Citizens and governments live increasingly digital lives, leaving trails of digital data that have the potential to support unprecedented levels of mutual government–citizen understanding, and in turn, vast improvements to public policies and services. Open data and open government initiatives promise to “open up” government operations to citizens. New forms of “big data” analysis can be used by government itself to understand citizens' behavior and reveal the strengths and weaknesses of policy and service delivery. In practice, however, open data emerges as a reform development directed to a range of goals, including the stimulation of economic development, and not strictly transparency or public service improvement. Meanwhile, governments have been slow to capitalize on the potential of big data, while the largest data they do collect remain “closed” and under‐exploited within the confines of intelligence agencies. Drawing on interviews with civil servants and researchers in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States between 2011 and 2014, this article argues that a big data approach could offer the greatest potential as a vehicle for improving mutual government–citizen understanding, thus embodying the core tenets of Digital Era Governance, argued by some authors to be the most viable public management model for the digital age (Dunleavy, Margetts, Bastow, & Tinkler, 2005, 2006; Margetts & Dunleavy, 2013).

Design thinking has become a popular approach for governments around the world seeking to address complex governance challenges. It offers novel techniques and speaks to broader questions of who governs, how they govern, and the limits of rational instrumentalism in policy making. Juxtaposing design thinking with an older tradition of policy design, this article offers the first critical analysis of the application of design thinking to policy making. It argues that design thinking does not sufficiently account for the political and organizational contexts of policy work. Design thinking also errs in universally privileging one particular policy style over others, and fails to account for the reality of policy mixes. Despite these deficiencies, it is argued that design thinking can inform and enrich governance by helping policy designers produce more adaptable designs, better appreciate the behavioral dynamics of public sector design, and leverage networked approaches to social problem solving.

No longer restricted to access to information laws and accountability measures, “open government” is now associated with a broad range of goals and functions, including public participation, open data, the improvement of public services and government efficiency. The 59 country strong Open Government Partnership (OGP) suggests that consensus on the value of open government is emerging amongst public officials. Similarly, academics have shown a renewed interest in open government as they discuss, debate and critique the meaning and role of open government reforms today. Yet, despite the diverse aims and tools characterizing contemporary open government, public officials and academics typically approach the subject as a cohesive unit of analysis, making sweeping—and generally non-empirical—claims about its implications, without accounting for the homegrown flavours that may characterize open government in practice. Simply put, the practice and study of contemporary open government suffers a lack of definitional clarity: what exactly is open government today, and how does it vary across governments? In response to these questions, this paper analyses the content of open government policy documents in seven OGP member states (Azerbaijan, Brazil, Canada, Netherlands, Kenya, United Kingdom, and the United States), providing the first systematic, empirically-grounded multi-country comparison of contemporary open government. The paper suggests where the term departs from and retains its original meaning, and how its definition varies across different governments

From 2011 onward, Digital Government Units (DGUs) have quickly emerged as a preferred solution for tackling the over-cost and under-performing digital services and lagging digital transformation agendas plaguing today's governments. This article kickstarts a much-needed research agenda on this emerging trend, which has to date largely been ignored by public management scholars. DGUs exist at the center of the state, and adopt a shared orthodoxy, favoring agile, user-centric design, pluralistic procurement, data-driven decision making, horizontal 'platform' based solutions and a 'delivery-first' ethos. However, DGUs are differentiated in practice by their governance structures and resources, adding notable complexity to this recent machinery of government phenomenon. The article details the similarities and differences across six of the first DGUs introduced and highlights issues that researchers should address when assessing DGUs as an increasingly preferred instrument of digital era public sector renewal. This includes: their mixed record of success thus far; the risks of top-down reform efforts; external threats to DGUs' sustainability; and accountability dilemmas accompanying digital government reforms.

Digital disruptions and opportunitiesHow are digital technologies affecting democratic governance in Canada, and how might the digital age bolster or undermine our public institutions and collective problem-solving capacity in the coming years? Governments now face new ways to tailor and deliver services to citizens, can use social media to share information and mobilize or corrode support, and have access to collaborative platforms to facilitate crowd-sourcing inside and outside government. Governments can also capitalize on new streams of evidence to guide policy interventions, not only from "big data" generated from internal administrative operations and citizens' and governments' digital activities, but also from innovation labs, hackathons and advances in social science thinking, as we have seen with global interest in "nudging" and behavioural economics.At the same time, as the digital age produces unprecedented amounts of data and information that swirl through our societies, we face new balances in power and control shaped by uneven capacity to interpret and manipulate digital data flows. In addition, Clarke and Francoli (2017) identify a tension between popular enthusiasm for digital-era governance, and observations in Canadian public administration literature, which frame the digital age and the frantic pace of information exchange it facilitates as a driver of short-termism, information control and a politicization of the public service (see Marland, Giasson, and Esselment 2017;Marland 2016;Savoie 2003Savoie , 2013. Recent concerns over "fake news," filter bubbles, echo chambers and political bots also complicate the assumption that the Internet and enriched democracy necessarily move hand in hand (El-Bermawy 2016;