Skip Navigation

Chile Results Report 2020-2022

The political and health context had an adverse impact on the open government initiative, which is sustained voluntarily despite the lack of robust coordination and institutional incentives to position and support the issue within the Chilean State. The fifth action plan included open government commitments in the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judiciary, laying the foundations for an “Open State.” Its achievements have been diverse, with more substantial advances in commitments promoted directly from the public sector. The actors who participated in the fifth action plan show a vocation for open government, although they express disparate satisfaction degrees with the results.

Early Results[1]:

At the official closing of the action plan[2], of the ten commitments included, one achieved significant early results, six achieved marginal changes, and three still did not have any early results to report given their limited implementation. In relation to this matter, it should be noted that there is a significant drop in the achievement of early results (from four and five in the second and third action plans, respectively, to one in the fifth plan)[3].

None of the three promising commitments identified by the IRM in the action plan review (road map and the two commitments grouped as Open Parliament) achieved significant results[4]. On this matter, the negative impact the political and health situation had on commitments that -by their very nature- required a strong political impulse and technical coordination for their execution must be highlighted. Likewise, the commitments promoted by civil society and academia achieve substantially lower levels of compliance than those promoted directly from the public sector.


The fifth action plan stands out for including open government commitments in the executive and legislative branches, and the Judiciary, laying the initial foundations for an “Open State”. Thus, the plan included a wide variety of sectoral issues (public procurement, foreign trade, science and technology, road infrastructure, climate change, human rights) and others of a more cross-cutting nature (a “Roadmap” to promote the initiative of open government, open justice, and open parliament). Six of the ten commitments include web portal creation or update, with an emphasis on making the data available in a friendly and understandable way for large audiences.

The levels of commitment completion have been uneven: two were completed, four achieved substantial results, and four had limited results. Among the factors that contributed to achieving the commitments, the following stand out:

(a) The alignment of previously ongoing initiatives,

(b) Political accompaniment,

(c) The strong commitment of the civil service,

(d) Previous institutional experience working with civil society in regular and structured collaboration spaces (not ad-hoc).

It is clear that the commitments that achieved higher levels of compliance are those promoted by one of the State branches. Some of the factors that limited their progress are:

(a) The impact of the political and health situation,

(b) The lack of institutional incentives to position and support the issue,

(c) The lack of additional financial resources to influence institutional inertia.

Participación y cocreación:

The Public Integrity and Transparency Commission of the Ministry of the General Secretariat of the Presidency is the agency in charge of implementing the OGP process in Chile. The co-creation process is one of the most valued aspects of the fifth action plan. However, the lack of a holistic and long-term vision generates skepticism regarding the real potential of the initiative among several representatives of civil society and academia. In turn, the lack of operational guidelines to regulate the quality of participation leads to commitments addressed with disparate levels of involvement. Thus, the plan transitioned from more superficial and sporadic connection processes to others that are more structured and sustained over time, depending on the technical knowledge, previous experience, and availability of each executing agency. Some of the evidence collected during this research suggests that this dynamic is not new and is more of a systemic feature[5].

Implementation in Context:

The political and health situation has had a negative impact on the implementation and results achieved by the fifth action plan, weakening the prioritization of open government initiatives on the national public agenda. Although the social outbreak of 2019-2020 increased interest in participation and the opening of the Government, the COVID-19 pandemic (2020), the constituent process (2021-2022), the general elections (2021), and the assumption of a new government (2022) reconfigured the Chilean scenario. Thus, the international and national context implied the reprioritization of issues on the government agenda, budget cuts, lack of clarity and certainty regarding the future of government actions, and little clarity regarding the counterparts responsible for execution. These elements ended up slowing down the execution of the commitments assumed in the action plan[6] and are central to understanding the achievements made by Chile during the 2020-2022 period.

[1] The preparation of this Results Report included, among other primary sources, interviews, focus groups, and self-administered surveys of public officials, representatives of civil society, and academia. Among the parties consulted are: the Public Integrity and Transparency Commission of the Ministry of the General Secretariat of the Presidency; ChileCompra Directorate of the Ministry of Finance; Office of Studies and Statistics, Public Policy Division of the Ministry of Science, Technology, Knowledge and Innovation; Department of Studies of the Customs Service; Urban Works Department, Urban Development Division, Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning; Department of Climate Finance and Means of Implementation of the Ministry of the Environment; Communications and Citizen Participation Unit of the National Defender’s Office, Public Criminal Defender’s Office; Department of Institutional Development Administrative Corporation of the Judiciary; Private Secretariat of Minister Mauricio Silva Cancio, Supreme Court; Bicameral Group of Transparency of the National Congress of Chile; Public Management and Open Government Area at the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC); Open Government Academic Network; Faculty of Engineering, University of Chile; Adolfo Ibáñez University; University of Conception; Center for Public Systems, University of Chile; AE; Regional Anejud Concepción Araujo; Chilean Association of Volunteers; Chilean Association for the United Nations (ACHNU); Ladies of Celeste Volunteer Association; Chilean Chapter of the Ombudsman’s Office; Chilean Chapter of the Latin American Supply Network; Distance Education Center; Innovation Center for Procurement and State Supply (CICAB); Transparent Chile; Public Development; EITI Chile; Balmaceda Foundation; Biciculture Foundation; Crowds Foundation; Foundation; Fiscal Observatory; TANCU Foundation; Chilean Institute of Law and Technologies; ITF; Observatory of; Tax expenditure; FIMA NGO.

[2] The official execution period for the fifth action plan runs from August 4, 2020, to August 31, 2022 (27 months). This process includes the stages of co-creation and implementation. Although this period reflects the times agreed between the Open Government Board and OGP, in reality, the execution of the Plan extends from February 27, 2021, to December 31, 2022 (22 months). This lag in dates and deadlines responds from several reasons. First, the fourth action plan had to extend its execution until December 31, 2020, due to delays in its initiation and execution resulting from the social crisis (2019) and the pandemic (2020). Second, the process of co-creating the fifth action plan was followed by a process of amendments from which two additional commitments were introduced. Finally, this decoupling in the execution terms is also explained by the budgetary programming cycle of the Government of Chile. More information is provided on this last point in note 29 and observation 2. For more information on dates and deadlines for the fifth action plan, see: “Process of co-creation of the Fifth Action Plan for Open Government of Chile 2020-2022” atón-mayo2021.pdf Additional information on the fifth action plan amendment process is available here:

[3] See data here:

[4] Note that the fifth action plan review was carried out based on the eight commitments in force and validated when preparing said analysis. Subsequently, between March 1, 2021, and August 31, 2021, two additional commitments were designed and integrated into the fifth plan. The two new commitments are: “Promote, encourage and increase public investment in cycle-inclusive pedestrian infrastructure” (integrated as commitment five); and “Investment in climate action classification, measurement and reporting system” (as commitment 6). Note that the incorporation of these two commitments implied a change in the numbering of the commitments and, therefore, there are differences between the Review of the Chile Action Plan 2020-2022 and this Results Report. These differences have been identified in the annexes.

[5] See Ramírez-Alujas, Álvaro V. – Editor (2022). Voices of Open Government in Chile (2011-2021). Ministry General Secretariat of the Presidency – Institute of Public Affairs (INAP) of the University of Chile, Santiago de Chile. Access here:

[6] One of the people interviewed indicated: “The outbreak, the pandemic changed all priorities and this was no exception. The social outbreak modified the government plan completely. The Piñera Plan before and after the outbreak has nothing to do with one another. So [the open government initiative] became the 15th priority. So, you spoke about open government and they replied: “What?” (…). Resources had to be redirected to something else. For example, in the case of the pandemic, moving from face-to-face to virtual. So anything outside of that was not a priority.” The same happened with the change of government “it has been a slow process. Most institutions have been slow because they have focused on other issues. In addition, the resources stopped since there was a change of government. And, in general, this brings a change in the institutions, in the strategies, and issues associated with the administration”. Focus group with academia, October 24, 2022.


No comments yet

Leave a Reply

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

Open Government Partnership