We adopt the principal-agent framework and the asymmetry of information between the principal and the agent in order to approach two subjects of much attention and expectations: i) the formal online release of governmental data as a means of furnishing information, and ii) its contribution to government economic and institutional transparency. We identify important characteristics of transparency as instruments to lessen the information asymmetry in relevant areas (or subjects) where corruption and inefficiency are generally present in political institutions. We focus on the central governments of sixteen Latin American nations. We determine that, while there exists a moderate release of data relevant to areas where corruption generally takes place, its contribution to providing meaningful information to the citizenry is minimal. Our findings also show the importance of policy that explicitly mandates that data corresponding to specific areas where corruption and inefficiency take place be shared over the Internet; adequate levels of national online technical sophistication are not sufficient. We conclude that modern information technologies, as tools to contributing to government transparency and lessen knowledge divides in the evaluated areas, are not meeting expectations. Our framework and findings seek to utilize political science theories to contribute to an early understanding of the role of modern data-oriented technologies in government transparency, and highlight the positive and negative effects that these can have in the betterment of governance and the consolidation of democracy.
AgrePhilip (2002) Real-time politics: The Internet and the political process. The Information Society18(5): 311–331.
2.
AltmanMicahMacDonaldKarinMcDonaldMichael (2005) From crayons to computers: The evolution of computer use in redistricting. Social Science Computer Review23(3): 334–346.
3.
AndersenKimHenriksenHelle (2006) E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly23: 236–248.
4.
AndersenThomas Barnebeck (2009) E-Government as an anti-corruption strategy. Information Economics and Policy21(3): 201–210.
5.
AtkinsonMichael (2011) Discrepancies in perceptions of corruption, or why is Canada so corrupt?Political Science Quarterly126(3): 445–464.
6.
AttfieldSimonDowellJohn (2003) Information seeking and use by newspaper journalists. Journal of Documentation59(2): 187–204.
7.
BandieraOrianaPratAndreaVallettiTommaso (2009) Active and passive waste in government spending: Evidence from a policy experiment. The American Economic Review99(4): 1278–1308.
8.
BanisarDavid (2006) Freedom of Information around the World 2006: A Global Survey of Access to Government Records Laws. London: Privacy International.
9.
BastidaFranciscoBenitoBernardino (2007) Central government budget practices and transparency: an international comparison. Public Administration85(3): 667–716.
10.
BellverAnaKaufmannDaniel (2005) Transparenting transparency: initial empirics and policy applications. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper.
11.
BertotJohnJaegerPaulGrimesJustin (2010) Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly27(3): 264–271.
12.
BrunettiAymoWederBeatrice (2003) A free press is bad news for corruption. Journal of Public Economics87(7–8): 1801–1824.
13.
CallandRichardBentleyKristina (2010) The impact and effectiveness of accountability and transparency initiatives: Freedom of information. Unpublished research paper, Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK.
14.
CarlitzRuthRenzioPaolo deKrafchikWarrenRamkumarVivek (2009) Budget transparency around the world: Results from the 2008 open budget survey. OECD Journal on Budgeting2(2009):1–17.
15.
ChenYuyuEbensteinAvrahamGreenstoneMichaelLiHongbin (2013) Evidence on the impact of sustained exposure to air pollution on life expectancy from China’s Huai River policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110(32): 12936–12941.
16.
CohenSarahLiChengkaiYangJunYuCong (2011) Computational journalism: A call to arms to database researchers. In: Proceedings of the 5th Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research, Asilomar, USA, 9-12 January 2011, pp. 148–151. New York: ACM.
17.
DarbishireHelen (2011) Proactive transparency: The future of the right to information?The World Bank Governance Working Paper Series. New York: The World Bank.
18.
EyobEphrem (2004) E-government: breaking the frontiers of inefficiencies in the public sector. Electronic Government, An International Journal1(1): 107–114.
19.
FearonJames (1995) Rationalist explanations for war. International Organization49: 379–379.
20.
FinelBernardLordKristin M (2000) Transparency and world politics. In: FinelBernardLorgKristin M (eds) Power and Conflict in the Age of Transparency. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
FloriniAnn (2007) The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World. New York: Columbia University Press.
22.
FoxJustin (2007) Government transparency and policymaking. Public choice131(1–2): 23–44.
23.
HansonElizabeth C (2008) The Information Revolution and World Politics. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
24.
HeutyAntoineCarlitzRuth (2009) Resource Dependence and Budget Transparency. New York: Revenue Watch Institute.
HollyerJamesRosendorffBryanVreelandJames (2014) Measuring transparency. Political analysis (2014): mpu001.
27.
HutchinsonFrancis (2005) A review of donor agency approaches to anti-corruption. Discussion paper, Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University, Australia.
28.
KaaseMax (2010) Democracy and Political Action. International Political Science Review3(5): 539–551.
29.
KawamotoKevin (2003) Digital Journalism: Emerging Media and the Changing Horizons of Journalism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
30.
KhazaeliSusanStockemerDaniel (2013) The Internet: A new route to good governance. Intenational Political Science Review34(5): 463–482
31.
KnackStephen (2001) Aid dependence and the quality of governance: Cross-country empirical tests. Southern Economic Journal68(2): 310–329.
32.
KnightAlan (2000) Investigative journalism on the Internet. Australian Journalism Review22(2): 48–58.
33.
KnoxEG (2008) Atmospheric pollutants and mortalities in English local authority areas. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health64(5): 442–447.
34.
KolstadIvarWiigArne (2009) Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resource-rich countries?World Development37(3): 521–532.
35.
KopitsGeorgeCraigJon D (1998) Transparency in Government Operations. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.
36.
KrafchikWarren (2010) The Open Budget Survey 2010. Washington DC: International Budget Partnership.
37.
KumarManmohan STer-MinassianTeresa (2007) Promoting Fiscal Discipline. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.
38.
LambsdorffJohann Graf (1999) Corruption in empirical research: A review. In: 9th International Anti-Corruption Conference, Durban, South Africa, 10–15 December 1999, pp. 2–18. Berlin: Transparency International.
39.
LindstedtCatharinaNaurinDaniel (2006) Transparency Against Corruption, A Cross-Country Study. In: IPSA 20th World Congress, Fukuoka, Japan, 9–13 July 2006, pp. 1–38. Montreal: IPSA.
40.
LindstedtCatharinaNaurinDaniel (2010) Transparency is not enough: Making transparency effective in reducing corruption. International Political Science Review31(3): 301–322.
41.
LowensteinLouis (1996) Financial transparency and corporate governance: You manage what you measure. Columbia Law Review96: 1335–1362.
42.
MendelToby (2003) Freedom of Information: A Comparative Legal Survey. Paris: Regional Bureau for Communication and Information, UNESCO.
43.
MillerGary J (2005) The political evolution of principal-agent models. Annual Revision of Political Science8: 203–225.
44.
MøllerJørgenSkaaningSvend-Erik (2010) Beyond the radial delusion: Conceptualizing and measuring democracy and non-democracy. International Political Science Review3(3): 261–283.
45.
MurilloMartin (2009) Towards innovative and effective ways of offering government transparency to illiterate and ICT illiterate people. Research Fellowship Proposal for IDRC, Canada, October.
46.
OGD-UK (2010) United Kingdom Open Government Data Portal. Available at: http://data.gov.uk (accessed 26 January 2014).
47.
OsimoDavid (2008) Benchmarking eGovernment in the Web 2.0 era: What to measure, and how. European Journal of ePractice37(4): 1–11.
48.
PiotrowskiSuzanneBertelliAnthony (2010) Measuring municipal transparency. In: 14th International Research Society in Public Management conference. Bern, Switzerland, 1 April 2010, pp. 1–27. Bern: IRSPM.
49.
RellyJeannine ESabharwalMeghna (2009) Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: A cross-national study. Government Information Quarterly26(1): 148–157.
50.
RobinsonDavidYuHarlanZellerWilliam PFeltenEdward W (2009) Government data and the invisible hand. Yale Journal of Law & Technology11: 160.
51.
RWB (2012) World Press Freedom Index 2011–2012. Paris: Reporters Without Borders.
52.
SchlozmanKayVerbaSidneyBradyHenry E (2010) Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the Internet. Perspectives on Politics8(2): 487–509.
53.
SchrenkMichael (2007) Webbots, Spiders, and Screen Scrapers: A Guide to Developing Internet Agents with PHP/CURL. San Francisco: No Starch Press.
54.
ShkabaturJennifer (2013) Transparency with(out) accountability: Open government in the United States. Yale Law & Policy Review31(1): 79–140.
55.
SpenceMichaelZeckhauserRichard (1971) Insurance, information, and individual action. The American Economic Review61(2): 380–387.
56.
StiglitzJoseph E (2000) The contributions of the economics of information to twentieth century economics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics115(4): 1441–1478.
57.
SvenssonJacob (2000) Foreign aid and rent-seeking. Journal of International Economics51(2): 437–461.
58.
Tat-Kei HoAlfred (2002) Reinventing local governments and the E-Government initiative. Public Administration Review62(4): 434–444.
ThompsonMark (2005) ICT, power, and developmental discourse: A critical analysis. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries20(4): 1–26.
61.
TI-CPI (2010) Corruption Perception Index 2010. Berlin: Transparency International.
62.
TI-GCR (2009) Global Corruption Report 2009. In: ZinnbauerDieterDobsonRebeccaDespotaKrina (eds) Corruption and the Private Sector. Cambridge: Transparency International.
63.
TreismanDaniel (2000) The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics76(3): 399–458.
64.
UNDESA (2008) World Urbanization Prospects, the 2007 Revision. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
65.
UNDESA (2012) E-Government Survey 2012: E-Government for the People. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
66.
UNDP (2012) Human Development Report 2011. Sustainability and Equity. New York: United Nations Development Program.
67.
UN-EGS (2010) E-Government Survey 2010. Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis. New York: United Nations Publications.
68.
US-OGD (2009) United States Open Government Data Portal. Available at: http://www.data.gov (accessed 20 March 2014).
69.
WagnerWendy E (2009) Administrative law, filter failure, and information capture. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/wendy_wagner/1 (accessed 20 March 2014).
WongWilsonWelchEric (2004) Does E-government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of website openness and government accountability. Governance17(2): 275–297.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
