What’s in a name? A comparison of ‘open government’ definitions across seven Open Government Partnership members

Abstract

<jats:p>No longer restricted to access to information laws and accountability measures, “open government” is now associated with a broad range of goals and functions, including public participation, open data, the improvement of public services and government efficiency. The 59 country strong Open Government Partnership (OGP) suggests that consensus on the value of open government is emerging amongst public officials. Similarly, academics have shown a renewed interest in open government as they discuss, debate and critique the meaning and role of open government reforms today. Yet, despite the diverse aims and tools characterizing contemporary open government, public officials and academics typically approach the subject as a cohesive unit of analysis, making sweeping—and generally non-empirical—claims about its implications, without accounting for the homegrown flavours that may characterize open government in practice. Simply put, the practice and study of contemporary open government suffers a lack of definitional clarity: what exactly is open government today, and how does it vary across governments? In response to these questions, this paper analyses the content of open government policy documents in seven OGP member states (Azerbaijan, Brazil, Canada, Netherlands, Kenya, United Kingdom, and the United States), providing the first systematic, empirically-grounded multi-country comparison of contemporary open government. The paper suggests where the term departs from and retains its original meaning, and how its definition varies across different governments</jats:p>

Accountability and monitoring government in the digital era: Promise, realism and research for digital‐era governance

“…Here we are interested in whether new digital and digitally‐enhanced engagement models are taken up for accountability or monitoring government. As with the term “open government” (Clarke and Francoli ), the terminology about digitally‐enhanced citizen engagement can be quite elastic, with open budgeting, citizen e‐petitions, and open dialogues all counting as crowd‐sourcing (Aitamurto ; Roy , , ), while others would not necessarily see these as “deliberative” (for example, Dutil ).…”

“…The purpose of this article is to survey the Canadian and international literature on accountability in the digital era, to identify whether Canada is lagging or leading international contributions in this area, and to suggest lines of research. Canadian scholars have made important contributions to the literature on accountability (for example, Thomas ; Aucoin and Heintzman ; Aucoin and Jarvis ; Aucoin ), and a new generation of scholars are asking new questions (Clarke and Francoli ; Jarvis ; Small ). However, the claims and changes wrought by the digital movement traverse governance domains and levels of analysis; a concerted effort is required to monitor and assess whether digital tools and approaches are reshaping governance and public administration.…”

Why Choose Open Government? Motivations for the Adoption of Open Government Policies in Four European Countries

“…This movement toward a greater transparency led to the creation of open government data repositories and portals at the end of the 2000s, first in the United Kingdom and then in the United States (Clarke & Margetts, ). Although the traditional definition of open government is grounded in transparency, access to information, and accountability, some authors have noted that in recent times the concept has begun to be further stretched to include also participation, collaborative governance, and the use of digital technology to enhance those (Clarke & Francoli, ; De Blasio, )…”

“…Although all the four variables of the open government agenda are interpreted in different ways, participation, collaboration, and digital technology are the most challenging areas, because they imply a strong reform of public administration, whereas transparency goals (i.e., the disclosure of open data and the provision of monitoring tools) do not imply a major restructuring of the decision‐making process. Moreover, transparency is the only variable indicated in the earliest accounts of open government back in the 1950s, whereas considerations of participation, collaboration, and digital technologies have entered policy documents only in recent years (Clarke & Francoli, ). For those reasons, we expect to find in different national policies more variance in the areas of participation, collaboration, and digital democracy than in transparency.…”

Open government—Progress and impediments in the digital era

“…In an important Canadian contribution to better understanding OGP's scope and potential, Carleton University scholars Amanda Clarke and Mary Francoli () examine OGP commitments and action plans across member countries, showcasing and exploring the diversity of approaches at play. Their findings suggest that most governments had approached OGP from a more traditional interpretation of open government, emphasizing information availability and access as well as strengthened accountability.…”