The term open government is often used to describe initiatives of putting government information on the Internet. This conceptualization is too restricted since open government is not only about openness in informational terms (vision) but also about openness in interactive terms (voice). On the basis of an analysis of 103 articles, this article provides insight into the concepts of openness, transparency and participation, their interactions, and the manner in which they have been discussed in the literature. This analysis shows the differences and similarities between economic, political science and legal perspectives on open government and argues that a multidisciplinary approach needs to be taken. The authors conclude that open government is much too important to leave it to the ‘techies’: scientists and practitioners with backgrounds in law, economics, political science and public administration should also get involved to build sound connections between vision and voice that facilitate active citizenship.
Points for practitioners
This article provides guidelines for the realization of open government: (1) design open government for synergistic or complementary relationships between transparency and participation, (2) design open government for a diverse population, (3) design open government for direct and indirect effects, (4) design open government acknowledging a variety in desirables and (5) design for continuous learning about effects and side-effects. The authors emphasize that a diversified approach to the design of open government will be more fruitful in the long run than merely understanding it in terms of making information publicly available.
BarberBR (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2.
BertotJCJaegerPTGrimesJM (2010) Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency. E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for society. Government Information Quarterly27(3): 264–271.
3.
BestE (2002) Transparency and European Governance: Clearly Not a Simple Matter. In: DeckmynV (ed.) Increasing Transparency in the European Union? Conference papers. Maastricht: European Institute of Public Administration, 91–118.
4.
BeyersJ (2004) Voice and access: Political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics5(2): 211–240.
5.
BlackJ (1997) A Dictionary of Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
CrombezC (2003) The democratic deficit in the European Union: Much ado about nothing?. European Union Politics4(1): 101–120.
7.
CurtinDMeijersH (1995) The principle of open government in Schengen and the European Union: Democratic retrogression?’. Common Market Law Review32(2): 391–442.
8.
CurtinDMendesJ (2011) Transparence et Participation: des Principes Démocratiques Pour L’Administration de L’Union Européenne. Revue Française d’Administration Publique, 137–138: 101–121.
DrewCNyergesT (2004) Transparency of environmental decision making: A case study of soil cleanup inside the Hanford 100 area. Journal of Risk Research7(1): 33–71.
FlanaganA (2007) EU Freedom of Information: Determining Where the Interest Lies. European Public Law (13)4: 595–632.
13.
FloriniAM (1998) The end of secrecy. Foreign Policy112: 50–63.
14.
FungAWeilD (2010) Open government and open society. In: LathropDRumaL (eds) Open Government. Collaboration, Transparency and Participation in Practice. Beijing: O’Reilly, 105–113.
15.
García LorenzoA (2003) The role of interest groups in the European Union decision-making process. European Journal of Law and Economics15: 251–261.
16.
HaleTN (2008) Transparency, accountability, and global governance. Global Governance14: 73–94.
17.
HealdD (2006a) Varieties of transparency. In: HoodCHealdD (eds) Transparency: The Key to Better Governance?. New York: Oxford University Press, 25–43.
18.
HealdD (2006b) Transparency as an instrumental value. In: HoodCHealdD (eds) Transparency: The Key to Better Governance?. New York: Oxford University Press, 59–73.
19.
JubbPB (1999) Whistleblowing: A restrictive definition and interpretation. Journal of Business Ethics21: 77–94.
20.
KlijnEHEdelenbosJKortMvan TwistMJW (2008) Facing management dilemmas: An analysis of managerial choices in 18 complex environmental Public Private Partnership projects. International Review of the Administrative Sciences74(2): 251–282.
21.
LathropDRumaL (eds) (2010a) Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency and Participation in Practice. Beijing: O’Reilly.
22.
LathropDRumaL (2010b) Preface. In: LathropDRumaL (eds) Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency and Participation in Practice. Beijing: O’Reilly, xix–xxv.
23.
LeeM (2005) EU Environmental Law: Challenges, Change and Decision-Making. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
24.
LessigL (1999) Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
25.
MeijerAJ (2007) Publishing public performance results on the Internet. Do stakeholders use the Internet to hold Dutch public service organizations to account?. Government Information Quarterly24(1): 165–185.
26.
MendesJ (2011) Participation in EU Rulemaking: A Rights-based Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
MurrayA (2004) Should states have a right to informational privacy?. In: MurrayAKlangM (eds) Human Rights in the Digital Age. London: The Glasshouse Press, 191–202.
28.
NoveckBS (2009) Wiki Government: How Technology Can make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
29.
O’NeillM (1998) The rights of access to community-held documentation as a general principle of EC law. European Public Law4(3): 403–432.
30.
O’NeillO (2002) A Question of Trust, The BBC Reith Lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
O’ReillyT (2010) Government as a platform. In: LathropDRumaL (eds) Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency and Participation in Practice. Beijing: O’Reilly, 11–39.
32.
PasquierMVilleneuveJ-P (2007) Organizational barriers to transparency: A typology and analysis of organizational behaviour tending to prevent or restrict access to information. International Review of Administrative Sciences73(1): 147–162.
33.
PiotrowskiSJ (2007) Governmental Transparency in the Path of Administrative Reform. Albany: State University of New York Press.
34.
PiotrowskiSJBorryE (2010) An analytic framework for open meetings and transparency. Public Administration and Management15(1): 138–176.
35.
PozenD (2010) Deep Secrecy. Stanford Law Review62(2): 257–339.
36.
PratA (2005) The wrong kind of transparency. American Economic Review95(3): 862–877.
37.
RobertsA (2004) National security and open government. Georgetown Public Policy Review9(2): 69–85.
38.
SkivenesMTrygstadSC (2010) When whistle-blowing works: The Norwegian case. Human Relations63(7): 1071–1097.
39.
StiglitzJE (1999) On liberty, the right to know, and public discourse: The role of transparency in public life. Oxford Amnesty Lecture, Oxford (UK). Available at: http://derechoasaber.org.mx/documentos/pdf0116.pdf (accessed 15 November 2010).
40.
van SchendelenMPCM (2005) Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the EU. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
41.
WallS (1996) Public justification and the transparency argument. Philosophical Quarterly46: 501–507.
42.
WeinbergJ (2010) Presentation at the two-day workshop ‘Open Government: Defining, Designing, and Sustaining Transparency’. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Available at: http://citp.princeton.edu/open-government-workshop/.
43.
WelchE (2010) The relationship between transparent and participative government: A study of local governments in the United States. Paper presented at the Workshop ‘Government Transparency’, Utrecht School of Governance.
