How Institutional Culture Trumps Tier Effects: Evidence from Government Responsiveness to FOI Requests

Abstract

Claims that decentralization could improve government accountability and responsiveness led to its adoption as a policy objective across the globe. But recent empirical work finds little evidence of 'tier effects' in practice; instead, significant variation exists even between most-similar bodies. Recognizing the value of FOI in facilitating large-scale data collection, and that the UK's institutional diversity offers an important source of between-and within-tier variation, I compile a large new dataset by emailing two separate FOI requests to 812 UK public bodies with an executive function. Identifying significant variation in timeliness and quality between UK territories, I argue that differing foundational motives can help explain patterns of responsiveness between institutions established by transparency-facing reforms and those designed to resolve conflict. A lack of evidence that by lower-tier governments are generally more responsive reaffirms the recent challenges to the more fundamental claims about decentralization that informed academic debate and real-world practice.

When does open government shut? Predicting government responses to citizen information requests

“…Our proposed research framework is particularly appropriate for this setting, given that past research suggests many information requests may be mundane or easily dealt with through ordinary procedures, whereas a select 'tip of the iceberg' may be far more politically relevant (Michener and Worthy, 2015). Our findings in these regards suggest that instances of highly nonresponsive behavior among government Importantly, while many past studies of ATI responsiveness (Lagunes and Pocasangre, 2017;Wood and Lewis, 2017;Worthy, John and Vannoni, 2017;ben Aaron et al, 2017;Poole, 2018;Spáč, Voda and Zagrapan, 2018;Grimmelikhuijsen et al, 2019) have used experimental approaches, submitting similar requests across multiple government bodies, this observational approach accordingly allows us to account for the full real-world diversity of citizen uses, many of which are too context-dependent or sensitive to feasibly or ethically deploy in research settings. This paper proceeds as follows.…”

“…Many scholars have studied why political actors may be more or less responsive in different circumstances-both at a macro-scale in terms of how government policies and spending respond to the preferences of the median voter (Cleary, 2007;Golden and Min, 2013;Herrera, 2017) or to elected legislatures (McCubbins, Noll and Weingast, 1987;Saltzstein, 1992;West and Raso, 2012), and at a micro-scale in terms of individual citizen-government interactions (Chaney and Saltzstein, 1998;Balla, 2000;Yang and Callahan, 2007;Butler and Broockman, 2011;McClendon, 2016;White, Nathan and Faller, 2015). Often the latter approach focuses on ATI requests (Peisakhin and Pinto, 2010;Lagunes and Pocasangre, 2017;Wood and Lewis, 2017;Worthy, John and Vannoni, 2017;ben Aaron et al, 2017;Poole, 2018;Spáč, Voda and Zagrapan, 2018;Grimmelikhuijsen et al, 2019), which correspond to individuals' or organizations' requests for public information from their government, and that government's degree of responsiveness to those requests in terms of information provided. In these literatures, explanations for responsiveness usually include capacity, resources, organizational cultures, social barriers or discrimination, as well as-importantly-political incentives.…”

“…2017; Lagunes & Pocasangre 2019; Wood & Lewis 2017; Worthy et al . 2017; Poole 2018; Spáč et al . 2018; Grimmelikhuijsen et al .…”

Why Do Countries Respond Differently to COVID-19? A Comparative Study of Sweden, China, France, and Japan

“…In a society with a tight culture, citizens are more likely to comply with government interventions (Gaenslen, 1986; Gelfand, 2012). They attach importance to group solidarity and orders (Poole, 2019), so as to attend to others and be harmoniously interdependent with each other. Furthermore, culture is instrumental to fostering people’s normative commitments and psychological beliefs.…”

Nexus Between Governance and Socioeconomic Factors on Public Service Fragility in Asian Economies

“…Soundly embedded regulation policies and measures provide a signal of confidence and trust in the public, to make their decisions and sense of accountability toward their actions, which creates a transparent working environment and enhances their efficiency. Some individuals and institutions as a whole develop a sense of responsibility toward their actions, which determines respective outcomes (Poole, 2018). Recent studies also endorsed that trustworthy government regulations create a room of self-confidence for investment and enhance the InQ in every sector (Dou et al, 2019).…”