Skip Navigation

Serbia

  • Member Since 2012
  • Action Plan 4

Credit: REUTERS/Kevin Coombs

ON THE PAGE

Current Action Plan

2020-2022

Action Plan 4

  • Number of Commitments: 12
  • Policy Area Focus: Not specified

Serbia is currently implementing 12 commitments from their 2020-2022 action plan.

This action plan features commitments aimed at improvements in the areas of implementing public consultations, delivery of public services and providing access to information.

View from Tara mountain in Serbia, Europe. Drina river in the distance.
Serbia

Fixing Past Problems with State Funding for CSOs

Lessons from Reformers: Serbia’s first OGP action plan (2014–2016) had an explicitly ambitious commitment on the transparent funding of CSOs...

Contact

Point of Contact

Dragana Brajović Head of the PAR Unit, Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government dragana.brajovic@mduls.gov.rs

Commitments

Resources

  1. Serbia Action Plan 2018-2020

    2019, Action Plan, Web page

  2. Serbia Action Plan 2020-2022

    2020, Action Plan, Web page

  3. Serbia Action Plan Review 2020-2022

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  4. Serbia Action Plan Review 2020-2022 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  5. Serbia Design Report 2018-2020

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  6. Serbia Design Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2019, Report Comments, Web page

  7. Serbia End-of-Term Report 2014-2016

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  8. Serbia End-of-Term Report 2016–2018

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  9. Serbia End-of-Term Report 2016–2018 – For Public Comment

    2019, Report Comments, Web page

  10. Serbia End-of-Term Report for Public Comment 2014-2016

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  11. Serbia End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2014-2016

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  12. Serbia End-of-Term Self-Assessment Report 2018-2020

    2020, Self Assessment, Web page

  13. Serbia End-Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-2018

    2018, Self Assessment, Web page

  14. Serbia First Action Plan 2014-2015

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  15. Serbia Letter of Intent to Join OGP

    2017, Letter, Web page

  16. Serbia Mid-Term Report 2016-2018

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

  17. Serbia Mid-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  18. Serbia Mid-Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-2018

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  19. Serbia Progress Report 2014-2016

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  20. Serbia Second National Action Plan 2016-2018

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  21. Serbia Self-Assessment Report 2014-2015

    2016, Self Assessment, Web page

  22. Serbia Transitional Results Report 2018-2020

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  23. Serbia Transitional Results Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, 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
2
0
1
Action Plan 2
4
0
0
Action Plan 3
0
Action Plan 4

Global

Most per action plan
4
7

Regional

Most per action plan
4
7

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 4

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
Action Plan 4
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Implementation

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Action Plan 4

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)
0
Open Contracting
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
1.53 Sources

Civic Space

Freedom of Assembly
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.57 Sources
Freedom of Association
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.85 Sources
Defending Journalists and Activists
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
1.78 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)
1.11 Sources
Regulatory Governance
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.60 Sources

Access to Information

Right to Information
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.72 Sources
Open Data (Water / Sanitation)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.40 Sources
Open Data (Health)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
1.60 Sources
Open Data (Education)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
0.80 Sources

Fiscal Openness

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

Recent Posts

Show More
Open Government Partnership