Co-founder of the Datactivist cooperative, specializing in the opening of data particularly in the public sector, Samuel Goëta is an associate lecturer at Sciences Po Aix. He has just published The Data of Democracy. Open data, powers and counter-powers (C & F éditions, 2024), a work in which he develops a critical assessment around the successes and limits of the open data movement, almost eight years after the Lemaire law, which required administrations to open “by default » their data.
Despite this law, only 16% of communities respected their obligations in this area at the end of 2022, according to the latest inventory of the open data observatory of the territories.
Where is the opening of public data today in France?
The situation is ambiguous. On the surface, it is a great success: French open data is at the top of the international rankings, with a developed public ecosystem and a certain number of flagship companies and associations dedicated to it, and there are important uses. But the opening of data in France is built on a fairly weak culture of transparency. This goes back to access to administrative documents, a little-known right dating back around forty years, often circumvented by administrations: around 80% of requests receive no response.
However, open data means voluntarily making data sets available. There is a double-speed open data, between that which will interest decision-makers to innovate, and that which will titillate elected officials. We see these limits as soon as we look at subsidies, public procurement data… In short, as soon as these data could call into question the established power. It is a fragile ecosystem that relies on political will, and which could easily collapse.
How can we explain the difficult implementation of the obligations arising from the Lemaire law?
Following the law for a digital Republic of 2016, few resources have been put in place. There was a little help to the OpenDataFrance association. This one, like Etalab [un département de la direction interministérielle du numérique, la dinum, chargé de l’ouverture des données publiques], provided support – but not on the scale of opening data “by default”. The resources that the communities put in therefore depended a lot on the presence of a political impulse, a little means, an interest… and, often, the goodwill of a few agents who did this in their time. free or on the fringes of their missions, with little hierarchical support. This accentuated territorial divides.
You have 48.83% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.