Written evidence from UK Open Government Network (UK ONG) (MIG 26)

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Mission Government inquiry

1.0 Introduction	3
1.1 About Us
1.2 The Purpose of This Submission
2. What are the key components of mission government?	4
Table 1: Open Government / Mission-oriented Government Comparison - Origins and Core Philosophy and Institutions and Practices.
Table 2: Interrelationship between Open Government and Mission Government - Mazzucato’s Foundational Principles.
3. What changes have been made to the operation of government to facilitate mission government and are these sufficient?	6
4. Is enough being done to ensure consistent prioritisation of missions across departments?	7
5. How are departments being held to account for progress?	7
6. Is a change to the way money is allocated needed to ensure sufficient priority is given to the missions?	8
7. What measures are being used to mobilise devolved governments, public bodies, local government, and the private and voluntary sectors in delivering missions - and are these sufficient?	8
8. What is being done to encourage a ‘test and learn’ approach - and what are the obstacles?	9
9. What lessons can be learnt from other jurisdictions’ experience with mission approaches to governing? New Zealand European Union Finland Camden / GMCA Scotland Open Government Partnership (General)	10
10. Conclusion: Towards Integrated Practice	11
11. References	12

1.0 Introduction

1.1 About Us

The UK Open Government Network (UK OGN) is a coalition of civil society organisations dedicated to fostering trust through open government, defined by the OECD as a culture of transparency, integrity, accountability, and stakeholder participation.

For over a decade, the UK OGN has worked with the UK government - primarily through the Cabinet Office - on open government reforms as part of the 77-country Open Government Partnership (OGP). The UK was a founding member of this multilateral initiative, launched in 2011 by then US President Barack Obama.

The Scottish and Northern Ireland governments, Glasgow City Council, and Greater Manchester Combined Authority have since joined OGP as ‘local’ members.

OGP is a model of co-creation that has established structures, governance, and independent oversight, and has led to major reforms, including:

● The G20’s first register of beneficial ownership to combat illicit finance.

● The G20’s first adoption of the Open Contracting Data Standard for transparency in procurement.

● The world’s first algorithmic transparency standard.

1.2 The purpose of this submission.

The purpose of this submission is three-fold:

● To contribute evidence to support the Inquiry including from the Open Government Partnership;

● To promote the involvement of civil society and the wider community in the development of policy.

● To raise the profile of existing cross-departmental government and civil society partnerships and structures which could support the delivery of mission government.

There are extensive civil society networks and civil servants who would welcome engagement at a later stage on this topic, including:

The UK Open Government Network, which convenes a wide range of organisations and networks with expertise in many of the areas discussed in this submission.
The Open Government Partnership (OGP): The OGP has a significant body of case studies and peer-to-peer learning exchanges with those facing similar challenges around the world.
The UK Open Government Secretariat, based within the Civil Service Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office, and links with civil society.
The Participatory Methods Forum (PMF) is a cross-government network established to understand and unlock the potential of participatory methods to improve policy outcomes and impact. The forum has considerable government and policy expertise in the development of these methods to engage communities in the development of policy.

2. What are the key components of mission government?

Mission government is a governance approach centred on a small number of bold, society-wide goals or ‘missions’ that require sustained, cross-sectoral effort to achieve measurable outcomes. According to Nesta and the Institute for Government (2024) and supported by the OECD (2025) effective mission government includes:

● Clear direction with long-term, measurable objectives.

● Cross-cutting coordination across departments and public bodies.

● Public legitimacy through participation and co-creation.

● Transparent accountability mechanisms.

● Adaptive delivery that supports experimentation and iteration.

● Outcome-based financing aligned to mission goals.

Governments around the world are experimenting with different governance paradigms to address complex challenges - from restoring trust in public institutions to achieving net zero. Two of the most influential and increasingly intersecting approaches are open government and mission government.

While open government and mission government emerge from different traditions (see Table 1) there is growing recognition that their integration offers a powerful framework for 21st-century governance.
Furthermore their relationship is symbiotic: missions require trust to succeed; open government fosters trust through transparency, accountability and participatory governance.

Table 1: Open Government / Mission-oriented Government Comparison - Origins and Core Philosophy and Institutions and Practices.
Origins and Core Philosophy
Principle	Open Government	Mission Government
Origin (excluding historical foundations ie. Apollo space programme).	Democratic accountability through transparency and civic engagement, Open Government Partnership (2011)	Innovation policy and industrial strategy (Mazzucato, EU 2018)
Goal	Foster trust through transparency, accountability, participatory governance	Solving grand challenges through public purpose
Design logic	Democratic legitimacy and responsiveness	Ambitious outcomes and transformative change
Global reference	Open Government Partnership (OGP) and OECD (Open Government)	OECD & European Commission mission frameworks
Institutions and practices
Aspect	Open Government	Mission-oriented government
Core mechanism	Multi-Stakeholder Forums, cross-departmental coordination, co-creation	Missions, moonshots, challenge-led delivery units
Public engagement	Systematic involvement in design and monitoring	Often top-down but evolving toward participatory design
Measurement	Commitments tracked via the OGP Independent Reporting Mechanism.	KPIs linked to mission outcomes, innovation metrics
Budgeting	Rarely embedded in fiscal processes	Increasing focus on outcome-based, cross-cutting budgeting
Adaptivity	Emphasis on transparency and feedback loops	Focus on iterative testing and long-term strategic learning

The ‘Mission Critical’ series (Mazzucato et al., 2024) distills mission government into six foundational principles: bold goals, long-term outcomes, co-ownership, adaptive delivery, aligned investment, and purpose-led public value creation. Alignment between these foundational principles and open government is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Interrelationship between Open Government and Mission Government - Mazzucato’s Foundational Principles.
Mission Government Principles	Open Government Alignment / Example
Bold Goals: Missions are defined by ambitious, transformative objectives that seek to address society-wide challenges.	● Open government helps to secure public legitimacy for bold goals through consultation, deliberation, and co-design ● By involving citizens and civil society in defining ambition, governments build collective ownership and trust, especially when goals are politically contentious, for example, net zero Example: OGP co-creation processes ensure ambitious reforms have a public mandate before implementation.
Long-Term Outcomes: Missions focus on systemic, enduring impact beyond short-term targets.	● Open government encourages institutional continuity through legally embedded plans (National Action Plans for Open Government) and multi-stakeholder forums (UK Multi-Stakeholder Forum); ● Long-term transparency tools such as open data portals and citizen panels ensure accountability even as political leadership changes. Example: Successive UK NAPs have been published since 2011. Implementation of the UK's Sixth NAP for Open Government 2024-2025 (NAP6) is currently underway
Co-Ownership and Participation: Successful missions require collaborative governance (with government as orchestrator) not just delivery by central government.	● Co-ownership is at the heart of open government through mechanisms like multi-stakeholder forums, open consultations and deliberative and participatory processes. ● Civil society, local authorities, and affected communities become delivery partners, not just stakeholders. Example: OGP’s design principles promote equal participation and influence in national and local reform agendas.
Adaptive Delivery: Missions should be delivered through iterative experimentation, feedback, and learning.	● Open government fosters a culture of learning by institutionalising public reporting, independent reviews, and civil society / citizen feedback mechanisms. ● Transparency makes it safer to fail in public, provided there’s honesty, improvement, and responsiveness. Example: Real-time monitoring dashboards, open evaluations, and ongoing Multi-Stakeholder Forums through OGP allow public scrutiny and adaptive reform.
Aligned Investment: Financing and resource allocation must support mission goals, often across departmental boundaries.	● Open government is a culture of governance delivered across departmental boundaries with scope to align investment. ● Budget transparency and public spending data allow scrutiny of whether financial flows reflect strategic priorities. ● Participatory budgeting and open contracting help align public investment with public needs and values. Example: The previous (and forthcoming) UK Anti-corruption Strategy initiated through open government processes involved the Home Office, and the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office.
A coalition of the willing: Missions need active political management to build, grow and nurture a coalition of the willing.	● Heads of government and senior officials are expected to endorse open government as a strategic priority. Senior ministers or officials (currently the Cabinet Office) act as ‘point of contact’ and take responsibility for coordination and delivery. ● Open government strengthens ‘public ownership’ through institutional frameworks (MSFs, IRM, OGP Local) enabling co-creation and shared stewarding and joint oversight. ● The MSF is co-chaired by civil society and typically a government minister or senior official. Examples: The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, launched the UK’s 2nd National Action Plan for Open Government in 2013. Ministerial leads have included the most senior Cabinet Minister. For the last NAP 90 ideas from civil society were collated from civil society but there is scope for this to be significantly increased and to involve the private sector.

3. What changes have been made to the operation of government to facilitate mission government and are these sufficient?

The UK Government has made rhetorical and strategic commitments to mission-driven government. Five core missions have been announced, and Mission Boards have been established. However, as noted in OECD (2025a) and IfG reports, there is insufficient structural reform to deliver these missions. Current perceived weaknesses include:

● Lack of empowered cross-departmental governance structures.

● No statutory basis or legal accountability for mission outcomes.

● Siloed funding and unclear departmental ownership.

● Minimal investment in mission delivery capacity.

Sustained political focus, institutional reform, and legal embedding would help mission strategies to survive political cycles. This could be supported by greater convergence with open government in key aspects.

● The OGP’s Multi-Stakeholder Forum (MSF) is a ready-made model for mission coordination across civil society and government.

● The OGP’s Independent Review Mechanism is a ready-made way to oversee the effectiveness of working relations between government and civil society (OGP, 2025).

These tools enable policy to be co-created, overseen, and implemented across electoral cycles.

For example, Beneficial Ownership was first announced as a commitment in the 2nd National Action Plan (NAP) for Open Government, launched by the then UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, in 2013. In 2016 the UK became the first country in the G20 to introduce a public register of beneficial ownership. In 2022, almost a decade later, legislation for a Register for Overseas Entities was introduced, following further NAP commitments (and the war in Ukraine).

In addition, there are multiple examples of cross-departmental policy commitments co-created between civil society and multiple government departments. The previous (and forthcoming) UK Anti-corruption Strategy, for example, involved the Home Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office.

4. Is enough being done to ensure consistent prioritisation of missions across departments?

Evidence from the IfG and National Audit Office (NAO) highlights that departmental siloing remains a major barrier. Performance and accountability structures remain fragmented, with little alignment to overarching mission outcomes.

Models for joined-up delivery, with budgeting and reporting aligned to collective outcomes, include: the EU’s approach to missions (Mazzucato, 2018) and the New Zealand Wellbeing Budget, referenced in New Zealand’s 3rd National action Plan. The latter is a public finance framework that shifts the focus from short-term economic metrics, like GDP or departmental inputs, to long-term societal wellbeing outcomes and was designed to:

● Break down siloed government decision-making;

● Ensure that spending aligns with cross-cutting goals, like mental health or reducing child poverty;

● Use evidence, data, and stakeholder engagement to prioritise investments.

In addition to closer alignment with OGP principles, mechanisms and processes, and the government could consider:

● A statutory obligation for departments to align plans to mission outcomes.

● Cross-departmental KPIs and shared metrics.

● Cabinet Office-led oversight with public reporting.

5. How are departments being held to account for progress?

Currently accountability is minimal. Mission Boards operate without public oversight, and there is no independent mechanism to assess delivery progress.

The OECD and Mission Critical reports recommend open mission dashboards, independent evaluations, and citizen panels to track progress and provide public feedback. There are also opportunities related to integration with open government: the OGP’s Independent Reporting Mechanism offers a useful model for independent oversight. Furthermore, quarterly UK Multi-Stakeholder Forums have an oversight function, to check on the implementation of National Action Plan commitments.

The government could consider:

● Quarterly public reporting of progress against missions.

● Establishing a Mission Accountability Council, or adapting the existing UK Multi-Stakeholder Forum. This would include representatives from civil society, local government, academia and business.

● Establish public dashboards and open data standards for all mission-related spending and outputs.

6. Is a change to the way money is allocated needed to ensure sufficient priority is given to the missions?

Departmental budgets remain input-focused and siloed. Effective mission delivery requires outcome-based, cross-cutting budget lines. The OECD (2025a) calls for realignment of public finance with mission structures. The New Zealand Wellbeing Budget and the EU Horizon missions show how budget reform can drive collective impact.

The government should consider:

● Multi-year, cross-departmental mission budgets.

● Outcome-based funding allocations.

● Full transparency of mission-related spending.

Through open government, budget transparency and public spending data allow scrutiny of whether financial flows reflect strategic priorities. Furthermore, participatory budgeting and open contracting help align public investment with public needs and values.

7. What measures are being used to mobilise devolved governments, public bodies, local government, and the private and voluntary sectors in delivering missions - and are these sufficient?

Measures to date are insufficient. Engagement remains largely ad hoc. Effective mission delivery requires structured, ongoing collaboration such as that through the Open Government Partnership.

The government could consider:

● Establishing mission-specific MSFs at local and national levels.

● Strengthen and work more closely with Open Government Networks across the UK.

● Building on Open Government Partnership’s OGP Local. This is made up of 150 local, regional and devolved governments from around the world including Sctoland, Northern Ireland, Glasgow City Council and Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

● Drawing on OGP’s Handbook (OGP, 2025) for best practice.

8. What is being done to encourage a ‘test and learn’ approach - and what are the obstacles?

The UK Government’s Test, Learn and Grow principles, promoted by the Government Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office, mark a cultural and operational shift towards more adaptive, people-centred policy making. Though framed in the language of innovation and delivery, many of these principles deeply resonate with the core tenets of open government: transparency, participation, accountability, and collaborative governance.

Key principles such as “We work in the open”, “Participation improves things”, and “Solving complex problems needs diverse perspectives” reflect the ethos of the Open Government Partnership (OGP), which has long championed the idea that government functions best when it is responsive, inclusive, and transparent. Similarly, principles like “Networks not hierarchies” and “Relationships, not transactions” echo the design of OGP’s Multi-Stakeholder Forums (MSFs) where policy is co-created with civil society and diverse stakeholders, not merely implemented by fiat.

Importantly, this alignment is not just philosophical -it is practical. Open government mechanisms offer tested delivery infrastructure that can ground and institutionalise the values embedded in these principles. For example:

● Public dashboards and open data standards can operationalise “working in the open.”

● Citizen panels, co-creation workshops, and challenge groups can activate “participation improves things.”

● Embedding civil society and user voices in governance structures realises “diverse perspectives” and “networks.”

What’s notable is that Test, Learn and Grow is a set of principles developed for policy and service delivery teams - but they are equally applicable to strategic governance reform, including the delivery of national missions. Embedding these values within the architecture of mission government would not only drive better outcomes, but do so in a way that builds public trust, supports learning, and invites scrutiny.

While the open government and mission government frameworks have historically evolved on separate tracks, Test, Learn and Grow offers an opportunity to merge their strengths into a coherent model for 21st-century governance - one that is both impact-driven and democratically grounded.

Obstacles include:

● Risk aversion within the civil service.

● Lack of protected space to fail safely.

● Poor dissemination of learning.

There are some good examples of test-and-learn taking place in Public Service Reform via the Cabinet Office which can be emulated. It is essential that the government:

● Publish all mission pilots and their evaluations.

● Establish a public learning platform.

● Use participatory evaluation methods.

9. What lessons can be learnt from other jurisdictions’ experience with mission approaches to governing?

There is a growing body of international experience with mission-oriented governance. Countries and regions have applied the mission model in different ways, offering a rich source of lessons for the UK. Key insights include:

a. European Union – Structuring Missions with Accountability and Participation

The EU has pioneered the use of mission frameworks through its Horizon Europe programme. Five large-scale missions (e.g. on cancer, climate adaptation, soil health) are structured with:

● Clear goals and measurable targets (e.g. 100 climate-neutral cities by 2030);

● Public participation at each stage, from design to delivery;

● Cross-disciplinary governance, linking innovation, procurement, and regulation;

● Transparency in funding, outcomes, and delivery partnerships.

Lesson: Missions succeed when structured as public-facing, cross-sector partnerships with strong measurement and democratic legitimacy (Mazzucato, 2018).

b. New Zealand – Budgeting for Outcomes Through the Wellbeing Framework

New Zealand’s Wellbeing Budget aligns public spending to well-defined societal outcomes, such as mental health and child poverty reduction. This approach:

● Encourages cross-departmental budgeting and performance evaluation;

● Uses evidence and data to prioritise spending;

● Involves Treasury in setting and tracking social goals, rather than solely financial targets.

Lesson: Budget systems can be redesigned to reflect long-term missions, aligning incentives and reporting structures to collective outcomes.

c. Finland – Foresight and Long-Term Planning

Finland embeds long-termism into its governance through:

● A Committee for the Future in Parliament;

● Strategic foresight exercises to prepare for societal shifts;

● A broad understanding of public value that includes ecological and generational sustainability.

Lesson: Strategic foresight, scenario planning, and institutional memory support missions that require sustained political and policy attention across electoral cycles.

d. Scotland – The National Performance Framework (NPF)

Scotland’s NPF, launched in 2007, offers a strategic governance framework with 11 national outcomes aligned to UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While praised by the OECD and WHO, it has faced challenges:

● Success depends on leadership and sustained investment in capacity;

● There is a gap between strategic vision and operational delivery, particularly on budget alignment and accountability (Scottish Leaders Forum, 2023)

Lesson: Legal embedding, cultural change, and public-facing accountability mechanisms are essential to maintain focus and delivery.

Camden Council & Greater Manchester Combined Authority – Local Mission Innovation

Camden’s ‘Missions for a Fairer Camden’ and GMCA’s work on clean energy and inequality demonstrate local leadership in mission-based approaches:

● Use of co-design with residents and open community calls;

● Public dashboards to track mission progress;

● Integration with local economic and social strategies.

Lesson: Place-based missions work best when co-produced with local communities, and resourced effectively.

f. Open Government Partnership (OGP) – Multi-Stakeholder Delivery Mechanisms

Many OGP members use Multi-Stakeholder Forums (MSFs) to co-create and oversee national reforms. This model has been used effectively in:

● Estonia, to drive digital innovation;

● Uruguay, to tackle social exclusion;

● Ukraine: The OGP platform was used to coordinate civil society, local government, and international partners in rebuilding trust and transparency during wartime.

The UK’s own MSF, co-chaired by civil society and the Cabinet Office, shows how structured collaboration can improve transparency, participation, and delivery.

Lesson: Sustained, institutionalised engagement with non-government actors is key to building legitimacy and solving complex challenges.

10. Conclusion: Towards integrated practice

Recent documents like the OECD’s ‘Designing Effective Governance to Enable Mission Success’ and UCL’s Mission Critical series stress the need for governance models that are both purpose-driven and participatory. This means integrating OGP-style mechanisms - such as multi-stakeholder forums, co-creation and oversight mechanisms - into mission delivery structures.

This is not just theoretical. Countries like Estonia have used participatory foresight to guide digital transformation missions; New Zealand incorporates wellbeing metrics and stakeholder feedback into budget allocation; and closer to home, Camden Council uses co-designed missions linked to local values and transparent progress tracking.

The UK government should adopt a hybrid model combining local innovation, statutory governance and global best practice to ensure sustained mission delivery. This should include closer working with the UK Open Government Network, the Open Government Partnership, and the Open Government team within the Cabinet Office.

May 2025

References

Ali, H., Brazell, S., Somerville, J., & Wyld, G. (2025). Mission Critical 03: Mission-Driven Partnerships with Civil Society Organisations. Future Governance Forum. https://www.futuregovernanceforum.co.uk/resource/mission-critical-03
Camden Council. (2022). We Make Camden Missions Approach https://democracy.camden.gov.uk/documents/s121586/Missions%20report.pdf
Scottish Leaders Forum (2022). Leadership, Collective Responsibility and Delivering the National Outcomes

https://scottishleadersforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/leadership-collective-responsibility-and-delivering-the-national-outcomes.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Institute for Government and Nesta. (2024). What Does a Mission-Driven Approach to Government Mean and How Can It Be Delivered? https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/mission-driven-approach-government

● Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-Oriented Research and Innovation in the European Union: A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth. European Commission. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5b2811d1-16be-11e8-9253-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

● Mazzucato, M., Doyle, S., & Kuehn von Burgsdorff, L. (2024). Mission Critical 01: Statecraft for the 21st Century. Future Governance Forum and UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. https://www.futuregovernanceforum.co.uk/resource/mission-critical-01/

● OECD. (2025a). Harnessing Mission Governance to Achieve National Climate Targets. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/harnessing-mission-governance-to-achieve-national-climate-targets_781146eb-en.html

● OECD. (2025b). Designing Effective Governance to Enable Mission Success. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/designing-effective-governance-to-enable-mission-success_898bca89-en.html

● Open Government Partnership. (2025). OGP National Handbook: A Practical Roadmap for National Stakeholders. https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/ogp-national-handbook/

● Puvinathan, R. & Wyld, G. (2024). Mission Critical 02: Governing in Partnership with Business and Trade Unions. Future Governance Forum. https://www.futuregovernanceforum.co.uk/publications/mission-critical-02-governing-in-partnership-with-business-and-trade-unions

● Scottish Government. (2023). Review of the National Performance Framework. https://www.gov.scot/collections/national-performance-framework/?via=https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/information-hub/national-outcomes-review=

Contents