Improving the transparency of public information can build citizens’ and businesses’ trust that governments are working in their interests, and can offer governments the opportunity to demonstrate the integrity and effectiveness of their work. Government transparency has remained consistently high though there remains scope to improve, particularly in OECD partner countries. Although countries’ transparency regulations contain many standard requirements, many countries’ data are still not open by default, meaning data which could enhance public sector automation and efficiency and support market entry, innovation and competition remains unavailable. Furthermore, integrity-related data are commonly not published. To help implement transparency rules, supervisory bodies could undertake inspections, issue sanctions where appropriate, and report on their activities.
Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026
Abstract
Fostering transparency through proactive disclosure and access to public information is a core element of functioning democracies and stable, predictable markets. Transparency provides citizens and businesses with insights into government spending and decision making, allowing them to understand how the government is working and to feel connected to and protected by those appointed to represent their interests. In doing so, transparency is a key factor in promoting confidence and trust in government processes and institutions. Indeed, while on average two-thirds of citizens participating in the 2024 OECD Trust Survey were satisfied with the availability of information on administrative services, making further information available was associated with a clear increase in the likelihood of high or moderately high trust in the civil service (OECD, 2024[8]). In addition, there is a positive correlation between the transparency of public information and higher levels of trust in countries where less than half of the population trust the government or are neutral (OECD, 2024[20])).
Transparency is characterised by the right to access information, or individuals’ ability to seek, receive, impart and use information (OECD, 2022[36]). The OECD Recommendation on Open Government emphasises the disclosure of “clear, complete, timely, reliable and relevant public sector data and information” (OECD, 2017[37]). Similarly, the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity promotes transparency and stakeholder engagement at all stages of the political process and policy cycle, in particular through:
Advancing transparency and an open government, including ensuring access to information and open data, along with timely responses to requests for information.
Granting all stakeholders – including the private sector, civil society and individuals – access in the development and implementation of public policies (OECD, 2017[11]).
This chapter explores countries’ efforts to foster the transparency of public information, and finds that:
Government transparency remains consistently high but could still improve, particularly in OECD partner countries.
Countries’ transparency regulations contain many standard requirements, but for many countries data are still not open by default.
Data or information related to integrity remain less frequently published.
Transparency could be further enhanced if supervisory bodies conducted inspections, issued sanctions and reported on their activities.
Providing greater access to public information supports public integrity by allowing citizens to gain insights into their governments’ activities and by enabling oversight bodies and watchdog organisations to monitor conduct, detect possible corruption and raise red flags. This in turn incentivises public officials to behave with integrity and increases accountability in public policymaking and across the public administration. At the same time, fostering transparency allows governments to demonstrate the integrity of decision making and spending and to show the results and outcomes of government work by making relevant information publicly available.
OECD Member countries’ transparency systems, including proactive disclosure and access to information, have remained largely consistent in the last few years. With the exception of one criterion,1 which pulls the average up, the average number of OECD criteria on the quality of transparency regulations fulfilled by OECD Member countries has remained similar (at 72% of criteria fulfilled in 2025 compared to 62% in 2022). This consistency is also reflected in practice, where OECD Members fulfil 62% of OECD criteria (compared to 61% in 2022) on measures to implement transparency regulations (Figure 6.1). OECD partner countries fulfil an average 69% of OECD criteria on transparency regulations and 57% on implementation measures (Figure 6.1).
While OECD Member countries have maintained levels of transparency, there remains scope to improve the transparency of public information in all countries. As set out below, improvements could be made through the introduction of a stronger regulatory basis for open data, improving the availability of integrity-related datasets, and strengthening oversight of the transparency system.
Note: Data for 2025 or latest year available. Data not provided by Japan and Switzerland.
How to read: As measured against OECD standards on transparency and access to public information, Hungary fulfils 100% of criteria on regulation and 69% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 72% and 62%, respectively. OECD Member countries are represented by dark blue bars. OECD partner countries are represented by light blue bars. OECD, partner and global averages are represented by red bars.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2026).
Many OECD Member and partner countries have developed strong rules both for the proactive disclosure of information and for facilitating requests for access to public information. As in other areas of countries’ integrity systems, strong regulations provide clarity to both public institutions and citizens on what data and information should be made available, and can help both the public and oversight bodies to hold authorities to account if it is not. In terms of access to public information, in 81% of OECD Members and 79% of OECD partner countries the regulatory framework provides that all public institutions and individuals carrying out public duties are holders of public information, and that everyone has the right to access it. Similarly, in 83% of OECD Member countries and 83% of partners the permitted restrictions to access to public information are listed by law and are in line with the Tromsø Convention.2 In 97% of OECD Members and 92% of OECD partner countries there are statutory deadlines for processing requests for information. And the right to appeal to an independent body or the court against refusal or inactivity of an administrative body in response to an information request is ensured in all OECD Member and partner countries.
In terms of the proactive disclosure of data, a list of datasets and mandatory information to be disclosed is defined in the regulatory framework in 81% of OECD Member countries and 88% of OECD partner countries. This share has increased in recent years following the EU Open Data Directive (2019/1024) and the passage of its implementing act (2023/138), which established a list of datasets to be proactively published in all EU countries. More countries could introduce similar requirements to allow citizens and businesses to better understand their governments’ activities.
However, many OECD Member and partner countries do not specify in primary legislation that government data are “open by default”. Indeed, 61% of OECD Member countries have such a legislative requirement in place, and 46% of OECD partner countries do (Figure 6.2).
Note: Data for 2025 or latest year available. Data for the criterion ‘primary legislation specifies that Government data are “open by default” (except for specific cases defined in the regulatory framework)’: “Yes” represents criterion fulfilled, and “No” represents criterion not fulfilled. Data not provided by Japan and Switzerland.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2026).
As set out in the OECD Recommendation on Enhancing Access to and Sharing of Data, making government data open by default should be a key part of governments’ broader open government strategies (OECD, 2021[38]). Doing so can encourage the use of digital tools and data in a collaborative manner, strengthening collective wisdom and intelligence creation. In line with international standards, it can be important to retain specific exceptions to open by default, and the appropriate degree of openness should be assessed by balancing the benefits of transparency against potential risks including related to privacy, security, and ethical considerations. Many countries, including Austria, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, Czechia and Estonia, also include caveats around the burden which open data can create on public authorities.
However, there are several advantages to adopting an open by default approach. As well as increasing government transparency and the benefits it can have for public trust discussed above, adopting such an approach can also support evidence-based policymaking which can lead to the development of more informed and stronger public policy and legislation. Opening data up for use can also improve the efficiency of government processes, as it can reduce the reporting burden and lower operational costs by allowing public organisations to devote less time on routine or repetitive tasks which can instead be performed by automated decision making models (including AI). And opening data up for commercial utilisation can make market competition more balanced through improving access to intelligence and innovation, thereby facilitating competition and the emergence of new market players (ACSH, 2022[39]; OECD, 2020[40]). OECD Member and partner countries could therefore consider supplementing their transparency regulations with new provisions which provide for such an open by default approach.
The benefits of strong transparency regulations are only realised if data is then made available in practice. Such proactive disclosure of key public administrative data in practice is common for both OECD Member and partner countries. All OECD member countries publish all legislative proposals of the government sent to parliament (compared to 88% of partners). Likewise, all OECD Members and 92% of OECD partner countries publish their current state budget, 97% of OECD Members and all OECD partner countries publish announced public tenders, 92% of OECD Members and 71% of OECD partner countries publish consolidated versions of primary laws, 89% of OECD Members and 71% of OECD partner countries publish the company registry, and 86% of OECD Members and 71% of OECD partner countries publish the land registry (Figure 6.3).
However, other important data more specifically related to the promotion of integrity and the detection of corruption is less commonly available. In addition, while there have been minor changes in specific areas in such integrity-related datasets, OECD Member countries have not progressed on transparency in these areas in recent years.3 In 33% of OECD Members (compared to 36% in 2022) and in 33% of OECD partner countries have all agendas of formal government sessions been published prior to the session within the latest calendar year. Similarly, as explored further in Chapter 3 on “Lobbying”, in 36% of OECD Members (compared to 38% in 2022) and in only 13% of OECD partner countries are ministers’ agendas made publicly available. Key aggregated data on lobbying is published by 28% of OECD Members (compared to 21% in 2022) and by no OECD partners. Likewise, key aggregated data on requests for information in any format is published by 39% of OECD Member countries and 25% of OECD partner countries. And finally, in 33% of OECD Members (compared to 30% in 2022) and 42% of OECD partner countries have the salaries of senior civil servants in all ministries been made available on ministries’ websites or a government portal (Figure 6.3). Publishing this kind of integrity-related information allows citizens and businesses to better understand the range of influences over, and integrity of, public office holders and government decision making. Countries which are not making this data available could foster greater trust and confidence by making this data available.
Note: Data for 2025 and 2022, or most recent year. Data not provided by Japan and Switzerland.
How to read: On average, in 2022 85% of OECD Member countries fulfilled the criterion on land registries. In 2025, 86% of OECD Member countries fulfilled the criterion on land registries. In 2025, 71% of OECD partner countries fulfilled the criterion on land registries. Percentage change between 2022 and 2025 reflects an increase in number of countries covered in 2025, rather than substantive policy change.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2026).
Another key area in which countries could enhance the implementation of their transparency systems is by improving supervisory functions. The nature of supervision varies between countries, but commonly takes the form of independent information commissions, agencies, or ombudsman bodies with a specific mandate for access to information; ombudsmen with a mandate on access to information as one of several other topics (e.g. human rights, discrimination, gender); or a central government authority. In all cases, supervision is most effective when the responsible body can conduct inspections, issue sanctions for rule breaches, and report on their activities. In addition, supervisory bodies reporting on their activities enables citizens and businesses to better understand how far transparency regulations are being implemented and offers an incentive to public authorities to uphold the rules.
The majority of both OECD Members and partner countries have a supervisory body in place for public information issues, at 69% and 79% respectively. In practice, around half of OECD Member countries’ supervisory bodies (53%) carried out inspections within the last full calendar year to check whether public authorities are complying with their obligations on transparency of public information. The remaining countries’ supervisory bodies either do not have the authority to make inspections (such as France), or they do not record in their annual reports whether or not inspections took place. Likewise, for OECD partner countries, 46% of supervisory bodies have carried out inspections in the last year, with the remaining bodies either not having the authority to do so (such as Jordan) or not publicly recording whether or not inspections took place. In a similar way, 22% of OECD Member countries’ and 25% of OECD partner countries’ supervisory authorities issued sanctions for non-compliance within the last full calendar year, with the remainder either not issuing them or not publicly recording whether or not sanctions were issued. In 53% of OECD Member countries a relevant public body has aggregated and published statistical data on requests for access to information and related decisions for the past three years. Such reporting has happened in 50% of OECD partner countries (Table 6.1).
Many countries’ supervisory bodies are therefore not providing a checking function on the extent of public authorities’ compliance with public information rules, indicating they may not know whether the safeguards in their regulations are being implemented in practice, or using sanctions to correct breaches of the rules where they occur. Where supervisory authorities are not publishing whether they have undertaken this work, external parties are unable to verify levels of transparency and trust in government can be affected.
While it is not necessary to establish a single independent oversight body for public information, unlike for other areas of countries’ integrity systems, there clearly remains scope for countries to enhance their current supervisory functions to improve transparency and build citizens’ and businesses trust in their governments.
Note: Data for 2025 or most recent year. Data not provided by Japan and Switzerland. Austria, Denmark, Costa Rica, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Slovak Republic, Sweden, Armenia, Bulgaria, Moldova, Paraguay and Romania do not fulfil the criterion “A supervisory body responsible for public information issues is established”. The OECD Member, partner and global averages include all countries which provided data for this criterion, though countries which did not fulfil the criterion are not included in the table.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2026).
← 1. The increase in the number of criteria fulfilled on regulations is because the OECD now considers all countries which have transposed the EU Directive EU Directive 2019/1024 on open data and the re-use of public sector information and its implementing act Regulation 2023/138 to have fulfilled the criterion ‘a list of datasets and mandatory information to be disclosed is defined in the regulatory framework’. This automatic fulfilment was not in place in 2022.
← 2. The Tromsø Convention establishes minimum standards for the prompt and fair processing of requests for access to public documents by the public authorities holding the documents, as well as for domestic administrative remedies and appeals to independent bodies or courts in the event of refusal.
← 3. Percentage change between 2022 and 2025 reflects an increase in number of countries covered in 2025, rather than substantive policy change.