Week 5-Explore the Impact of Administrative Accountability and Week 6 – Assess the Oversight Functions of Administrative Rulemaking

25 Years of Transparency Research: Evidence and Future Directions.

Images

Diagram Chart Graph Chart Graph

Go to all 8 images >>

Authors:

Cucciniello, Maria1 [email protected]

Porumbescu, Gregory A.2 [email protected]

Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan3 [email protected]

Source:

Public Administration Review. Jan/Feb2017, Vol. 77 Issue 1, p32-44. 13p. 1 Diagram, 4 Charts, 3 Graphs.

Document Type:

Article

Subject Terms:

*Financial management

Transparency in government

Decision making in political science

Prevention of political corruption

Legitimacy of governments

Decision making in public administration

Political science periodicals

History

Reviews & Products:

Google Books (Web resource)

NAICS/Industry Codes:

921190 Other General Government Support

523920 Portfolio Management

Abstract:

This article synthesizes the cross-disciplinary literature on government transparency. It systematically

reviews research addressing the topic of government transparency published between 1990 and 2015.

The review uses 187 studies to address three questions: (1) What forms of transparency has the

literature identified? (2) What outcomes does the literature attribute to transparency? and (3) How

successful is transparency in achieving those goals? In addressing these questions, the authors review six

interrelated types of transparency and nine governance- and citizen-related outcomes of transparency.

Based on the findings of the analysis, the authors outline an agenda for future research on government

transparency and its effects that calls for more systematically investigating the ways in which contextual

conditions shape transparency outcomes, replicating studies with varying methodologies, investigating

transparency in neglected countries, and paying greater attention to understudied claims of

transparency such as improved decision making and management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may

be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original

published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Author Affiliations:

1Bocconi University, Italy

2Northern Illinois University

3Utrecht School of Governance, The Netherlands

ISSN:

0033-3352

DOI:

10.1111/puar.12685

Accession Number:

120437177

Database:

Source Complete

Publisher Logo:

Publisher Logo

Images:

Show all 8 Images

DiagramChartGraph

Translate Full Text:

Choose Language

25 Years of Transparency Research: Evidence and Future Directions.

Contents

Methodological Approach

Eligibility Criteria

Review Method and Coding

Results of the Systematic Review

Describing the Corpus of

Definitions: Integrating Two Types of Definitions

Transparency over Time: A Strong Rise in Three Distinct Periods of Research

Geographic Context: Predominant Focus on North America and Europe

Research Methods: Balance between Qualitative and Quantitative Studies

Gaining Insight into Our Research Questions

Question 1: What Forms of Government Transparency Are Identified in the ?

Questions 2 and 3: What Outcomes Are Attributed to Government Transparency and What Does …

Discussion

Ways Forward: Charting Transparency Research in Years to Come

More Systematically Identifying Contextual Conditions That Affect Transparency Outcomes

Replicate Studies Using Different Methods

Replicate Studies across Different Administrative Contexts

Investigate Neglected Transparency Outcomes

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Footnotes

References

Full Text

Listen

This article synthesizes the cross‐disciplinary literature on government transparency. It systematically

reviews research addressing the topic of government transparency published between 1990 and 2015.

The review uses 187 studies to address three questions: ( 1) What forms of transparency has the

literature identified? ( 2) What outcomes does the literature attribute to transparency? and ( 3) How

successful is transparency in achieving those goals? In addressing these questions, the authors review six

interrelated types of transparency and nine governance‐ and citizen‐related outcomes of transparency.

Based on the findings of the analysis, the authors outline an agenda for future research on government

transparency and its effects that calls for more systematically investigating the ways in which contextual

conditions shape transparency outcomes, replicating studies with varying methodologies, investigating

transparency in neglected countries, and paying greater attention to understudied claims of

transparency such as improved decision making and management.

Practitioner Points

Government transparency is no cure‐all and does not always have positive outcomes.

Transparency is effective at achieving certain outcomes, such as increasing participation, improving

financial management, and reducing corruption.

Transparency is less effective at engendering trust in and legitimacy of government.

Our analysis suggests that government transparency “works” under some conditions but not under

others. What these conditions are needs further investigation.

Over the course of the past two decades, there have been many attempts to bolster transparency at

every level of government. These attempts have been guided by a long‐standing expectation that

enhancing transparency will bring about improvements to the quality of government (Kosack and Fung [

29] , 84; Piotrowski [ 42] ; Roberts [ 49] ). Accordingly, governments now view transparency as a means

of achieving an array of objectives, ranging from fostering greater trust in government to reducing public

corruption and improving financial performance (Benito and Bastida [ 3] ; Bertot, Jaeger, and Grimes [ 5]

; Welch, Hinnant, and Moon [ 56] ; Worthy [ 58] ).

Despite such optimism, scholars have recently questioned the extent to which transparency is actually

capable of fulfilling the range of objectives commonly ascribed to it (Etzioni [ 18] , [ 19] ). In general,

what this expanding line of inquiry illustrates is that the effects of transparency are much less

pronounced than conventional wisdom suggests. Indeed, as a number of empirical assessments have

found, transparency’s effects are often limited and differ according to a number of factors such as area

of government, policy domain, and citizen characteristics (de Fine Licht 2014; de Fine Licht et al. 2014;

Grimmelikhuijsen and Meijer [ 21] ; Porumbescu [ 47] ). Others have argued that efforts to enhance

transparency often result in more harm than good, reasoning that continual efforts to enhance

transparency have fueled polarization, indecision, and, ultimately, dysfunction in government (Grumet [

24] ).

In response to such challenges, a growing number of scholars and practitioners are beginning to debate

the role of transparency in the practice of public administration. While few on either side of this debate

would go so far as to actually support general reductions in transparency, what is quickly coming into

focus is a need to think more systematically about how transparency can be used for better governance.

At present, more transparency is often indiscriminately proffered as a solution to the gamut of

challenges facing governments. Yet, like any instrument, transparency is not without its limits—

inevitably, transparency is well suited to address certain issues and poorly suited to address others.

From this perspective, much of the debate over the role of transparency in the practice of public

administration can be attributed to confusion over just what transparency can do and, perhaps more

importantly, what it cannot (Meijer [ 33] ; Roberts [ 51] ). In this article, we focus on government

transparency as an instrument to achieve other outcomes, such as increased trust or less corruption.

Despite this long‐standing debate about the potential outcomes of increased government transparency,

scholarly attention has been disjointed, emanating from various disciplines and looking at various types

of transparency and types of transparency outcomes. The first goal of this article, therefore, is to

disentangle this confusion over the effects of transparency. To set an agenda for future research, we

present a cross‐disciplinary systematic literature review of government transparency published from

1990 to 2015. The second goal is to distill emergent themes from a rapidly evolving body of

transparency literature. The insights provided by a systematic overview help identify where gaps exist in

our understanding of how transparency relates to different facets of government and, thereby,

contribute to the establishment of a more cohesive transparency research agenda.

Our analysis is guided by three specific research questions:

What forms of government transparency are identified in the literature?

What outcomes has the literature attributed to government transparency?

What outcomes does government transparency tend to be (un)successful in achieving?

The systematic literature review yielded a set of 187 records published between 1990 and 2015. In

reporting the systematic review, we adhere to the widely used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic

Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA, see online appendix 1) (Liberati et al. [ 30] ). Based on our review,

we find that the literature identifies six forms of government transparency. We also find that the

literature included in our analysis identifies nine distinct goals associated with greater transparency.

However, the results of empirical assessments of the relationships between transparency and the

different goals attributed to it are often far from consistent. Based on these findings, we conclude by

outlining a future research agenda.

Methodological Approach

To our knowledge, no systematic literature reviews have examined transparency outcomes.[ 1] As a

result, we lack a structured and comprehensive accounting of research on how the public sector is using

transparency and to what effect. From a methodological standpoint, a systematic literature review is a

desirable method for providing a comprehensive overview of this area of research because of its explicit,

rigorous, and transparent procedures (Cooper [ 9] ), which, in turn, render reviews easily replicated

(Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart [ 53] ). We outline the methods that were used to identify articles

included for analysis in this study next.

In this study, three strategies were used to identify eligible articles (Cooper [ 9] ). First, we searched two

online databases: ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus. This was done to ensure that a broad spectrum of

research on transparency was included for consideration. The search terms we used were “transparency

and government,” “public sector transparency,” “administrative transparency,” and “transparent

government.” This search generated more than 3,300 studies; it was last conducted in November 2015.

Second, this broad search strategy was supplemented by a manual review of 13 journals in the fields of

public administration, public management, and e‐government and an analysis of 10 books. We

examined key journals on a journal‐by‐journal basis. To do this, we first drafted a list of journals to be

included in the analysis. We then consulted with experts on the topic of transparency to ensure that all

relevant journals that publish regularly about transparency were included while also asking them for

input on relevant studies.[ 2] They identified two more journals to be included in the review

(Information Polity and Government Information Quarterly). We received the last expert e‐mail in

October 2015. Based on the initial list of journals that was compiled, coupled with the recommendations

from experts, 13 journals were included for individual review.[ 3] The last search was conducted in

November 2015 and generated 315 possible studies for inclusion.

Third, to supplement the journal articles retrieved, we also searched Google Books for relevant

monographs on this topic using the same keywords that were used in the earlier searches. In total, 10

monographs were included; the last search was conducted in November 2015.

Eligibility Criteria

After establishing a list of eligible journals and books, we determined eligibility criteria—a key step in

conducting a systematic literature review is establishing clear eligibility criteria. The criteria were

designed to ensure that high‐quality relevant work was included.

Studies from our original searches were included in the systematic review if they met all of the following

eligibility criteria:

Topic: Abstracts or titles of articles included any of the following terms: “transparency and government,”

“public sector transparency,” “administrative transparency,” any “transparent government.” It is

important to note that the term “open government” was not included for analysis because it is generally

believed to be a broader construct reflecting various dimensions, one of which is transparency (e.g.,

Meijer, Curtin, and Hillebrandt [ 35] ; Roberts [ 50] ). For similar reasons, we also did not search for

“freedom of information act (FOIA),” “right to know,” or “access to information.” However, if a given

article included one of the aforementioned terms plus one of the designated search terms, the article

would be included for analysis. Narrowing our search in this way helped ensure that the articles included

for analysis possessed direct implications for the study of transparency. However, given the

interrelatedness of the aforementioned terms to transparency, our findings also offer indirect

implications for research into the effects of open government or freedom of information initiatives.

Study design: Theoretical and empirical studies were included in our analysis because we are interested

in rendering a comprehensive accounting of how public sector transparency is understood, what is

believed to do, and what it has been found to do. Moreover, for empirical studies, we did not

discriminate according to method of analysis: qualitative case studies were included, as were

quantitative studies. While studies that employ transparency as the dependent variable were not

screened out, given the objectives of this study, our analysis emphasizes studies that employ

transparency as an independent variable.

Publication year: Studies that were published between 1990 and 2015 were included. We chose this

broad time line to capture a wide range of transparency studies, starting from the early inception of this

area of inquiry. We acknowledge that there are some older writings that have been highly important in

our thinking about transparency (Bentham 1797; Popper [ 44] ). However, the number of studies

touching transparency as a research topic before 1990 is very scarce. We would need to exponentially

increase our time line to capture a few more studies; therefore, we decided to set the time frame of our

systematic review from 1990 through 2015.

Language: Only records written in English were eligible for incorporation.

Publication status: Only international peer‐reviewed journal articles and books from prominent

publishers in fields such as public administration or political science were eligible (i.e., Palgrave

Macmillan and Cambridge University Press).

Review Method and Coding

Following the literature search, a total of 3,678 studies were identified. To identify studies of direct

relevance, we then engaged in a selection process following the steps outlined by Liberati et al. ([ 30] ).

These steps are illustrated in figure [NaN] .

Following the PRISMA screening process, once all records were collected, the studies were screened to

identify the records that fulfilled the eligibility criteria. This was done by scanning the abstracts and titles

of records included at this stage. Articles that did not match the selection criteria were then removed, as

were duplicate studies.

In the second step, we screened studies by reading the full abstract and the full text when necessary. In

this step, studies were removed if they were deemed to fall outside the scope of the study. Following

this screening process, 187 studies (177 journal articles and 10 books) remained and were included in

the systematic review.

For each study included in the review, we developed a data extraction form to summarize articles

according to the following criteria: the author(s), publication year, title, journal, analytical method, form

of transparency addressed, and effects of transparency. Table [NaN] outlines the particular criteria in

greater detail.

Extraction Form

Category Extraction

Author, publication year, title, journal This basic information was extracted from the title page of the

article.

Methods

We used several classifications extracted from the abstract:

Theoretical or empirical

Qualitative, quantitative, experimental

Form of transparency

Based on frameworks by Heald (26), Cucciniello et al. (11), and Grimmelikhuijsen and Welch (23) we

classified three main “objects of transparency” and three main “activities of transparency”

Objects: administrative, political, budget transparency

Activities: Decision making, policy making, policy outcome

This information was extracted from the abstract or full text.

Outcomes of transparency

We used two broad classifications: effects on citizens and effects on government. Within these broad

categories we specified the effects as follows:

Effects on citizens: legitimacy, participation, trust in government, satisfaction

Effects on government: accountability, corruption, performance, decision‐making process, financial

management, collaboration between governments.

The categorization of forms of transparency requires elaboration. To determine the form of

transparency, we drew on previous transparency frameworks (Cucciniello et al. [ 11] ; Grimmelikhuijsen

and Welch [ 23] ; Heald [ 26] ). One way of looking at transparency is to apply it to a set of activities that

governments perform. Heald ([ 26] ) was one of the first scholars to think of transparency as something

that occurs as a part of separate events and processes of government. Later, this framework was

adapted to make it more suitable for empirical study by Grimmelikhuijsen and Welch ([ 23] ), who

identified three broad points at which government determines the level of transparency: ( 1)

transparency of decision‐making processes, ( 2) transparency of policy content, and ( 3) transparency of

policy outcomes or effects. This is what we classify in this study as “transparency of activities.”

A second way of classifying forms of transparency is according to the area of government (object) that it

elucidates (Cucciniello et al. [ 11] ). This method of classifying forms of transparency does not necessarily

focus on a specific activity but rather on a set of activities associated with a certain object. Cucciniello

and Nasi ([ 12] ) set out three widely investigated objects of transparency: financial or budget

transparency, administrative transparency, and political transparency. Budget transparency refers to the

disclosure of information about the financial situation of a government and outlines how public actors

use the financial resources they are allocated (building on Pina, Torres, and Royo [ 41] ). Administrative

transparency is the disclosure of information from the administration or bureaucracy pertaining to the

activities of public organizations, mission, and operations (Cucciniello et al. [ 11] ). Finally, political

transparency relates to the openness of elected bodies such as parliaments or local councils and refers

to information pertaining to political representatives (Cucciniello, Nasi, and Valotti [ 13] ).

We acknowledge that the classification used in this article (administrative, political, and budget) is not

perfect and that these “objects” of transparency are intertwined and can overlap. However, in the

literature, the distinction between administrative and political transparency has become accepted (see,

e.g., Meijer, ‘t Hart, and Worthy [ 36] ). Moreover, the reason we treat budget (or financial)

transparency separately is that there has been a vast stream of publications that have focused solely on

this type of transparency (Bastida and Benito [ 1] ; Benito and Bastida [ 3] ; Bolívar, Pérez, and López‐

Hernández 2015; Caamaño‐Alegre et al. [ 8] ; Heald [ 25] ), meaning that this well‐developed stream of

transparency literature typically treats budget transparency as something separate from the political or

administrative forms of transparency. In reality, however, financial transparency is interconnected with

both the political and administrative realms.

Financial transparency is interconnected with both the political and administrative realms.

The methods of classifying transparency (object versus activity) outlined here offer alternative

perspectives on how to systematically examine the overarching concept of government transparency,

yet they are not mutually exclusive. For instance, budget transparency may encompass various

activities, such as decision making about the budget, certain policies to improve budget balance, and the

effects of this policy. Conversely, decision‐making transparency could regard various objects, such as the

administrative, political, or financial. Although we realize that every framework requires some

arbitrariness in borderline conditions, we think these established frameworks help identify what the

literature on transparency has been focusing on and, consequently, what kinds of objects or activities

lack attention.

Coding of the studies included for analysis was carried out by each of the coauthors to ensure

agreement in the way articles were coded. The coding scheme was discussed by the authors during

several Skype calls in order to guarantee consistency in coding by way of agreeing on a common way of

coding specific categories. Specifically, having each of the authors code the articles in the analysis

ensures reliability in terms of how each study was coded according to the form of transparency

addressed, the research design that was employed, and the effect of transparency that was identified.

Results of the coding were aggregated into a single spreadsheet and discussed during regular group

meetings. In instances in which questions arose over why an article was coded a particular way, all

authors reviewed the article in question and came to a consensus on the categorization of the article.

Results of the Systematic Review

The 177 articles included in the systematic review (of 187 studies, 10 were monographs) were published

in 69 peer‐reviewed international journals. For a complete list of the journals used, please refer to

online appendix 3. The five outlets that published the most articles on the topic of government

transparency were Government Information Quarterly ( 25), International Review of Administrative

Sciences ( 13), Information Polity ( 11), Public Administration Review ( 11), and Public Administration (

10). This indicates that the main thrust of government transparency research can be found in more

generic public administration journals (International Review of Administrative Sciences, Public

Administration Review, Public Administration) and in journals that span the boundaries of informational

sciences and public administration (Government Information Quarterly, Information Polity). In the next

section, we will discuss how government transparency is defined in the body of literature.

Describing the Corpus of

Definitions: Integrating Two Types of Definitions

The definitions of transparency offered by the articles included in our review can be grouped into two

categories: the first category of definitions focus on information availability and the second on the flow

of information.

In terms of articles that define transparency according to the availability of information, three particular

points of emphasis are identified. The first relates to the availability of information about decision

processes regarding budgetary matters, political issues, and general administrative procedures (e.g., de

Fine Licht 2011, 2014; Meijer, Curtin, and Hillebrandt [ 35] ; Pina, Torres, and Royo [ 41] ). The second

relates to the availability of information detailing the operational aspects of an organization (e.g.,

Tejedo‐Romero and Araújo 2015). The third relates to the availability of information discussing

government performance (Cuadrado‐Ballesteros [ 10] ; Grimmelikhuijsen and Meijer [ 21] ).

Definitions that center on the flow of information are, at their core, relational in the sense that they

consider stakeholders’ access to various types of government information (Heald [ 26] ). Accordingly,

these definitions tend to assess transparency from four perspectives: ( 1) transparency inward (when

those outside can observe what is going on inside the organization), ( 2) transparency outward (when

those inside an organization can observe what is happening outside the organization), ( 3) transparency

upward (from subordinates to superiors), and ( 4) transparency downward (from superiors to

subordinates) (Heald [ 26] , [ 27] ). All four forms of transparency can exist simultaneously; however, the

literature tends to focus on a single perspective. Moreover, while there is research employing each of

the definitional perspectives, the studies included in our analysis place a strong emphasis on the

outward observability of public organizations.

These perspectives on defining transparency are complementary in that the availability perspective

emphasizes the breadth of access to government information, whereas the flow of information

perspective takes into consideration who has access to information. Together, they help piece together

an overarching definition of transparency that explains how much information is accessible to whom.

Moreover, emphasis placed on outward transparency identified in the flow of information perspective

suggests that much of the existing government transparency research views external stakeholders (e.g.,

citizens) as the primary audience of government information. We can use the perspectives in order to

furnish a single broad definition of government transparency that accounts for both perspectives

offered in the literature: “the extent external actors are afforded access to information about the way

public organizations operate” (Porumbescu [ 46] ; see also Grimmelikhuijsen et al. [ 22] ; Meijer [ 34] ).

Transparency over Time: A Strong Rise in Three Distinct Periods of Research

Figure [NaN] reveals tremendous growth in public administration research focusing on transparency

from 1990 to 2015. Indeed, from 1990 to 2000, a total of four articles addressing the topic of

government transparency were published. This small number of articles is distributed across three

different fields of study: public administration (Heald [ 25] ), e‐government (Perritt and Rustad [ 39] ),

and international studies (Birkinshaw [ 6] ; Mitchell [ 38] ). Thus, while transparency has been a topic of

long‐standing importance to the field of public administration, prior to 2001, this topic appears to have

received very little attention from scholars. Following 2001, we see a slight uptick in articles published

on this topic followed by a dramatic increase in 2007 as the number of publications on transparency

more than tripled. Finally, a second large increase is also apparent in 2011, when the number grew from

11 articles published on the subject in 2010 to 18 in 2011 and peaking at 37 publications in 2014. The

shifts outlined in figure [NaN] delineate three distinct trends in transparency research over the 20‐year

time span examined in this study: a seminal period with a few publications spanning 1990 to 2002, a

period in which transparency research grew cautiously and formed a substantive contribution in various

fields from 2004 to 2010, and rapid growth period from 2011 to the present.

Together, these trends demonstrate a broad span of authors publishing on the topic, showing that the

waxing of transparency research is attributable to widespread interest and not just the result of a

handful of productive scholars. A final indication of the growing breadth of scholarly interest in …