How can the country go from worst to best in open data?

In the 2000s, Sweden began its journey towards implementing EU rules to make government data - open data - available to the public. We would all have access to the large pool of information collected with taxpayers' money over the years. New services would be built, operations streamlined and societal benefits created.

But the journey is not yet over. It has been wobbly and the wagon has repeatedly run aground. It has slipped on notions of the adequacy of the principle of openness and the excellence of the existing system. To be honest, the carriage's sluggishness has been due to the fact that the driver has lacked both the carrots and the sticks to persuade the brave, legislative beasts of burden to bring the carriage to the finish line. The price has been high. Neither the rules, nor the principles, nor the good will, nor the hope that things will work themselves out have helped much. At least in an international comparison. When the OECD compared the availability of public data between 32 countries in 2019, Sweden came in an unflattering 31st place.

But there is hope. Updated EU rules with both carrots and sticks are on the way. Over the past year, the rules have been examined and the results reported to the government. Sweden's habit of over-implementing EU rules would be welcome for once.

To help you on your way, and as an early Christmas present to the Ministry of Infrastructure, here are our top five views on the report's proposals. Merry Christmas!

1. transparency by default - the updated PSI Act must impose more stringent requirements on information-owning authorities to provide their information. Authorities MUST share.

2. transparency costs - in order to facilitate increased provision of information, the government should enable public authorities to request specific funds for this purpose if necessary.

3. clear definitions are important to avoid conceptual and demarcation problems - the concepts of 'information' and 'action' need to be more clearly defined and distinguished

4. data provision requirements should follow ownership - the use of the term "hold" is problematic, requirements should instead follow from ownership.

5. there is a strong need for supervision and sanctions - the provision of information is not a core task for most authorities and there is a risk that provision is not prioritized. The new law should therefore mandate the government to designate an oversight role to the appropriate authority.

Pär Nygårds
Industrial policy expert, IT&Telecom companies

Consultation response to the main report Innovation through information (SOU 2020:55)