Skip Navigation

Greece Mid-Term Report 2016-2018

Greece’s third action plan covered several themes and contained express commitments from civil society, subnational governments, and Parliament. The two well-designed commitments on public administration assessment and public property open data saw limited completion. The next action plan could benefit from focusing on fewer, more well-defined commitments with actionable steps.

IRM report publication year: 2018



Commitment Overview Well-Designed? *
8. Assess public employees and services As part of the theme on public administration reform, this commitment would establish a meritocratic system for assessing public-sector employee performance. Yes
9. Modernize the selection system of managers This commitment would open managerial hiring to external recruitment for a transparent and effective process that could introduce a positive precedent for replication throughout the public administration hierarchy. No
15. Public property open data Opening data on public land usage would offer significant oversight by the public, with implications for effective real estate management, transparency, and anti-corruption efforts. Yes

*Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as specific, relevant, and has a transformative potential impact





Greece improved the OGP consultation with civil society stakeholders. Civil society organizations and subnational governments contributed several commitments to the action plan. However, there was no regular multi-stakeholder forum to ensure regular monitoring of the commitments’ implementation.

Who was involved?


Civil society Narrow/ little governmental consultations Primarily agencies that serve other agencies Significant involvement of line ministries and agencies
Beyond “governance” civil society
Mostly “governance” civil society
No/little civil society involvement

For the first time, the Ministries of Education; Justice, Transparency, and Human Rights; Maritime Affairs and Insular Policy; Defense; Foreign Affairs; and Agriculture took part in internal meetings concerning the action plan. Additionally, the Ministries of Education, Justice, and Maritime Affairs and Insular Policy contributed specific commitments that were included. Civil society organizations Open Technologies Alliance GFOSS and Open Knowledge Greece (OK Greece) reached out to their networks and invited new participants from civil society and academia. Three local governments participated in the process: the regions of Western Macedonia and Central Greece, as well as the municipality of Thessaloniki.

Level of input by stakeholders


Level of Input During Development
Collaborate: There was iterative dialogue AND the public helped set the agenda
Involve: The government gave feedback on how public inputs were considered
Consult: The public could give input
Inform: The government provided the public with information on the action plan.
No Consultation

OGP co-creation requirements


Timeline Process and Availability


Timeline and process available online prior to consultation

Advance notice


Advance notice of consultation

Awareness Raising


Government carried out awareness-raising activities

Multiple Channels


Online and in-person consultations were carried out

Documentation and Feedback


A summary of comments by government was provided

Regular Multi-stakeholder Forum


Did a forum exist and did it meet regularly?

Government Self-Assessment Report


Was a self-assessment report published?

Total 5 of 7


Acting contrary to OGP process?

A country is considered to have acted contrary to process if one or more of the following occurs:

·        The national action plan was developed with neither online or offline engagements with citizens and civil society

·        The government fails to engage with the IRM researchers in charge of the country’s Year 1 and Year 2 reports

·        The IRM report establishes that there was no progress made on implementing any of the commitments in the country’s action plan





Greece’s action plan contained commitments across nine thematic areas, with express commitments from civil society, subnational governments, and the Hellenic Parliament. Completion, however, remains limited. The design of the commitments needs to be strengthened to articulate intended changes.


Current Action Plan Implementation


2016–2018 Action Plan
Completed Commitments (Year 1) 2 of 34 (6%)
OGP Global Average Completion Rate (Year 1) 18%


Previous Action Plan Implementation


2014–2016 Action Plan
Completed Commitments (Year 1) 1 of 19 (5%)
Completed Commitments (Year 2) 1 of 19 (5%)
2012–2014 Action Plan
Completed Commitments (Year 1) 1 of 11 (9%)
Completed Commitments (Year 2) N/A


Potential Impact


2016–2018 Action Plan
Transformative Commitments 2 of 34 (6%)
OGP Global Average for Transformative Commitments 16%
2014–2016 Transformative Commitments 1 of 19 (5%)
2012–2014 Transformative Commitments 0 of 11 (0%)


Starred Commitments


2016–2018 Action Plan
Starred Commitments* (Year1) 0 of 34 (0%)
Highest Number of Starred Commitments (All OGP Action Plans) 5
2014–2016 Starred Commitments 0 of 19 (0%)
2012–2014 Starred Commitments 1 of 11 (9%)

* Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as specific, relevant, has a transformative potential impact, and is substantially complete or complete


1.     Focus on continuity and consistency by creating a mandate for OGP action plan development and implementation that assigns specific responsibilities to the national representative, the national point of contact, and public officials involved.
2.     Establish a permanent and fully functional multi-stakeholder forum to monitor and improve the implementation of the action plan.
3.     Think of the impact for citizens first. New commitments must balance achievable ambition with a focus on improving citizens’ lives.
4.     Develop problem-oriented commitments that seek to address key economic, social, and political problems in Greece.
5.     Regain trust in public institutions. Continue work in fiscal openness with a focus on citizen engagement, auditing, and public accountability.


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