Transparency in a “Post-Fact” World

Abstract

What role can government transparency play in a democratic polity in a post-fact and a post-truth world? If the problem is not that citizens lack information about what the government does, but that they filter existing information through pre-existing ideological biases and world views, can government transparency still contribute to better informed citizens and more accountable government? To answer these questions, the article first reviews the critiques of transparency that are particularly salient in a post-fact world: that it reduces trust in government and increases polarization in deliberation. It then discusses three possible solutions: less transparency, tailored transparency, and reasoned transparency. Drawing on deliberative democracy theory, the article concludes that to reclaim the value of transparency, public administration scholars and practitioners need to move from a narrow interpretation of transparency as access to information to a broader, more holistic one, that considers more explicitly the communicative aspects of transparency and its normative foundations.

Transparency Versus Populism

“…By spontaneously responding to deficient or unreliable public transparency, CTIs effectively challenge the authoritative basis of information ecosystems-government transparency. In this sense, CTIs speak to current debates surrounding "Post Truth" and misinformation (McIntyre, 2018;Schnell, 2022). Questioning public transparency sets in motion cycles of contention and disputation, authoritative claims on the truth.…”

How citizens want to “see” the state: Exploring the relationship between transparency and public values

“…Understanding how citizens want to "see" the state is crucial if the goal is to legitimize public decisions and increase public trust (Porumbescu et al, 2022). Such efforts are particularly critical in the current era of "post-factuality" and declining trust in public institutions (Schnell, 2022). ORCID Sabina Schnell https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6475-2063 Greg Munno https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1773-9947 Tina Nabatchi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1410-3647…”

“…To overcome this limitation, we present a typology of transparency derived from a broader, comprehensive review and synthesis of the literature. This typology integrates also interpretations of transparency than emphasize its subjective and communicative nature (Albu & Flyverbom, 2019; Coglianese, 2009; Mansbridge, 2009; O'Neill, 2009; Schnell, 2022). While the types of transparency discussed here are not necessarily exhaustive or mutually exclusive in practice, they capture the most prominent theoretical definitions and better enable an empirical examination of subjective citizen preferences.…”

“…Critical transparency scholars have argued that the informational approach is too narrow and potentially dangerous (Albu & Flyverbom, 2019; Coglianese, 2009; Mansbridge, 2009; O'Neill, 2009; Schnell, 2022). Instead, they assert that transparency is a communicative act and that judgments about whether something is transparent require consideration of the broader context, including the properties of the message, the information giver and receiver, and the relationship between them (Albu & Flyverbom, 2019; O'Neill, 2009; Schnell, 2022).…”

“…A second, more complex type of communicative transparency— transparency as dialogue —extends this line of argument. It holds that if actual transparency requires an audience to understand the information and explanations given, then what and how government communicates with the public should be informed by citizens (Rawlins, 2009; Schnell, 2022). This requires two‐way communication and consultation with the public about their informational needs.…”