Skip Navigation

Sweden

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 5

ON THE PAGE

Current Action Plan

2023-2025

Action Plan 5

  • Number of Commitments: 4
  • Policy Area Focus: Not specified

Sweden’s fifth action plan continues to focus on open data. To improve the impact of the commitments, Sweden could make “open by default” mandatory in the public sector and use open data to support anti-corruption reforms, like public procurement, lobbying, and beneficial ownership. The Ministry of Finance should ensure that Sweden meets OGP’s Participation and Co-Creation Standards during implementation through regular dialogue with civil society on the progress of the action plan. (More)

OpenStories for OGP site

OpenStories

Everyone has a story. Together we have a mission. Explore stories from across the open government community, and submit your own.

Contact

Point of Contact

Emelie Roos Ekengren Desk officer, Division for Public Administration, Ministry of Finance emelie.roos.ekengren@regeringskansliet.se

Commitments

Resources

  1. Fiscal Openness in Nordic+ Fact Sheet (June 2024)

    2024, Research Product, Web page

  2. Sweden Action Plan Review 2023-2025

    2023, IRM Report, Web page

  3. Sweden Action Plan Review 2023-2025 – For Public Comment

    2023, Report Comments, Web page

  4. Bringing Organized Interest Groups into Decision-Making

    2023, Guidance Document, Web page

  5. Sweden – Contrary to Process Letter (July 2023)

    2023, Letter, Web page

  6. Sweden Results Report 2019-2022

    2023, IRM Report, Web page

  7. Sweden Results Report 2019-2022 – For Public Comment

    2023, Report Comments, Web page

  8. Sweden – Procedural Review Resolution by C&S Subcommittee (April 2023)

    2023, Letter, Web page

  9. Sweden Action Plan 2023-2025 (June)

    2023, Action Plan, Web page

  10. Sweden – Contrary to Process and Status Letter (February 2023)

    2023, Letter, Web page

  11. Building Dialogue Between Government and Civil Society (Discussion Notes)

    2023, Web page

  12. Sweden Co-Creation Brief 2022

    2022, IRM Report, Web page

  13. Nordic+ Fact Sheet (August 2021)

    2021, Research Product, Web page

  14. Sweden – Response to Under Review Letter (March 2021)

    2021, Letter, Web page

  15. Sweden – Under Review Letter – February 2021

    2021, Letter, Web page

  16. Sweden Design Report 2019-2021

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  17. IRM Regional Snapshot: Nordics

    2020, Resource, Web page

  18. Sweden Design Report 2019-2021 – For Public Comment

    2020, Report Comments, Web page

  19. Sweden Action Plan 2019-2021

    2019, Action Plan, Web page

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

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

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

    2019, Letter, Web page

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

    2019, Report Comments, Web page

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

    2018, Self Assessment, Web page

  24. Sweden Mid-Term Report 2016-2018

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

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

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  26. Sweden 2017 Late SAR Letter – February 2018

    2018, Letter, Web page

  27. Sweden Letter of Intent to Join OGP

    2017, Letter, Web page

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

    2017, Letter, Web page

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

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

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

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  31. Sweden Third National Action Plan 2016-2018

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  32. Late Letter – November 2016 – Sweden

    2016, Letter, Web page

  33. Sweden IRM Progress Report 2014-2015

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  34. Sweden Mid-Term Self-Assessment Report 2015

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page

  35. Sweden Action Plan 2012-2013

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  36. Sweden IRM Progress Report 2012-2013

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

  37. Sweden, Second Action Plan, 2014-2016

    2015, Action Plan, 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
0
Action Plan 2
0
0
0
Action Plan 3
1
0
1
Action Plan 4
0
0
0

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

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

Civic Space

Freedom of Assembly
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.41 Sources
Freedom of Association
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.75 Sources
Defending Journalists and Activists
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.61 Sources

Open Policy Making

Participation in Lawmaking
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.59 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
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.19 Sources
Open Data (Water / Sanitation)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.60 Sources
Open Data (Health)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.47 Sources
Open Data (Education)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.00 Sources

Fiscal Openness

Transparency
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.40 Sources
Participation
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
0.60 Sources
Oversight
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.40 Sources

Recent Posts

6203558248_45a438dd6c_o
Sweden · Norway · Finland · Denmark

What’s Next for Open Government in the Nordics

The Nordics top the rankings on good governance, showing strong institutions, rule of law, and high levels of public trust See what they're doing in OGP.

Show More
Open Government Partnership