Does compliance with open government reforms imply openness? Based on an institutional framework, this article analyses the implementation of two open government reforms – the Access to Information and Citizen Participation laws – in three Chilean municipalities. The results suggest that how formal rules interact with informal strategies could explain the different outcomes of open government reforms and that compliance does not necessarily lead to openness. In contrast, the complexity of formal and informal interaction, defined by the strength of formal laws and their convergence with local informality, can produce counterproductive results on local governance.
AbrutynS. (2014). Revisiting Institutionalism in Sociology. Routledge.
2.
AllenB.TamindaelL.E.BickertonS.H., & ChoW. (2020). Does citizen coproduction lead to better urban services in smart cities projects? An empirical study on e-participation in a mobile big data platform. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1). doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.101412.
3.
ArugaL.RefstieH., & RørtveitH.N. (2024). “The Citizen” as a Ghost Subject in Co-Producing SmaSustainable Cities: An Intersectional Approach. Urban Planning, 9. doi: 10.17645/up.7259.
4.
BarozetE.EspinozaV., & UlloaV. (2020). Parliamentary elite and informal institutions in Chile. Nepotism and clientelism at the basis of political power. Revista Espanola de Sociologia, 29(3), 595-611. doi: 10.22325/fes/res.2020.37.
5.
BrinksD.LevitskyS., & MurilloM.V. (2019). Understanding Institutional Weakness. Power and Design in Latin American Institutions. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108772211.
6.
CameronM.HershbergE., & SharpeK. (2012). New Institutions for Participatory Democracy in Latin America. Voice and Consequence. Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137270580.
7.
CanalesM. (2006). El Grupo de Discusión y el Grupo Focal. In M. Canales (Ed.), Metodologías de Investigación Social, LOM Ediciones, pp. 265-288.
8.
CareyJ.M., & SiavelisP. (2006). Election Insurance and Coalition Survival: formal and informal institutions in Chile. In G. Helmke & S. Levitsky (Eds.), Informal Institutions and Democracy. Lessons from Latin America, The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 160-177.
9.
ChatwinM.ArkuG., & CleaveE. (2019). Defining subnational open government: Does local context influence policy and practice? Policy Sciences, 52(3), 451-479. doi: 10.1007/s11077-018-09347-7.
10.
Comisión de Integridad Pública y Transparencia. (2021). Quinto Plan de Acción de Gobierno Abierto 2020–2022. Gobierno de Chile.
11.
Consejo Nacional de Participación Ciudadana. (2017). Estado de la participación ciudadana en Chile y propuestas de reforma a la Ley 20.500 sobre Asociaciones y Participación Ciudadana en la Gestión Pública. Gobierno de Chile.
12.
Consejo para la Transparencia. (2023). Portal de Transparencia y Datos Abiertos – CPLT. Solicitudes de Información. https://www.portaltransparencia.cl/PortalPdT/web/guest/opendata.
13.
CornfordJ.WilsonR.BainesS., & RichardsonR. (2013). Local governance in the new information ecology: The challenge of building interpretative communities. Public Money & Management, 33(3), 201-208. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2013.785705.
14.
CortázarJ.C.LafuenteM., & SanginésM. (2014). Una década de reformas del servicio civil en América Latina (2004–13). Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.
15.
CPLT. (2021). Municipios. Consejo Para La Transparencia. https://www.consejotransparencia.cl/category_fiscalizacion_ta/municipios/.
16.
De BlasioE., & SoriceM. (2016). Open government: A tool for democracy? Medijske Studije, 7(14), 14-31. doi: 10.20901/ms.7.14.3.
Escandón-BarbosaD.M.UrbanoD.Hurtado-AyalaA.Salas paramoJ., & DominguezA.Z. (2019). Formal institutions, informal institutions and entrepreneurial activity: A comparative relationship between rural and urban areas in Colombia. Journal of Urban Management, 8(3), 458-471. doi: 10.1016/j.jum.2019.06.002.
19.
EvansA.M., & CamposA. (2013). Open government initiatives: Challenges of citizen participation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(1), 172-203. doi: 10.1002/pam.21651.
20.
FioretosO.FalletiT., & SheingateA. (2018). Historical Institutionalism in Political Science. In The Oxford Handbook of Historial Institutionalism, Oxford University Press, pp. 3-30.
21.
FraundorferM. (2017). The open government partnership: Mere smokescreen or new paradigm? Globalizations, 14(4), 611-626. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2016.1236463.
22.
FungA. (2004). Empowered Participation. Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton University Press.
23.
GaínzaÁ. (2006). La entrevista en profundidad individual. In M. Canales (Ed.), Metodologías de Investigación Social, LOM Ediciones, pp. 219-264.
24.
Gascó-HernándezM. (2014). Open Government. Opportunities and Challenges for Public Governance. Springer US. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-9563-5.
25.
GeurtzC., & Van de wijdevenT. (2010). Making citizen participation work: The challenging search for new forms of local democracy in the Netherlands. Local Government Studies, 36(4), 531-549. doi: 10.1080/03003930.2010.494110.
26.
Gil-GarciaJ.R.Gasco-HernandezM., & PardoT.A. (2020). Beyond transparency, participation, and collaboration? A reflection on the dimensions of open government. Public Performance and Management Review, 43(3), 483-502. doi: 10.1080/15309576.2020.1734726.
27.
Gonzalez-ZapataF., & HeeksR. (2015). The multiple meanings of open government data: Understanding different stakeholders and their perspectives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 441-452. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.001.
28.
GoodinR. (1996). The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge University Press.
29.
GrimmelikhuijsenS.G., & FeeneyM.K. (2016). Developing and testing an integrative framework for open government adoption in local governments. Public Administration Review, 00, 1-12. doi: 10.1111/puar.12689.Developing.
30.
GrimmelikhuijsenS.G., & WelchE.W. (2012). Developing and testing a theoretical framework for computer-mediated transparency of local governments. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 562-571. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02532.x.
31.
GrindleM.S. (2007). Going Local. Decentralization, Democratization and the Promise of Good Governance. Princeton University Press.
32.
HanssonK.BelkacemK., & EkenbergL. (2015). Open government and democracy: A research review. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 540-555. doi: 10.1177/0894439314560847.
33.
HarrisonT.M., & SayogoD.S. (2014). Transparency, participation, and accountability practices in open government: A comparative study. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 513-525. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.08.002.
34.
HausM., & SweetingD. (2006). Local democracy and political leadership: Drawing a map. Political Studies, 54(2), 267-288. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00605.x.
35.
HelmkeG., & LevitskyS. (2006). Informal institutions & democracy. Lessons from Latin America. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
36.
IngramsA. (2017). The transparency performance puzzle: A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of policy failure in open government initiatives. Information Polity, 22(1), 25-39. doi: 10.3233/IP-160014.
37.
IngramsA.PiotrowskiS., & BerlinerD. (2020). Learning from our mistakes: Public management reform and the hope of open government. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 3(4), 257-272. doi: 10.1093/ppmgov/gvaa001.
38.
JessopB. (2003). Governance and Metagovernance: On reflexivity, requisite variety and requisite irony. In H. Bang (Ed.), Governance as Social and Political Communication, Manchester University Press, pp. 101-116.
39.
LathropD., & RumaL. (2010). Open Government. Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. O‘Reilly Media.
40.
LourençoR.P. (2015). An analysis of open government portals: A perspective of transparency for accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 323-332. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.05.006.
41.
LowdesV., & RobertsM. (2013). Why Institutions Matter. Red Globe Press.
42.
Luján VerónD. (2017). Entre la autonomía y la dependencia. Lobby, clientelismo político e idea de estado en los contextos locales chilenos. Polis (Santiago), 16(48), 133-154. doi: 10.4067/s0718-65682017000300133.
43.
MahoneyJ., & ThelenK. (2010). Explaining institutional Change. Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge University Press.
44.
MaturanaF., & RojasA. (2015). Ciudades Intermedias en Chile. Territorios Olvidados. RIL Editores.
45.
MaykaL. (2019). Building Participatory Institutions in Latin America. Reform coalitions and Institutional Change. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108598927.
46.
McGannM.WellsT., & BlomkampE. (2021). Innovation labs and co-production in public problem solving. Public Management Review, 23(2), 297-316. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2019.1699946.
47.
McNultyS. (2019). Democracy from above? The Unfulfilled Promise of National Mandated Participatory Reforms. Satndford University Press.
48.
MeijerA.J.CurtinD., & HillebrandtM. (2012). Open government: Connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10-29. doi: 10.1177/0020852311429533.
49.
MeulemanL. (2010). The cultural dimension of metagovernance: Why governance doctrines may fail. Public Organization Review, 10(1), 49-70. doi: 10.1007/s11115-009-0088-5.
50.
MichelsA., & De GraafL. (2010). Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies, 36(4), 477-491. doi: 10.1080/03003930.2010.494101.
51.
MontecinosE. (2007). Los límites de la modernización municipal para profundizar la participación ciudadana en Chile: ?‘Es la gobernanza de proximidad una alternativa? Gestión y Política Pública, 16(2), 319-351. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=33750772&lang=es&site=ehost-live.
52.
MontecinosE., & ContrerasP. (2021). Municipalities and democracy in Chile: Are they complying with the 20,500 Law On Citizen Participation? Revista Iberoamericana de Estudios Municipales, 63-80. doi: 10.32457/riem.v23i1.519.
53.
Moriconi BecerraM. (2011). ?‘Ilegalidad justificada?: Clientelismo controlado en la administración chilena. Perfiles Latinoamericanos, 19(38), 227-2047.
54.
Muñoz AravenaW.T. (2018). La participación ciudadana en Chile. El caso de los Consejos Comunales de la Sociedad Civil en la región del Biobío. Espiral Estudios Sobre Estado y Sociedad, 25(73), 203-231. doi: 10.32870/espiral.v25i73.7006.
55.
Navarrete-YánezB.E., & Higueras-SeguelV. (2014). Chile desde la teoría secuencial de la descentralización, 1990–2010. Convergencia, 21(166), 179-202.
56.
NorthD. (2006). Instituciones, cambio institucional y desempeño económico. Fonde de Cultura Económica.
57.
OECD. (2014). Open Government in Latin America. In OECD Publishing (Ed.), OECD Public Governance Reviews. doi: 10.1787/9789264223639-en.
58.
OECD. (2016). Open Government. The global context and the way forward (OECD Publishing, Ed.). doi: 10.1787/9789264268104-en.
59.
OECD. (2020). Panorama de las Administraciones Públicas: América Latina y el Caribe 2020. In Panorama de las Administraciones Públicas: América Latina y el Caribe 2020. OECD. doi: 10.18235/0002232.
60.
OlavarríaM. (2010). La Institucionalización y Gestión Estratégica del Acceso a la Información y la Transparencia Activa en Chile. BID – Consejo para la Transparencia.
61.
Osorio-GonnetC. (2018). Formulación de políticas públicas en Chile. In El Sistema Político de Chile, LOM Ediciones, pp. 301-332.
62.
ParkC.H.LongoJ., & JohnstonE.W. (2020). Exploring non-state stakeholder and community-led open governance: Beyond the three pillars of open government. Public Performance and Management Review, 43(3), 587-612. doi: 10.1080/15309576.2019.1677253.
63.
PetersB.G. (2005). Instiutional Theory in Political Science. The new institutionalism. Continuum.
64.
PetersB.G. (2010). Meta-governance and public management. In S.P. Osborne (Ed.), The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, Routledge, pp. 36-51.
65.
PierreJ.PetersB.G., & StokerG. (2013). Debating Institutionalism. Manchester University Press.
66.
PiñaG., & AvellanedaC. (2019). Central government strategies to promote local governments’ transparency: Guidance or enforcement? Public Performance and Management Review, 42(2), 357-382. doi: 10.1080/15309576.2018.1462215.
67.
PiotrowskiS.J. (2017). The “open government reform” movement: The case of the open government partnership and U.S. transparency policies. American Review of Public Administration, 47(2), 155-171. doi: 10.1177/0275074016676575.
68.
Pozas LoyoA., & Ríos FigueroaJ. (2022). Informal Institutions and de facto Judicial Independence: The missing link towards formal efficacy. Politica y Gobierno, 29(2), 1-28.
69.
PressaccoC.F., & RiveraS. (2015). Democracia, participación y espacio local en Chile. Papel Político, 20(1), 65. doi: 10.11144/javeriana.papo20-1.dpel.
70.
Ramírez de la CruzE.E.GrinE.J.Sanabria-PulidoP.CravacuoreD., & OrellanaA. (2020). The transaction costs of government responses to the COVID-19 emergency in latin america. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 683-695. doi: 10.1111/puar.13259.
71.
Rozas-BugueñoJ., & Martin-MünchmeyerM.P. (2020). Informal rules and the center of government: Childhood policy reform under chilean presidentialism (2014–2018). Revista Espanola de Ciencia Politica, 2020(52), 177-198. doi: 10.21308/recp.52.07.
72.
Saez-MartinA.Caba-PerezC., & Lopez-HernandezA. (2017). Freedom of information in local government: Rhetoric or reality? Local Government Studies, 43(2), 245-273. doi: 10.1080/03003930.2016.1269757.
73.
SalazarG.IrarrázavalF., & FonckM. (2017). Exploring intermediate cities in Latin America: Mixed mobile methods for mobility assessment in Villarrica, Chile. Geographical Journal, 183(3), 247-260. doi: 10.1111/geoj.12210.
74.
SchwartzR.A. (2021). How predatory informal rules outlast state reform: Evidence from postauthoritarian guatemala. Latin American Politics and Society, 63(1), 48-71. doi: 10.1017/lap.2020.32.
75.
SiavelisP.M.SehnbruchK.BarozetE., & UlloaV. (2022). Public Appointments as Informal Institutions: Lessons From the Cuoteo in Chile, 1990–2018. Revista de Ciencia Política (Santiago), 42(ahead), 537-564. doi: 10.4067/s0718-090x2022005000114.
76.
SørensenE., & TorfingJ. (2017). Metagoverning collaborative innovation in governance networks. American Review of Public Administration, 47(7), 826-839. doi: 10.1177/0275074016643181.
77.
StakeR.E. (2006). Multiple Case Study Analysis. Guilford Press.
78.
TaiK.-T. (2021). Open government research over a decade: A systematic review. Government Information Quarterly, October 2019, 101566. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101566.
79.
The Economist. (2021). Democracy Index 2020: In sickness and in health?
80.
Transparency International. (2020). Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. Transparency International.
81.
ValdiviesoP., & BernasJ. (2014). Dificultades de la aproximación de la transparencia como una política de comando y control: Experiencia chilena con los municipios. Reforma y Democracia, 58, 201-234.
82.
Van EijkC.Van der Vlegel-BrouwerW., & BussemakerJ. (2023). Healthy and happy citizens: The Opportunities and Challenges of Co-Producing Citizens’ Health and Well-Being in Vulnerable Neighborhoods. Administrative Sciences, 13(2). doi: 10.3390/admsci13020046.
83.
Vial-CossaniC. (2016). Las municipalidades en Chile. In J.M. Ruano & C. Vial (Eds.), Manual de Gobierno Locales en Iberoamérica, CLAD – Universidad Autónoma de Chile, pp. 111-138.
84.
Viezzer BarettaJ.Gaia HoffmannM.MilitaoL., & Silva FariasJ. (2024). Coproduction, public sector innovation and governance: a systematic literature review. In International Journal of Innovation Science. Emerald Publishing. doi: 10.1108/IJIS-05-2023-0107.
85.
WorthyB. (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. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01498.x.
86.
YavuzN., & WelchE.W. (2014). Factors affecting openness of local government websites: Examining the differences across planning, finance and police departments. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 574-583. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.004.
87.
YinR.K. (2009). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Sage Inc.
