Skip Navigation

Seoul, South Korea

  • Member Since 2016
  • Action Plan 2

Current Action Plan

2018-2020

Action Plan 2

  • Number of Commitments: 3
  • Policy Area Focus: Citizen Participation, Youth Startups , Citizen Digital Literacy

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.


Point of Contact

Jihyun Kim External Relations Officer, Seoul Metropolitan Government, Smart City Division kimjihyun@seoul.go.kr

Commitments

  1. transporation accessibility

    SEO0005, 2018, E-Government

  2. digital literacy

    SEO0006, 2018, Capacity Building

  3. smart cities youth start ups

    SEO0007, 2018, E-Government

  4. Analyze data to resolve urban problems in Seoul through cooperative governance with civil society

    SEO0001, 2017, Open Data

  5. Strengthen the accountability of the Seoul Metropolitan Government by sharing public information with its citizens in a timely and swift manner.

    SEO0002, 2017, E-Government

  6. Promote crowdsourcing map-making by facilitating the environment for citizens to make their own urban-life maps.

    SEO0003, 2017, Capacity Building

  7. Provide more transparent meeting information and minutes.

    SEO0004, 2017, Capacity Building


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

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

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

Action Plan 2

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

Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Development

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

Implementation

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2

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
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER

Civic Space

IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER

Open Policy Making

IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER

Access to Information

IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER

Fiscal Openness

IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER

Resources

  1. Seoul Final IRM Review 2017 – For Public Comment

    In 2019, the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) published its assessment report for Seoul's first action plan, prepared by the independent…

    2019, Documents, Web Page

  2. Open Net Endorsement Letter

    2016, Letter, Web page

  3. Seoul Action Plan 2018-2020

    2018, Action Plan, Web page

  4. Seoul Final IRM Review 2017 – For Public Comment

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  5. Seoul, Korea Action Plan

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  6. Transparency International Korea Endorsement Letter

    2016, Letter, Web page


Recent Posts

Seoul and the OGP Ten

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…