transarency french case - universidad paris 1. panteón sorbona
DESCRIPTION
Universidad Paris 1. Panteón Sorbona Presentación del profesor - William GillesTRANSCRIPT
William GILLESDirector of the Chair of Americas (University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
Director of the master of Digital Law (Public sector and Firms)at the Sorbonne Law School
President of IMODEV
10
/11
/20
13
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
2
“My Administration is committed to creating anunprecedented level of openness in Government. Wewill work together to ensure the public trust andestablish a system of transparency, public participation,and collaboration. Openness will strengthen ourdemocracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness inGovernment”
B. Obama 2009
Open Government is :- Transparency- But also
- participation - and collaboration
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
3
Open government is not only based on transparency. At the same time:
to favor the transparency of public policies, to encourage the participation of citizens and civil servants, and to develop the collaboration of these actors.
3 objectives with the same target: reinforcing democracy.
Open government favors democracy. Participates Even more widely in the emergence of a democratic revival. A new hope to fight the crisis of representativeness in western
democracies. Not surprising that open government has been implemented widely in the
world. Of course, the United States of America (pioneers). Canada has also led a pro-active policy in favor of open government. In most countries in Europe Vey fashionable topics.
10
/11
/20
13
4William GILLES – [email protected]
France & Open government partnership (OGP)
However France is eligible to this partnership
It respects all criteria imposed to those which want to join the open government partnership.
Several measures has been adopted since the 70’s to reinforce first, transparency, but also more recently to develop:
• participation • and collaboration of citizens and of civil servants.
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Brazil, Czech republic, Chile, Croatia, Italy, New Zealand, Norway,
Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom, United
States
Australia, Canada, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania,
Moldova
Albania, France, Georgia, Germany, Indonesia, South Korea, Liberia,
Macedonia, Philippines, Poland, Thailand, Ukraine
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Jamaica, Japan,
Malta, Montenegro, Netherlands, Switzerland
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Honduras, India, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Peru, Slovakia, Slovenia, Trinidad And Tobago, Uganda
Armenia, Panama, Paraguay, Uruguay
Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic,
Guatemala, Mongolia, Nepal, Russia, Serbia
Azerbaijan, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ghana, Jordan, Kenya,
Luxembourg, Pakistan, Spain, Tanzania, Turkey
Israel
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
6
16
12
15
11
14
10
1312
9
1 10,94 0,92
0,880,83 0,81
0,75 0,75
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Bra
zil,
Czech r
epublic
, C
hile
, C
roatia
, Italy
, N
ew
Ze
ala
nd, N
orw
ay, P
ort
ug
al, R
om
ania
, S
outh
Afr
ica
,S
weden, U
nited K
ingdom
, U
nited S
tate
s
Au
str
alia
, C
anada, F
inla
nd, H
ungary
, Ir
ela
nd, Latv
ia,
Lith
uania
, M
old
ova
Alb
an
ia, F
ran
ce, G
eorg
ia, G
erm
any, In
don
esia
, S
ou
thK
ore
a, Lib
eria
, M
acedon
ia, P
hili
pp
ine
s, P
ola
nd
,T
haila
nd, U
kra
ine
Au
str
ia, B
elg
ium
, D
enm
ark
, E
sto
nia
, G
reece, Ic
ela
nd,
Jam
aic
a, Japan, M
alta, M
onte
negro
, N
eth
erla
nds,
Sw
itzerlan
d
Bo
snia
-Herz
egovin
a, B
ulg
aria
, H
ondu
ras, In
dia
, M
exic
o,
Nic
ara
gua, P
eru
, S
lovakia
, S
lovenia
, T
rin
idad
And
To
bago, U
ga
nda
Arm
enia
, P
anam
a, P
ara
guay, U
ruguay
Arg
entin
a,
Colo
mbia
, C
osta
Ric
a, D
om
inic
an R
epublic
,G
uate
mala
, M
ongolia
, N
epal, R
ussia
, S
erb
ia
Azerb
aija
n, E
cuador,
El S
alv
ador,
Gha
na, Jord
an,
Ke
nya, Luxem
bou
rg, P
akis
tan, S
pain
, T
anza
nia
, T
urk
ey
Isra
el
Total Score
Total possible2
Share of Total Points
10
/11
/20
13
7William GILLES – [email protected]
France & Open government partnership (OGP)
France is not yet a member of OGP
… because “it is an American initiative in favor of open governance for its historic sphere of influence (Anglo-Saxon world and South America). France works in a narrow way with governments involved in the initiative, in particular the United Kingdom and the United States, and moreover, maintains closed relations with Arab Springs Countries, to favor open governance and open data in Europe and in the world, an approach of interoperability. Moreover France has initiated a discussion with the executive committee of the Open Government Partnership to join it” (Etalab, 2012 )
10
/11
/20
13
8William GILLES – [email protected]
France & Open government partnership (OGP)
Even if France is not yet a member of OGP …
It is interesting to use OGP criteria in order to have a common and an objective analysis grid in order to compare France to others.
However, this framework is not perfect, notably because it not exhaustive.
Thus, analyzing more deeply French measures in favor of open government will offer a better framework of this system and will show that France is on the way of the “democracy 2.0”.
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
10
L’apport de la Révolution française dans la recherche de transparence des administrations publiques françaises
Le cadre juridique de la transparence des administrations publiques hérité de la Révolution française
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
11
Le contexte de l’adoption par la France d’un droit d’accès aux documents administratifs
Le contenu du cadre juridique français en matière d’accès aux documents administratifs
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
12
Loi du 5 avril 1884 sur l’organisation municipale :
« Tout habitant ou contribuable a le droit de demander communication sans déplacement, de prendre copie totale ou partielle des procès-verbaux du conseil municipal, des budgets et des comptes de la communes, des arrêtés municipaux. Chacun peut les publier sous sa responsabilité ».
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
13
Loi n° 78-753 du 17 juillet 1978 : 1974 : l’affaire SAFARI Loi du 6 janvier 1978 Loi du 17 juillet 1978 Ordonnance du 6 juin 2005 (dir. PSI 2003,
rév. dir. Juin 2013)
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
14
2 voies d’accès aux documents administratifs : un droit d’accès général aux documents
administratifs Une voie d’accès restrictive réservée aux
documents administratifs opposables aux usagers et aux agents
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
15
Un encadrement du droit d’accès aux documents administratifs La notion de documents administratifs
bénéficiant du droit d’accès Les documents exclus du droit d’accès Des documents avec un accès conditionné
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
16
Les modalités d’exercice du droit d’accès aux documents administratifs consulter gratuitement et sur place ces documents, à
moins que leur préservation ne le permette pas sous réserve que la reproduction ne nuise pas à la
conservation du document, toute personne peut demander, à ses propres frais, la délivrance d’une copie sur un support identique à celui utilisé par l'administration.
quand une version électronique est disponible, envoi du document par email et sans frais (sans excéder le coût de reproduction).
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
17
Le contexte de l’adoption par la France d’un droit d’accès aux documents administratifs
Le contenu du cadre juridique français en matière d’accès aux documents administratifs
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
19
The Fiscal Transparency : T
The Access to Public Information : T
Disclosures related to Elected or Senior Public Officials : T
[The Citizen Engagement] : P
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
21
imposes governments to publish basic information of budget accountability and to have an open budget system.
Rating system based on the 2010 Open Budget Index (the International Budget Partnership).
2 points: the country publishes executive’s budget proposals
2 more points for the publication of audit reports.
4 points to France for publishing these two kinds of documentson “Le forum de la performance publique”.
10
/11
/20
13
22William GILLES – [email protected]
Quality of the Budget
Information
Pre
-Bu
dge
tst
atem
ent
Exe
cuti
veB
ud
get
pro
po
sal
Enac
ted
Bu
dge
t
Cit
izen
sB
ud
get
InY
ear
Rep
ort
s
Mid
-Yea
rR
evie
w
Yea
r-En
dR
epo
rt
Au
dit
Rep
ort
OBI Score OGP score Countries
Extensive Information
(OBI sub–scores 81-100)
* * * * * * * * 90
4
New Zealand
* * * * * * * * 87 France
* * * * * * * * 87 United Kingdom
- * * * * * * * 83 Norway
* * * * * - * * 83 Sweden
- * * - * * * * 82 United States
Significant
(OBI subscores 61-80)
* * * - * - * * 71
4
Brazil
* - * - * * * * 70 Slovenia
- * * * * - * * 68 Germany
- * * * * * * * 67 India
* * * - * * * * 64 Poland
P * * - * - * * 63 Spain
- * * - * - * * 62 Czech Republic
Some
(OBI subscores 41-60)
P * * - * - * * 60
4
Russia
- * * - * - * * 59 Romania
* * * - * * * * 58 Italy
- * * - * - * * 58 Portugal
* * * - * - * * 57 Croatia
* * * - * * * - 57 Slovakia
- * * - * P * P 56 Bulgaria
(*): Available to the Public (P): Available for interne use (-
): Not Available
Source: Open Budget Index and Open Government Partnership
Comparison between
OBI and OGP scores
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
23
According to it, law should guarantee the public public’s right to information and access to government data.
Based on a 2010 survey over 197 countries led by Right2Info.org
4 points : the country provides access to information laws,
3 points : the constitution guarantees the access to information
1 point : a draft access to information law is under consideration.
4 points to France, (as all the other countries rated, except two of them: Luxembourg and Spain.
“Luxembourg, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, isfailing to achieve even minimum standards when it comes toopen government, public participation, and accountability”
(Helen Darbishire, Executive Director of Access Info Europe2011).
10
/11
/20
13
William GILLES –[email protected]
25
aims to favor disclosure of income and assets for elected and senior public officials in order to prevent corruption and to have a more open and accountable government.
OGP ranking based on 3 surveys conducted in 2009 (Word Bank and OECD):
4 points to countries having a law requiring disclosures for politicians andsenior public officials to the public
3 points when the law requirement for disclosures to the public concernseither politicians or senior public officials.
2 points If the law provides non-public disclosures for elected or seniorofficials.
Only 3 points to France if income and assets of senior public officials are disclosed publicly, this
information is only accessible to the Congress for elected people. This question is still in debate in France.
10
/11
/20
13
28William GILLES – [email protected]
A transparent government supposes five conditions (Trichet, 2012): Clarity
Truth
Exhaustiveness, sincerity and fidelity
A public debate
Responsibility
These five conditions contribute all to the reinforcement of the democratic process.
France has constantly led actions in view of this. Of course, everything is not completed and there are always
possibilities of improvement.
10
/11
/20
13
29William GILLES – [email protected]
Country Budget
Transpare
ncy
Score
Access to Information Asset Disclosure Citizen engagement Total
Score
Total
possibl
e
Share of
Total
PointsScore Politicians Officials Score Score
AUSTRALIA - Law 4 public public 4 10 4 12 12 1
AUSTRIA - Law 4 public Non public 3 9,12 4 11 12 0,917
BELGIUM - Law 4 public Non public 3 9,41 4 11 12 0,917
BRAZIL 4 Law 4 public public 4 9,12 4 16 16 1
BULGARIA 2 Law 4 public public 4 8,82 4 14 16 0,875
CANADA - Law 4 public public 4 10 4 12 12 1
CROATIA 4 Law 4 public public 4 8,24 4 16 16 1
CZECH REP. 4 Law 4 public public 4 9,41 4 16 16 1
DENMARK - Law 4 public 3 9,71 4 11 12 0,917
ESTONIA - Law 4 public none 3 8,82 4 11 12 0,917
FINLAND - Law 4 public public 4 9,71 4 12 12 1
FRANCE 4 Law 4 congress public 3 8,53 4 15 16 0,937
GERMANY 4 Law 4 public none 3 9,12 4 15 16 0,937
GREECE - law 4 public 3 9,41 4 11 12 0,917
HUNGARY - law 4 public public 4 8,53 4 12 12 1
ICELAND - law 4 public 3 9,71 4 11 12 0,917
INDIA 4 law 4 congress Non public 2 9,41 4 14 16 0,875
IRELAND - law 4 public Public 4 10 4 12 12 1
ISRAEL - law 4 congress None 2 5,29 3 9 12 0,75
10
/11
/20
13
30William GILLES – [email protected]
Country Budget
Transparency
Score
Access to Information Asset Disclosure Citizen
engagement
Total
Score
Total
possi
ble
Share of
Total
PointsScore Politicians Officials Score Score
ITALY 4 law 4 public Public 4 8,53 4 16 16 1
JAPAN - law 4 public 3 9,41 4 11 12 0,917
LATVIA - law 4 public Public 4 9,12 4 12 12 1
LITHUANIA - law 4 Public Public 4 9,12 4 12 12 1
Luxembourg 4 draft law 1 Public None 3 9,71 4 12 16 0,75
MALTA - law 4 Public Non public 3 9,71 4 11 12 0,917
NETHERLANDS - law 4 Public Non public 3 9,41 4 11 12 0,917
NEW ZEALAND 4 law 4 Public Public 4 10 4 16 16 1
NORWAY 4 law 4 Public Public 4 10 4 16 16 1
POLAND 4 law 4 Public Non public 3 9,12 4 15 16 0,937
Portugal 4 law 4 Public public 4 9,41 4 16 16 1
ROMANIA 4 law 4 Public public 4 8,24 4 16 16 1
RUSSIA 4 law 4 Congress public 3 4,71 2 13 16 0,812
SLOVAKIA 2 law 4 public public 4 9,12 4 14 16 0,875
SLOVENIA 4 law 4 congress 2 8,82 4 14 16 0,875
SPAIN 4 draft law 1 public Non public 3 9,41 4 12 16 0,75
SWEDEN 4 law 4 public public 4 10 4 16 16 1
SWITZERLAND - law 4 public none 3 9,41 4 11 12 0,917
UNITED KINGDOM 4 law 4 public public 4 9,12 4 16 16 1
UNITED STATES 4 law 4 public public 4 8,53 4 16 16 1Extract from OGP Eligibility Data 2012, December 2012