Skip Navigation

Republic of Korea

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 6

Credit: Wikimedia Commons

ON THE PAGE

Current Action Plan

2023-2027

Action Plan 6

  • Number of Commitments: 10
  • Policy Area Focus: Not specified

The action plan includes promising commitments on administrative appeals, access to government data, and whistleblower protection—but its other commitments do not have clear potential for open government results. Given that this is the Republic of Korea’s first four-year plan, the government could consider revising the action plan to strengthen the commitments’ ambition and relevance to open government. (More)

OpenStories video featured – Korea
Republic of Korea

Third Graders Pitch In On What’s Pitched Out

When millions gathered in Gwanghwamun Square in the Republic of Korea to protest the previous administration, President Moon invited citizens back to the square to propose policies that responded to their needs. Many proposals have become policies - one of them came from third graders in Jeju.

Contact

Point of Contact

Yujin Lee Deputy Director, Innovation Planning Division, Ministry of the Interior and Safety yujinflee@korea.kr
Jisu Han Assistant Deputy Director, Innovation Planning Division, Ministry of the Interior and Safety jsjso2@korea.kr

Commitments

Resources

  1. Republic of Korea Results Report 2021-2023

    2024, IRM Report, Web page

  2. Republic of Korea Action Plan Review 2023-2027

    2024, IRM Report, Web page

  3. Republic of Korea Results Report 2021-2023 – For Public Comment

    2024, Report Comments, Web page

  4. Republic of Korea Action Plan Review 2023-2027 – For Public Comment

    2024, Web page

  5. Republic of Korea Action Plan 2023-2027 (June)

    2023, Action Plan, Web page

  6. Inception Report – Action plan – Gwangju, Republic of Korea, 2021 – 2022

    2022, Inception Report, Web page

  7. Republic of Korea Co-Creation Brief 2022

    2022, IRM Report, Web page

  8. Republic of Korea Action Plan Review 2021-2023

    2022, IRM Report, Web page

  9. South Korea Action Plan Review 2021–2023 – For Public Comment

    2022, Report Comments, Web page

  10. Republic of Korea Transitional Results Report 2018-2020

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  11. Republic of Korea Transitional Results Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  12. Republic of Korea Action Plan 2021-2023

    2021, Action Plan, Web page

  13. Action plan – Gwangju, Republic of Korea, 2021 – 2022

    2021, Action Plan, Web page

  14. Gwangju – Letter of Support

    2021, Letter, Web page

  15. Republic of Korea Design Report 2018-2020

    2020, IRM Report, Web page

  16. Republic of Korea End-of-Term Self-Assessment Report 2018-2020

    2020, Self Assessment, Web page

  17. Republic of Korea Design Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2020, Report Comments, Web page

  18. Republic of Korea End-of-Term Report 2016–2018

    2020, IRM Report, Web page

  19. Republic of Korea End-of-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2020, Report Comments, Web page

  20. Republic of Korea Mid-Term Report 2016-2018

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  21. Republic of Korea End-of-Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-2018

    2018, Self Assessment, Web page

  22. Republic of Korea Action Plan 2018-2020

    2018, Action Plan, Web page

  23. Republic of Korea Mid-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  24. South Korea Mid-Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-2018

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  25. South Korea End of Term Report 2014-2016

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  26. South Korea Letter of Intent to Join OGP

    2017, Letter, Web page

  27. South Korea End of Term Report 2014-2016 – For Public Comment

    2017, Report Comments, Web page

  28. OGP Letter to South Korea Regarding Lack of Consultation: September 2016

    2017, Letter, Web page

  29. OGP Letter to South Korea Regarding Lack of Consultation: April 2014

    2017, Letter, Web page

  30. South Korea End of Term Self-Assessment Report 2014-2016

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  31. South Korea Third National Action Plan 2016-2018

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  32. OGP Letter – South Korea – September 2016

    2016, Letter, Web page

  33. South Korea First IRM Report – Public Comments Received

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  34. South Korea Progress Report 2014-2015 (Korean) – Public comments version

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  35. South Korea 2014-2015 IRM Progress Report for Public Comment

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  36. South Korea, Midterm Self-Assessment, 2014-16

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page

  37. South Korea IRM Progress Report 2012-2013

    2014, IRM Report, Web page

  38. South Korea Second Action Plan for 2014-2016

    2014, Action Plan, Web page

  39. OGP Letter- South Korea – April 2014

    2014, Letter, Web page

  40. South Korea Action Plan 2012-2013

    2012, 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
0
Action Plan 4
0

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

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

Civic Space

Freedom of Assembly
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.79 Sources
Freedom of Association
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.08 Sources
Defending Journalists and Activists
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.88 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)
2.37 Sources
Regulatory Governance
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
4.00 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)
2.83 Sources
Open Data (Water / Sanitation)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
0 Sources
Open Data (Health)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.13 Sources
Open Data (Education)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.40 Sources

Fiscal Openness

Transparency
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.96 Sources
Participation
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.36 Sources
Oversight
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.48 Sources

Recent Posts

OpenStories video featured – Korea
Republic of Korea

Third Graders Pitch In On What’s Pitched Out

When millions gathered in Gwanghwamun Square in the Republic of Korea to protest the previous administration, President Moon invited citizens back to the square to propose policies that responded to their needs. Many proposals have become policies - one of them came from third graders in Jeju.

Show More
Open Government Partnership