Skip Navigation

Sweden

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 3

Current Action Plan

2016-2018

Action Plan 3

  • Number of Commitments: 4
  • Policy Area Focus: E-Government and Open Data, Aid Transparency, Civic Participation

Sweden is currently implementing 4 commitments from their 2016-2018 action plan.


Commitments

  1. Starred commitment citizen-centered e-government

    SE0013, 2016, Environment and Climate

  2. Re-use of public administration documents and open data

    SE0014, 2016, Land & Spatial Planning

  3. transparency in aid management

    SE0015, 2016, Aid

  4. Developing a new format for dialogue with CSOs

    SE0016, 2016, Public Participation

  5. Putting citizens at the centre (eGovernment) of government administration reforms

    SE0008, 2014, Legislation & Regulation

  6. A step further on the re-use of public administration documents

    SE0009, 2014, Capacity Building

  7. Increased access to Swedish aid information

    SE0010, 2014, Aid

  8. Improved opportunities for dialogue and transparency in aid management and implementation

    SE0011, 2014, Aid

  9. Increased aid transparency at global level

    SE0012, 2014, Aid

  10. Continuing the development of the Openaid.se platform

    SE0001, 2012, Aid

  11. Ensuring full implementation of the IATI standard by 2015

    SE0002, 2012, Aid

  12. Implementing the commitments in the Busan Partnership document

    SE0003, 2012, Aid

  13. Playing a leading role in the Building Block on Transparency

    SE0004, 2012, Capacity Building

  14. Contributing to further define the work towards an EU Transparency Guarantee

    SE0005, 2012, Capacity Building

  15. Engaging in the Open Aid Partnership and promoting ICT4D

    SE0006, 2012, Aid

  16. Broadening open government commitments

    SE0007, 2012, OGP


Current Data

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


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
0
Action Plan 2
0
0
0
Action Plan 3
1

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

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
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.

Anti-Corruption

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

Civic Space

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

Open Policy Making

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

Access to Information

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

Fiscal Openness

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

Resources

  1. Late Letter – November 2016 – Sweden

    2016, Letter, Web page

  2. OGP Letter to Sweden Regarding Late Action Plan: November 2016

    2017, Letter, Web page

  3. Sweden – Mid-Term Report (2015)

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page

  4. Sweden – Notification of Late Action Plan (Cohort Shift) – January 2019

    2019, Letter, Web page

  5. Sweden 2014-2015 IRM Progress Report

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  6. Sweden 2017 Late SAR Letter – February 2018

    2018, Letter, Web page

  7. Sweden Action Plan 2012-2013

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  8. Sweden End-of-Term Report 2014-2016

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  9. Sweden End-of-Term Report 2016-2018

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  10. Sweden End-of-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  11. Sweden End-of-Term Self-Assessment Report 2014-2016

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  12. Sweden End-Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-2018

    2018, Self Assessment, Web page

  13. Sweden IRM Progress Report 2012-2013

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

  14. Sweden Letter of Intent to Join OGP

    2017, Letter, Web page

  15. Sweden Mid-Term Report 2016-2018

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

  16. Sweden Mid-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  17. Sweden Progress Report 2014-2015 (Swedish)

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  18. Sweden Third National Action Plan 2016-2018

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  19. Sweden, Second Action Plan, 2014-16

    2015, Action Plan, Web page


Recent Posts

Show More