Skip Navigation

Argentina Results Report 2019-2022

Compared to the previous plan, the fourth action plan showed progress in consistency, ambition, and inclusion of key issues, both from the civil society agenda regarding rights and democratic governance and from the global OGP agenda. However, it reported setbacks in its implementation, with the proportion of commitments completed at least substantially and an even greater reduction in the proportion of commitments with significant early results. Likewise, the implementation process experienced a higher-than-usual drop in civil society participation due, at least in part, to the perception of the negative impacts of the discontinuity caused by the change in government management. However, it also yielded valuable lessons, particularly about the potential of the strategy adopted to federalize open government.

Completion and Results

The plan co-created in 2019[1] had 16 commitments but its modified version[2], which received an extension of its implementation period to 2022 due to the pandemic, had 18. A commitment was added for the creation of a federal observatory for the implementation of the Comprehensive Sexual Education law, which was of particular interest to several civil society organizations but had not been agreed upon during the co-creation of the plan. Furthermore, the commitment to develop an Open Congress plan was split into two: one for the Chamber of Deputies and another for the Senate.

Of these 18 commitments, three yielded significant early results, nine had results whose effects on government openness are estimated to be marginal, and six had no results to report.

In reviewing the action plan, the IRM had identified four outstanding commitments, including the Open Congress, which ended up being divided into two commitments. Of these five promising commitments, one – on budget transparency – remained unimplemented and another – on disclosure of information in public works contracts – was executed to a limited extent. The change in government management and the lack of political will to address politically sensitive issues were some of the factors that inhibited its implementation. The remaining three – the federalization of open government and the two of Open Congress – were implemented substantially. Two of them delivered significant early results.

In general terms, these early results referred to extension of practices of openness, participation, and publicity to fields, issues, or institutions traditionally resistant to open government. Likewise, they responded to long-standing claims from civil society: to provinces and towns within the country, deepening a process of federalization; to the legislative power, producing advances in the direction of an Open State; and to the field of sexual and reproductive rights, placed at the center of a strong cultural battle.

Although it is difficult to compare with the previous plan, which had 44 commitments of very different ambitions, it is possible to affirm that the implementation of the fourth plan produced some setbacks. Just 61 % of the commitments in the fourth plan were fully or substantially completed, compared to 77 % in the third plan. Among the factors that accounted for the delays and non-completion, according to the sources consulted, the change of government stood out first and the pandemic second. This, however, was interpreted as an opportunity since it resulted in the accelerated adoption of virtual approaches and tools that later facilitated the implementation of commitments and even opened new horizons for the potential expansion of the scope of open government policies.

In addition, the fourth plan reported significant or exceptional early results for 17 % of the commitments, in contrast to 45 % in the previous plan.

Participation and Co-creation

The Open Government Directorate leads the OGP process in Argentina in close collaboration with the National Open Government Roundtable, a multi-stakeholder forum for the joint formation of government and civil society. Dialogue and joint decision-making remained unchanged compared to previous action plans.

The fourth action plan gave a qualitative leap in co-creation since the plan and the process itself were co-designed by the government and civil society within the framework of the National Open Government Roundtable. In the process of co-creating the commitments, civil society was integrated into a collaborative relationship, since it was able to propose topics and prioritize and shape the contents of commitments, through its participation in the National Roundtable.

The quality of the process had a positive impact on the quality of the resulting action plan. More homogeneous and ambitious than the previous ones, the fourth action plan included commitments around key issues on the rights agenda at the national level (human trafficking, sexual and reproductive health, gender gaps in the corporate world), outstanding issues on the OGP global agenda (such as water and sanitation and the rights of indigenous people), issues on the historical agenda of CSOs with the most intense participation in open government processes (public works, budget transparency, access to justice) and issues related to commitments assumed by the country at the international level (transparency of extractive industries, budget transparency). Likewise, it sought to extend the open government policies beyond the National Executive Branch: vertically, towards provincial and local governments; and horizontally, towards another power of the national State: the Legislative.

Implementation in Context

As usual, participation levels dropped during the implementation process of the plan. The CSOs consulted recognized that the sustained follow-up of the implementation is more complex than the participation in the co-creation of action plans. It usually requires resources that exceed the capacities of the organizations. In the case of the fourth action plan, the cost-benefit ratio of this investment increased to the extent that the pandemic and the change of government delayed and hindered implementation. This resulted in a decline in ambition and the transformative potential of several commitments[3].

Thus, although the National Open Government Roundtable continued to play its governing role with the plan in general, the organizations interested in specific commitments usually had limited participation in some instances of consultation or joint work, and in some cases they withdrew completely, dissatisfied with the lack of feedback, attention to their proposals, ambition or results.

[1] Available here:

[2] Available here:

[3] Cf. Interview with Lucía Baraldi, Poder Ciudadano, 12/05/22.


Filed under: IRM IRM Report

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open Government Partnership