Commitments
-
Solidarity Factory
PAR0006, 2019, Marginalized Communities
-
Climate Mobilization
PAR0007, 2019, E-Government
-
Open Contracting
PAR0008, 2019, E-Government
-
A More Inclusive Participatory Budget
PAR0001, 2017, Marginalized Communities
-
To Give the Parisians Tools to Be Committed
PAR0002, 2017, Capacity Building
-
Increasing Community Mobilization in New Datasets Request
PAR0003, 2017, E-Government
-
Increase Mobile and Geolocalised Crowdsourcing with Dansmarue V2
PAR0004, 2017, E-Government
-
Kick-Off of Paris City Innovation Lab
PAR0005, 2017, Capacity Building
Resources
-
Cresspa Endorsement Letter
2016, Letter, Web page
-
DemocracyOS France Endorsement Letter
2016, Letter, Web page
-
Open Knowledge Foundation France Endorsement Letter
2016, Letter, Web page
-
Paris Final IRM Report 2017
2019, IRM Report, Web page
-
Paris Final IRM Report 2017 – For Public Comment
2019, Report Comments, Web page
-
Paris, France – Notification of Late Action Plan (Cohort Shift) – January 2019
2019, Letter, Web page
-
Paris, France Action Plan
2016, Action Plan, Web page
-
Paris, France Action Plan 2019 – 2021
2019, Action Plan, Web page
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
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
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
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.
Anti-Corruption
IRM-Based Findings
Civic Space
IRM-Based Findings
Open Policy Making
IRM-Based Findings
Access to Information
IRM-Based Findings
Fiscal Openness
IRM-Based Findings
English
French
Spanish