The concepts of Transparency, Citizen Participation and Open Government is increasingly being used by politicians, public officials and civil society. Open Government strategies are being assumed by public administration at different levels of government, but also by civil society organizations that are involved in issues of transparency, citizen participation mainly. However, there is a diversity about how the concepts are used by different social sectors. In this sense, it is pertinent to know how these concepts are perceived among the main sectors that trigger policies of transparency, citizen participation and open government. The objective of this research is to analyze transparency, citizen participation and open government from the perspectives of two fundamental sectors in the political-social participation process: Civil Society Organizations (CSO) and Government. To contrast the perspectives of the two sectors, the case of the State of Jalisco, Mexico is studied. This research shows the results of a survey administrated to members of CSO and public officials involved in open government actions. In order to contrast ideas and assessments, three dimensions are established for its analysis: a) open government, c) transparency and b) citizen participation. The results show a considerable gap between the perceptions of public officials and organized civil society.
Abu-ShanabE.A. (2015). Reengineering the open government concept: an empirical support for a proposed model. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 453-463.
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.
BennettW.L.WellsC., & FreelonD. (2011). Communicating civic engagement: contrasting models of citizenship in the youth web sphere. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 835-856.
4.
BertotJ.C.GorhamU.JaegerP.T.SarinL.C., & ChoiH. (2014). Big data, open government and e-government: issues, policies and recommendations. Information Polity, 19(1–2), 5-16.
5.
BimberB.FlanaginA.J., & StohlC. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory, 15(4), 365-388.
6.
BinghamL.B.NabatchiT., & O’LearyR. (2005). The new governance: practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public administration Review, 65(5), 547-558.
7.
BonsónE.RoyoS., & RatkaiM. (2015). Citizens’ engagement on local governments’ facebook sites. an empirical analysis: the impact of different media and content types in western europe. Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 52-62.
8.
BroockmanD.E., & SkovronC. (2018). Bias in perceptions of public opinion among political elites. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 542-563.
9.
CallahanK. (2007). Citizen participation: models and methods. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(11), 1179-1196.
10.
CastellsM. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture Volume I (Information Age Series). London: Blackwell.
11.
CastellsM. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. John Wiley & Sons.
12.
CastellsM.GimenoC.M., & AlborésJ. (2005). La sociedad red, volume 1. Alianza.
13.
ConradieP., & ChoenniS. (2014). On the barriers for local government releasing open data. Government Information Quarterly, 31, S10-S17.
14.
CriadoJ.I., & Ruvalcaba-GomezE.A. (2018). Perceptions of city managers about open government policies: concepts, development, and implementation in the local level of government in spain. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 14(1), 1-22.
15.
CriadoJ.I.Ruvalcaba-GómezE.A., & Valenzuela-MendozaR. (2018). Revisiting the open government phenomenon. a meta-analysis of the international literature.
16.
CriadoJ.I.Sandoval-AlmazanR., & Gil-GarciaJ.R. (2013). Government innovation through social media. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 319-326.
17.
DaltonR.J., & ShinD.C. (2014). Reassessing the civic culture model. The civic culture transformed: From allegiant to assertive citizens, 91-115.
18.
DietrichH., & SchibeciR. (2003). Beyond public perceptions of gene technology: community participation in public policy in australia. Public Understanding of Science, 12(4), 381-401.
19.
EkmanJ., & AmnåE. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: towards a new typology. Human Affairs, 22(3), 283-300.
20.
FayM.P., & ProschanM.A. (2010). Wilcoxon-mann-whitney or t-test? on assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules. Statistics Surveys, 4, 1.
21.
FungA. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: the challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513-522.
22.
FungA.GrahamM.WeilD., & FagottoE. (2004). The political economy of transparency: What makes disclosure policies effective? Available at SSRN 766287.
23.
GanapatiS., & ReddickC.G. (2014). The use of ICT for open government in U.S. municipalities: perceptions of chief administrative officers. Public Performance & Management Review, 37, 365-387.
24.
GascóM. (2015). Special issue on open government: an introduction. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 535-539.
25.
Gascó-HernándezM. (2014). Open government: Opportunities and challenges for public governance, volume 14. Springer.
26.
GrimmelikhuijsenS.PorumbescuG.HongB., & ImT. (2013). The effect of transparency on trust in government: a cross-national comparative experiment. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 575-586.
27.
HerreraL. (2012). Youth and citizenship in the digital age: a view from Egypt. Harvard Educational Review, 82(3), 333-352.
28.
HoogheM.MarienS., & OserJ. (2017). Great expectations: the effect of democratic ideals on political trust in european democracies. Contemporary Politics, 23(2), 214-230.
29.
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.
30.
JhoW., & SongK.J. (2015). Institutional and technological determinants of civil e-participation: solo or duet? Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 488-495.
31.
JohnstonE.W. (2015). Introduction. In JohnstonE.W., ed, Governance in the Information Era: Theory and Practice of Policy Informatics, chapter 1, pp. 3-22. Routledge, New York.
32.
KimS., & LeeJ. (2012). E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819-828.
33.
KlingemannH.-D. (2014). Dissatisfied democrats: Democratic maturation in old and new democracies. The civic culture transformed: From allegiant to assertive citizens, 116-157.
34.
LathropD., & RumaL. (2010). Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
35.
LeeG., & KwakY.H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492-503.
36.
LiuH.K. (2017). Crowdsourcing government: lessons from multiple disciplines. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 656-667.
37.
MacintoshA. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, pp. 10-pp. IEEE.
38.
McDermottP. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401-413.
39.
MedagliaR. (2012). Eparticipation research: moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 346-360.
40.
MeijerA.J.CurtinD., & HillebrandtM. (2012). Open government: connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10-29.
41.
MerinoM. (1995). La participación ciudadana en la democracia. Ife México.
42.
NabatchiT., & AmslerL.B. (2014). Direct public engagement in local government. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(4 suppl), 63S-88S.
43.
Noelle-NeumannE. (1991). The theory of public opinion: the concept of the spiral of silence. Annals of the International Communication Association, 14(1), 256-287.
44.
NorrisP. (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. OUP Oxford.
45.
ParkH., & BlenkinsoppJ. (2011). The roles of transparency and trust in the relationship between corruption and citizen satisfaction. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 254-274.
46.
PetrusicD.SegedinacM., & KonjovicZ. (2016). Semantic modelling and ontology integration of the open government systems/semanticko modeliranje i ontoloska integracija sustava otvorene vlade. Tehnicki Vjesnik-Technical Gazette, 23(6), 1631-1642.
47.
PittiI. (2018). Unconventional political participation: An overview. In Youth and Unconventional Political Engagement, pp. 7-21. Springer.
48.
PollittC. (2016). Advanced Introduction to Public Management and Administration. Edward Elgar Publishing.
49.
PorumbescuG.BelléN.CuccinielloM., & NasiG. (2017). Translating policy transparency into policy understanding and policy support: evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration, 95(4), 990-1008.
50.
ReddickC.G. (2008). Collaborative management and e-government: a survey of state government cios. Electronic Government, an International Journal, 5(2), 146-161.
51.
ReddickC.G. (2011). Citizen interaction and e-government: evidence for the managerial, consultative, and participatory models. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5, 167-184.
52.
Ruvalcaba-GomezE.A. (2017). Perceptions about the concept and benefits of open government in local governments in spain. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pp. 594-597. ACM.
53.
Ruvalcaba-GomezE.A. (2019). Open government and citizen participation: perceptions between civil society organizations and government. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 11(2), 1-13.
54.
Ruvalcaba-GomezE.A.CriadoJ.I., & Gil-GarciaJ.R. (2017). Public Managers’ Perceptions about Open Government. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research – dg.o ’17, pp. 566-567, New York, New York, USA. ACM Press.
55.
Ruvalcaba-GomezE.A.CriadoJ.I., & Gil-GarciaJ.R. (2018). Discussing open government as a concept: a comparison between the perceptions of public managers and current academic debate. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age, p. 71. ACM.
56.
Ruvalcaba-GomezE.A., & RenteriaC. (2019). Contrasting the perceptions about citizen participation between organized civil society and government with an open government approach: The case of the state of jalisco, mexico. In 2019 Sixth International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG), pp. 39-46. IEEE.
57.
SæbøØ.RoseJ., & FlakL.S. (2008). The shape of eparticipation: characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400-428.
58.
SandovalR. (2011). The two door perspective: an assessment framework for open government. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 3(2), 166-181.
59.
SmithD.H. (1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volunteering: a literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(3), 243-263.
60.
StephenH.H.NorrisD.F., & FletcherP.D. (2003). Electronic government at the local level: progress to date and future issues. Public Performance & Management Review, 26(4), 325-344.
61.
SushaI., & GrönlundÅ. (2012). Eparticipation research: systematizing the field. Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 373-382.
62.
Van BiezenI.MairP., & PoguntkeT. (2012). Going, going, … gone? the decline of party membership in contemporary europe. European Journal of Political Research, 51(1), 24-56.
63.
VilleneuveJ.-P. (2014). Transparency of transparency: the pro-active disclosure of the rules governing access to information as a gauge of organisational cultural transformation. the case of the swiss transparency regime. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 556-562.
64.
VilloriaM. (2013). El gobierno abierto como subsistema de políticas: Una evaluación desde el institucionalismo discursivo, en “la promesa del gobierno abierto”. Ramírez Alujas, Álvaro.
65.
WeaverR.L. (2017). President obama’s open government initiative. Revue Internationale des Gouvernements Ouverts, 1, 1-10.
66.
WilliamsC.B.GulatiG.J.J., & YatesD.J. (2013). Predictors of on-line services and e-participation: a cross-national comparison. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, pp. 190-197. ACM.
67.
WirtzB.W.PiehlerR.ThomasM.-J., & DaiserP. (2016). Resistance of public personnel to open government: a cognitive theory view of implementation barriers towards open government data. Public Management Review, 18(9), 1335-1364.
