Scholarship on transparency and freedom of information (FOI) conveys an overwhelmingly “political” narrative. Most uses of FOI, however, are private and nonpolitical in nature. This article explores the gap between the literature and empirical reality by means of an “Information-Gathering Matrix,” a framework for conceptualizing the motivations, uses, and impacts associated with FOI. Following a broad literature review, case studies illustrate that while FOI uses may be multifarious and prima facie nonpolitical, at least three of the matrix’s four quadrants—from the public to the private and the political to the nonpolitical—frequently tend toward politicization.
AckermanJ.SandovalI. (2006). The global explosion of freedom of information laws. Administrative Law Review, 58(85), 85-130.
3.
Alianza Regional por la Libre Expresión e Información. (2013). Saber Más V: Informe Regional Sobre Acceso a Información Pública y Procesos Electorales [Regional Alliance for Freedom of Expression and Information].
4.
AmosJ. (1999). Freedom of information and business: The impact of a Freedom of Information Act upon business as suppliers of products and services to the UK Government. London, England: The Constitution Unit, University College London.
5.
BanerjeeA.DufloE. (2011). Poor economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.
6.
BauhrM.GrimesM. (2013). Indignation or resignation: The implications of transparency for societal accountability. Governance, 27, 291-320.
7.
BerlinerD. (2014). The political origins of transparency. Journal of Politics, 76, 479-491.
8.
BertoniE. (2011). Libertad de Información ¿Tres Palabras Inofensivas? Leyes de acceso a la información y rol de la prensa [Freedom of Information: Three Inoffensive Words? Access to Information Laws and the Role of the Press]. Washington, DC: World Bank Institute.
9.
BlairT. (2011). A journey. London, England: Arrow.
10.
BlantonT. (2002). The world’s right to know. Foreign Policy, (131), 50-58. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.2307/3183417
11.
BrookeH. (2012). The revolution will be digitised: Dispatches from the information war. London, England: Windmill.
12.
CainB. E.EganP.FabbriniS. (2003). Towards more open democracies: The expansion of FOI laws. In CainB. E.DaltonR. J.ScarrowS. (Eds.), Democracy transformed? Expanding political opportunities in advanced industrial democracies (pp. 115-139). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13.
CallandR.BentleyK. (2013). The impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives: Freedom of information. Development Policy Review, 31, s69-s87.
CoronelS. (2001). The right to know: Access to information in Southeast Asia. Manilla, IA: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
16.
CostaS. (2013). Do freedom of information laws decrease corruption?Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 29, 1317-1343. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ews016
17.
CrossH. L. (1953). The people’s right to know: Legal access to public records and proceedings. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
18.
CuillierD. (2010). Honey v. Vinegar: Testing compliance-gaining theories in the context of freedom of information laws. Communication Law and Policy, 15, 203-229. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2010.489842
19.
CuillierD.DavisC. (2010). The art of access: Strategies for acquiring public records. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
20.
DarchC. (2013). Statistics, indicators and access to information in African countries. In DialloF.CallandR. (Eds.), Access to information in Africa: Law, culture and practice (pp. 109-127). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
21.
DarchC.UnderwoodP. G. (2005). Freedom of information legislation, state compliance and the discourse of knowledge: The South African experience. The International Information & Library Review, 37, 77-86.
22.
DarchC.UnderwoodP. G. (2010). Freedom of information and the developing world. Oxford, UK: Chandos.
23.
de Fine LichtJ. (2014). Policy area as a potential moderator of transparency effects: An experiment. Public Administration Review, 74, 361-371.
24.
DunionK. (2011). Freedom of information in Scotland in practice. Dundee, Scotland: Dundee University Press.
25.
ErkkiläT. (2012). The government transparency: Impacts and unintended consequences. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
26.
EscherT. (2011). TheyWorkForYou.com: Analysis of users and usage for UK citizens online Democracy. London, England: My Society. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/n0nDTh
FloriniA. (2000). Third force: The rise of transnational civil society. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
29.
FloriniA. (Ed.). (2007). The right to know: Transparency for an open world. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
30.
FungA.GrahamM.WeilD. (2007). Full disclosure: The perils and promise of transparency. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
31.
GerringJ. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for?American Political Science Review, 98, 341-354.
32.
GingerichD. W. (2013). Governance indicators and the level of analysis problem: Empirical findings from South America. British Journal of Political Science, 43, 505-540.
33.
GodinG.SheeranP.ConnerM.GermainM. (2008). Asking questions changes behavior: Mere measurement effects on frequency of blood donation. Health Psychology, 27, 179-184.
GuptaA. (2008). Transparency under scrutiny: Information disclosure in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8(2), 1-7. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2008.8.2.1
HazellR.WorthyB. (2010). Assessing the performance of freedom of information. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 352-359.
38.
HazellR.WorthyB.GloverM. (2010). The impact of the Freedom of Information Act on central government in the UK. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
HealdD. (2012). Why is transparency about public expenditure so elusive?International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 30-49.
40.
HoL. (2013). Public policy and the public interest (1st ed.). London, England: Routledge.
41.
HolsenS.PasquierM. (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, 283-302.
42.
HoodC. (2007). What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance?Public Management Review, 9, 191-210.
43.
KasuyaY. (2012, June10-12). Democracy and transparency: Enacting the freedom of information acts around the world. Paper Prepared for Delivery at the International Transparency Conference, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
44.
KeaneJ. (2010). The life and death of democracy. London, England: Simon & Schuster.
45.
KlosekJ. (2009). The right to know: Your guide to using and defending freedom of information law in the United States. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
46.
LagunesP. (2009). Irregular transparency? An experiment involving Mexico’s freedom of information law (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1398025). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1398025
47.
LarsenM.WalbyK. (Eds.). (2013). Brokering access: Power, politics and freedom of information process in Canada (Reprint ed.). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: University of Washington Press.
48.
LasswellH. D. (1968). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York, NY: World Publishing.
49.
LidbergJ. (2002). For your information—The impact of freedom of information legislation on journalism practice and content in Western Australia and Sweden (Doctoral thesis). Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.
50.
LindbergJ. (2006). Unpublished dissertation, university of Murdoch, Australia: “Keeping the bastards honest”—The promise and practice of freedom of information legislation (Doctoral thesis). Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.
51.
MannT. (1996). The magic mountain (WoodsJ. E. Trans.). London, England: Vintage.
52.
McDonaghM.PatersonM. (2010). Freedom of information: Taking account of the circumstances of individual applicants. Public Law, 3, 505-529.
53.
MeijerA. J. (2013). Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency. Public Administration Review, 73, 429-439.
54.
MeijerA. J.CurtinD.HillebrandtM. (2012). Open government: Connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10-29.
55.
MendelT. (2008). Freedom of information: A comparative legal survey (2nd ed.). New Delhi, India: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
56.
MichenerG. (2011). FOI laws around the world. Journal of Democracy, 22, 145-159.
57.
MichenerG. (2014a). How cabinet size and legislative control shape the strength of transparency laws. Governance, 28, 77-94.
MichenerG.MoncauL. F.VelascoR. (2014). The Brazilian state and transparency: Evaluating the application of the access to information law. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Fundação Getúlio Vargas.
60.
MullinsB.WeaverC. (2013, September23). Open-government laws fuel hedge-fund profits. The Wall Street Journal.
61.
National Council for Voluntary Organisations. (2013). Voicing your right to know: A guide to using the freedom of information campaign. London, England. Retrieved from http://therightethos.co.uk/files/Your_right_to_know.pdf
62.
PadgettH. (2009). El sospechoso negocio del vapor [The suspicious business of steam]. Emeequis, (159), 128-135.
63.
PasquierM.VilleneuveJ. P. (2007). Organizational barriers to transparency: A typology and analysis of organizational behaviour tending to prevent or restrict access to information. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(1), 147-162.
64.
PeisakhinL.PintoP. (2010). Is transparency an effective anti-corruption strategy? Evidence from a field experiment in India. Regulation & Governance, 4, 261-280.
PiotrowskiS. J. (2010). Governmental transparency and secrecy: Linking literature and contemporary debate. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
67.
PiotrowskiS. J.RyzinG. G. V. (2007). Citizen attitudes toward transparency in local government. The American Review of Public Administration, 37, 306-323.
RobertsA. (2002). Administrative discretion and the Access to Information Act: An “internal law” on open government?Canadian Public Administration, 45, 175-194.
70.
RobertsA. (2006). Blacked out: Government secrecy in the information age. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
71.
RobertsA. (2007, November26-29). Future challenges for the RTI movement. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Information Commissioners, Wellington, New Zealand.
72.
RobertsA. (2010). A great and revolutionary law? The first four years of India’s right to information act. Public Administration Review, 70, 925-933.
SchedlerA. (1999). Conceptualizing accountability. In SchedlerA.DiamondL.PlattnerM. F. (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 13-28). Boulder Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
77.
SinghS. (2011, October3-5). Keynote Speech given at the 7th International Conference of Information Commissioners in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
78.
SnellR. (2001). Freedom of information: The experience of the Australian states—An epiphany?Federal Law Review, 29, 343-358.
79.
SnellR.UpcherJ. (2002). Freedom of information and parliament: A limited accountability tool for a key constituency. Freedom of Information Review, 100, 35-41.
80.
SpenceK. (2010). Volunteering information? The use of freedom of information laws by the third sector in Scotland—Survey findings. Glasgow, Scotland: University of Strathclyde.
81.
StewartD. 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, 265.
82.
SzekelyI. (2007). Central and Eastern Europe: Starting from scratch. In FloriniA. (Ed.), The right to know (pp. 116-142). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
83.
TerrillG. (2000). Individualism and freedom of information legislation. Freedom of Information Review, (87), 30-32.
84.
Van AlstineJ. (2014). Transparency in energy governance: The extractive industries transparency initiative and publish what you pay campaign. In GuptaA.MasonM. (Eds.), Transparency in global environmental governance: Critical perspectives (1 ed., pp. 249-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
85.
WelchE. W. (2012). The relationship between transparent and participative government: A study of local governments in the United States. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 93-115.
86.
WhiteN. (2007). Free and frank: Making the New Zealand Official Information Act 1982 work better. Wellington, New Zealand: Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington.
87.
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, 561-582.
88.
WorthyB. (2013). “Some are more open than others”: Comparing the impact of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on local and central government in the UK. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 15, 395-415.
89.
WorthyB.HazellR. (2014). The impact of the Freedom of Information Act in the UK. In BowlesN.HamiltonJ. T.Levy DavidA. L. (Eds.), Transparency in politics and the media (pp. 31-49). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
90.
WorthyB.HazellR.AmosJ.BourkeG. (2011). Town hall transparency: The impact of freedom of information on local government in England. London, England: The Constitution Unit, University College London.
