The relationship between transparent and participative government: A study of local governments in the United States

Abstract

The relationship between transparency and participation of government is not well articulated in the literature. Transparency provides stakeholders with knowledge about the processes, structures and products of government. Participation refers to the quantity, quality and diversity of input of stakeholders into government decision-making. Greater transparency and participation are often considered to operate side by side. However, in the Internet age the change in the magnitude of information disclosure may outweigh the change in the level of participative government. This article uses data from a 2010 national survey of five US local government agencies to test hypotheses about the relationship between transparency and participation and the factors that affect them. Findings show that participation is positively associated with transparency, but transparency does not lead to participation. In addition, organizations that are under stronger influence from external stakeholders report higher levels of participation but in some cases higher levels of external influence dampen transparency.

Points for practitioners

For practitioners, the article provides a framework for understanding the relationship between transparency and participation as two dimensions of open government. While in some departments these two dimensions are present at similar levels, in others they are not. For example, among five departments, police report the lowest overall participation and transparency levels, while parks and recreation and the mayor’s office report the highest transparency and participation levels, respectively. In addition, police departments report significantly higher transparency than participation, while the reverse is true for community development departments. The article provides public administrators with greater insight into causes of and relationships between transparency and participation.

Keywords

local government openness participation transparency

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alter

Lewiecki

Renz-Whitmore

Albright

(2008) Accountable public involvement: Partnership approach to proposed transportation project. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2077: 46–53.

Bickerstaff

Walker

(2001) Participatory local governance and transport planning. Environment and Planning A 33(3): 431–451.

Bimber

(1999) The Internet and citizen communication with government: Does the medium matter?. Political Communication 16(4): 409–428.

Bovens

MAP

(2005) Public accountability. In: Ferlie

Lynne

Pollitt

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 182–208.

Bozeman

Straussman

(1990) Public Management Strategies: Guidelines for Managerial Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bryson

(1995) Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Coglianese

(2009) The transparency President? The Obama administration and open government. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 22(4): 529–544.

Coglianese

Kilmartin

Mendelson

(2009) Transparency and public participation in the federal rulemaking process: Recommendations for the new administration. George Washington Law Review 77: 924–972.

Curtin

Meijer

(2006) Does transparency strengthen legitimacy?. Information Polity 11(2): 109–123.

10.

Downes

McMillan

(2000) Defining interactivity: A qualitative identification key dimensions. New Media and Society 2(2): 157–179.

11.

Etzioni

(2010) Is transparency the best disinfectant?. Journal of Political Philosophy 18(4): 389–404.

12.

Gerring

Thacker

(2004) Political institutions and corruption: The role of Unitarism and Parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science 34: 295–330.

13.

Greene

(2000) Econometric Analysis, 4th edn. Upper Saddle River,. NJ: Prentice Hall.

14.

Grimmelikhuijsen

Welch

(forthcoming) Factors determining the transparency of air pollution information: Factors affecting Internet information transparency of local government. Public Administration Review.

15.

Heald

(2006) Varieties of transparency. In: Hood

Heald

(eds) Transparency: The Key to Better Governance?. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25–43.

16.

Heeter

(1989) Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication. In: Salvaggio

Bryant

(eds) Media Use in the Information Age: Emerging Patterns of Adoption and Computer Use. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Press, 217–235.

17.

Henderson

(2007) Metropolitan governance: Citizen participation in the urban federation. National Civic Review 79(2): 105–117.

18.

ATK

(2002) Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review 62(4): 434–444.

19.

Hood

(2006) Transparency in historical perspective. In: Hood

Heald

(eds) Transparency: The Key to Better Governance?. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–23.

20.

Jennings

Zeitner

(2003) Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 67(3): 311–334.

21.

Jun

Weare

(2010) Institutional motivations in the adoption of innovations: The case of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Available online 9 June 2010.

22.

Kling

Lamb

(2000) IT and organizational change in digital economies: A socio-technical approach. In: Kahin

Brynjolfsson

(eds) Understanding the Digital Economy – Data, Tools and Research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 295–324.

23.

Knott

(1993) Comparing public and private management: Cooperative effort and principal–agent relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART 3(1): 93–119.

24.

Laffont

Mordimort

(2002) The Theory of Incentives: The Principal–Agent Model. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

25.

La Porte

Demchak

Friis

(2001) Webbing governance: Global trends across national-level public agencies. Communications of the ACM 44(1): 63–68.

26.

Lewis

JRT

(2010) Tide of security secrecy, tide of transparency. In: Shea

Garson

(eds) Handbook of Public Information Systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 29–50.

27.

Macintosh

(2004) Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'04) - Track 5.

28.

McMillan

(2000) Interactivity is in the eye of the beholder: Function, perception, involvement and attitude toward the web site. In: Shaver

(ed.) Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 71–78.

29.

Masters

Macintosh

Smith

(2004) Young people and e-democracy: Creating a culture of participation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3183: 15–22.

30.

Meijer

(2009) Understanding computer-mediated transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences 75(2): 255–269.

31.

Mitnick

(1975) The theory of agency: The policing 'paradox' and regulatory behavior. Public Choice 24: 27–42.

32.

Moe

(2006) Political control and the power of the agent. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 22(1): 1–29.

33.

Musso

Weare

Hale

(2001) Designing web technologies for local governance reform: Good management or good democracy?. Political Communication 17(1): 1–19.

34.

Norris

(2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.

35.

O’Connor

Schwartz

Schaad

Boyd

(2000) State of the Practice: White Paper on Public Involvement. Transportation in the New Millennium. Committee on Public Involvement in Transportation A1D04. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Record.

36.

Piotrowski

Borry

(2009) Transparency and local government websites. In: Reddick

(ed.) Handbook of Research on Strategies for Local E-Government Adoption and Implementation: Comparative Studies. Hershey, NY: Information Science Reference, 390–407.

37.

Pratt

JWP

Zeckhauser

(1991) Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

38.

Pyndick

Rubinfeld

(1991) Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts, 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

39.

Roberts

(1997) Public deliberation: An alternative approach to crafting policy and setting direction. Public Administration Review 57(2): 124–132.

40.

Roberts

(2004) Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. American Review of Public Administration 34(4): 315–353.

41.

Romzek

Dubnick

(1987) Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the Challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review 47(3): 227–238.

42.

Rowe

Frewer

(2000) Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values 25(1): 3–29.

43.

Tolbert

Mossberger

(2006) The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review 66(3): 354–369.

44.

Welch

Fulla

(2005) Virtual interactivity between government and citizens: The Chicago Police Department’s citizen ICAM application demonstration case. Political Communication 22(2): 215–236.

45.

Welch

Wong

(2001) Global information technology pressure and government accountability: The mediating effect of domestic context on website openness. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 11(4): 509–538.

46.

West

(2004) E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review 64(1): 15–27.