Georgia is currently suspended under a Response Policy case. Learn more here. The co-creation process stalled several times and many proposals from civil society were excluded or reduced in scope, resulting in a less ambitious action plan. Watch H. Learn about this multi-year collaboration that aims strengthen the support and resources available to country reformers in the region to deepen reforms and advance bold, new ideas in areas like strengthening public service delivery, opening civic space, promoting a fair justice system and fighting corruption.
The data below is updated periodically, most often after large numbers of new action plans and IRM reports. The graph below shows where the major areas for improvement in action plan design and implementation should take place based on past action plans.
Focus on relevance to open government. Focus on verifiability. 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. Collaborate: Iterative dialogue and public helped set agenda.
Involve: Government gave feedback on public inputs. Inform: Government provided public with information on plan. You can view and learn more about the report here. 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. 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. Reflect the performance of commitments in a particular policy area, as assessed by the IRM. C Was Complete: At least one commitment was substantially or fully completed.
