Social Capital, E-Government, and Fiscal Transparency in the States

Abstract

Transparency is one requisite of democratic governance. Many American states have implemented online checkbooks and similar forms of fiscal e-transparency, but not universally or with uniformly high quality. This article seeks to explain why. Correlation and regression results support hypotheses that higher-quality implementation responds to lower state levels of social capital, more traditionalistic political cultures, greater perceptions of official corruption, and larger populations.Fiscal transparency can generally be understood as one requisite for extending the practice of democracy. It broadly encompasses efforts to make meaningful fiscal information available to citizens, in order to facilitate their ability to directly shape budget allocations and processes and enable them to hold officials accountable for allocations (Ebdon and Franklin 2006;Franklin, Ho, and Ebdon 2009;Justice and Dülger 2009;Justice and Tarimo 2012). Researchers have begun to accumulate a body of conceptual and empirical work focused on the relationships among fiscal transparency, participatory budgeting, and the processes and outcomes of democratic governance. While there are a number of tensions within the literature regarding normative models, goals, and processes of democracy, it is safe to say that "the ability to see how government uses the public purse is fundamental to democracy. Spending transparency checks corruption, bolsters public confidence in government, and promotes fiscal responsibility" (Baxandall and Wohlschlegel 2010, p. 6).

Determinants of Fiscal Transparency and Right to Information Reforms: A Study of Provincial Governments in Argentina

“…Likewise, Serrano-Cinca et al (2009) find a positive association between a local government's technological infrastructure and levels of transparency. On the other hand, previous studies by Justice and McNutt (2013) and Tavares and da Cruz (2017) do not find a statistically significant relationship.…”

“…Perhaps the indicator used was not appropriate to capture the provincial governments' technological capacity. Nonetheless, Justice and McNutt (2013) reported a similar finding in their study of fiscal transparency in the United States. They suggest that differences in technological capacity may not translate into variations in transparency.…”

Determinants of Internet-enabled Transparency at the Local Level

“…For example, early studies by Ho (2002) and Moon (2002) provide a good foundation for succeeding studies. In subsequent years, quite a few studies have examined Internet-enabled transparency by focusing on transparency at the international level (e.g., Bonsón et al 2012; Pina, Torres, and Royo 2007, 2010), state level (e.g., Justice and McNutt 2013; Menifield and Clay 2010), and municipal level (e.g., Borry 2012; del Sol 2013; Welch 2012). The first study of e-government practice at the county level was published in 2007 (Huang 2007).…”

Measuring collaborative stakeholder influence and open budget actions

“…The aim of the paper is to identify ways to measure levels of CSI and OBA as determinants of social development. We hope to provide empirical results on the OBA and to stimulate research on financial sustainability, to reduce poverty and induce economically equitable growth, and ultimately to achieve sustainable progress (Siau and Long, 2006;Justice and Mcnutt, 2013).…”

“…Participation creates incentives to articulate and aggregate citizens' interests, to provide channels for the recruitment of leaders, to adjudicate disputes between conflicting interests, and to engage citizens in the government decision-making process by providing links between the rulers and the ruled, policymakers and citizens (Fung and Wright, 2003;Shah, 2007;Boulding and Wampler, 2010). Participatory budgeting is seen as a type of political empowerment and an incentive for citizens' engagement, and it also strengthens inclusive governance (Brown, 2002;Armstrong, 2006) by giving marginalized and excluded people the right to have their voices heard and to influence public decision making (Yilmaz et al, 2010;Wampler, 2012;Gaventa and Mcgee, 2013;Kasymova and Schachter, 2014). According to Fung (2006:72), the "participation mechanisms that employ random selection or even lay stakeholder involvement may also enhance political equality if they are properly implemented".…”