decision makers to provide transparent information on, and be responsible for, their actions, activities and performance. It also includes the right and responsibility of citizens and stakeholders to have access to this information and have the ability to question the government and to reward/sanction performance through electoral, institutional, administrative, and social channels.”
← 5. Romania will receive EUR 31.5 billion for the period 2021 – 2027 as part the European Union Regional Policy, for more information: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_4662.
← 6. City Halls of Alba Iulia, Arad, Iasi, Suceava, Ciugud, Giurgiu, Roman, Braila and Cluj-Napoca, Bucharest III, Ramnicu Sarat and Calarasi and County Councils of Giurgiu, Vrancea.
← 7. This OECD acknowledges the complex interplay between these actors; however, a detailed analysis of these interactions goes beyond the scope of this Review.
← 8. Since its launch in 2012, the Declaration on Parliamentary Openness has been formally endorsed by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)'s Parliamentary Assembly, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), and the First Summit of Legislative Presidents of the Americas organised by the Organization of American States (OAS). It has also been endorsed by a number of national and subnational legislatures and parliamentarians. Access the Declaration here: https://openingparliament.org/declaration/.
← 9. https://www.senat.ro/infosenat/Home_NewsLetter.aspx.
← 10. The OECD understands public consultation as a two-way relationship in which citizens provide feedback to a public institution (such as comments, perceptions, information, advice, experiences, and ideas) (see also Chapter 4).
← 11. The survey is the basis of the 2022 Global Parliamentary Report. The survey was sent out to IPU Member parliaments in the summer of 2020. Responses were received from 63 parliaments representing 69 parliamentary chambers. These included 27 submissions from Europe, 13 from North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, 13 from Asia and the Pacific, 10 from the Americas and 6 from the Middle East.
← 12. The Open Parliament Strategy 2022-2023 for the Legislature of Cordoba (Argentina) is accessible here: https://legislaturacba.gob.ar/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Open-Parliament-Action-Plan-INGLES-ESPA%C3%91OL.pdf.
← 13. Useful guidance is provided by the Open Government Partnership on how to integrate open parliament commitments in the National OGP Action Plan: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/guidance-for-ogp-parliamentary-action-plans-2022/.
← 14. See for example the common position of the Spanish public administration prepared by the Forum on citizen participation: https://transparencia.gob.es/transparencia/dam/jcr:3e2692b0-cf50-4307-8f8f-ab2ed08fd511/Posici%C3%B3n_com%C3%BAn_vdef.pdf.
← 15. The Time Program is detailed in Chapter 4 of the OECD Open Government Review of Brazil (OECD, 2022[72]).