Public Sector Transparency

Abstract

Attention to government transparency has increased greatly in the past 15 years. For instance, US president Barack Obama 1 stated, 'We're not going to change America unless we change the culture that has dominated Washington for far too long. And that means shining a bright light on how Washington works.' Subsequently, the Open Government Directive, which President Barack Obama issued in 2009, has highlighted the importance of transparency for policy makers, politicians, and scholars. Institutional transparency has gained 'quasi-religious significance' (Hood 2006), and has become a key feature in modern governance (Erkkilä 2012; Etzioni 2010; Keane 2009). Moreover, transparency is seen as a way to increase trust in government (Grimmelikhuijsen 2012; Porumbescu 2015a), state legitimacy (De Fine Licht 2011), citizen participation (Porumbescu 2015b), and to reduce corruption (Bauhr and Grimes 2014). Two societal developments have contributed to the strong appeal of transparency nowadays. First, the rise of the Internet and communication technologies has greatly increased the amount of government information accessible to the public (Meijer 2009). The information technology revolution and the consequential vast increase in the amount of information stored and gathered by government have also increased the importance of transparency: if more information can be stored, there is more potential for disclosure and increased transparency. This partly coincides with a second development: the rise of New Public Management (NPM) as way of organising governments (Hood 1991). Public sector reforms inspired by NPM urge a greater degree of transparency of government services and activities, with the idea that

Can decision transparency increase citizen trust in regulatory agencies? Evidence from a representative survey experiment

“…De Fine Licht 2011; Porumbescu 2015; Grimmelikhuijsen et al . 2017). We may need to rethink these more critical lines and more systematically test contextual elements where decision transparency increases trust, and where it does not.…”

“…Various experimental studies on the effects of transparency have yielded mixed results at best (Grimmelikhuijsen et al . 2017). For instance, two experimental studies, which looked at the relationship between transparency and legitimacy, found a negative relationship between transparency and legitimacy, especially when the topic that is being made transparent is a contested one (De Fine Licht 2011, 2014; De Fine Licht et al .…”

Transparency in the EU Council of Ministers: An Institutional Analysis

“…19 Others have investigated the empirical relation between transparency and public values, such as trust and accountability. 20 The debate focuses on whether and to what extent organisations need to adapt to make transparency provisions succeed. Advocates argue for a broad application of transparency and the need for a 'culture shift.'…”

A street‐level perspective on government transparency and regulatory performance: Does relational distance matter?

“…Although transparency is often positively associated with performance for a range of different reasons, such as reducing corruption and enhancing financial efficiency and accountability (Hood ; Cucciniello et al ), the pros and cons of transparency are contested and results are mixed (see Hood and Heald ; Fung et al ; Grimmelikhuijsen et al ; de Fine Licht ; Cucciniello et al ; Porumbescu et al ). These mixed results are, however, almost solely based on studies addressing the effects of transparency on citizens (see Grimmelikhuijsen et al ; Grimmelikhuijsen et al ), for example, effects of transparency on citizens' trust in government, their perceived government legitimacy and their voice behaviour (Grimmelikhuijsen et al ). None of these transparency studies, however, are—to the authors' knowledge—based on the perspective and insights of street‐level bureaucrats.…”

“…Transparency research has barely addressed this effect on the relational distance between inspector and inspectee at the street level, nor the implications for inspectors' perceptions of regulatory performance (see Meijer and Homburg ; Grimmelikhuijsen et al ; Porumbescu ). There is, thus, a lack of research on government transparency and regulatory performance in which inspectors' perceptions are put at the centre—even though they are crucial actors in regulatory governance (see de Boer et al ).…”