How is Open Data evolving ? A Comparative Analysis with the First Edition
In this second post of our Comparability Series, we examine how open data practices evolved between the first and second Global Data Barometer research cycles. We analyze trends across three interconnected dimensions: how governments organize open data initiatives, the open data policies guiding them, and actual data outcomes across key thematic areas.
Open Data Initiative
The second edition of the Global Data Barometer reaffirms that open data remains a priority in many countries: 63% of the 43 countries studied have some form of open data initiative. However, a concerning trend has emerged—fewer of these initiatives are being actively maintained by governments. The share of countries with active government-led efforts dropped from 52.38% in the first edition to 46.51% in the second, raising concerns about the depth of political commitment and the long-term sustainability of open data agendas.
Countries made progress in how they implement open data initiatives. The average indicator score rose from 23.29 to 35.13 points in the 2nd edition. This improvement mainly comes from a 20.73% increase in ‘Yes’ answers to element questions. But when we examine positive responses (combining ‘Yes’ and ‘Partially’), real progress only happened in one area: well-maintained data portal, which jumped by 27.35% to reach 88.46%.
While budget allocations saw a promising increase, rising by 6.62% to reach 53.85%, they remain just above the 50% mark, which is generally seen as a baseline for long-term sustainability. Other foundational enablers of open data show a mixed picture. The presence of dedicated teams declined slightly (-2.56%) but continues to enjoy strong coverage, with over 80% of countries maintaining such teams. Guidance and support for data publication experienced a more notable drop, falling by 9.62% (from 75% to 65.38%), which may reflect shifting priorities or resource constraints. Meanwhile, senior leadership support, historically below 50%, decreased modestly by 3.85%. While these trends suggest some challenges in maintaining momentum, they also point to areas where renewed investment and focus could strengthen the foundation for open data initiatives.
These findings point to a recurring pattern: investments often prioritize the more visible aspects of open data infrastructure, such as portals, while overlooking the less visible but equally critical elements like leadership, dedicated budgets, and clear guidance. Without strengthening these institutional foundations, it becomes difficult to ensure the long-term impact and meaningful reuse of open data.
Open Data Policy
The robustness of open data ecosystems is also shaped by the quality of open data policies, specifically with regard to how well they define, regulate, and enable data reuse.
While policy development has shown notable progress overall, with total positive responses rising from 53.04% to 69.47%, advances remain uneven across key components. Particularly strong gains were observed in requirements for machine-readable formats and open licensing, which rose sharply from 73.91% to 94.74% (a 20.82 percentage point increase) and from 69.57% to 89.47% (a 19.91 point increase), respectively. These shifts indicate that countries are increasingly aligning with global standards for technical openness.
However, foundational elements needed to ensure operational effectiveness continue to lag. Requirements for capacity building among public officials improved from 56.52% to 68.42%, yet only 57.89% of countries report full compliance, a critical gap when it comes to enabling implementation. Most concerning is the lack of progress on specific data standards. Although positive responses increased by 15.33 points, full compliance remains critically low at just 36.84 percent, the same proportion that report having no requirement at all. This persistent policy gap threatens interoperability and undermines the potential for data reuse, suggesting that while policy frameworks are evolving in form, they are not yet translating into the institutional support needed for meaningful execution.
Openness in Thematic Areas
We further examine the openness in our thematic areas by analysing all matched governance and availability indicator pairs across the Barometer.
1st Edition (42 countries) shows where basic “Data Requirements” existed (34.69% coverage), outputs skewed heavily toward partial compliance: 48.04% “Some Data” vs only 4.90% “Open Data”. Notably, explicit “Open Data Requirements” drove significantly better outcomes: 20.83% “Open Data” achieved – 4 times higher than under basic “Data Requirements” (4.90%).
In the 2nd edition, basic “Data Requirements” expanded significantly to 50.83% coverage (as compared to 34.69% in the 1st edition) but demonstrated minimal effectiveness: ”Open Data” rates increased only from 4.90% to 9.15%, while “Some Data” became predominant at 62.09%. Importantly, the prevalence of “Some Data” may reflect legitimate limitations—data inherently unsuitable for full openness exists across many domains (e.g. due to privacy concerns), making this an expected category rather than outright deficiency.
The stronger “Open Data Requirements” continued to perform well despite covering slightly fewer cases (7.64% as compared to 8.16% in the 1st edition). Under these specific requirements, true open data nearly doubled from 20.83% to 39.13%. Even so, “Some Data” still accounted for more than half of outcomes at 56.52%, showing practical difficulties remain even under good rules. Overall, the system remains unbalanced: “No Data” dominates at 54.49%, “Open Data” stays low at 7.64%, and “Some Data” increases to 37.87%.
These findings both reinforce earlier observations and offer new insights. The near total absence of data where there is “No Requirement” (95.20 percent) clearly links to the gaps in leadership and funding identified previously. Meanwhile, the frequent appearance of “Some Data” responses points not to outright failure, but to practical limitations. Data may be partially available not due to lack of will, but because certain datasets cannot or should not be fully shared. It is important to note that “Some Data” differs from “Open Data” not only in degree of openness, but in nature.
Yet, even where openness is feasible, many countries fall short of creating the conditions for it. Only 36.84 percent of governments include clear requirements for data standards in their open data policies, making true openness difficult to achieve even when publication rules are in place. Addressing these challenges requires a nuanced approach, one that acknowledges legitimate limitations around data disclosure while also confronting the governance and policy shortcomings that hinder more consistent and impactful data release. Confusing these distinct issues risks misdiagnosing the problem and missing opportunities for meaningful reform.
Final Remarks
While open data initiatives have made technical strides, particularly through the expansion of portals and adoption of policy frameworks, our findings reveal a troubling decline in the core enablers that sustain long-term impact: leadership engagement, dedicated funding, and publication guidance.
Notably, targeted Open Data Requirements have proven effective, correlating with 39.13 percent of data being fully open when such requirements are in place. Yet these tools remain underutilized, present in only 7.64 percent of assessed cases. This highlights a critical gap between what works and what is widely practiced.
To advance meaningful progress, governments must move beyond surface-level compliance. The path forward requires scaling proven strategies, rebuilding institutional capacity, and grounding open data initiatives in purpose-driven frameworks that generate real public value. Only then can open data fulfill its potential.