Open government reform is frequently being used to promote greater transparency and participation in government. But conceptual models of transparency success have not been well articulated, and there is a puzzle regarding whether and why transparency policies perform. One way forward is to assess negative cases of when open government initiatives fall far short of their stipulated goals. Policy failure can be specifically measured and has strong empirical and normative salience given that poor transparency performance is a common phenomenon. In order to address the transparency performance puzzle, this paper employs institutional theory and uses fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to assess whether any combination of factors proposed by the theory present necessary or sufficient conditions for failing open government initiatives. Results show that no single condition is necessary for failure to occur. Four `recipes' of policy failure exist revealing a strong influence of lack of legal mandates and weak civil society support combined with either a poor information rights environment or low resources.
BannisterF, ConnollyR. The trouble with transparency: A critical review of openness in e-government. Policy & Internet. 2011; 3(1): 1-30.
2.
BertotJC, GorhamU, JaegerPT, SarinLC, ChoiH. Big data, open government and e-government: Issues, policies and recommendations. Information Polity. 2014; 19(1-2): 5-16.
3.
YuH, RobinsonDG. The new ambiguity of ``Open Government''. 2012; 60 UCLA Law Review Discourse.
4.
HarrisonTM, GuerreroSG, BurkeB, CookM, CresswellA, HelbigN, HrdinováJ, PardoT. Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity. 2012; 17(2): 83-97.
5.
JanssenM, CharalabidisY, ZuiderwijkA. Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management. 2012; 29(4): 258-268.
6.
CoglianeseC. The transparency president? The Obama administration and open government. Governance. 2009; 22(4): 529-544.
7.
ScottJK. ``E'' the people: Do US municipal government web sites support public involvement? Public Administration Review. 2006; 66(3): 341-353.
8.
BovensM, LoosE. The digital constitutional state: Democracy and law in the information society. Information Polity. 2002; 7(4): 185-197.
9.
CurtinD, MeijerAJ. Does transparency strengthen legitimacy? Information Polity. 2006; 11(2): 109-22.
10.
GrimmelikhuijsenS. A good man but a bad wizard. About the limits and future of transparency of democratic governments. Information Polity. 2012; 17(3-4): 293-302.
11.
McDermottP. Building open government. Government Information Quarterly. 2010; 27(4): 401-13.
12.
HowlettM. The lessons of failure: Learning and blame avoidance in public policy-making. International Political Science Review. 2012; 33(5): 539-555.
13.
MeierKJ, BohteJ. Not with a bang, but a whimper explaining organizational failures. Administration & Society. 2003; 35(1): 104-121.
14.
BovensM, t'HartP. Revisiting the study of policy failures. Journal of European Public Policy. 2016; 23(5): 653-666.
15.
GerodimosR. The UK BSE crisis as a failure of government. Public Administration. 2004; 82(4): 911-929.
16.
MeierKJ, HicklinA. Employee turnover and organizational performance: Testing a hypothesis from classical public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2008; 18(4): 573-90.
17.
FotakiM. Patient choice in healthcare in England and Sweden: From quasi-market and back to market? Public Administration. 2007; 85(4): 1059-75.
18.
BrinkerhoffDW, WetterbergA. Performance-based public management reforms: Experience and emerging lessons from service delivery improvement in Indonesia. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2013; 79(3): 433-457.
19.
VisB, Van KersbergenK. Towards an open functional approach to welfare state change: Pressures, ideas, and blame avoidance. Public Administration. 2013; 91(4): 840-854.
FredericksonGH. The repositioning of American public administration. PS: Political Science & Politics. 1999; 32(4): 701-712.
22.
SchneiderQC, WagemannC. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
23.
BolívarR, PedroM, MuñozLA, AntonioM. Determinants of financial transparency in government. International Public Management Journal. 2013; 16(4): 557-602.
24.
GrimmelikhuijsenSG, WelchEW. Developing and testing a theoretical framework for computer-mediated transparency of local governments. Public Administration Review. 2012; 72(4): 562-71.
25.
GrimmelikhuijsenSG, FeeneyMK. Developing and testing an integrative framework for open government adoption in local governments. Public Administration Review. 2016; DOI: 10.1111/puar.12689.
26.
ZylA. How civil society organizations close the gap between transparency and accountability. Governance. 2014; 27(2): 347-56.
27.
WhitfordAB. Institutional design and information revelation: Evidence from environmental right-to-know. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2009; 19(2): 189-205.
28.
RhysA, BeynonMJ, McDermottAM. Organizational capability in the public sector: A configurational approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2016; 26(2): 239-258.
29.
GoldfinchS, DeRouenK. In it for the long haul? Post-conflict statebuilding, peacebuilding, and the good governance agenda in timor-leste. Public Administration and Development. 2014; 34(2): 96-108.
30.
BevanG, HoodC. What's measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration. 2006; 84(3): 517-538.
31.
TanY. Transparency without democracy: The unexpected effects of China's environmental disclosure policy. Governance. 2014; 27(1): 37-62.
32.
De RenzioP, MasudH. Measuring and promoting budget transparency: The open budget index as a research and advocacy tool. Governance. 2011; 24(3): 607-16.
33.
FoxJ. The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability. Development in Practice. 2007; 17(4-5): 663-71.
34.
PeixotoT. The uncertain relationship between open data and accountability: A response to Yu and Robinson's. The New Ambiguity of Open Government. 2013; 60 UCLA Law Review Discourse, 200.
35.
BearfieldDA, BowmanAO. Can you find it on the web? An assessment of municipal e-government transparency. The American Review of Public Administration. 2017; 47(2): 172-188.
36.
TallbergJ, SommererT, SquatritoT. Democratic memberships in international organizations: Sources of institutional design. The Review of International Organizations. 2016; (1): 59-87.
37.
BeisheimM, LieseA, JanetschekH, SarreJ. Transnational partnerships: Conditions for successful service provision in areas of limited statehood. Governance. 2014; 27(4): 655-73.
38.
AraujoJF, Tejedo-RomeroF. Local government transparency index: Determinants of municipalities' rankings. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2016; 29(4): 327-47.
39.
AltJE, LassenDD, RoseS. The causes of fiscal transparency: Evidence from the US states. IMF Staff Papers. 2009; 30-57.
40.
BerlinerD. The political origins of transparency. The Journal of Politics. 2014; 76(2): 479-91.
41.
BerlinerD, ErlichA. Competing for transparency: Political competition and institutional reform in Mexican states. American Political Science Review. 2015; 109(1): 110-28.
42.
BenitoB, BastidaF. Budget transparency, fiscal performance, and political turnout: An international approach. Public Administration Review. 2009; 69(3): 403-17.
43.
DowleyKM. Local government transparency in east central europe. Local Government Studies. 2006; 32(5): 563-83.
44.
GrimesM. The contingencies of societal accountability: Examining the link between civil society and good government. Studies in Comparative International Development. 2013; 48(4): 380-402.
45.
DarchC, UnderwoodPG. Freedom of information in the developing world: Demand, compliance and democratic behaviours. Oxford: Chandos. 2010.
46.
MichenerG. Assessing freedom of information in latin america a decade later: Illuminating a transparency causal mechanism. Latin American Politics and Society. 2015; 57(3): 77-99.
47.
WorthyB, JohnP, VannoniM. Transparency at the parish pump: A field experiment to measure the effectiveness of freedom of information requests in England. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2016; DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muw063.
48.
BerlinerD. Transnational advocacy and domestic law: International NGOs and the design of freedom of information laws. The Review of International Organizations. 2016; 11(1): 121-44.
49.
HazellR, BourkeG, WorthyB. Open house? Freedom of information and its impact on the UK parliament. Public Administration, 2012; 90(4): 901-21.
50.
WorthyB. More open but not more trusted? The effect of the Freedom of Information Act2000; on the United Kingdom central government. Governance. 2010; 23(4): 561-82.
51.
RobertsAS. Spin control and freedom of information: Lessons for the United Kingdom from Canada. Public Administration. 2005; 83(1): 1-23.
52.
EscalerasM, LinS, RegisterC. Freedom of information acts and public sector corruption. Public Choice. 2010; 145(3-4): 435-60.
53.
ShepherdE, StevensonA, FlinnA. Freedom of Information and records management in local government: Help or hindrance? Information Polity. 2011; 16(2): 111-21.
54.
BrandsmaGJ. The effect of information on oversight: The European Parliament's response to increasing information on comitology decision-making. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2012; 78(1): 74-92.
55.
RellyJE. Examining a model of vertical accountability: A cross-national study of the influence of information access on the control of corruption. Government Information Quarterly. 2012; 29(3): 335-45.
56.
GrigorescuA. International organizations and government transparency: Linking the international and domestic realms. International Studies Quarterly. 2003; 47(4): 643-67.
57.
RenzioP, AngemiD. Comrades or culprits? Donor engagement and budget transparency in aid-dependent countries. Public Administration and Development. 2012; 32(2): 167-80.
58.
AcarM, RobertsonPJ. Accountability challenges in networks and partnerships: Evidence from educational partnerships in the United States. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2004; 70(2): 331-44.
59.
WeitzmanBC, SilverD, BrazillC. Efforts to improve public policy and programs through data practice: experiences in 15 distressed American cities. Public Administration Review. 2006; 66(3): 386-99.
60.
Esteller-MoréA, Polo OteroJ. Fiscal Transparency: (Why) does your local government respond? Public Management Review. 2012; 14(8): 1153-73.
61.
De MesquitaBB, SmithA. Leader survival, revolutions, and the nature of government finance. American Journal of Political Science. 2010; 54(4): 936-50.
62.
DragoşDC, NeamtţuB, CobârzanBV. Procedural transparency in rural Romania: linking implementation with administrative capacity? International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2012; 78(1): 134-57.
63.
GrahamFS, GoodenST, MartinKJ. Navigating the transparency - privacy paradox in public sector data sharing. American Review of Public Administration. 2016; 46(5): 569-591.
64.
PiotrowskiSJ, RosenbloomDH. Nonmission - based values in results - oriented public management: The case of freedom of information. Public Administration Review. 2002; 62(6): 643-57.
65.
WeilD, FungA, GrahamM, FagottoE. The effectiveness of regulatory disclosure policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2006; 25(1): 155-81.
66.
KolstadI, WiigA. Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resource-rich countries? World Development. 2009; 37(3): 521-32.
67.
CharbonneauE, BellavanceF. Blame avoidance in public reporting: Evidence from a provincially mandated municipal performance measurement regime. Public Performance & Management Review. 2012; 35(3): 399-421.
68.
MurilloMJ. Evaluating the role of online data availability: The case of economic and institutional transparency in sixteen Latin American nations. International Political Science Review. 2015; 36(1): 42-59.
69.
Roederer-RynningCH, DaugbjergC. Power learning or path dependency? Investigating the roots of the European food safety authority. Public Administration. 2010; 88(2): 315-330.
70.
SiddikiSN, CarboniJL, KoskiC, SadiqAA. How policy rules shape the structure and performance of collaborative governance arrangements. Public Administration Review. 2015; 75(4): 536-47.
71.
BaubyP, VaroneF. Europeanization of the French electricity policy: four paradoxes. Journal of European Public Policy. 2007; 14(7): 1048-60.
72.
FungA, GrahamM, WeilD. Full disclosure: The perils and promise of transparency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2007.
BertelsmannS. Bertelsmann Transformation Index 2016. Politische Gestaltung im internationalen Vergleich. Gütersloh, Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2016.
75.
RihouxB, RaginCC. Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. London: Sage. 2009.
76.
PiotrowskiSJ, ZhangY, LinW, YuW. Key issues for implementation of Chinese open government information regulations. Public Administration Review. 2009; 69(s1): s129-s135.
