Coordinate, through the necessary institutional mechanisms, open government strategies and initiatives – horizontally and vertically – across all levels of government to ensure that they are aligned with and contribute to all relevant socio-economic objectives.
Open Government for Stronger Democracies
A Global Assessment
5. Provision 4: Coordination mechanisms
Abstract
Open government policies and practices are transversal by nature and usually involve a wide range of stakeholders. Their successful implementation therefore depends on effective policy co-ordination (OECD, 2019[1]; OECD, 2023[2]). Co-ordination is also the primary means to prevent fragmented approaches and ensure policy coherence across the whole public sector (Ibid.).
4.1: Co-ordination of open government agendas by establishing dedicated institutional mechanisms
Adherents have set up different institutional mechanisms to co-ordinate open government strategies and initiatives.
Most Adherents have long-standing institutional co-ordination mechanisms (e.g., Councils, Networks, Committees, etc.) in different areas that have links with/contribute to Open Government (e.g., mechanisms to co-ordinate open data policies, integrity policies, digital government policies, etc.). In fact, 61 out of 111 policy documents (55%) by 37 Respondents to the 2020 OECD Survey on Open government are governed by a mechanism that includes non-public stakeholders. 75 out of 115 policy documents (65.2%) possess a dedicated mechanism to facilitate coordination across government, such as an inter-ministerial working group (OECD, 2020[3]).
The creation of mechanisms to co-ordinate integrated open government approaches is a relatively recent trend.
Recognising that the promotion of cross-cutting and integrated open government approaches requires a more structured approach, an increasing number of Adherents have started setting up dedicated co-ordination mechanisms for their open government agendas. The most common form that these mechanisms take is that of a “Multi-Stakeholder Forum” (MSF). In fact, countries that participate in the Open Government Partnership not only commit to developing their action plans through a participatory process, but also to implement them with the active engagement of citizens and civil society (OECD, 2021[4]). For OGP-members, an MSF is a mandatory, standing consultative body that assists in this process. MSFs are responsible for assisting in the oversight of the OGP-process to ensure that, in accordance with the OGP Participation and Co-Creation Standards (OGP, 2021[5]), it is open and inclusive of all stakeholders. MSFs must further comprise representation from both government and civil society and meet at least every quarter (OGP, 2021[5]).
Data shows that 75.8% of responding Adherents that are part of OGP (25 out of 33) have established an MSF that involves non-public stakeholders (OECD, 2020[3]). Civil society organisations are the most common non-public stakeholders that are represented in the MSF (80.7%), followed by academia (64.9%) and private sector/business organisations (52.6%) (Figure 5.1). A few Adherents have established mechanisms with a different set-up. For example, Finland has two mechanisms in place that involve non-public stakeholders. On the one hand, the Working Group on Open Government is the main body to set directions for the OGP Action Plan process, and to coordinate and follow-up on its implementation. On the other hand, the Civil Society Policy Board KANE also has a steering role in the OGP-process, but its mandate relates more broadly to advancing the co-operation between civil society and government. The only responding Adherents that are part of the OGP and that do not currently have an MSF in place are France, Germany, Greece, Sweden and the United States1 (OECD, 2020[3]).
Figure 5.1. Non-public stakeholders represented in Adherents’ OGP Multi-stakeholder Forum
Note: N=26. Multiple selection possible.
Source: OECD (2020[3]), 2020 Survey on Open Government.
The Multi-stakeholder Fora have started playing a more active role in the wider open government agenda.
Usually, the MSFs have a broad set of responsibilities as regards the OGP-process. Across Respondents, the most important responsibilities include monitoring the implementation of the Action Plan (92.6%), setting directions for the Action Plan process (88.9%), and conduct outreach and awareness raising activities (81.5%). Only 7.4% of MSFs are currently involved in mobilising financial resources for the Action Plan process (Figure 5.2).
Recognising the usefulness of the MSF as a general platform for dialogue with non-public stakeholders, in recent years, 33.3% of MSFs developed by Respondents as part of the OGP (nine out of 27) have started taking over responsibilities for the wider open government agenda. For example, Czechia’s Working Commission for Open Government and State Administration Transparency now has a broad mandate to support integrity. As a permanent advisory body to the government and chaired by the Minister of Justice, it evaluates anti-corruption measures, monitors the implementation by individual ministries and proposes measures to reduce corruption risks, including by fostering transparency of the public administration. Spain’s MSF now facilitates collaboration between government and civil society regarding the wider open government agenda. In particular, it serves as a forum for dialogue with civil society and fosters the exchange of good practices, among others.
Figure 5.2. The main responsibilities of Multi-Stakeholder Forums in Adherents
Note: Figures in %. Only includes Adherents who are part of the OGP and possess an MSF; N=27
Source: OECD (2020[3]), 2020 Survey on Open Government.
Over the next implementation period, all Adherents that are part of the OGP should ensure that they have a functioning MSF that is in accordance with OGP Guidelines in place. Furthermore, Adherents that are part of the OGP could explore opportunities to upgrade their existing MSFs and transform them into full Open Government Steering Committees that co-ordinate their countries’ whole open government agendas.
4.2: Ensure that the open government agenda and other relevant national policy agendas proceed in the same direction and contribute to common objectives
Adherents’ open government agendas sometimes remain detached from wider policy objectives.
Data collected through the OECD Open Government Reviews and Scans shows that Adherents’ open government agendas often operate in isolation from other policy agendas and can, at times, remain disconnected from wider policy objectives pursued by the government. In particular, Adherents that are part of the OGP report facing difficulties in linking their OGP Action Plans to high-level government priorities, such as inclusive growth or environmental protection. In the 2021 OECD Perception Survey on Open Government (OECD, 2021[6]), 55% of responding delegates (16) answered that they felt that their current OGP Action Plan was only “somewhat” linked to high-level government priorities. This is also confirmed by the findings of the OECD Open Government Reviews and Scans which show that OGP Action Plans – due to their two-year cycle which, in many cases, is not aligned with the electoral and budget cycles – are often disconnected from the governments’ wider policy agendas and rather focus on specific short-term priority topics.
Figure 5.3. To what extent do you feel your current OGP Action Plan is linked to high-level government priorities?
Note: N=29. OGP members only.
Source: OECD (2021[6]), Perception Survey for Delegates of the OECD Working Party on Open Government.
In addition, while the most high-level policy documents (e.g., the Government Programme or the National Development Plan) of most Adherents include references to the open government principles and/or specific open government policies and practices, only a small number of Adherents explicitly include a dedicated focus on integrated open government approaches in them (see Box 5.1 for an example). Nevertheless, research conducted by the OECD also shows that open government policies and practices, such as national dialogues and citizens assemblies, are becoming more common in discussing critical national policy goals (e.g., France’s Citizen Convention on Climate) and are thereby bringing open government approaches to the centre of public attention.
Box 5.1. Open government commitments in Colombia's 2018-2022 National Development Plan (NDP)
Colombia's 2018-2022 National Development Plan (NDP) includes a separate chapter describing actions on open government and open state. It includes commitments related to the principles of transparency, accountability and stakeholder participation as well as specific roadmaps to coordinate the actions of central and subnational levels of government in matters of open government.
In addition, the Pact for Legality, a cross-cutting axis in the NDP, aims at encouraging citizen participation by setting a vision and concrete objectives in this area:
Route to 2030: Citizen participation will be recognised as a key aspect of the consolidation of democracy. By enabling them to fully exercise every aspect of citizenship, Colombians will take charge of their own development and that of their communities and territories.
Objectives:
To develop a national and local institutional framework to improve the effectiveness of citizen participation structures.
To formulate and implement a national policy on inclusion and democratic participation.
To implement a political leadership programme for young people, women and others interested in political participation.
To ensure social dialogue through the generation of protocols and tools that take citizen participation into account.
To strengthen structures for ongoing dialogue with territorial authorities and communities.
To implement a policy of religious freedom.
To establish a means of paying special attention to municipalities with low levels of electoral participation and/or areas with a history of electoral corruption.
The commitments included in the NDP served as a basis to elaborate Colombia’s National Policy on Open State (CONPES - Lineamientos de Política para la Implementación de un Modelo de Estado Abierto) adopted in 2021 and which sets a roadmap towards 2025 with 40 actions covering the areas of transparency, integrity, participation and innovation.
Source: Government of Colombia (2018[7]).
In recent years, the emergence of initiatives that focus on reinforcing and strengthening democracy, such as the OECD Reinforcing Democracy Initiative has created new opportunities for the global open government movement. Adherents now have a unique opportunity to fully embrace the potential that the new narratives bring to their open government agendas. Over the next implementation period, the openness of the public administration and the benefits that integrated open government approaches can bring should be put to the centre of attention in order to make open government policies and practices a catalyst for a democratic renewal, as mentioned in the Luxembourg Declaration.
Box 5.2. Linking open government and reinforcing democracy in Finland
Finland’s Open Government Strategy, which was published in December 2020 links open government reforms to democracy and the protection of civic space. Originally, “openness” was viewed as being a core value at the heart of the Finnish welfare state and democracy model, and the focus was on enhancing citizens’ trust in government. Approximately ten years ago, this evolved to a desire for a two-way relationship between the citizens and the state that also considered government trust in citizens and their representative groups.
Finland’s focus on open government continues to seek to strengthen this mutual trust-building between different actors in society and the state, based on dialogue and shared understanding. Crucially, the focus on mutual understanding is viewed as being an important means of countering current threats to democracy and human rights such as populism and polarisation. In this connection, Finland’s Open Government Strategy, which will guide the government’s entire open government agenda, includes commitments to reinforcing dialogue, promoting everyone’s right to understand and to be understood, and the right of all Finns to participate.
The implementation of the Open Government Strategy is closely co-ordinated with the National Democracy Programme 2025 that is led by the Finnish Ministry of Justice.
Source: OECD (2021[8]).
Conclusions and way forward (provision 4)
The implementation of provision 4 of the Recommendation is advancing. In particular:
4.1: All Adherents have institutional mechanisms to co-ordinate the implementation of different policies and practices that are linked to Open Government with public and non-public stakeholders in place. In recent years, most Adherents that are part of the OGP have established dedicated mechanisms to co-ordinate and oversee the implementation of their OGP Action Plans. In a first attempt to foster co-ordination on an integrated open government approach, these fora are increasingly being used to co-ordinate open government policies and practices beyond the scope of the OGP Action Plans, a positive trend that Adherents could pursue further.
4.2: Adherents’ open government agendas sometimes remain detached from wider high-level government policy objectives. At the same time, open government practices such as participatory budgets and citizens assemblies are becoming more common and are thereby bringing open government approaches to critical national policy goals. Over the next implementation period, Adherents could make additional efforts to bring the benefits of the open government principles to the centre of public attention and design integrated open government agendas that contribute to the emerging agendas surrounding democratic renewal, such as the OECD Reinforcing Democracy Initiative.
References
[7] Government of Colombia (2018), National Development Plan 2018-2022 “Pact for Colombia, Pact for Equity”, https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Prensa/Resumen-PND2018-2022-final.pdf.
[2] OECD (2023), Open Government Scan of Canada, Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1290a7ef-en.
[8] OECD (2021), Civic Space Scan of Finland, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f9e971bd-en.
[6] OECD (2021), Perception Survey for Delegates of the OECD Working Party on Open Government.
[4] OECD (2021), Towards the OECD Open Government Dashboard.
[3] OECD (2020), OECD Survey on Open Government.
[1] OECD (2019), Open Government in Argentina, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1988ccef-en.
[5] OGP (2021), OGP Participation and Co-Creation Standards, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/ogp-participation-co-creation-standards/.
Note
← 1. Ireland established such a mechanism over the course of 2021.