2018-2020
Action Plan 2
Seoul is currently implementing 3 commitments from their 2018-2020 action plan.
This action plan features commitments related to citizen participation improving the subway system, support youth start-ups and open data.
2022, IRM Report, Web page
In 2019, the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) published its assessment report for Seoul's first action plan, prepared by the independent…
2019, Report Comments, Web Page
2019, Report Comments, Web page
2018, Action Plan, Web page
2016, Action Plan, Web page
2016, Letter, Web page
2016, Letter, Web page
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.
No IRM data
Pending IRM Review
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.
Stars (Global average 7%)
Focus on implementation
Focus on design
Pending IRM review
No IRM data
Focus on objectives and impact (ambition/potential impact)
Focus on relevance to open government
Focus on verifiability
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.
Participation was closed
Participation was open to any interested party
No IRM data
Forum
Pending IRM review
Collaborate: Iterative dialogue and public helped set agenda
Involve: Government gave feedback on public inputs
Consult:Â Public gave input
Inform: Government provided public with information on plan
The data below is drawn from the 2019 OGP Global Report. You can view and learn more about the report here.
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.
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.
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.
Reflect “real-world” performance, i.e., performance outside of the OGP framework. Scores are comprised of various indicators collected by respected organizations.
IRM-Based Findings
IRM-Based Findings
IRM-Based Findings
IRM-Based Findings
IRM-Based Findings
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...
Exactly 20 years ago, in the early months of 1998, I was a student living in Indonesia, witnessing in person my first and only revolution. What started as a small student protest turned in a couple of weeks into a…
As the government of the Republic of Korea welcomes open government champions from all over Asia-Pacific and beyond for this year’s Asia-Pacific Regional Meeting, here are a few things to expect. This year, eighty percent of OGP participating countries and…
Click here for more information about the Open Government Partnership's terms of use.
Terms & Conditions Close
English
French
Spanish