Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Digital technologies can improve citizen-government interaction such as citizens’ requests for public information and government's publication of requested information. Digital intermediaries such as Freedom of Information (FOI) platforms support citizens and government in exchanging this information. Such digital platforms are hosted by non-governmental organizations, which forward information requests to the responsible authority on behalf of the requester and publish the entire process online. This study aims to explore the usage of FOI platforms by both citizens as information requesters and government organizations as information providers. By adopting a single case research approach, this study investigates the German FOI platform ‘FragDenStaat’ which is operated by the non-governmental organization Open Knowledge Foundation Germany. The findings indicate that citizens have constantly and increasingly used the platform over the last 13 years, since the launch of the platform. About 38 percent of submitted requests are successfully answered, and the overall likeliness of successful requests has increased over time. In addition, federal organizations are the most frequently requested organizations. While the Federal Office of Information Security stands out for its high responsiveness rate, the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice and Health of Schleswig-Holstein tend to refuse requests. We conclude by discussing the potential of FOI platforms as open data intermediaries for processing information requests and contributing to efficient citizen-state interaction and public service provision.

Keywords

FOI platform information exchange public information intermediary transparency freedom of information digital government Germany

Key points for practitioners:

Descriptive data analysis of FOI usage in Germany

Data for future (international) FOI evaluation or benchmarking activities

Highlights the potential of platforms for information exchange and public service delivery

Future research agenda on transparency and information policymaking

1. Introduction

Increasing implementation of transparency policies and freedom of information (FOI) laws facilitate citizens’ access to public information (see e.g., Ackerman & Sandoval-Ballesteros, 2006; Berliner, 2014; Michener, 2011). Literature on government openness has emphasized the benefits associated with high levels of transparency, such as the ability to rebuild declining trust in government (e.g., Wang & Guan, 2023; Worthy, 2010), curb corruption (Cucciniello et al., 2017), and improve public performance and governance (Bisogno & Cuadrado-Ballesteros, 2021). On the one hand, in response or due to increasing legal obligations, public organizations have started to proactively publish public information by leveraging digital technology such as open data portals. On the other hand, if public information is not available, citizens can send information requests directly to the organization, meaning that public bodies bound by FOI are obliged to reactively release information by responding to these individual requests. To access specific public information, citizens can contact organizations directly and request the desired information through direct communication channels such as mail, email, or posting requests on a government official's or agency's social media pages. Especially the latter experiences a growing trend in usage for discussions of FOI and transparency issues (see e.g., Schwoerer, 2019).

Additionally, to achieve a higher level of transparency, government agencies have started to implement their own FOI portals to improve access to information and help applicants send requests (see Bizzo & Michener, 2017; Michener, 2015). Effective FOI is characterized not only by proactive publication or responsiveness, but also by de facto operability (Michener, 2015). Operability can be measured by the availability of government statistics on requests and the existence of online portals for submitting and receiving responses (Michener et al., 2018; Worthy et al., 2017). Illuminating a certain causal mechanism between legal requirements and compliance with FOI laws, Michener (2015 p. 82) argues that “insofar as online platforms are effective, they represent a welcome sign for petitioners and binding mechanism for agencies”.

In addition to government organizations, civil society organizations and non-governmental actors have initiated digital platforms focusing on communicating FOI requests (Bailur & Longley, 2014; Capeloto, 2019; Fumega & Scrollini, 2017; also mentioned in Michener & Worthy, 2018). These platforms (for instance, ‘WhatDoTheyKnow’ in the UK, ‘MuckRock’ in the US, or the ‘Alaveteli’ platforms) assist in forwarding citizen information requests to the responsible authority and aim for transparency by publishing the entire information-request process online. Consequently, FOI platforms can be understood as intermediaries between citizens and government. On the one hand, citizens can use the platform to demand information they may be entitled to, and, on the other hand, governments can respond to these information needs by releasing public data using the platform (Shaharudin et al., 2023). These intermediary platforms provide a low-threshold and accessible way for citizens to submit requests, while remaining anonymous if they wish.

As citizens mainly benefit from these platforms as recipients of government information, FOI platforms are categorised as government-to-citizens (G2C) platforms (Cingolani, 2021) and open data intermediaries (Shaharudin et al., 2023). However, in contrast to open data portals, governments do not proactively provide access to public information, but citizens use the platform to demand information they do not possess (Shaharudin et al., 2023). Because the process of requesting information frequently involves navigating legal complexities, bureaucratic procedures, and technical challenges, an intermediary platform can play a critical role in supporting citizens to effectively exercise their right to information. Especially such digital platform intermediaries can not only contribute to bypassing red tape (Löbel et al., 2016) but also have the power to bridge “the gap between the service providers’ offers and the service requesters’ wishes and requests” (Klievink & Janssen, 2008, p. 3).

Despite previous research on the potential of information systems (Carter & Stratton, 2021; Stratton & Carter, 2023) and digital platforms (Schmidthuber et al., 2019; Schmidthuber, Hilgers et al., 2022) to stimulate responsiveness and citizen-state interaction, little research has explored the extent to which digital platforms hosted by civil society organizations are used in light of FOI and what role they might play in the direct exchange of public information demand and supply (a notable exception would be Capeloto, 2019). Understanding the contribution of FOI platforms to the release of public information is important, as previous research has highlighted the need to learn how public information is used by citizens (James et al., 2020; Moon, 2020). Simply publishing public information online does not improve transparency, which is why it is important to pay attention to the use of open data. Studying citizens’ interest in public information by examining information requests contributes to our understanding of the value of such open data to citizens. Furthermore, exploring interactions on FOI platforms has relevant implications for information providers to learn about citizens’ perspectives on open data.

This study thus aims to explore the usage of an intermediatory platform, namely a FOI platform, for managing public information provision and advancing FOI by focusing on the extent to which such a platform is used by citizens and public organizations. It asks the following research question: In what ways do citizens leverage an intermediary platform to demand government transparency, and how do government institutions utilize the same platform to respond to these requests and uphold public accountability? For this purpose, we adopt a single case study approach and draw on data from a German FOI platform. In an extensive future research agenda, the study elucidates specific platform interactions while emphasizing the potential of digital platforms to act as open data intermediaries in enhancing and streamlining the processing of information requests.

The contribution of this single case study is twofold. First, the research agenda outlines the connection to the stream of literature on digital government, especially regarding digital platform interactions (e.g., Ansell & Miura, 2020; Capeloto, 2019; Schmidthuber et al., 2019; Stratton & Carter, 2023), and introduces the actor role of intermediaries in this public service delivery setting (see Haug, 2023; Löbel et al., 2016, Shaharudin et al., 2023). Building on research on FOI use behavior and public service intermediation, the study explores how FOI platforms are used by both citizens as service requesters and public organizations as service providers. Following a hypotheses-building approach, we suggest that, in their role as third-party intermediary, digital FOI platforms hold the potential to contribute to more efficient public service delivery. They could help bridge accountability gaps by reducing information asymmetries, promoting open data usage and creating a space for meaningful citizen-state interaction.

Second, it contributes to descriptive research on FOI administration and management (see also AbouAssi & Nabatchi, 2019; Fox et al., 2010; Hazell & Worthy, 2010). Investigating data from Germany is particularly valuable in this context, as it illustrates how FOI works in a mature democracy that is nonetheless widely known for its tradition of secrecy within the state apparatus (e.g., Holsen & Pasquier, 2012; McClean, 2010). Key findings from the analysis, therefore, not only shed light on the practical ‘usage of transparency’ and FOI operability but also provide broader implications that extend beyond the German research context and could be used for further comparative research.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Digital Platforms as Intermediaries

In online marketing and e-commerce, a vast body of literature focuses on the effect of an electronic intermediary supporting the coordination between a buying and selling party for generating a sustained competitive advantage (Janssen & Sol, 2000; Janssen & Verbraeck, 2005; Chircu & Kauffman, 1999; Malone et al., 1987). In this context, two theories are used to explain the added value of an intermediary: On the one hand, transaction cost theory stipulates that due to increased costs of indirect interactions, intermediaries do not contribute to improved organizational performance and buyer-seller relations. Thus, some organizations even engage in so-called disintermediation strategies and focus on direct interaction without an intermediary (Klievink & Janssen, 2008; Malone et al., 1987). On the other hand, there is an opposing view stating that intermediaries are indeed capable of adding value to customer-oriented service delivery and thereby contributing to organizational efficiency, economies of scale, and transaction success (Bailey & Bakos, 1997; Janssen & Sol, 2000).

Applying the concept of intermediation to the public sector, Klievink and Janssen (2011) show that private-sector intermediaries can contribute to public service innovation and even bundle public services on their own. By providing a public service delivery channel, intermediaries reduce administrative burdens and facilitate client-centered government (Klievink & Janssen, 2011; Janssen & Klievink, 2009). In a systematic literature review, Haug (2023, p. 14) explores the different actor roles intermediaries can take in public service co-production and defines intermediaries as “formal, non-state organizations that participate in public service delivery by supporting or substituting the public service provider or empowering service users”. Oftentimes these intermediaries take the form of digital platforms that orchestrate and regulate communication and interaction between stakeholders such as public organizations, governments, businesses, and citizens (Janssen & Estevez, 2013). Therefore, as platforms facilitate citizen-state interaction, they have proven especially useful for advancing open government strategies and citizen participation initiatives (Schmidthuber, Hilgers et al., 2022).

A specific form of digital intermediary can be found in FOI platforms, which are increasingly recognized as open data intermediaries (Shaharudin et al., 2023). By enabling citizens to request government-held information and publishing both requests and responses openly, these platforms transform individual data access into broader public availability. They shift data disclosure toward an open-by-default model, lowering barriers for public engagement and amplifying demand for relevant information, documents or datasets (Shaharudin et al., 2023). Acting as third-party open data intermediaries, FOI platforms promote transparency and civic empowerment within the open data ecosystem and can thereby contribute to more efficient public service delivery.

2.2. Digital FOI use Behavior

Since the global advent of FOI, it has captured the attention of scholars across various disciplines. When it comes to FOI use behavior, much research focuses on analyzing the determinants of government responsiveness to information requests (e.g., Bagozzi et al., 2021; Berliner et al., 2021; Choi, 2018; Cuillier, 2010; Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2020; Hazell & Worthy, 2010; Spáč et al., 2018; Taylor & Burt, 2010; Trautendorfer et al., 2023; Wagner, 2021b; Worthy et al., 2017). In contrast, we address an earlier stage of the FOI process—namely, the extent to which transparency is requested, used and delivered in the first place (in line with Fox et al., 2010: 36). A promising approach to examining this issue is the systematic analysis of the processing and management of information requests (AbouAssi & Nabatchi, 2019).

A crucial factor influencing the processing of FOI requests is the growing role of information and communication technologies (ICTs). By significantly reducing the costs of collecting and disseminating public information, ICTs can both enhance transparency and improve efficiency (Curtin & Meijer, 2006; Welch et al., 2005). The adoption of digital tools facilitates a more transparent organizational culture while simultaneously optimizing administrative workflows (Bertot et al., 2010). Consequently, governments are increasingly digitizing their services, integrating e-government solutions and promoting digital portals to support citizen participation and interaction within the broader framework of open government initiatives (Lourenço, 2015; McDermott, 2010; Schmidthuber et al., 2019). Additionally, proactive disclosure through open data websites has enhanced public access to government-held information (Attard et al., 2015; Janssen et al., 2012).

At the same time, digital tools specifically designed for managing FOI requests have become integral to FOI implementation (Michener, 2015). Comparative analyses of government FOI platforms reveal significant variations in user experience, including differences in submission processes, account registration requirements, and communication methods (Michener et al., 2016). Empirical findings suggest that submitting requests through government portals is associated with higher compliance rates compared to email submissions (Michener et al., 2020). Additionally, Stratton and Carter (2023) argue that portals contribute to improved organizational processes because municipalities that use them are more likely to respond to requests. Government officials also report greater satisfaction with FOI portals, particularly in terms of centralizing the request process, improving tracking mechanisms, and enhancing the overall user experience (Capeloto, 2019). Conversely, some municipalities still rely on ad hoc systems, such as spreadsheets or email, which often lack formal tracking mechanisms for response times, procedural steps, and accountability (Stratton & Carter, 2023). However, the adoption of official FOI platforms does not necessarily equate to genuine transparency, as some governments implement such systems primarily to signal a commitment to openness while continuing to engage in non-compliance (Stratton & Carter, 2023).

Beyond government-adopted tools, civil society organizations have also developed independent FOI platforms to support requesters. Platforms such as ‘MuckRock’ in the United States and ‘WhatDoTheyKnow’ in the United Kingdom, along with similar initiatives worldwide, aim to simplify the FOI request process by offering tools for submission, tracking, and the public sharing of responses—whether or not records are provided (Capeloto, 2019; Fumega & Scrollini, 2017). These platforms typically include both external-facing modules for public engagement and internal-facing functionalities for classifying requests, forwarding them to the appropriate authorities, and ensuring compliance with FOI regulations. Research indicates that these platforms have been well received and have, to some extent, facilitated better interactions between governments and the public in the FOI process (Bailur & Longley, 2014; Capeloto, 2019). However, their independence from official government systems can also pose challenges. Some governments have been known to disregard requests submitted through external platforms, limiting their effectiveness in holding public authorities accountable (Fumega & Scrollini, 2017).

3. Case Description

This section provides detailed information of the research context, the methods, and the data this case study is using. To contextualize the findings, we provide an account of the FOI legislation in Germany as the legal foundation for public access to government information, along with an in-depth description of the platform's functionalities.

3.1. Research Context

FOI in Germany. Freedom of Information (FOI) laws provide the legal foundation for public access to government records, regulating crucial aspects such as the right to information, the institutions covered, exemption rules, accessibility procedures, fees, and oversight mechanisms (see e.g., Berliner, 2016; Centre for Law and Democracy, 2024; Stewart, 2010; Trautendorfer et al., 2024; Wagner, 2021a). While the general aim of these laws is to promote transparency and accountability, their specific legal provisions vary significantly across jurisdictions, influencing the effectiveness of FOI implementation (Wagner, 2021a). Most of the laws also include provisions for the procedure by which requests are handled, including rules about the potential costs of processing applications and the possibility of appointing an information commissioner or ombudsman to handle disputes. The legislation is supposed to be structured to provide an unconditional right to information, which any individual can exercise against public bodies. Usually it applies to official, environmental, and consumer information, and it is only subject to limitations when the specific exemptions are invoked. Strong FOI laws tend to have broader coverage, clearer exemptions, lower barriers to access, and robust enforcement mechanisms, all of which contribute to higher responsiveness from public authorities (Trautendorfer et al., 2024). However, even well-designed laws can face challenges in practical implementation, as government officials may be reluctant to disclose certain types of information.

Germany's approach to information freedom has evolved gradually, influenced by the country's long history of secrecy, particularly the tradition of Amtsgeheimnis (official secrecy), which kept government documents sealed until the 1970s (in Petras et al., 2023). Access to such documents was limited and granted only to those directly affected. It took more than two decades of political debate and pressure from civil society before the Federal Freedom of Information Act (Informationsfreiheitsgesetz, IFG) was enacted in 2006.¹ However, the IFG applies only to federal public bodies, meaning that state and municipal institutions are not directly covered (Feldmann, 2015; Mueller et al., 2019). While it guarantees access to government information, the law also includes significant exemptions for areas like national security, personal data, ongoing crime investigations, and aspects of international relations, which often limit access. Feldmann (2015: 43f.) categorizes these exemptions broadly into the protection of special public interest, regulatory decision-making processes, personal data, and intellectual property and business and trade secrets. Compared to international standards², the German federal FOI law is considered relatively weak, as it provides only limited access to government documents and lacks strong enforcement mechanisms (Mueller et al., 2019; Trautendorfer et al., 2024).

The decentralized nature of Germany's political system has resulted in a highly fragmented FOI landscape, as each of the 16 federal states (Bundesländer) has the authority to regulate access to information independently (Bogumil & Jann, 2020; Mueller et al., 2019). Over time, this has led to significant disparities between states, creating what has been described as a ‘three-class system’ of FOI legislation (Petras et al., 2023). Some states have implemented strong transparency laws that not only guarantee access to government documents upon request but also require proactive publication of key information. Other states have enacted FOI laws that provide access only upon request and may include significant procedural barriers. Finally, a few states still have no FOI legislation at all, leaving citizens without a legal right to public information at the state and local levels.

At the forefront of transparency efforts, Hamburg has one of the most comprehensive FOI laws in Germany. Its Transparenzgesetz (Transparency Law) goes beyond traditional FOI provisions by mandating proactive disclosure of a wide range of government records. This means that instead of relying on individual requests, much of the relevant information is automatically made available to the public through an official transparency portal. Schleswig-Holstein and Bremen have similarly strong laws, with comprehensive rules ensuring accessibility and proactive publication requirements. These states have taken significant steps to promote openness and facilitate citizen engagement by making information readily available online (Mehr Demokratie e.V. & Open Knowledge Foundation Germany e.V., 2021; Petras et al., 2023).

A second group of states has implemented FOI laws with varying degrees of strength but without comprehensive transparency requirements. For example, states like North Rhine-Westphalia and Brandenburg have FOI laws that provide access to government records upon request but lack extensive proactive publication obligations. While these laws ensure a legal right to information, the process can be cumbersome, and there are often procedural barriers that make access more difficult (Feldmann, 2015). Brandenburg was also the first to adopt a law, in 1998, and it is also the only state where the right to information is constitutionally guaranteed. Other states, such as Berlin, Schleswig-Holstein, and North Rhine-Westphalia, followed in the late 1990s and early 2000s. More recently, some states have adopted their own laws that expand on the federal regulations. However, some of these states, Hesse and Baden-Württemberg, for instance, have particularly weak FOI laws, as they provide only limited access to government documents, with narrow legal definitions of what information can be disclosed and weak enforcement mechanisms that make it easier for authorities to refuse requests.

At the bottom of the spectrum, Lower Saxony and Bavaria stand out as the only two German states that have not enacted any FOI legislation at all so far. The absence of FOI laws in these states has been widely criticized by transparency advocates, who argue that this lack of regulation undermines public trust and accountability (Petras et al., 2023).

The fragmented nature of the legal landscape can be seen as a result of Germany's constitutional structure. Under the Basic Law, the federal government has limited legislative powers in areas outside of its designated competences, which is why the federal government has only been able to introduce provisions related to information access in specific areas, such as consumer protection and environmental law (Mueller et al., 2019). States have the primary responsibility for enacting laws related to information access, but they are constrained by the need to comply with both national and European regulations, particularly in areas such as environmental information. Yet, despite the patchwork of laws and the historical reluctance to embrace full transparency, there has been a noticeable shift in the legal and political culture in Germany over the last few decades. The evolving framework of information access laws could represent a fundamental change in the understanding of transparent governance and accountability. Though challenges remain, particularly with regard to implementation at the local level and the need for a more consistent national approach, the growing implementation of state FOI laws may reflect a broader trend toward greater transparency and citizen participation in democratic governance in Germany (Feldmann, 2015; Mueller et al., 2019; Petras et al., 2023; Trautendorfer et al., 2024).

German FOI platform. In 2011, the non-governmental organization Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF) Germany has implemented the FOI platform ‘FragDenStaat'³. OKF develops digital tools, such as open data platforms and FOI request portals, to make public information more accessible. The organization advocates for open government policies by engaging with policymakers, publishing research, and participating in public consultations. It also educates the public through workshops, campaigns, and events aimed at raising awareness of the importance of transparency and empowering citizens to utilize their right to access information. It is funded through a combination of grants from foundations, public institutions, and international organizations, as well as private donations and project-based sponsorships (Open Knowledge Foundation, 2025).

‘FragDenStaat’ is dedicated to advancing transparency and facilitating information exchange between the citizens and public organizations, therefore serving as an open data intermediary. Figure 1A shows the homepage of the platform. According to ‘FragDenStaat’, over half of all information requests in Germany are submitted through this platform (FragDenStaat, 2023). The platform stands out by, first, increasing the transparency of the citizen-government dialogue regarding information demand (see Figure 1B), and, second, supporting citizens in formulating and sending information requests (see Figure 1C). Consequently, next to monitoring information requests and associated government responses, platform visitors are able to also post their own request by filling out a form. First, they have to indicate the government organization they want to have information from. Second, they are asked to formulate their request and share their contact detail. However, they can opt to not reveal their name or use a pseudonym. Therefore, the process remains anonymous unless personal details are voluntarily provided within the message.

Figure 1.

German FOI Platform.

The platform serves as an intermediary as it helps citizens forward and processing information requests. This means that platform administrators categorize and process requests, supplementing them with relevant legislative information, before forwarding them to the appropriate authority on behalf of the requester. Each request is assigned an automatic due date, typically within one month, for the provision of information. Requests that remain unanswered for six months are labeled as ‘asleep’ by the platform administrators. Requesters are notified of this status and given the option to ‘wake’ the request if desired. Responses from public organizations are returned to the requester, who then determines whether the information provided is satisfactory or refused. The requester can choose to either accept the response as is or, in the case of refusal, resend the request for reconsideration. Ultimately, it is the requester who decides whether to accept the response or seek further action.

Overall, the platform is open to all types of public requests, meaning that citizens can ask about any topic they feel they need more information about. However, in some cases, the platform providers themselves engage in requesting information and establish so-called information campaigns. This means that they publish an open ‘call’ (i.e., a campaign) which should draw public attention to a certain, pre-defined topic of interest. Individual citizens can then file requests within the frame of such a campaign. By this approach, it is, for instance, possible to address many public organizations at once or ask one specific public organization many times to put more pressure on the organization to release information. However, it is important to note that eventually all requests, despite being sent within a campaign and thus perhaps being triggered by the platform, are still individual citizens’ requests and valid demands for public information.

4. Method

For this study, we adopt a single case research approach following the logic of Yin (2018). A case study is an empirical method that focuses on the in-depth analysis of a contemporary phenomenon within its real-world context. Case studies are therefore primarily used on topics that have not yet been sufficiently researched and where little or perhaps no scientific knowledge exists (Yin, 2018). As, at least to our knowledge, the usage of third-party platforms for analyzing citizens’ digital FOI use behavior has not been extensively investigated, we find this research design to be the most suitable. In Table 1, we illustrate the five different phases of our case research (according to Yin, 2018) and the steps we take to integrate the empirical constructs and apply the case research design to our study.

Table 1.

Case Study Research Application.

Case study research phases and steps of research design (Yin, 2018)		Application
Phase 1: Design of case study	Research questions (and propositions if necessary)	In what ways do citizens leverage an intermediary platform to demand government transparency, and how do government institutions utilize the same platform to respond to these requests and uphold public accountability?
	Subject of analysis	German FOI platform ‘FragDenStaat’ (hosted by the German NGO Open Knowledge Foundation)
	Connection between research question and subject of analysis	The platform acts as an open data intermediary in the information exchange and the interaction between citizens and public organizations/ government.
	Limitations of subject of analysis	Not all information requests in Germany are filed via the platform; Platform hosted by an NGO; might be unknown to specific groups of citizens
	Time frame of investigation/observation	All requests posted on the platform between 2011 and early November 2024
	Unit of analysis	Information requests filed by citizens
	Mode of case study (single or multiple)	Single case (only one platform in Germany)
Phase 2: Preparation of case study	Definition of necessary resources and capabilities; creation of guidelines or protocols, clear selection of data (if possible: perhaps conduction of a pilot study)	All requests are publicly available on the website of ‘FragDenStaat’. Platform hosts provide APIs for scraping the requests and relevant metadata.
Phase 3: Data collection	Potential sources: documents, archives, interviews, observations, investigations of material artifacts	194,864 citizen information requests
Phase 4: Analysis	Strategy: case study description/ descriptive analysis of data	Descriptive analysis of publicly available citizen information requests on fragdenstaat.de
Phase 5: Writing of the case	Writing phase, coping with anonymity, definition of exemplary case study, combining case with the theoretical framework, defining the target group	Results explained in findings and discussion

4.1. Data and Findings

Our dataset consists of 244,533 unique requests submitted over 13 years (between spring 2011 and autumn 2024) via ‘FragDenStaat’ to 11,350 different German public bodies. Out of the 244,533 requests, 134,992 were sent within a specific campaign. The two biggest campaigns account for almost 82.16 percent of all campaign requests and focus on hygiene regulations in restaurants (66,248 requests) and the publication of a document about the herbicide glyphosate (44,667 requests). Almost all of the latter campaign requests were sent between April and July 2019 to one specific public organization, namely the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, and all requests were positively responded to by the organization through a standardized answer (the document was released, so the answer was successful information provision). These requests are therefore excluded from all the following descriptive statistical analyses, as they would impact the findings. Another 4,602 requests are excluded as they contain missing values.

First, we were interested in the number of requests that were processed via the platform over time. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the requests that have been sent to the platform over the 13 years (‘Total nr of requests’). Overall, there is a positive trend in platform usage, as the number of requests is increasing over time. Especially in recent years, the platform experienced a sharp rise in usage. This might be due to increased general usage of online services and digital platforms, as well as more public attention to FOI. 2019 was the year with the most requests received. This can partly be explained by the launch of the hygiene regulation and consumer protection campaign. However, and contrary to the glyphosate campaign, requests sent within the hygiene regulation campaign were continually filed by citizens throughout the years after the campaign launch.

Figure 2.

Number of Requests in Germany Over Time.

Second, we were interested in how requests are treated. Table 2 shows the frequency distribution of all requests according to their status. Requests are either successfully answered (meaning that the information was provided and including also those that were at least partially successfully answered), refused (meaning that these requests got a response, but the response was an information denial), the information was not held by the public organization, withdrawn by the requestor (part of these withdrawals was also due to costs that otherwise would have occurred for the requestor), still waiting to be further processed, or they were not answered at all (asleep or overdue). Table 2 shows that the majority of requests were successfully answered (38.44%), whereas only 10.02 percent of the filed requests were refused. Around a third (32.02%) of all requests did not receive an answer at all, so these requests were (intentionally or not) ignored by public organizations. Examining the status of requests and the resulting responsiveness patterns is most relevant, as it can hint towards administrative discrimination and potential non-compliance with FOI regulations of public organizations.

Table 2.

Status of Requests.

Status	Nr of requests
Successful (at least partially)	74,903
Refused	19,516
Information not held by the organization	18,063
Asleep or overdue	62,391
Withdrawn by the requestor (in some cases also due to costs)	14,620
Awaiting confirmation (request in process)	5,371
Total	194,864

Figure 2 and the crosstabulation in Table 3 provide a detailed overview of the status of requests over time (χ²=61,251; df = 84, p < 0.001). Even though contingent probabilities based on the number of requests processed per year show that there is fluctuation in the likeliness of a request being successful, the overall likeliness of successful requests increases over time. The years with the highest percentage of successfully answered requests were 2012, 2018, and 2022 (76.57%, 52.05%, and 47.00%, respectively, of all requests sent in the respective years were successful). The year with the lowest percentage of successful requests was 2019 (only 21.98%). In contrast, the percentage of requests being ignored (asleep or overdue) was highest in 2011 (58.02% of all requests did not receive an answer at all). This finding, however, has to be interpreted carefully, as in 2011 the platform had just been launched and therefore might have been unknown to the public and officials. Thus, not considering 2011, the years with the most asleep requests were 2019 and 2020 (48.62% and 37.37% of all requests were ignored, respectively). This could potentially be explained by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, where public organizations might have been overwhelmed by the general increase in administrative workload and understaffed for responding to citizen requests.

Table 3.

Crosstabulation Status of Requests Over Time.

Status Year	Asleep	Refused	Not held	Successful	Withdrawn	Awaiting	Total Nr of requests
2011	141	9	16	74	3	0	243
2012	298	59	41	1,477	36	18	1,929
2013	658	139	174	904	98	18	1,991
2014	651	275	300	938	95	30	2,289
2015	896	321	353	1,175	149	77	2,971
2016	972	388	354	3,593	238	76	5,621
2017	1,208	468	885	2,194	270	76	5,101
2018	1,158	677	917	3,521	438	53	6,764
2019	23,438	4,809	2,649	10,595	6,714	0	48,205
2020	10,751	2,728	2,917	10,520	1,850	0	28,766
2021	7,503	2,147	2,604	10,124	1,762	0	24,140
2022	6,837	2,177	2,365	11,091	1,123	2	23,595
2023	5,555	2,837	2,440	10,470	997	0	22,299
2024	2,325	2,481	2,048	8,226	847	5,021	20,948

χ² = 61,251; df = 84; p < 0.001

Federal organizations were most frequently requested by platform users. Table 4 gives an overview of the respective jurisdictions the request-receiving organizations are bound by. Following the federal organizations, organizations operating at the state level in North Rhine-Westphalia, Baden-Wuerttemberg, and Bavaria are requested the most. In Table 4, the crosstabulation of the request status and the corresponding jurisdiction the request comes under provides evidence of significant differences (χ²=10,346; df = 108, p < 0.001) in responsiveness patterns of German public organizations bound by the different jurisdictions. This is relevant, as it shows that requests that are filed in different legal environments, where public organizations are under the jurisdiction of different FOI laws—that differ in depth and breadth—are treated differently (see also Wagner, 2021a). While requests bound by the state law of Saxony-Anhalt and Schleswig-Holstein are most likely to be successfully resolved, the opposite is true for requests bound by the federal FOI law. Federal public organizations are most likely to ignore requests (37.74% of all requests were assigned the status ‘asleep’). As the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein has one of the strongest FOI laws in Germany, this finding suggests that stronger FOI laws could positively impact the likeliness of public organizations to comply with the law and provide the requested information.

Table 4.

Crosstabulation Jurisdiction and Status of Requests.

Status Jurisdiction	Asleep	Not held	Refused	Successful	Withdrawn	Awaiting	Total nr of requests
Federal level	40,649	8,676	9,526	36,483	9,923	2,442	107,699
Baden-Wuerttemberg	1,936	955	790	4,251	536	404	8,872
Bavaria	2,795	585	1,100	2,383	330	236	7,429
Berlin	1,975	953	795	2,436	564	224	6,947
Brandenburg	738	456	378	1,320	199	125	3,216
Bremen	399	173	157	664	94	64	1,551
Hamburg	1,114	973	649	2,612	458	97	5,903
Hesse	1,306	431	683	1,457	212	199	4,288
Lower Saxony	1,266	369	447	1,265	187	104	3,638
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania	700	256	300	862	240	108	2,466
North Rhine-Westphalia	5,501	1,993	2,826	12,277	1,027	736	24,360
Rhineland-Palatinate	1,180	558	473	2,259	210	183	4,863
Saarland	447	158	117	603	77	44	1,446
Saxony	521	287	449	875	112	88	2,332
Saxony-Anhalt	505	227	154	1,580	172	89	2,727
Schleswig-Holstein	465	384	255	1,619	125	103	2,951
Thuringia	435	271	186	795	113	58	1,858
EU	431	354	199	1,113	40	55	2,192

χ² = 10,346; df = 108; p < 0.001

Note: A total of 84,847 requests therefore sent to public organizations operating at the state level (vs. at the federal level and the EU level).

Table 5 summarizes the most requested organizations. While 11 of these are organizations operating at the federal level such as the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundestag), the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community, the Federal Ministry of Health, or the Federal Chancellery, the most requested organization is the Ministry for Education of North Rhine-Westphalia. The least requested public organizations were 4,503 organizations that all received only one request in total. Most of them are municipalities or other organizations operating at a local/municipal level. The findings in Table 5 show that, when considering different branches and levels of government operations, it is federal and executive public organizations’ information that is requested the most.

Table 5.

Most Requested Public Organizations.

#	Organization (original German designation)	Organization (English or translated designation)¹	Total nr of requests received	% of successful requests	% of refused requests	% of asleep requests
1	Ministerium für Schule und Bildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen	Ministry for Education of North Rhine Westphalia	8,617	58.61	16.00	17.13
2	Deutscher Bundestag	Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany	4,343	72.69	5 66	16.14
3	Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat	Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community	3,075	37.40	13.82	23.15
4	Bundesministerium für Gesundheit	Federal Ministry of Health	2,792	38.04	6.09	20.99
5	Bundeskanzleramt	Federal Chancellery	2,050	47.02	12.78	25.56
6	Ministerium für Justiz und Gesundheit Schleswig-Holstein	Ministry of Justice and Health Schleswig-Holstein	1,988	27.82	23.24	26.11
7	Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Unterricht und Kultus	Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Culture	1,982	25.53	13.98	49.09
8	Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr	Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport	1,972	40.21	10.80	24.19
9	Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz	Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action	1,865	41.77	16.35	16.24
10	Landeshauptstadt München-Kreisverwaltungsreferat (KVR) – Hauptabteilung I – Sicherheit und Ordnung	State Capital Munich – District Administration; Department for Security and Order	1,831	30.26	6.77	39.71
11	Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik	Federal Office for Information Security	1,764	79.99	6.35	3.85
12	Bundesnetzagentur	Federal Network Agency	1,713	81.61	4.38	3.33
13	Auswärtiges Amt	Federal Foreign Office	1,617	33.70	11.07	30.12
14	Bundesministerium der Finanzen	Federal Ministry of Finance	1,588	34.45	23.43	20.03
15	Bundesministerium der Justiz	Federal Ministry of Justice	1,491	40.51	9.52	16.23

This is either the official English designation or the translated designation.

Last, Table 5 provides an overview of the most-requested organizations’ quotes of successful, refused, and asleep requests. This percentage value is the relation between the absolute number of successful, refused, or asleep requests and the total of all requests that were received by the respective organization. The quotient shows which organizations are the most likely to either provide information, refuse information, or ignore requests. Based on the data in Table 5, the Federal Office for Information Security as well as the German Parliament are, for example, very likely to provide information. This might be due to the high public attention it would raise if the parliament ignored requests. Being a representative public organization directly elected by the citizens, there is much pressure on members of parliament to be responsive to the public. This also reflects findings from a study in the US, where improved FOI outcomes have been associated with legislature bodies being subject to FOI laws (Wagner, 2021a).

Prior research suggests that the topic of requests plays a role in responsiveness with information requests about a topic of high accountability-seeking potential having higher odds of being successfully answered (Trautendorfer et al., 2023). This could explain the high responsiveness rate of the Federal Office of Information Security. The office is responsible for cybersecurity and safety, so information held by this office could be of high accountability-seeking potential, meaning it would raise public attention if it was ignored. Apart from the organizations in Table 5, the organization with the highest percentage of successful requests, and therefore the most likely to provide information, is the local government of Borgholzhausen (Kommunalverwaltung Borgholzhausen) located in the federal state North Rhine-Westphalia (95.24%). 24 of the 25 requests received by the authority were successfully processed and the information provided.

In contrast, as can be observed in Table 5, the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice and Health of Schleswig-Holstein (23.43% and 23.24%, respectively) tend to refuse requests. Requests sent to these organizations might fall under an FOI exemption clause due to the oftentimes sensitive nature of the issues they deal with. However, it is important to outline that requests are not completely ignored, even though information is not provided. This could point to public organizations’ willingness to at least provide answers to requests of high accountability-seeking potential, despite the answer being a refusal.

What is more, Table 5 shows that both state organizations of Bavaria (Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Culture and the State Capital of Munich-District Administration Department) are very likely to ignore requests compared to the other organizations, which might be due to the missing state FOI law in Bavaria. However, the organizations with the highest percentage of asleep requests, and therefore most likely to ignore requests, are the City Council of Zossen (95.21%) and the Pankow Veterinary and Food Inspection Office (Veterinär- und Lebensmittelaufsicht Pankow), a local authority in Berlin that ignored 93.20% of all 456 requests received. The data shows that the public organizations most likely to ignore requests are local authorities responsible for food inspections, which could be explained by the large number of requests sent to these offices within the frame of the hygiene regulation campaign.

5. Discussion

The findings illustrate how citizens use an online FOI platform to demand government transparency and how government organizations provide access to public information by leveraging this intermediary platform. While some public information is already proactively shared by public organizations in the interest of active transparency (Cicatiello et al., 2022; Mabillard & Keuffer, 2022), authorities can respond to citizens’ requests with the help of FOI platforms. This article explores the request-making and response-receiving through an intermediating digital platform as a way to interact with public officials in the German context. The high overall usage of the German FOI platform suggests that the intermediary fosters demand-driven government (Janssen & Estevez, 2013; Janssen & Klievink, 2009; Shaharudin et al., 2023). Posting requests on FOI platforms allows citizens to exercise their right to control and hold public organizations accountable and has the potential to lower the information asymmetry between citizens and the government (Shaharudin et al., 2023).

In this study, much focus is on the responsiveness of the requested organizations. This helps to better understand citizen-government interaction under the premise of FOI and government transparency. The results show that more than a third of the requests were (at least partially) answered successfully, meaning information was provided. Other requests were denied because the information could not be provided or was not held by the specific public organization. Nonetheless, it should be noted that these requests received at least a response and were not totally ignored. This is relevant, as prior research found that citizens’ experiences with platforms impact their future participation behavior (Schmidthuber, Hilgers et al., 2022). In contrast, another third of all requests filed via the platform were ignored and remained completely unanswered. Accordingly, there is some sort of administrative discrimination in the processing of information requests.

Moreover, requests are most frequently addressed to federal ministries. In line with AbouAssi and Nabatchi (2019), this finding suggests that citizens are primarily interested in information held by federal organizations operating at the executive level. Such information typically pertains to the national population as a whole, rather than to the residents of a specific federal state or municipality. A significant proportion of the requests was sent to the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community and the Federal Ministry of Health. This appears conclusive when considering the number of requests that were filed, on the one hand, during the COVID-19 pandemic and, on the other hand, during the hygiene regulation campaign⁴. The consistently high demand for information from executive-level federal organizations may indicate significant public concern about potentially unaccountable government practices, as well as a desire to expose and exert oversight over possibly corrupt processes (Berliner et al., 2018; Trautendorfer et al., 2023). In terms of responsiveness, organizations handling security, digital infrastructure, and economic policy—such as the Federal Office for Information Security and the Federal Network Agency—demonstrate high success rates in providing information, suggesting a culture of openness regarding these topics. In contrast, organizations dealing with education, health, and justice tend to have higher refusal or non-response rates, indicating bureaucratic complexities, reluctance to disclose certain information, or strong legal exemption clauses. This suggests that while some institutions embrace transparency, others struggle with administrative bottlenecks, impacting citizens’ access to information.

Looking at the platform features, submitting requests, and communicating through the platform allows for anonymous interaction while still being publicly visible. This can be particularly beneficial to the requester, as any discriminatory practices based on the requester's identity can be reduced or avoided entirely. This is particularly relevant as research on government transparency has shown that men or people who claim to have specific expertise are treated preferentially when it comes to receiving answers to requests for information (Michener et al., 2020; Rodríguez & Rossel, 2018). Furthermore, the platform can manage and orchestrate the requests and also support organizations with responding to several similar requests at the same time, as was the case with one of the campaigns. As a result, processes are more efficient and transparency is improved (Capeloto, 2019), which can lead to an increase in the organizations’ reputation and citizens’ trust in the public sector (Schmidthuber, Willems et al., 2022).

5.1. Theoretical Considerations on Intermediary Platforms

Applying the definition of Haug (2023) to our case study findings, FOI platforms that forward citizen requests to the responsible public body are a supporting tool for both citizens and governments, thereby empowering the service users, i.e., the citizens. Citizens, on the one hand, use the platform to engage in a bottom-up approach by inviting the government or responsible public organizations to respond to their requests. Request-receiving public organizations, on the other hand, have the power to decide which information to share and can control the process of this public service delivery. The platform itself as third-party intermediary carries out a supportive actor role by advising and orchestrating the process of information provision. In other words, given their intermediary character, FOI platforms can contribute to the regulation of government information supply and demand (Capeloto, 2019; Fumega & Scrollini, 2017, Shaharudin et al., 2023). Figure 3 summarizes these theoretical considerations by showcasing the different roles the actors have within the process of information exchange according to the actor roles in public service co-production (Haug, 2023). Citizens are the service users by demanding information and initiating the request process. In contrast, public organizations are the service providers by either providing information or refusing to do so. The intermediary is the FOI platform hosted by a third-party organization, taking a supportive role by managing the process and functioning as an open data storage.

Figure 3.

Intermediation in the Information Exchange Process.

5.2. Future Research

This study shows that, while it is possible to send information requests directly to public sector organizations by various channels of communication, the exchange via an intermediating FOI platform is enjoying growing popularity in Germany. This increasing usage could make a significant contribution to government and public sector transparency, as one of the issues often mentioned in relation to opaque practices is missing public demand (Camaj, 2016). By publishing requests online and making the entire process accessible for everyone interested, ‘FragDenStaat’ and other similar open data intermediaries, pressure public organizations to comply with the law and provide timely responses. Future scholars are thus strongly advised to experimentally test whether using a third-party intermediary in the request process can really make a difference for transparency and advance FOI.

Drawing on the actor roles in public service provision (Haug, 2023), third-party intermediaries fulfill a supportive role in managing the process of information exchange. However, the NGOs hosting the FOI platforms might pursue their own agendas and organizational goals and might not be as impartial as one would think. Officials might doubt the credibility of such platforms and might be unaware of their legal obligation to answer requests filed via intermediaries. So, reflected by our findings, while citizens engage in more usage of platforms due to the many benefits, officials might develop administrative discrimination by disproportionately ignoring requests filed via intermediaries. Future qualitative research is therefore advised to shed light on this hypothesis.

From a more innovative and technical perspective, we suggest future research building on technology acceptance models (Davis, 1989). Perceived usefulness and ease of use are assumed to impact users’ intention to adopt new technology. Using open data platforms and information management systems for requesting information has benefits not only for citizens but also for the request-receiving authorities (Capeloto, 2019; Stratton & Carter, 2023). Citizens, on the one hand, can make use of a facilitated way of getting access to desired information and can stay anonymous if they wish. Authorities, on the other hand, can manage and organize requests more systematically, and thus a more efficient information exchange may be enabled, and future participation might be fostered. Research thus needs to further delve into what technical platform functions officials perceive as useful and if their attitude toward technology adaption may impact their usage or the overall implementation of their own agency-operated portals. Perceived benefits of digital platforms for managing FOI requests may encourage their use, thereby promoting transparency.

In relation to the above points, future research is advised to further analyze and compare data from different digital FOI platforms and focus on different demographic, geographic, cultural, legal, and traditional settings. Information demand and supply change over time and might vary between different regions. Knowing what the public wants to know, which organizations they most frequently turn to with their questions and which organizations are most responsive is important if policy is to be geared to the interests of citizens and resources are to be managed efficiently. Comparative research is needed on the overall de facto compliance of governments with different FOI regulations and whether intermediaries could contribute to higher compliance, operability, and open data availability. If FOI laws are weak or non-existent, but open data intermediaries facilitate and efficiently manage information exchange, public bodies may be more likely to be responsive and transparent. Globally, there is a trend toward greater voluntary commitment to transparency (Wagner, 2021a). Therefore, by comparing data, future studies could yield promising insights into the differences in usage and responsiveness patterns, different platform features, and the interactions that take place through the platforms. This could help in evaluating and comparing overall FOI and platform use and setting benchmarks for the performance of ‘transparency in practice’.

In this context, analyzing data from Austria could be valuable: Despite being a neighboring country to Germany, having a similar federal system of government, similar public values, traditions and beliefs, and the same language, there are significant differences when it comes to FOI regulations (Balthasar, 2019). To this date, Austria is the only European nation that has not implemented a federal FOI law (Petras et al., 2023).⁵ Thus, by directly comparing data from Austria and Germany, using Austrian data as an untreated control group, the impact of specific de jure FOI regulations on citizens’ requests and organizations’ responses could be investigated and extracted. Are there differences in topics citizens want to know if legal frameworks differ? From a more individual perspective, compared to their German (or European) counterparts, are Austrian citizens even aware of the fact that the country lags in information legislation? Yet, it is important to note that even though de jure pressure is not strong in Austria due to the missing legal requirements, there is a certain extent of de facto transparency. Analysis of data from the Austrian ‘FragDenStaat’ website showed that despite missing federal FOI legislation, authorities are quite committed to responding to requests.⁶ This suggests that individual attitudes of responsible officials operating at the street-level may be more important for organizational transparency in practice than strong laws. More in-depth qualitative work is needed to research what determines officials’ response behavior and whether digital technologies could change organizational attitudes toward transparency and in which way (as stipulated by Davis (1989)).

Last, the uneven regulatory FOI landscape in Germany reflects the broader challenges of FOI implementation in federal systems. While decentralization allows for flexibility in governance (Bogumil & Jann, 2020), it also means that transparency policies can vary widely depending on political will and administrative capacity and traditions (e.g., Berliner et al., 2021; Camaj, 2016). In Germany, the persistence of official secrecy and the reluctance of some public organizations to embrace open government principles have contributed to the slow and uneven development of FOI laws. Despite some progress, particularly in states with strong transparency legislation, significant gaps remain in ensuring that all citizens, regardless of where they live, have equal access to public information. Future qualitative research could focus on comparing how different German states live transparency in practice, considering the influence of political will, local governance traditions, and federal-state tensions. Investigating gaps in access across regions and evaluating enforcement mechanisms would help identify barriers to transparency. Additionally, studying the impact of proactive transparency measures in states like Hamburg could offer insights into improving information availability and public trust.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

1

The right to access information is enshrined in Article 5 of the Basic Law ( Grundgesetz ),which guarantees freedom of expression,including the freedom to seek,receive,and impart information. This right is further supported by the FOI and state-level laws.

2

In international rankings such as the Global Right to Information Ranking ( https://www.rti-rating.org/ ) Germany achieves only place 127,in the European Public Accountability Mechanisms Germany ranks among the worst 10 European countries measuring FOI ( https://europam.eu/?module=overview ),but the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 2023 ranks Germany on 9th place (

Author Biographies

Julia Trautendorfer is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Public and Nonprofit Management,Johannes Kepler University Linz,Austria. Her research interests include government transparency,freedom of information and citizen-state interaction.

Lisa Hohensinn is an associate professor in the Institute for Public Management and Governance,WU Vienna University of Economics and Business,Austria. Her research interests include digital government,government transparency,citizen participation and citizen trust in the political-administrative system.

Dennis Hilgers is a professor and head of the Institute of Public and Nonprofit Management,Johannes Kepler University Linz,Austria. His research interests include open government,open innovation in the public sector and public sector accounting principles.

References

AbouAssi

Nabatchi

(2019). A snapshot of FOIA administration: Examining recent trends to inform future research. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018771683

Ackerman

Sandoval-Ballesteros

I. E.

(2006). The global explosion of freedom of information laws. Administrative Law Review, 58, 85–130.

Ansell

Miura

(2020). Can the power of platforms be harnessed for governance? Public Administration, 98(1), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12636

Attard

Orlandi

Scerri

Auer

(2015). A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.006

Bagozzi

B. E.

Berliner

Almquist

Z. W.

(2021). When does open government shut? Predicting government responses to citizen information requests. Regulation & Governance, 15(2), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12282

Bailey

J. P.

Bakos

(1997). An exploratory study of the emerging role of electronic intermediaries. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1(3), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.1997.11518287

Bailur

Longley

(2014). The impact of online Freedom of Information tools: What is the evidence? MySociety. https://www.mysociety.org/files/2014/11/FOI-Impact_Part-2-Practitioner-Study-06.pdf

Balthasar

(2019). Special report: Access to information held by public authorities—Austria. In Dragos

D. C.

Kovač

Marseille

A. T.

(Eds.), The laws of transparency in action (pp. 543–561). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76460-3_14

Berliner

(2014). The political origins of transparency. The Journal of Politics, 76(2), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613001412

10.

Berliner

(2016). Transnational advocacy and domestic law: International NGOs and the design of freedom of information laws. The Review of International Organizations, 11(1), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-015-9228-6

11.

Berliner

Bagozzi

B. E.

Palmer-Rubin

(2018). What information do citizens want? Evidence from one million information requests in Mexico. World Development, 109, 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.04.016

12.

Berliner

Bagozzi

B. E.

Palmer-Rubin

Erlich

(2021). The political logic of government disclosure: Evidence from information requests in Mexico. The Journal of Politics, 83(1), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1086/709148

13.

Bertot

J. C.

Jaeger

P. T.

Grimes

J. M.

(2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001

14.

Bisogno

Cuadrado-Ballesteros

(2021). Budget transparency and governance quality: A cross-country analysis. Public Management Review, 24(10), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1916064

15.

Bizzo

Michener

(2017). Forest governance without transparency? Evaluating state efforts to reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: Transparency of Brazil’s amazonian states. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(6), 560–574. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1776

16.

Bogumil

Jann

(2020). Interne strukturen und prozesse öffentlicher organisationen. In Bogumil

Jann

(Eds.), Verwaltung und verwaltungswissenschaft in deutschland (pp. 171–278). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28408-4_4

17.

Camaj

(2016). From ‘window dressing’ to ‘door openers’? Freedom of information legislation, public demand, and state compliance in south east Europe. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.03.001

18.

Capeloto

(2019). Agency perspectives on online public records request portals. The Journal of Civic Information, 1(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.32473/joci.v1i1.115659

19.

Carter

Stratton

(2021). Information systems as mediators of freedom of information requests. In Toeppe

Yan

Chu

S. K. W.

(Eds.), Diversity, divergence, dialogue (Vol. 12646, pp. 274–282). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71305-8_22

20.

Centre for Law and Democracy . (2024). Global Right to Information Rating. https://www.rti-rating.org/country-data/

21.

Chircu

Kauffman

(1999). Strategies for internet middlemen in the intermediation/disintermediation/reintermediation cycle. Electronic Markets, 9(1–2), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/101967899359337

22.

Choi

J. M.

(2018). Factors influencing public officials’ responses to requests for information disclosure. Government Information Quarterly, 35(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.11.007

23.

Cicatiello

De Simone

Di Mascio

Gaeta

G. L.

Natalini

Worthy

(2022). Exploring FOI publicity patterns: The case of Italian municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101678

24.

Cingolani

(2021). The survival of open government platforms: Empirical insights from a global sample. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101522, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101522

25.

Cucciniello

Porumbescu

G. A.

Grimmelikhuijsen

(2017). 25 Years of transparency research: Evidence and future directions. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12685

26.

Cuillier

(2010). Honey v. Vinegar: Testing compliance-gaining theories in the context of freedom of information laws. Communication Law and Policy, 15(3), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2010.489842

27.

Curtin

Meijer

A. J.

(2006). Does transparency strengthen legitimacy? Information Polity, 11(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-2006-0091

28.

Davis

F. D.

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

29.

Feldmann

(2015). Informationsfreiheitsgesetze in Deutschland: Der Bund und ausgewählte Länder im Vergleich. Diplomica Verlag GmbH.

30.

Fox

Haight

Palmer-Rubin

(2010). Delivering Transparency: To What Degree Does the Mexican Government Respond to Public Information Requests? http://www.brianpalmerrubin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/fox_haight_palmer_delivering_transparency_revised_april_2010_eng_version.pdf

31.

Fragdenstaat (2023). Informationsfreiheit. https://fragdenstaat.de/informationsfreiheit/ .

32.

Fumega

Scrollini

(2017). You’ve got mail: The role of digital civil society platforms in improving right to information regimes. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1145/3085228.3085301

33.

Grimmelikhuijsen

S. G.

Piotrowski

S. J.

Van Ryzin

G. G.

(2020). Latent transparency and trust in government: Unexpected findings from two survey experiments. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101497

34.

Haug

(2023). Actor roles in co-production—introducing intermediaries: Findings from a systematic literature review. Public Administration, 102(3), 1069–1094. padm.12965. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12965

35.

Hazell

Worthy

(2010). Assessing the performance of freedom of information. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 352–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.005

36.

Holsen

Pasquier

(2012). What’s wrong with this picture? The case of access to information requests in two continental federal states – Germany and Switzerland. Public Policy and Administration, 27(4), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076711417747

37.

James

Leth Olsen

Moynihan

Van Ryzin

(2020). Behavioral Public Performance: How People Make Sense of Government Metrics (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108761338

38.

Janssen

Charalabidis

Zuiderwijk

(2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740

39.

Janssen

Estevez

(2013). Lean government and platform-based governance—doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly, 30(S1), S1–S8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.11.003

40.

Janssen

Klievink

(2009). The role of intermediaries in multi-channel service delivery strategies. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 5(3), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.4018/jegr.2009070103

41.

Janssen

Sol

H. G.

(2000). Evaluating the role of intermediaries in the electronic value chain. Internet Research, 10(5), 406–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240010349417

42.

Janssen

Verbraeck

(2005). Evaluating the information architecture of an electronic intermediary. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 15(1), 35–60. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327744joce1501_3

43.

Klievink

Janssen

(2008). Improving Government service delivery with private sector intermediaries. European Journal of ePractice, 5, 1–9.

44.

Löbel

Paulowitsch

Schuppan

(2016). Intermediaries in the public sector and the role of information technology. Information Polity, 21(4), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-160387

45.

Lourenço

R. P.

(2015). An analysis of open government portals: A perspective of transparency for accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.05.006

46.

Mabillard

Keuffer

(2022). Does freedom of information contribute to more open administrations? An empirical analysis of the link between active and passive forms of transparency. International Review of Public Administration, 27(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2022.2044107

47.

Malone

T. W.

Yates

Benjamin

R. I.

(1987). Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies. Communications of the ACM, 30(6), 484–497. https://doi.org/10.1145/214762.214766

48.

McClean

(2010). Who pays the piper? The political economy of freedom of information. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.004

49.

McDermott

(2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.002

50.

Mehr Demokratie e.V. & Open Knowledge Foundation Germany e.V . (2021). Transparenzranking 2021. Transparenzranking 2021. https://transparenzranking.de/

51.

Michener

(2011). FOI Laws around the world. Journal of Democracy, 22(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2011.0021

52.

Michener

(2015). Assessing freedom of information in Latin America a decade later: Illuminating a transparency causal mechanism. Latin American Politics and Society, 57(3), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2015.00275.x

53.

Michener

Contreras

Niskier

(2018). From opacity to transparency? Evaluating access to information in Brazil five years later. Revista de Administração Pública, 52(4), 610–629. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220170289

54.

Michener

Moncau

L. F.

Velasco

R. B.

(2016). The Brazilian State and transparency: Evaluating compliance with freedom of information. FGV Direito Rio. https://repositorio.fgv.br/server/api/core/bitstreams/76815697-82e3-4110-b24a-a5c4da6beaf3/content

55.

Michener

Velasco

R. B.

Contreras

Rodrigues

K. F.

(2020). Googling the requester: Identity-questing and discrimination in public service provision. Governance, 33(2), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12416

56.

Michener

Worthy

(2018). The information-gathering matrix: A framework for conceptualizing the use of freedom of information laws. Administration & Society, 50(4), 476–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399715590825

57.

Moon

M. J.

(2020). Shifting from old open government to new open government: Four critical dimensions and case illustrations. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(3), 535–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1691024

58.

Mueller

C. E.

Engewald

Herr

(2019). Freedom of information in Germany. In Dragos

D. C.

Kovač

Marseille

A. T.

(Eds.), The laws of transparency in action (pp. 205–253). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76460-3_6

59.

Open Knowledge Foundation . (2025). https://okfn.de/transparenz/; accessed on 04.06.2025

60.

Petras

Vos

Ansari

(Eds). (2023). Handbuch Informationsfreiheitsrecht. Universitätsverlag Kiel | Kiel University Publishing.

61.

Rodríguez

R. P.

Rossel

(2018). A field experiment on bureaucratic discretionary bias under FOI laws. Government Information Quarterly, 35(3), 418–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.06.001

62.

Schmidthuber

Hilgers

Randhawa

(2022). Public crowdsourcing: Analyzing the role of government feedback on civic digital platforms. Public Administration, 100(4), 960–977. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12811

63.

Schmidthuber

Stütz

Hilgers

(2019). Outcomes of open government: Does an online platform improve citizens’ perception of local government? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(5), 489–507. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-02-2018-0056

64.

Schmidthuber

Willems

Krabina

(2022). Trust in public performance information: The effect of data accessibility and data source. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 279–295. puar.13603. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13603

65.

Schwoerer

(2019). Individuals’ use of twitter to discuss freedom of information in the United States: A social network analysis. The Journal of Civic Information, 1(2), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.32473/joci.v1i2.119010

66.

Shaharudin

van Loenen

Janssen

(2023). Towards a common definition of open data intermediaries. Digital Government Researcj and Practice. 4(2), 1–21. Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3585537

67.

Spáč

Voda

Zagrapan

(2018). Does the freedom of information law increase transparency at the local level? Evidence from a field experiment. Government Information Quarterly, 35(3), 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.05.003

68.

Stewart

D. R.

“ Chip .” (2010). Let the sunshine in, or else: An examination of the “teeth” of state and federal open meetings and open records laws. Communication Law and Policy, 15(3), 265–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2010.489858

69.

Stratton

Carter

(2023). Locating information systems in the freedom of information process. Government Information Quarterly, 40(2), 101807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101807

70.

Taylor

Burt

(2010). How do public bodies respond to freedom of information legislation? Administration, modernisation and democratisation. Policy & Politics, 38(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557309X462538

71.

Trautendorfer

Hohensinn

Hilgers

(2024). From de jure to de facto transparency: Analyzing the compliance gap in light of freedom of information laws. Regulation & Governance, 19(1), 253–283. rego.12615. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12615

72.

Trautendorfer

Schmidthuber

Hilgers

(2023). Are the answers all out there? Investigating citizen information requests in the haze of bureaucratic responsiveness. Governance, 37(3), 845–865. gove.12805. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12805

73.

Wagner

A. J.

(2021a). Inherent frictions and deliberate frustrations: Examining the legal variables of state FOI law administration. The Journal of Civic Information, 3(2), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.32473/joci.v3i2.127815

74.

Wagner

A. J.

(2021b). Piercing the veil: Examining demographic and political variables in state FOI law administration. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101541

75.

Wang

Guan

(2023). Can sunlight disperse mistrust? A meta-analysis of the effect of transparency on Citizens’ trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(3), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac040

76.

Welch

E. W.

Hinnant

Jae Moon

(2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with E-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui021

77.

Worthy

(2010). More open but not more trusted? The effect of the freedom of information act 2000 on the United Kingdom central government. Governance, 23(4), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01498.x

78.

Worthy

John

Vannoni

(2017). Transparency at the Parish pump: A field experiment to measure the effectiveness of freedom of information requests in England. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(3), 485–500. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw063

79.

Yin

(2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th edn). SAGE Publications, Inc.