1. Monitoring the implementation of the OECD Recommendation on Open Government

The present Report takes stock of the progress that Adherents have made in implementing the Recommendation (Box 1.1). The Recommendation has one operative paragraph structured around ten (10) specific provisions. The Report discusses open government reforms in light of these ten provisions of the Recommendation, assessing the implementation of each of them independently.

While the concept of Open Government has only been widely used in the past decade, initiatives to foster the open government principles of transparency, accountability, integrity and stakeholders’ participation have existed for a long time (OECD, 2022[2]). With the emergence of the global open government movement, for the first time, countries started seeing them as one integrated cluster and developing holistic approaches to promote all of open government principles in synergy (OECD, 2022[2]).

Reflecting the way OECD Members have used and understood the concept, the OECD Recommendation on Open Government defined it as “a culture of governance that promotes the principles of transparency, integrity, accountability and stakeholder participation in support of democracy and inclusive growth” (OECD, 2017[3]). Open Government constitutes a change of paradigm for governments, public administrations, civil servants, citizens and stakeholders in general. Intended as such, Open Government touches upon the functioning and working methods of every institution and every individual public official and it has profound implications for the relationship between governments and citizens (OECD, 2022[2]). The answers that delegates to the WPOG submitted to the 2021 OECD Perception Survey on Open Government confirmed the community’s broad understanding of the concept (OECD, 2021[4]) (Figure 1.1).

Definitions of the concept of open government are now common practice in Adherents. Only six (17%) Adherents did not have a definition in place while ten (28%) had one or several official definition(s) and 26 (72%) had one or several working definition(s) in place (Figure 1.2). Adherents’ definitions of open government are often inspired by those promoted by the OECD (19, 61.3%) and/or the OGP (21, 67.7%) and, according to text-mining conducted by the OECD most commonly associate the concept of open government with transparency (90.5%), accountability (76.2%) and participation (76.2%).

The concept of Open Government and its implications sometimes remain unclear or underutilised. Indeed, in the OECD Perception Survey on Open Government (OECD, 2021[4]), more than half of the delegates responded that only few or some public officials in their country knew about the integrated approach promoted concept of Open Government. Moreover, 61% of delegates responded that there continues to be a large variation in the understanding of open government among public institutions within their countries (OECD, 2021[4]). While all Adherents could make further efforts to disseminate the benefits of open government reforms within their public administration and the wider society, OECD research also indicates that public officials and citizens do not necessarily need to be aware of the exact meaning of the concept of Open Government and of the integrated approaches it promotes, but that citizens do care about the implementation of open government principles, policies and practices. Indeed, according to the OECD Trust Survey, citizens expect to have a government that gives access to government information, provides opportunities to engage in the policy-making process and responds to public feedback and demands (OECD, 2022[6]), no matter the name of the approach taken to achieve these results.

Just like citizens and public officials do not necessarily need to be aware of the integrated approach promoted by the concept of Open Government, initiatives that aim to foster governments’ capacity to inform, respond to or interact with citizens do not have to be labelled as “open government initiatives” or be part of an “open government agenda” to be impactful. In fact, in many/most cases they are not. In practice, many Adherents are promoting the different elements that, when taken together, make up an Open Government in a disaggregated manner (i.e., without seeing them as part of one coherent cluster) and, by doing so, have nevertheless achieved high levels of openness. For example, most Adherents have long-standing policy agendas to provide citizens with more high-quality access to public information which predate the global open government movement and, by themselves, have achieved important results.

Nevertheless, the benefits of Adherents joining the open government community and designing integrated approaches to promote Open Government can be very tangible, as further discussed throughout this Report. These benefits including bridging the gaps between existing policy communities within countries (e.g., those focusing on access to information and open government data) to bringing in new, innovative forms of participation or promoting cutting-edge topics such as beneficial ownership transparency. Evidence collected also shows that integrated open government approaches foster policy dialogue, promote policy alignment, avoid policy fragmentation and, ultimately, promote synergetic outcomes that are greater than the sum of their parts.

The approach that the Recommendation proposed back in 2017 was therefore one of integration. The Recommendation made an offer to countries to speed up their transformation and achieve a synergetic and harmonious implementation of reforms that aim to open the government to citizens’ inputs and scrutiny, thereby saving resources and increasing policy coherence.

The OECD defines civic space as the set of legal, policy, institutional, and practical conditions necessary for non-governmental actors to access information, express themselves, associate, organise and participate in public life. The preamble of the Recommendation recognises that open government is a key contributor to achieving policy outcomes in the domain of civic freedoms (OECD, 2017[3]). Moreover, civic freedoms and rights are essential to “grant all stakeholders equal and fair opportunities to be informed and consulted” as mandated by provision 8. As described in the assessments of provisions 2 and 8, more and more Adherents recognise a protected civic space as an essential enabler of successful open government initiatives. By directly linking the protection and promotion of civic space with good governance, countries are creating the conditions for more effective, inclusive and impactful civic participation in decision making.

When fundamental civic freedoms such as freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, association and the right to privacy are protected, citizens and civil society organisations (CSOs) can engage with government, participate throughout policy-making cycles, evaluate results, express their views and provide oversight of government activities. A thriving civic space emerges from joint efforts by a range of governmental institutions and across the public sector to protect civic freedoms and to foster meaningful opportunities for civic engagement. By promoting and protecting civic freedoms and providing concrete opportunities for collaboration with citizens and civil society, governments can better align services, policies and laws to societal needs. In the longer term, a vibrant civic space that enables civil society to flourish can contribute to more citizen-centred policies and programmes, help to improve government effectiveness and responsiveness, and help to enhance trust in government and societal cohesion.

By fully integrating civic space into its public governance agenda, the OECD is promoting an expansive, joined-up and holistic understanding of open government that explicitly recognises that transparency, accountability, integrity and participation are only possible when the broader national legal and policy frameworks are conducive to them (see Table 1.1). To take concrete examples, open data do not lead to transparency if citizens are unable to access, use and critique them; similarly, access to information yields little accountability if journalists are threatened or arrested for using it; and participation in public decision-making is hindered if CSOs are struggling to operate, arbitrarily dissolved or drowning in red tape. In 2021, the OGP launched a high-profile Call to Action to encourage its members to protect civic space and enhance citizen participation as a fundamental part of open government. In 2022, the OECD launched a report, The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance that explicitly links open government, civic space and strengthened democratic governance (OECD, 2022[7]).

In 2021, the Open Government Partnership launched a high-profile Call to Action to encourage its members to protect civic space and enhance citizen participation as a fundamental part of open government. In 2022, the OECD launched a report, The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance that explicitly links open government, civic space and strengthened democratic governance (OECD, 2022[7]).

Data from the 2021 Perception Survey on Open Government (OECD, 2021[4]) confirms that civic space is firmly anchored in open government for many Adherents. A total of 56% of delegates to the WPOG responded that civic space was “fully” relevant to their work, while 19% said it was “mostly” relevant and 25% “somewhat” (see Figure 1.3). However, only 16% respectively said that civic space was “fully” or “mostly” integrated into the open government agenda in their country. 59% said it was “somewhat” integrated and 9% “not at all”, illustrating a need for greater cohesion at national level.

References

[9] Foti, J. (2021), Past due: Leveraging justice for “hard accountability” in OGP, Open Government Partnership, https://opengovpart.medium.com/past-due-leveraging-justice-for-hard-accountability-in-ogp-f3a66b913997.

[6] OECD (2022), Building Trust and Reinforcing Democracy: Preparing the Ground for Government Action, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/76972a4a-en.

[8] 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.

[2] OECD (2022), Taking an integrated approach to the promotion of transparency, integrity, Internal paper presented to the Working Party on Open Government, GOV/PGC/OG(2020)4/REV1, https://www.oecd.org/gov/open-government/open-government-an-integrated-approach-promotion-transparency-integrity-accountability-and-stakeholders-participation.pdf.

[7] OECD (2022), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d234e975-en.

[4] OECD (2021), Perception Survey for Delegates of the OECD Working Party on Open Government.

[5] OECD (2020), OECD Survey on Open Government.

[1] OECD (2017), Multi-level Governance Reforms: Overview of OECD Country Experiences, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264272866-en.

[3] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438 (accessed on 23 August 2021).

Legal and rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

© OECD 2023

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at https://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.