Monitoring and evaluation in Open Government strategies: a comparative analysis of the National Action Plans

Journal title RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione
Author/s Giuseppe Reale, Francesco Mazzeo Rinaldi
Publishing Year 2018 Issue 2017/67
Language Italian Pages 18 P. 83-100 File size 606 KB
DOI 10.3280/RIV2017-067006
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The concept of Open Government has recently captured international attention redefining and influencing public policies, national and sub-national administrative systems. A global trend that has produced, however, specific outcomes at the national level because of the mediation of of each socio-institutional context. Our research, considering the centrality of evaluation mechanisms within the Open Government policies, aims to highlight the role assigned to the monitoring and evaluation processes of strategic plans highlighting how these two issues (monitoring and evaluation) are addressed within national strategies of four specific groups of countries (Liberals, Mediterranean, Baltic, Nordic) in order to bring out the different levels of relevance and consistency with their commitments. The study, based on a total sample of 12 countries (three for each of the four groups), was conducted by analyzing the official documentary material also through the use of specific software for content analysis. The method adopted is the comparative analysis and aims to highlight the peculiarities of each case putting in evidence infra-group differences (between the 4 considered clusters) and intra-group (between countries within the same cluster). Despite the global convergence, the analysis confirms the relevance of the different socio-institutional contexts in influencing the meanings and priorities within the Open Government paradigm.

Keywords: Open Government; Comparative Analysis; Content Analysis; Action Plan; Evaluation; Monitoring

  1. Amable B., (2003), The Diversity of Modern Capitalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  2. Andreotti A., Marisol Garcia S., Gomez A., Hespanha P., Kazepof Y., Mingione E., (2001), Does a Southern European Model Exist? Journal of European Area Studies, n. 1, pp. 43-62.
  3. Cassese S., (2005), Administrative Law without the State? The Challenge of Global Regulation, 37 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics.
  4. Cassese S., (2009), Il diritto globale. Giustizia e democrazia oltre lo Stato, Einaudi.
  5. Cassese S., (2010) Is There a Global Administrative Law?, Bogdandy A. von, Wolfrum R., Bernstorff J. von, Dann P., Goldmann M. (eds) The Exercise of Public Authority by International Institutions, edited by A., Heidelberg, Springer (2010).
  6. Cassese S., Carotti B., Casini L., Cavalieri E., MacDonald E., (2012) (eds.) The Global Administrative Law Casebook, 3rd edition. IRPA.
  7. Ceccarini L., (2015), La cittadinanza online, Il Mulino – Bologna.
  8. Clarke, A., Francoli, M., (2014) “What’s in a Name? A Comparison of ‘open government’ definitions across seven Open Government Partnership members” JeDEM - eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government 6 (1) 248-266.
  9. Coglianese C., (2009), The Transparency President? The Obama Administration and Open Government. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 529–544.
  10. Della Sala V., (2004), The Italian model of capitalism: On the road between globalization and Europeanization? in Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 11, pp. 1041-1057.
  11. Elkins Z., Ginsburg T., Melton J., (2009) The Endurance of National Constitutions, Cambridge University Press.
  12. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  13. Herrero A., (2015), Access to Information Commitments in OGP Action Plans: A Report on the Progress of Reforms Worldwide.
  14. Huijboom N., Van den Broek T. (2011) Open data: an international comparison of strategies. European Journal of ePractice · No 12(1), pp1-13.
  15. Janssen M., Charalabidisb Y., Zuiderwijka A. (2012) Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government. Information Systems Management, Vo.29, 4, pp 258-268.
  16. Janssen K., (2011), The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: An overview of recent developments, Government Information Quarterly 28/2011 446–456.
  17. Kakus N., Sata R., (2007) Violence against Women in European Societies: east and West. in Pleines H., Fischer S., Schröder H.H. (eds.) Movements, Migrants, Marginalization. Challenges of societal and political participation in Eastern Europe and the enlarged EU, pp 57-81
  18. Keane J., (2009), “Monitory Democracy and Media-saturated Societies”, Griffith REVIEW, 24, pp. 47-69.
  19. Kingsbury B., Krisch N., Stewart R.B., Wiener J.B., (eds.), (2005) The Emergence of Global Administrative Law”, vol. 68, Law and Contemporary Problems.
  20. Krippendorff K., 1989, Content Analysis, in Barnouw E., Gerbner G., Schramm W., Worth T.L., Gross L. (Eds.) International Encyclopedia of Communications, Vol. 1, Oxford University Press, pp. 403-407.
  21. Krisch N., Kingsbury B., (eds.) (2006) Symposium on Global Governance and Global Administrative Law in the International Legal Order, European Journal of International Law 17:1.
  22. Lancia F., (2004) Strumenti per l’analisi dei testi, Franco Angeli, Milano.
  23. Lancia F., (2012) T-LAB Pathways to Thematic Analysis, available at:
  24. Lathrop D., Ruma L, (2010) (eds) Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
  25. Meilán Gil J. L., (2011), Una aproximación al Derecho administrativo global, Sevilla, Ed. Global Law Press.
  26. McCormack T., (1984), Content Analysis the social history of a method, in McCormack T. (Ed.), Studies in communications, vol. 2, Jai Press Greenwich.
  27. Rastier F., (2002), Semantics for Descriptions, Chicago, Chicago University Press.
  28. Ritter W. (2014) Open Data in Asia. An overview of Open Data Policies and Practices in 13 Countries. available at
  29. Ruhl, G.B., (2011), general design principles for resilience and adaptive capacity in legal systems — with applications to climate change adaptation, North Carolina Law Review, vol. 89, pp.1374-1401
  30. Russel Newman W., (1989), Parallel Content Analysis: old paradigms and new proposal, in Comstock G. (Ed.), Public Communications and Behavior, Academic Press, New York.
  31. Sanz E. (2014), Open Governments and Their Cultural Transitions, in Gascó-Hernández M. (Ed.), Open Government: Opportunities and Challenges for Public Governance, Springer, New York.
  32. Sartori L., 2013, Open Government: what else?, in “Istituzioni del federalismo”, n. 3/4-2013, pp. 758-761.
  33. Sommers J., Woolfson C. (Eds) The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Neoliberal Baltic Model, 2014, Routledge, Oxford.
  34. Stewart R.B., Ratton S., Badin M. (2011) The World Trade Organization: and the Global Administrative Law, in Joerges C., Petersmann E. (eds) Constitutionalism, Multilevel Trade Governance and International Economic Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing. pp. 457-93.
  35. Streeck, W. and Kenworthy, L. (2005) ‘Theories and Practices of Neo Corporatism’ In Janoski, T., Alford, R. R., Hicks, A. M. and Schwartz, M. A. (eds) The Handbook of Political Sociology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 441-460.
  36. Wirtza B.W., Birkmeyera S. (2015) Open Government: Origin, Development, and Conceptual Perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration Vo. 8, 5, pp 381-396.

Giuseppe Reale, Francesco Mazzeo Rinaldi, Monitoraggio e valutazione nelle strategie di Open Government: un’analisi comparativa dei National Action Plan in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 67/2017, pp 83-100, DOI: 10.3280/RIV2017-067006