Dynamic transparency: An audit of Mexico's Freedom of Information Act

Abstract

Freedom of Information Acts (FOIAs) aim to provide a channelled exchange between citizens and public officials that, irrespective of the citizen's identity, results in the provision of timely, relevant, and often new information about policy. We evaluated Mexico's FOIA by submitting 307 information requests on behalf of an average male citizen to government entities in the years 2007, 2013, and 2015. In 2007, we also submitted the same requests to 87 comparable entities on behalf of a male citizen who signalled economic and political clout. Encouragingly, entities do not discriminate between regular and seemingly influential citizens. Entities also answer more frequently and provide more information in 2015 compared to earlier years, but they are taking longer to answer, frequently charging fees, and often failing to provide quality information to questions they are legally bound to answer. Mexico's FOIA is a functional system demanding significant improvements.

Googling the requester: Identity‐questing and discrimination in public service provision

“…Thus, the relative isolation of the largest municipalities-in administrative terms, intermunicipal communication, and often, geography-diminishes the risk of reactivity. We argue that this aspect of the design has significant advantages over the only other study similar to ours, that of Lagunes and Pocasangre (2018), which focuses on the Mexican federal government. Mexican federal agencies have well-established channels of communication that permit them to share information regarding FOI requests.…”

“…In evaluating the substance of responses, however, FOI field experiments have not used a uniform approach. Most leave considerable wiggle‐room for subjective judgments, assessing “whether responses provided the information or not” (Cuillier, ) or qualifying responses as “good” if they directly answer the question posed by providing “relevant information” (Lagunes & Pocasangre, ). By contrast, we follow the lead of Worthy et al () in using a construct‐based measure that assigns scores to each response based on predefined “completeness” coding protocols and benchmarks that conform to an m of n logic (Goertz, ).…”

Promise and Practice of the Principle of Equal Access to Information in the Danish Local Administration

“…Moving the spotlight outside Scandinavia yields better results. Thus, interesting field experiments have taken place in Countries like Brazil (Michener and Rodrigues, 2015), the United States (Lewis and Woods, 2012), New Zealand (Price, 2006), Mexico (Lagunes and Pocasangre, 2017) and England (Worthy, John and Vannoni, 2017). However, focus of these studies has varied.…”

“…Some have concentrated on the effects of transparency on the organization by testing e.g. the link between access to information and corruption deterrence, while others have been looking into the effectiveness and appliance of access to information legislation.1 There are even field experiments focusing more specifically on equal access and the identity of the applicant (Lagunes, 2006(Lagunes, , 2017Michener and Rodrigues, 2015) and/or the wording of the application in order to identify potential bias (Cuillier, 2010).…”

A necessidade de identificação como barreira ao acesso à informação: evidências e práticas no Brasil e no mundo.

“…Este vínculo significa que a informação se refere às características ou ações desta pessoa, que podem ser atribuídas a ela em conformidade à lei, como no caso do nome civil ou do domicílio, ou então que são informações provenientes de seus atos, como os dados referentes ao seu consumo, informações referentes às suas manifestações, como sobre opiniões que manifesta e tantas outras (Doneda, 2011, 93 (Rains & Scott, 2007). Por outro, essa mesma identificação tem gerado diversos tipos de discriminação por parte dos órgãos respondentes, prejudicando o exercício do direito à informação, e até mesmo perseguição e assassinatos (Divorski et al, 1973;Lagunes & Pocasangre, 2016;Michener & Rodrigues, 2015;Open Society Justice Initiative, 2006;Peisakhin, 2012;Rajam, 2017;Roberts, 2006;Velasco, 2017…”