Skip Navigation

Azerbaijan

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 3

ON THE PAGE

Azerbaijan is currently suspended from OGP pursuant to the Response Policy. Learn more here.

Current Action Plan

2020-2022

Action Plan 3

  • Number of Commitments: 9
  • Policy Area Focus: Not specified

Azerbaijan is currently suspended from OGP pursuant to the Response Policy. Learn more here.

Contact

Point of Contact

Ramin Valizade Executive Secretary, Anti-Corruption Commission valizada232@gmail.com

Commitments

Resources

  1. Republic of Azerbaijan – Special Report – For Public Comment

    2023, Report Comments, Web page

  2. EU for Integrity Programme: Second-Year Snapshot

    2022, Web page

  3. Azerbaijan – Status Update (April 2021)

    2021, Letter, Web page

  4. Azerbaijan Action Plan 2020-2022

    2020, Action Plan, Web page

  5. Azerbaijan – Appointment of high-level government representative for OGP process (April 22, 2019)

    2019, Letter, Web page

  6. Azerbaijan – Roadmap for the Development of the 2019-21 OGP Action Plan (March 1, 2019)

    2019, Action Plan, Web page

  7. Azerbaijan – Steering Committee Resolution (December 5, 2018)

    2018, Letter, Web page

  8. Criteria & Standards Report and Recommendation on Azerbaijan Response Policy Case (December 2018)

    2018, Web page

  9. Azerbaijan – Final progress report from the government (September 22, 2018)

    2018, Letter, Web page

  10. Azerbaijan – Government provides progress update (May 2018)

    2018, Letter, Web page

  11. Azerbaijan – Government provides progress update (June 2018)

    2018, Letter, Web page

  12. Azerbaijan – Government provides progress update (February 2018)

    2018, Letter, Web page

  13. Azerbaijan – Government meets with Criteria & Standards and Support Unit representatives (July 2018)

    2018, Letter, Web page

  14. Azerbaijan – Updated Recommendations for the Government (September 2017)

    2017, Letter, Web page

  15. Azerbaijan – August 2017: Draft Updated Recommendation for the Government

    2017, Letter, Web page

  16. Azerbaijan Letter of Intent to Join OGP

    2017, Letter, Web page

  17. June 2017 OGP Steering Committee resolution on Azerbaijan, extending inactivity

    2017, Letter, Web page

  18. What’s in a Name? A comparison of ‘open government’ definitions across seven OGP members

    2017, Research Product, Web page

  19. Azerbaijan End-of-Term Report 2012-2015 – For Public Comment

    2017, Report Comments, Web page

  20. Government of Azerbaijan Consolidated report – May 2017

    2017, Letter, Web page

  21. Article 19, CIVICUS, Publish What You Pay, Human Rights Watch: Pre SC Decision Letter – May 2017

    2017, Letter, Web page

  22. OGP Letter to Azerbaijan Regarding Late Self-Assessment: April 2014

    2017, Letter, Web page

  23. Azerbaijan – Government Outline of Proposed Action – 6 July 2015

    2017, Letter, Web page

  24. Azerbaijan – Final Report – Concerns Filed May 2015

    2017, Letter, Web page

  25. Azerbaijan Action Plan 2016-2018

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  26. Azerbaijan Self-Assessment for 2014

    2016, Self Assessment, Web page

  27. Azerbaijan – Response to OGP Recommendations from the Government

    2015, Governance Document, Web page

  28. Azerbaijan – Response to OGP Recommendations from the Government

    2015, Letter, Web page

  29. Azerbaijan Action Plan 2012-2015

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  30. Azerbaijan IRM Progress Report 2012-2013

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

  31. Azerbaijan Self-Assessment for 2012-2013

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page

  32. OGP Letter – Azerbaijan – April 2014

    2015, Letter, Web page

  33. Case Study (2014): Creating a Single-Window Access to Public Services in Azerbaijan

    2014, Research Product, Web page

Current Data

The data below is updated periodically, most often after large numbers of new action plans and IRM reports.

Commitment Performance

The following variables answer the question “Did this commitment open government?“, and focus on how government practices have changed as a result of the commitment’s implementation.

Key

No IRM data

Pending IRM Review

Download
Major
Outstanding
Starred Commitments
Action Plan 1
1
0
0
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3

Global

Most per action plan
4
7

Regional

Most per action plan
2
3

How to Get More Starred Commitments

Starred commitments in OGP are one of the ways the IRM designates promising reforms. The graph below shows where the major areas for improvement in action plan design and implementation should take place based on past action plans.

Key

Stars (Global average 7%)

Focus on implementation

Focus on design

Pending IRM review

No IRM data

Focus on design

Focus on objectives and impact (ambition/potential impact)

Focus on relevance to open government

Focus on verifiability

Download
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3

Public Participation

This table shows: 1) the level of public influence during the development and implementation of OGP action plans, 2) whether consultations were open to any member of the public or only to those invited; and 3) whether a forum existed that met regularly.

Key

Participation was closed

Participation was open to any interested party

No IRM data

Forum

Pending IRM review

Definitions

Collaborate: Iterative dialogue and public helped set agenda

 

Involve: Government gave feedback on public inputs

 

Consult: Public gave input

 

Inform: Government provided public with information on plan

Download
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Development

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Implementation

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3

OGP Global Report Data

The data below is drawn from the 2019 OGP Global Report. You can view and learn more about the report here.

Selected Dimensions of Open Government

This section captures how each OGP member can play a leadership role, based on IRM-based findings and third-party scores. This list does not cover all of open government and OGP members are not required to take any action.

Action implications

These are recommendations on the role that each OGP member might play in each policy area. The recommendations are derived from a combination of the IRM-based findings and third-party scores.

IRM-based findings

Reflect the performance of commitments in a particular policy area, as assessed by the IRM.

 

(NC) No Commitments
(CA) Commitment(s) in the policy area.
(IR) IRM-Reviewed: At least one IRM-assessed commitment.
(C) Was Complete: At least one commitment was substantially or fully completed.
(A) Was Ambitious: At least one commitment with moderate or transformative potential impact.
(ER) Showed Early Results: At least one commitment opened government in a “Major” or “Outstanding” way.

Third-party scores

Reflect “real-world” performance, i.e., performance outside of the OGP framework. Scores are comprised of various indicators collected by respected organizations.

Download

Anti-Corruption

Beneficial Ownership
Action Implications
No data
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data
Open Contracting
Action Implications
No data
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data

Civic Space

Freedom of Assembly
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
0 Sources
Freedom of Association
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
0.92 Sources
Defending Journalists and Activists
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
0.75 Sources

Open Policy Making

Participation in Lawmaking
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
-0.67 Sources
Regulatory Governance
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.40 Sources

Access to Information

Right to Information
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.01 Sources
Open Data (Water / Sanitation)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
1.60 Sources
Open Data (Health)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.07 Sources
Open Data (Education)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.10 Sources

Fiscal Openness

Transparency
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.28 Sources
Participation
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
0.36 Sources
Oversight
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.52 Sources

Recent Posts

full size Asia OR + OR webinar
Armenia · Australia · Azerbaijan · Georgia · Indonesia · Jordan · Kyrgyz Republic · Mongolia · New Zealand · Papua New Guinea · Philippines · Republic of Korea · Sri Lanka · Seoul, South Korea · South Cotabato, Philippines · Tbilisi, Georgia · Bojonegoro, Indonesia

Open Response + Open Recovery: Inclusive Participation and Civic Space in Times of Crisis

Open government reformers from the Asia-Pacific region discuss how to maintain inclusive civic participation and hold and expand civic space during the COVID-19 crisis. Watch the recording...

Show More
Open Government Partnership