Finland End-of-Term Report 2015-2017
Finland made progress in clarifying service delivery information, making budget data more accessible and broadening civic participation. Although all commitments were substantially completed, they have led to only marginal improvements in government transparency and civic engagement.
|Major or Outstanding Results? **
|Engagement of children, the youth, and the elderly
|As the only commitment in the action plan that was not primarily concerned with improving internal government processes, the fourth commitment has overall made minor progress toward engaging different demographics in government decision making.
* Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as being specific, relevant, and potentially transformative
** Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as having major or outstanding results in terms of the ‘Did it Open Government?’ variable
✪ Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as being specific, relevant, potentially transformative, and substantially or fully implemented
Finland’s OGP process included workshops, roundtable discussions, and newsletter updates. Advance notice and awareness raising were primarily conducted through government mailing lists, and going forward advance notice for events could be publicized to a wider selection of stakeholders. However, the timeline was published online, and the government created multiple opportunities for citizens to participate in providing feedback on the action plan.
|Finland did not act contrary to OGP process
A country is considered to have acted contrary to process if one or more of the following occurs:
Finland’s second national action plan included themes around clarifying government language, opening data, and enhancing citizen engagement. The themes are organized into four broad commitments, each composed of multiple, noncumulative activities. All commitments had only a minor potential impact and were evaluated to have only marginally opened government.