Skip Navigation

Finland

  • Member Since 2012
  • Action Plan 5


 
Finland has joined the Open Gov Challenge with one commitment.
 

| Learn More »

ON THE PAGE

Current Action Plan

2023-2027

Action Plan 5

  • Number of Commitments: 6
  • Policy Area Focus: Not specified

Finland’s fifth OGP action plan continues advancing priorities such as civic participation, public service training, and open data. The commitments mostly pursue incremental improvements to government practices. The national dialogues, which Finland started in the previous action plan, could yield promising results if the government creates stable mechanisms to utilize input from the dialogues in policy-making processes. The action plan could also improve access to information if government institutions reach a broad agreement for publication of open data in emergency situations. (More)

Contact

Point of Contact

Katju Holkieri Head of Governance and Leadership Policy Unit, Ministry of Finance katju.holkeri@vm.fi

Commitments

Resources

  1. Finland Results Report 2019-2023

    2024, IRM Report, Web page

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

    2024, Research Product, Web page

  3. Finland Results Report 2019-2023 – For Public Comment

    2024, Report Comments, Web page

  4. Finland Action Plan Review 2023-2027

    2024, IRM Report, Web page

  5. Finland Action Plan Review 2023-2027 – For Public Comment

    2024, Report Comments, Web page

  6. Finland Action Plan 2023-2027

    2023, Action Plan, Web page

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

    2023, Web page

  8. Finland Co-Creation Brief 2022

    2022, IRM Report, Web page

  9. Finland Mid-Term Self-Assessment 2019-2023

    2021, Self Assessment, Web page

  10. Finland Design Report 2019-2023

    2020, IRM Report, Web page

  11. IRM Regional Snapshot: Nordics

    2020, Resource, Web page

  12. Finland Design Report 2019-2023 – For Public Comment

    2020, Report Comments, Web page

  13. Finland Implementation Report 2017-2019

    2020, IRM Report, Web page

  14. Finland Implementation Report 2017-2019 – For Public Comment

    2020, Report Comments, Web page

  15. Finland Action Plan 2019-2023

    2019, Action Plan, Web page

  16. Finland Design Report 2017–2019

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  17. Finland Design Report 2017-2019 – For Public Comment

    2019, Report Comments, Web page

  18. Finland Mid-Term Self-Assessment 2017-2019

    2018, Self Assessment, Web page

  19. Finland End-of-Term Report 2015-2017

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

  20. Finland End-of-Term Report 2015-2017 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  21. Finland End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2015-2017

    2018, Self Assessment, Web page

  22. Finland Letter of Intent to Join OGP

    2017, Letter, Web page

  23. Finland Mid-Term Progress Report 2015-2017

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  24. Finland National Action Plan 2017-2019

    2017, Action Plan, Web page

  25. Finland Mid-Term Progress Report 2015-2017 – For Public Comment

    2017, Report Comments, Web page

  26. Finland Mid Term Report Self Assessment NAP 2015-2017

    2016, Self Assessment, Web page

  27. Finland End-of-Term Report 2013–2015

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  28. Finland 2013-2015 IRM End of Term Report

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  29. Finland Action Plan 2013-2014

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  30. Finland Progress Report 2013-2014

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

  31. Finland, Second Action Plan, 2015-17

    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
5
0
0
Action Plan 2
0
0
0
Action Plan 3
1
0
0
Action Plan 4
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)
0 Sources
Open Contracting
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.09 Sources

Civic Space

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

Open Policy Making

Participation in Lawmaking
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.83 Sources
Regulatory Governance
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.20 Sources

Access to Information

Right to Information
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.01 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)
2.93 Sources
Open Data (Education)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.90 Sources

Fiscal Openness

Transparency
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data
Participation
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data
Oversight
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data

Recent Posts

arlington-research-nFLmPAf9dVc-unsplash
Scotland, United Kingdom · Netherlands · United Kingdom · Finland · Canada

Algorithms and Human Rights: Understanding Their Impacts

Human rights algorithmic impact assessments have emerged as an accountability tool to identify potential harms, mitigate unintended impacts, and inform policy decisions on the use of algorithms across key policy areas including health, and education. 

Show More
Open Government Partnership