The article examines changes in the meaning and practice of government openness around the world and identifies three trends. First, the technological meaning of openness is increasingly supplanting rights-based interpretations. Second, although more countries are joining global openness initiatives, on average, governments are not becoming more transparent about their budgets or their data. Third, although more governments are using online tools to inform and consult citizens, space for civil society is shrinking. The article concludes that technological tools for openness are not by themselves sufficient for ensuring systemic government openness to genuine societal inputs.
AckermanJ. M.Sandoval-BallesterosI. E. (2006). The global explosion of freedom of information laws. Administrative Law Review, 58(1), 85–130.
2.
ÅströmJ.KarlssonM.LindeJ.PirannejadA. (2012). Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: Domestic and international factors. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 142–150.
3.
AttardJ.OrlandiF.ScerriS.AuerS. (2015). A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 399–418.
4.
BerlinerD.IngramsA.PiotrowskiS. J. (2018). The future of FOIA in an open government agenda for freedom of information policy and implementation. Villanova Law Review, 63, Article 867.
CallandR.BentleyK. (2013). The impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives: Freedom of information. Development Policy Review, 31(s1), s69–s87.
7.
CatlawT. J.SandbergB. (2014). “Dangerous government” info-liberalism, active citizenship, and the open government directive. Administration & Society, 46(3), 223–254.
8.
ChunS. A.ShulmanS.SandovalR.HovyE. (2010). Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity, 15(1–2), 1–9.
9.
CoglianeseC. (2009). The transparency president? The Obama administration and open government. Governance, 22(4), 529–544.
CuccinielloM.PorumbescuG. A.GrimmelikhuijsenS. (2017). 25 years of transparency research: Evidence and future directions. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 32–44.
12.
DahlR. A. (1989.). Democracy and its critics. Yale University Press.
13.
David-BarrettE.OkamuraK. (2016). Norm diffusion and reputation: The rise of the extractive industries transparency initiative. Governance, 29(2), 227–246.
14.
De BlasioE.SelvaD. (2016). Why choose open government? Motivations for the adoption of open government policies in four European countries. Policy & Internet, 8(3), 225–247.
15.
DiamondL. (2015). Facing up to the democratic recession. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 141–155.
16.
DistelhorstG. (2015). The power of empty promises: Quasi-democratic institutions and activism in China. Comparative Political Studies, 50(4), 464–498.
17.
DraguT.LupuY. (2017). Does technology undermine authoritarian governments? [Working Paper]. New York University and George Washington University].
FoxJ. A. (2015). Social accountability: What does the evidence really say?World Development, 72, 346–361.
20.
GaventaJ.McGeeR. (2013). The impact of transparency and accountability initiatives. Development Policy Review, 31, s3–s28.
21.
GrimmelikhuijsenS. G.FeeneyM. K. (2016). Developing and testing an integrative framework for open government adoption in local governments. Public Administration Review, 77(4), 579–590.
22.
GueorguievD. (2017). Retrofitting autocracy: Participation without democracy in a modern China [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Political Science, Maxwell School, Syracuse University.
23.
HanssonK.BelkacemK.EkenbergL. (2015). Open government and democracy: A research review. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 540–555.
24.
HeB.WarrenM. E. (2011). Authoritarian deliberation: The deliberative turn in Chinese political development. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2), 269–289.
25.
HoodC. (2006). Transparency in historical perspective. In HoodC.HealdD. (Eds.), Transparency: The key to better governance? (pp. 2–23). Oxford University Press.
26.
JaegerP. T.BertotJ. C. (2010). Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 371–376.
27.
JanssenM.CharalabidisY.ZuiderwijkA. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268.
28.
KimM. (2007). Numbers tell part of the story: A comparison of FOIA implementation under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Communication Law and Policy, 12(3), 313–339.
29.
KingG.PanJ.RobertsM. E. (2013). How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review, 107(2), 326–1343.
30.
KneuerM.HarnischS. (2016). Diffusion of e-government and e-participation in democracies and autocracies. Global Policy, 7(4), 548–556.
31.
KosackS.FungA. (2014). Does transparency improve governance?Annual Review of Political Science, 17:, 65–87.
MaleskyE.SchulerP.TranA. (2012). The adverse effects of sunshine: A field experiment on legislative transparency in an authoritarian assembly. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 762–786.
34.
McCubbinsM. D.NollR. G.WeingastB. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3(2), 243–277.
35.
McDermottP. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401–413.
36.
MeijerA. J.CurtinD.HillebrandtM. (2012). Open government: Connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10–29.
37.
MergelI. (2012). Social media in the public sector: A guide to participation, collaboration and transparency in the networked world. John Wiley.
38.
MichenerG. (2011). FOI laws around the world. Journal of Democracy, 22(2), 145.
39.
NabatchiT.LeighningerM. (2015). Public participation for 21st century democracy. John Wiley.
40.
NoveckB. S. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Brookings Institution Press.
41.
NoveckB. S. (2015). Smart citizens, smarter state: The technologies of expertise and the future of governing. Harvard University Press.
42.
NoveckB. S. (2017). Rights-based and tech-driven: Open data, freedom of information, and the future of government transparency. Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, 19(1), Article 1.
43.
O’ReillyT. (2011). Government as a platform. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 6(1), 13–40.
44.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2016). Open government: The global context and the way forward.
45.
Open Society Justice Initiative. (2006). A survey of access to information laws and practices in 14 countries: Transparency & silence. Justice in Action Series. Open Society Institute.
46.
Oxford English Dictionary. (2018). “Open,” “openness,” and “openness to.”Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/
47.
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.
48.
PiotrowskiS. J. (2008). Governmental transparency in the path of administrative reform. State University of New York Press.
49.
PiotrowskiS. J. (2017). The “Open Government Reform” movement: The case of the open government partnership and US transparency policies. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(2), 155–171.
50.
PiotrowskiS. J.BorryE. (2010). An analytic framework for open meetings and transparency. Public Administration and Management, 15(1), 138–176.
RobertsA. S. (2006). Blacked out: Government secrecy in the information age. Cambridge University Press.
53.
SchnellS. (2018a). From information to predictability: Transparency on the path to democratic governance. The case of Romania. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(4), 692–710.
54.
SchnellS. (2018b). Cheap talk or incredible commitment? (Mis) calculating transparency and anti-corruption. Governance, 31(3), 415–430.
55.
SovacoolB. K.AndrewsN. (2015). Does transparency matter? Evaluating the governance impacts of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in Azerbaijan and Liberia. Resources Policy, 45, 183–192.
56.
StierS. (2015). Political determinants of e-government performance revisited: Comparing democracies and autocracies. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 270–278.
57.
ToepflF. (2018). Innovating consultative authoritarianism: Internet votes as a novel digital tool to stabilize non-democratic rule in Russia. New Media & Society, 20(3), 956–972.
VerhulstS. G.YoungA. (2017). Open data in developing economies: Toward building an evidence base on what works and how. The GovLab. http://odimpact.org/developingeconomies.html
60.
WasikeB. (2016). FoIA in the age of “Open. Gov.”: An analysis of the performance of the Freedom of Information Act under the Obama and Bush administrations. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 417–426.
WirtzB. W.BirkmeyerS. (2015). Open government: Origin, development, and conceptual perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(5), 381–396.
63.
WongW.WelchE. W. (2004). Does e-government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of website openness and government accountability. Governance, 17(2), 275–297.
64.
WorthyB. (2015). The impact of open data in the UK: Complex, unpredictable, and political. Public Administration, 93(3), 788–805.
65.
YuH.RobinsonD. G. (2012). The new ambiguity of “open government” (Working Paper No, 12-01). Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy.
66.
ZylA. (2014). How civil society organizations close the gap between transparency and accountability. Governance, 27(2), 347–356.
