Open Government Data as a Tool to Improve Democracy: a Proposed Framework
Master’s Thesis
Submitted 27 June 2014
Author: Natalia Miszczak
Student number: 10231927
[email protected]
+44 (0)7513061281
Course Title: MA New Media
Supervisor: dhr. dr. B.G.M. (Martijn) de Waal
Assistant Professor
Faculty of Humanities
Department of Media Studies
University of Amsterdam
Second Reader: dr. Y. (Yuri) von Engelhardt
Assistant Professor
Faculty of Humanities
Department of Media Studies
University of Amsterdam
Miszczak i
Acknowledgements
I would like to that my research supervisor, Mr Martin de Waal, for his guidance and
assistance on preparing this research paper. Without his support and advice, this would have
not been possible. To my family and friends, thank you for your on-going support and
motivation throughout this process.
Miszczak ii
Abstract
Governments around the world have become active members in the evolution of
opening up their data for access and re-use by public and private agents alike. The collection
and release of Open Government Data has been driven by the promise that democratic
governments can be enhanced and improved by its use. In particular, four pillars of
democracy selected as part of this research paper– participation, public sphere, transparency
and accountability – can all benefit by the release and use of Open Government Data.
However, an evaluation of the existing academic research and publications currently
available suggest a shortfall in frameworks available to measure the benefit the release of
Open Government Data has on these four pillars of a democratic society.
This research paper explores the meaning of Open Government Data and the various
promises claimed by its supporters. The pillars of a democratic society and how it is moving
towards a phase of ‘post-democracy‘ has been discussed in detail.
A proposed new framework, aimed at measuring specific democratic effects of Open
Government Data, has been included and uses key aspects of existing frameworks while
introduces a number of additional criteria and measurement tools. This proposed framework
provides a more systematic approach to measure the role of Open Government Data in
overcoming post-democracy and improving participation, public sphere, transparency and
accountability of governments. Limitations of the proposed framework and suggestions on
further research have also been included.
Key words: Open Government Data, Democracy, Post-Democracy, Participation,
Public Sphere, Transparency, Accountability, Framework
Miszczak iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... i Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. ii 1 Chapter 1 .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Problem and Research Question .............................................................................................. 3 1.3 Research Outline ............................................................................................................................ 4 2 Chapter 2 .................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 An introduction to Open Government Data .......................................................................... 5 2.2 Open Data: Definition and Meaning ........................................................................................ 7 2.3 Open Government: different meanings .................................................................................. 8 2.4 The Relationship between Open Government, Government Data and Open Government Data ...................................................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Promises of Open Government Data .................................................................................... 10 2.5.1 Fight Government Corruption, Improve Accountability and Government Services 11 2.5.2 Change the Government to Open, Transparent and Participatory ................................... 12 2.5.3 Create new models of journalism ................................................................................................... 12 2.5.4 Launching multi-­‐billion dollar businesses based on Public Sector Data ....................... 13 2.5.5 Create Greater Collective Knowledge, Collaboration and Innovation ............................ 14 2.5.6 Improve the delivery of public services ....................................................................................... 16 2.6 The beneficiaries of Open Government Data .................................................................... 16 Miszczak iv
3 Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................................. 18 3.1 Democracy: Definition and traditional pillars .................................................................. 18 3.1.1 Participation ............................................................................................................................................ 19 3.1.2 Freedom of expression and the existence of Public Sphere ................................................ 20 3.1.3 Transparency ........................................................................................................................................... 21 3.1.4 Accountability ......................................................................................................................................... 21 3.2 Post-­‐Democracy: Democracy is failing ................................................................................ 22 3.2.1 Problems with Participation and Engagement ......................................................................... 23 3.2.2 Problems with Construction of the Public Sphere .................................................................. 24 3.2.3 Problems with Transparency and Accountability ................................................................... 26 4 Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................................. 29 4.1 Challenges relating to Participation ..................................................................................... 29 4.2 Challenges related to the Public Sphere ............................................................................. 31 4.2.1 Access to Information .......................................................................................................................... 32 4.2.2 Digital Divide and Data Divide ......................................................................................................... 32 4.2.3 Overcoming the Divides ...................................................................................................................... 35 4.2.4 The Cost of Access ................................................................................................................................. 36 4.3 Challenges relating to Transparency ................................................................................... 37 4.3.1 Value of data published online and its usefulness for the general public ..................... 37 4.3.2 Transparency of decision-­‐making process ................................................................................. 39 4.4 Challenges related to Accountability ................................................................................... 40 4.5 Summary and Introduction to Frameworks ...................................................................... 41 5 Chapter 5 ................................................................................................................................. 43 5.1 Framework Assessment ........................................................................................................... 43 5.2 Heusser’s framework ................................................................................................................ 44 5.2.1 Outline and Summary .......................................................................................................................... 44 Miszczak v
5.2.2 Critique and Assessment .................................................................................................................... 45 5.3 Granickas’ framework ............................................................................................................... 46 5.3.1 Outline and Summary .......................................................................................................................... 46 5.3.2 Critique and Assessment .................................................................................................................... 47 5.4 Sandoval-­‐Almazán’s framework ............................................................................................ 48 5.4.1 Outline and Summary .......................................................................................................................... 48 5.4.2 Critique and Assessment .................................................................................................................... 50 5.5 Krabina’s framework ................................................................................................................ 50 5.5.1 Outline and Summary .......................................................................................................................... 50 5.5.2 Critique and Assessment .................................................................................................................... 53 5.6 Public Sector Transparency Board – Principles ............................................................... 53 5.6.1 Outline and Summary .......................................................................................................................... 53 5.6.2 Critique and Assessment .................................................................................................................... 55 5.7 Framework Assessment Summary ....................................................................................... 55 6 Chapter 6 ................................................................................................................................. 57 6.1 Proposed Framework Overview ............................................................................................ 57 6.2 Participation component ......................................................................................................... 59 6.3 Public Sphere component ........................................................................................................ 62 6.4 Transparency component ........................................................................................................ 64 6.5 Accountability component ....................................................................................................... 67 6.6 Proposed Framework – Critique ........................................................................................... 69 7 Chapter 7 ................................................................................................................................. 71 7.1 Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 71 7.2 Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................. 73 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 74 Miszczak 1
1
1.1
Chapter 1
Introduction
In the last twenty years, governments around the globe have taken actions to become
more transparent. Nearly seventy countries have now embraced Freedom of Information Acts
in order to facilitate access to information held by government bodies and another fifty have
pending efforts (Banisar 6). The last two decades have witnessed large number of states
implementing access to information laws.
There are many reasons for this increase in government transparency. Since the late
1980s, the end of the Soviet Union and the development of new democracies have given rise
to new foundations and constitutions around the globe. These new documents include rights
and obligations on the freedom to information and help to preventing government abuse of
power. These constitutional warranties often require the acceptance of new laws on
information access (Ackerman and Sandoval-Ballesteros).
Simultaneously, older democracies such as United States of America or the United
Kingdom are seeing the benefits of passing new regulation. For some years the concept of
open data and in particular Open Government Data (OGD) – information collected by the
authorities, available to anyone to obtain and use for any purpose - has been available
(Dietrich et al. 3). Various international bodies have prepared guidelines or exemplary
legislation to promote freedom of information. The International Monetary Fund, the World
Bank, and their contributors, are inspiring and encouraging countries to embrace access to
information laws as a way to strengthen the transparency and fight corruption (Puddephatt
10). The World Bank has published an online OGD Toolkit (“Open Government Data
Toolkit”), which includes a large number of information from the basics of OGD, the tools,
licences and presentation techniques. The toolkit also includes 'Open Data Readiness
Assessment' (ODRA), a “methodological tool for conducting an action-oriented assessment
of the readiness of a government - or even an individual agency - to evaluate, design and
implement an open data initiative” (“Readiness Assessment Tool | Data”). Finally, media and
civil society groups are pushing for better access to government-held data and for more
cooperation in policy making and governance (Banisar n.pag.).
As a result, open data has moved beyond a ‘nice-to-have’ to a necessity for
organizational and government performance standards in the 21st Century, as these days
Miszczak 2
citizens demand government to be more efficient than ever (Open Data Field Guide Executive Summary 4). Consequently, in September 2011, the Open Government Partnership
(OGP) was launched in New York. OGP is a “multilateral initiative that aims to secure
concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight
corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance” (“Open Government
Partnership - About”). In order to enter the partnership, authorities must demonstrate a
commitment to open government in five fundamental sectors and these criteria include:
“improving public services, increasing public integrity, effectively managing public
resources, creating safer communities and increasing corporate accountability” (“OGP
Minimum Eligibility Criteria”). Participating governments also promise to “uphold the value
of openness in engagement with citizens to improve services, manage public resources,
promote innovation, and create safer communities” (Yu and Robinson 201). The leaders of
all of the eight founding regimes (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, South
Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States) ratified an Open Government Declaration
as well as National Action Plans (“Historic Global Open Government Partnership Launches
in New York City - O’Reilly Radar” n.pag.). During the launch, MP Stephen Timms,
minister for Digital Britain in the UK, said that he sees this action as an opportunity to
improve the relationship between citizens and civil society. Timms added that UK OGD
portal data.gov.uk “would help the government become more efficient as public finances
were under pressure” (Anderson n.pag.). To date, 64 governments have joined the initiative
(“Participating Countries”).
In the UK, such a move was already expected for several years previous to the launch
of Open Government Partnership, the UK government had been pushed particularly by a
“vocal group of civic hackers” (Hogge 4) to release the data resources. Civic hackers are
individuals with similar views and goals who “collaborate with others to create, build, and
invent open source solutions using publicly-released data, code and technology, in order to
solve challenges relevant to their neighbourhoods, cities, or countries” (“Hack for the
Change”). Prior to the launch of OGP, civic hackers were known mostly for the creation of
various websites dedicated to political engagement. By applying different methods such as
traditional advocacy and demonstrator projects, they urged the government to release its data
in an open fashion and in machine-readable formats (Hogge 7). As Hogge observed, joining
OGP by UK was an answer to this pressure and it succeeded in “stimulating collaboration
between civil servants in the middle layer of government administration and civic hackers of
many different backgrounds” (6).
Miszczak 3
1.2
Problem and Research Question
Various actors including civic society, the government itself and public and private
organizations, are able to benefit largely from using OGD. These benefits, as classified by
various researchers, can be of economic and non-monetary character, and include greater
civic involvement in policy-making processes and civic control bespoke to the government.
Some claim that OGD could even overturn a current crisis in democratic governance
labelled “post-democracy”. The English sociologist and political scientist Colin Crouch
coined this term for a new phase of democratic order where the application of democratic
rules is gradually limited, and he considered western civilizations are now shifting towards
this phase (Coping with Post-Democracy). Due to promoting transparency and being a
government control tool, OGD may derive large social value and, as a result, help the
overcome post-democratic phase as well as help to strengthen democracy in different aspects.
However, whether indeed OGD can influence and help society leading to more
democratic governance, remains unclear. One problem is that even if it may do so, there are
currently very limited frameworks and tools available to measure this success. Of those that
are available, it is understood that there is currently none dealing specifically with the
democratic benefits of OGD on a broad scale.
The goal of this research paper is to address this issue, with the research question as
follows: what should an evaluative framework that is suited to measure specific democratic
effects of OGD look like? Specifically, what factors should be included in a framework to
measure the role of OGD in overcoming post-democracy and achieving other benefits, which
are thought to contribute to improving the quality of democracy in a democratic country (that
is increased government transparency and accountability). It is understood that such a
framework suited for adequately measuring democratic aspects of OGD is not readily
available to the public.
To answer this research question, I will introduce the reader to the development and
current use of OGD in the wider domain, explore the current challenges, and compare and
assess the existing frameworks available measuring different aspects of OGD, relating the
potential democratic effects of the provision.
Miszczak 4
Secondly, I will propose a new framework for measuring democratic benefits of OGD.
A critical assessment of this new framework outlining the intended use and limitations shall
be provided, before the final remarks and recommendations for future research.
1.3
Research Outline
Chapter two provides an introduction to OGD, its ideas and promises that the
supporters and enthusiasts claim.
Chapter three focuses on democracy, in particular its traditional pillars and the
suggested ways in which democracy is currently failing in developed societies. The concept
of post-democracy is introduced and how OGD has the potential to avoid the shift of some
countries to post-democracy and strengthen the democratic order. The additional democratic
effects (non-related to post-democracy) of OGD implementation and how access to the
Internet can counter the shift towards post-democracy is also discussed.
Chapter four focuses on the issues arising from the use of OGD as a tool to improving
democracy with respect to participation, public-sphere, transparency and accountability.
Chapter five includes the assessment of existing frameworks that measure different
democratic aspects of OGD. The results of this assessment form the basis of my proposed
framework.
Chapter six provides the details of my purpose-built framework developed specifically
to measure if OGD can improve the transparency, participation and accountability in a
political context, providing that the Internet can further develop the already existing publicsphere.
Chapter seven presents the conclusions and recommendations for future research.
Miszczak 5
2
Chapter 2
This chapter provides an introduction to OGD, the definitions, attributes, and the current
position taken on its use by some developed democratic governments. The various promises
relating to the release of OGD into the public realm, as claimed by its supporters, have also
been included.
2.1
An introduction to Open Government Data
The common understanding of the word “data” is that of a product of activity
conducted by individuals, businesses and governments; in personal, commercial and
government spheres. This data is collected in different ways and constantly evolving
technology means that more data can be generated, collected and stored than ever before. The
broad scope of government activity means that this is a particularly rich source of data and
the volume and significance of the data governments collect is substantial. Janssen claims
that the public bodies are in fact one of the largest groups both collecting and populating data
in a number of different formats (446). This data comes from the everyday administration of
government programs and it is increasingly available to the public.
The authors of “The Generative Mechanisms of Open Government Data” claim that
every year, the data generated from all sort of different sources is dramatically increasing the
volume of existing records and the amount of information available is expected to double
every year (Jetzek, Avital, and Bjorn-Andersen 2). The authors note that due to the amount of
data growing at a considerable rate, in addition to the advanced methods of sharing this
information, this changes the nature of data from "a closed proprietary reserve to a common
shared resource” (2). The authors also add that the possibilities to better use available data are
growing due to the technical facilities and advancement to merge and analyse different data
sets (2). Vivek Kundra, Chief Information Officer for the United States for the Obama
Administration (2008-11), summarises this phenomenon in an article titled “Digital Fuel of
the 21st Century: Innovation through Open Data and the Network Effect”. He notes that due
to these promised benefits of advanced computing and discovering new information from
new or already existing data, combined with the collaboration facilities, the same like oil in
the industrial revolution, society and data has “the potential to drive massive social, political
and economic change“ (4).
Recent technology now permits access to different forms of data such as raw datasets
from governments, institutions and organisations. As previously noted, various groups in
Miszczak 6
society demand access to unprocessed information “in ways that allows it to be searched,
sorted, remixed, visualized and shared through the Internet” (Davies, “How Might Open Data
Contribute to Good Governance?” 148). In Europe, the increasing potential of using such
data has been on The European Commission’s agenda since the end of 1980s (Janssen 446),
and in 2003, the directive on re-use of public sector information (the PSI directive) was
employed (“European Legislation on Reuse of Public Sector Information”).
In 2009, the open data agenda was given more visibility when US President Barack
Obama, upon being sworn into office, signed a Memorandum on Transparency and Open
Government. The memorandum committed his government “to create an unprecedented level
of openness in Government” (Obama n.pag.). He said:
We must use all available technologies and methods to open up the federal
government, creating a new level of transparency to change the way business is
conducted in Washington, and giving Americans the chance to participate in
government deliberations and decision-making in ways that were not possible only a
few years ago (O’Reilly, “Gov 2.0: The Promise Of Innovation. Can Government
Become a Platform Of, for and by the People?”).
During the first 100 days of Obama’s presidency, his administration took numerous
steps to indicate an improved commitment to governmental transparency. Their effort
resulted in the creation of the website data.gov, which is dedicated to hosting national
datasets for unrestricted access.
In the UK, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, spearheaded
the OGD initiative. In 2009, Berners-Lee gave a persuasive speech at the influential
“Technology, Entertainment, Design” (TED) conference during which he urged the datacollecting bodies to release “Raw Data Now!” (Tim Berners-Lee). As he observed, “(…) it
has to start at the top, it has to start in the middle and it has to start at the bottom” (Hogge 5).
The UK quickly followed the move of United States and the official data portal
data.gov.uk was launched in early 2010, offering access to some of the data collected by the
UK government and other public bodies. Thousands of data streams were uploaded upon its
inception “with the goal of enabling new opportunities for public use of this information’
(Harrison, Pardo, et al. n.pag.). This marked the beginning of open data reforms within the
UK government in the UK, and these changes continued to expand under the new
Miszczak 7
administration from mid-2010. As of June 2014, data.gov.uk has listed 14,343 published
datasets in various formats and hosted a range of derived applications.
At this point, it will be useful to provide a full explanation about the various meaning
of the word “open” in the context of data and the government. I am also going to discuss
further why civil groups, organizations and businesses are pushing this agenda, and outline
the promised benefits of OGD.
2.2 Open Data: Definition and Meaning
The label “open” in relation to data may have various meanings. From a technological
perspective, the word implies “using computers to handle information efficiently instead of
manual human processing” (Yu and Robinson 188). Philosophically, the term suggests
accessibility and transparency. It suggests that all the individuals who may profit from data
can impart and reuse it in a democratized, open manner. This, according to Yu and Robinson,
implies “an absence of legal barriers to innovative new projects, and a larger cultural
enthusiasm for innovative and sometimes unexpected developments” (189).
An advisory council Open Definition (opendefinition.org) provides a description, that
aims to set clear criteria for openness of data: “a piece of content or data is open if anyone is
free to use, reuse, and redistribute it - subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and
share-alike”. More precisely, the most important attributes of open data are as defined by the
Open Definition (Open Data Handbook Documentation 6):
•
Availability and Access: the data must be available in its entirety and at no more than
a realistic reproduction cost. Preferably it should be accessible to download over the
Internet, in a convenient and modifiable format.
•
Reuse and Redistribution: the data must be provided under terms that allow reuse and
redistribution including combining with other datasets.
•
Universal Participation: everyone must be allowed to use, reuse and redistribute the
data. There should be no discrimination against certain industries or against certain
persons or groups of people. For example, there should not be any ‘non-commercial’
restrictions that would prevent ‘commercial’ use, or there should not be any
restrictions of use for certain purposes (e.g. only in education).
Miszczak 8
To summarise the different meanings, the term “open data” now accumulates both
technological and philosophical senses: open data is unprocessed, non-manipulated and
available without any limitations on its usage or distribution. The above understanding of
the term shall be used as such in this research paper.
2.3
Open Government: different meanings
Until quite recently, open government referred to “politically sensitive disclosures of
government information” (Yu and Robinson 178), which in other words means the right of
individuals to access the material generated and held by the governments. Yu and Robinson
note that over the last couple of years this traditional meaning has evolved and the current
meaning transferred towards open technology (189). While the older approach was focused
mainly on transparency, Longo claims that the current understanding of “open government”
also includes aspects such as participation, collaboration and innovation. Yu and Robinson
identify that in relation to open government, the new meaning of “open” is similar to the open
source programming movement’s ideology and process where users can contribute and
modify the code of their chosen software (Yu and Robinson 188). In terms of open
government, it means that individuals can not only have rights to access the documents, but
they also can participate in the procedures of government, the same as the programmers
participate in the creation of the software. Harrison et al. claim that the open government is a
bridge between the so called digital democracy and digital government: it “(…) closes the
gap between digital government (usually more concerned about management) and digital
democracy (usually more concerned with political participation)” (84).
Additionally, these new collaborative opportunities require new approaches from
governments, and new models for promoting collaboration and generating value (Meijer and
Thaens). This particular way of thinking where individuals or organizations may build on
“work” completed by others and thus help its development has become a substantial and
well-established part of the open government movement. Lathrop and Ruma explained it in
“Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice”:
Just as open source software allows users to change and contribute to the source code
of their software, open government now means government where citizens not only
have access to information, documents and proceedings, but can also become
participants in a meaningful way (xix).
Miszczak 9
This means that participants (the public), through the use of OGD, have the potential
to take part in informed discourse, hold the government to account, provide feedback for the
government and assist the government in developing useful applications with the data
provided.
In a current and wider sense, “open government” can also mean “a changing
relationship between citizens and authorities - a gain of power in the hands of the governed in
respect to the governors” (Maier-Rabler, and Huber 182). In a report on future of open and
innovative government by The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), the secretary-general stated that citizens would have to take upon much more
responsibility and collaborate with the public sector:
In the context of the current technological shift and reliance on IT, citizens and civil
society will be empowered to take on greater responsibility and start new partnerships
with the public sector. Therefore, collaboration with citizens and civil society will
become a cornerstone for future public sector reforms (OECD, The Call for
Innovative and Open Government 13).
2.4
The Relationship between Open Government, Government Data and Open
Government Data
OGD is the confluence of government data, open data movement and open government
philosophy, with these relationships shown in Figure 1 below. Open data and open
government are interconnected, but not the same. A government can be open and
transparent, without embracing new, internet-mediated technologies: open data does not
necessarily come from the government and not all of the data possessed by the regimes can
be classified as “open”. (Yu and Robinson 181). Further to this, (open data) can remain
deeply opaque and unaccountable, by providing data on politically neutral topics or in such a
way as to avoid true transparency and accountability.
Miszczak 10
Figure 1: "Open Government Data", Justin Grimes
The term OGD is not completely clear and can be interpreted in one of two ways. Yu
and Robinson note that if “open government” is a phrase that determined the meaning of the
word “data”, politically important information is being discussed, whether or not they are
delivered by electronic means (181). Then, if the words “open” and “government” are used
separately and describing “data”, records that are both easy to access and related to the
government are considered, but the information does not have to be relevant from the
political point of view (182). Further to these, another interpretation also involves the
connection between all of the theories: governmental data is important from the political
point of view, delivered in a way that enables easy access to it and suited for further use, redistribution and manipulation. As explained previously, it is this third (connected)
interpretation that I consider relevant and will be used in this research thesis.
2.5
Promises of Open Government Data
Over the period OGD has been available for various groups to use, manipulate and
analyse, proponents have outlined the benefits or ‘promises’ OGD delivers to society. Kundra
notes four key promises as follows:
•
Fight government corruption, improve accountability and enhance government
services;
•
Change the default setting of government to open, transparent and participatory;
Miszczak 11
•
Create new models of journalism to separate signal from noise to provide meaningful
insights; and
•
Launch multi-billion dollar businesses based on public sector data.
In addition to those above, other authors have identified other promises:
•
Create Greater Collective Knowledge, Collaboration and Innovation (“Open
Government Data”); and
•
Improve the Government and Change in the Delivery of Public Services (“Improving
the Transparency and Accountability of Government and Its Services - Policy GOV.UK”).
These promises outline a number of obvious advantages to the overall functioning of a
democratic society. It is important to understand the details of these listed promises to
appreciate the issues and challenges of each in the context of OGD. Discussion of these as
follows.
2.5.1
Fight Government Corruption, Improve Accountability and Government Services
As explained previously, the “open” in Open Government, Open Data and Open
Information means the change of relationship between citizens and establishments. Many
people no longer accept the passive role, that the typical (representative) democracy holds for
them (Hogge 20). With this type of “contract”, where delegates are supposed to represent
citizens’ interests, people are only able to get directly involved sporadically (typically every
3-5 years) during elections. Opening up data enables more substantial involvement between
elections and according to Hadden, it creates “a virtual agora of civic discourse” (n. pag.)
This agora has several qualities enabling interaction where everyone has access to it, where it
is possible to meet anyone else, and everyone’s voice can be heard (Digital Public Spaces
14). Lastly, open data provides this discourse with evidence and facts, rather than opinion
(Hadden n.pag.). This may ultimately help to prevent dishonesty, increase accountability and
improve government services due to a better control imposed by the society.
Miszczak 12
2.5.2
Change the Government to Open, Transparent and Participatory
One of the basic rights of citizens in a well-functioning, democratic society is access
to information relating to the activities and policies of their government (OECD, Effective
Communications Between the Public Service and the Media 3). Free access to raw
government data provides the possibility of this type of democratic society. Transparency
initiatives, as Dawes and Helbig describe, generally serve the goal of control that voters can
now impose on the officials. This happens as a result of the renewal of the social contract
between government and citizens: providing citizens and other stakeholders “with ‘a
window’ into what government is doing and how it works in order to hold elected officials
and public agencies accountable for their decisions and actions” (Dawes and Helbig n.pag.).
OGD therefore implies a change of the role of public sector: it changes from
information gate keeper to the information publisher, which in turn may result in a change of
power distribution between the public and private sectors well as between the government
and the general public (Davies, “Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform” 5). With
more fair distribution of information and power, where more power is given to the public,
there are chances that the work of the government will improve due to increased
participation, collaboration and transparency, which will subsequently strengthen democracy.
2.5.3
Create new models of journalism
The idea behind this promise is that OGD is typically presented in a form of long
documents with countless rows of numbers or figures, where a thorough analysis demands
specific tools and knowledge. As a result, such data is often too difficult for most to consume
and comprehend. New types of information outlets are being created to make information
accessible for journalists and individuals, enabling greater insight and “mining signals out of
otherwise noisy data” (Kundra 11).
For example, projects such as “Where Does My Money Go”
(wheredoesmymoneygo.org) created by the Open Knowledge Foundation, show how the UK
government is spending taxpayers’ money. To quote a second example, The Open Data
Handbook includes a story of how open data prevented a $3.2 billion charity tax fraud in
Canada. Data provided to the public and journalist groups by the Canada Revenue Agency
(CRA) helped to discover that billions of dollars in contributions were collected by dishonest
organizations without the revenue reaching the target charities or causes. Also various
websites such as the Danish “Folkets Ting” (folketsting.dk) and the Polish “Sejmometr”
Miszczak 13
(sejmometr.pl) monitor activity in parliament and the policy making processes, giving
citizens a better chance of understanding the politics and ensures the accountability of the
elected representatives to account. “Sejmometr” includes a list of all Members of Parliament,
together with their voting attendance score, level of performances and submitted bills. Users
can read all recently approved bills and those that will be subject to a vote in the near future.
The website also provides a thorough graphical analyses of the country’s budget, spending
and national debt under different Prime Ministers. Figure 2 provides a sample snapshot
comparing budget acts in relation to the corresponding prime ministers.1
Figure 2: Polish Budget Acts visualized (Sejmometr.pl)
Thanks to using open data-based websites such as this, citizens are offered a clear and
visually stimulating outline of a government’s activity (e.g. involvement of individuals in
policy-making process). This provides a small example of historical government data
presented in a way to inform a wider audience.
2.5.4
Launching multi-billion dollar businesses based on Public Sector Data
In the digital age, data is an essential part of the life individuals and businesses alike.
From everyday activities such as finding a local swimming pool online, to creating a mobile
phone application, people and businesses require access to information, frequently held
1
Red - spending, blue - income, yellow - deficit.
Miszczak 14
and/or populated by the government. By opening its resources, governments may thus
support the formation of innovative solutions and businesses that bring both social and
commercial values. The professional services firm Deloitte believes that the open data
environment can greatly influence the future of the business: “(…) we foresee that open data
(...) will be a vital driver for growth, ingenuity and innovation in the UK economy“ (Open
Data 3).
Fioretti states that there are two types of economic value of OGD: the value generated
in the private sector and the value generated in the public sector (18). Regarding wealth
generated in the private sector, several studies (“OS Open Data Economic Value Study
Released Under FOI”; “Ordnance Survey Open Data”; Keogh) estimate the value to the UK
is in the order of millions of pounds. A recent report “The Open Data Economy: Unlocking
Economic Value by Opening Government and Public Data“ (Tinholt) published by an
international consultancy group Cap Gemini, examines government open data initiatives
around the world. It suggests that evidence of economic returns is growing. To name a few
examples, companies selling open data-based services in Spain generate together €330-550
million a year (Spanish Open Data Portal Annual Report. Characterization Study of the
Infomediary Sector 25). Garmin, a US company that develops consumer, aviation, and
marine technologies, was created using raw government data. Across the European Union
economy, the collective direct and indirect applications of open data are projected to be €140
billion annually. Thus, the matching increase in tax revenues is a direct financial benefit
(Tinholt 9).
For wealth generated in the public sector, these derive from savings inside the
administrations themselves. According to Fioretii, opening data may result in cutting some
activities (such as responding to queries, for example), or handling those activities in more
efficient way (18).
2.5.5
Create Greater Collective Knowledge, Collaboration and Innovation
New knowledge and new discoveries may derive from the combination and analysis
of different data sets. As an example, Dietrich et al. recall the case of Dr Snow, who exposed
the connection between drinking water contamination and cholera in 19th century London.
Joining facts about casualties with the information about position of water wells resulted in
discovering the pattern. His finding resulted in the creation of the new sewage system in
London, and subsequently an improvement of the population’s general health.
Miszczak 15
The reason why such developments have been taking place for many centuries is that
mixing different data sets can result in better understanding of various, even potentially
unrelated, issues. As it was explained previously, the freedom to contribute to the work of
others is a major factor of the open data philosophy. In the open data era, rather than being
merely “read-only” users, citizens have the freedom to mix distributed data from different
agencies, discover patterns, create applications and, upon completion, provide “feedback to
enhance the quality of published government data” (Ding et al. 325) as well as create more
valuable services.
Such a cycle exists in the technology industry where the “platform companies”
become big winners. There are enterprises that built additional value on other companies’
work and thus multiplied the impact of the service. O’Reilly notes how Microsoft provided “a
PC on every desk and in every home”, the Internet linked them together, Google supported a
generation of start-ups and Apple completely changed the phone industry by permitting
developers to create various applications. This last step lead to an “explosion of creativity”
from society, with more than 50,000 applications created for an Apple device in under 12
months (O’Reilly, “Gov 2.0” n.pag.).
Sir Tim Berners-Lee, one of the co-directors of London’s Open Data Institute, stated
“One of the reasons the Web worked was because people re-used each other’s content in
ways never imagined by those who created it. The same will be true of Open Data.” (Kelsey,
n.pag.). O’Reilly said in a blog post for Tech Crunch, “(…) in each case, the platform
provider raised the bar, and created opportunities for others to exploit” (O’Reilly, “Gov 2.0”).
In the case of OGD, such creativity and innovation is certainly achievable as well. In the
government context, innovation relates to performance and growth through progress in
efficiency, productivity, quality, etc. O’Sullivan and Dooley define innovation as “(…) the
process of making changes to something established by introducing something new that adds
value to customers and contributes to the knowledge store of the organization” (5).
Customers, in this meaning, are of course the citizens, who rely on government to provide
them with the services. However, the citizens themselves may create or drive the innovation
in addition to the media, businesses, independent researchers and entrepreneurs. Currently,
the trend of creative re-interpretation of open data is enforced by many web 2.0 initiatives
such as, for example, crowdsourcing and social networking sites. In New York, dog owners
can meet other pet owners from their area by checking who walks the dog at their local park
(dogster.com). Websites like mapumental.com in the UK, to quote another example, allow
Miszczak 16
citizens to find places to live by looking at aspects such as distance between the location and
work, security, affordability and the visual attractiveness of the location.
2.5.6
Improve the delivery of public services
The last promise of OGD is government self-improvement and change in the way
public services are delivered. It is not a new idea to use transparency as a tool for developing
better public services. In the article titled “Transparency in the NHS Not Only Saves Lives –
It Is a Fundamental Human Right”, the author notes examples how transparency affected
National Health System in the UK. The measurement plus publication of death rates in public
hospitals in UK led to the exposure of very poor standards of patient care at one of the
hospitals in London (Kelsey n.pag.). Clearly publishing this data exposed some major
problems with public services, which could no longer be “hidden” from the public. Anther
example comes from year 2004 the heart surgeon Sir Bruce Keogh, now British National
Health Service (NHS) medical director, persuaded 240 heart surgeons to publish analogous
data on results of their teams, including death rates (Keogh n.pag.). The outcomes were
surprising in their massive variations. Bad practices were addressed, good practices spread
and mortality rates fell over the following years by 22%, making UK heart surgery
demonstrably safer than anywhere else in Europe. This experience could then help to inform
clinical standards and training into the future and it was only made possible by the exposure
and analysis of current activities. This example is a sound positive result of transparency, that
led to delivery of better services by publicly found bodies.
Open data may also drive the efficiency of government services and departments. In a
paper titled “The Business Case For Open PSI (Part II)”, Zijstra cites an example where the
Ministry of Education in The Netherlands published online data held on the education sector.
The number of queries directed to the Ministry has dropped resulting in reduced costs and
employee work time. The other, non-monetary benefit of releasing data about education is
that parents and communities are more informed about the relative performance and service
offerings of their schools, and can act on this information.
2.6
The beneficiaries of Open Government Data
As it stems from examples above, the main beneficiaries of OGD are:
•
Citizens (general public plus researchers) / Consumers
•
Organisations and businesses
Miszczak 17
•
The government itself and related public institutions
Deloitte LPP outlined the complex relation between the data flow between these bodies as
shown in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Data flow inside the community (Deloitte LPP)
This chapter has provided the definitions, meanings and relationships between Open
Data and Open Government. The various promises of releasing OGD have been listed which
is key to understanding the future growth and interaction between the public and this data.
The following chapter discusses democracy and the concept of moving towards the phase of
post-democracy.
Miszczak 18
3
Chapter 3
The previous chapter outlined the promises of OGD and the various definitions
surrounding this. This chapter discusses the various aspects of democracy and specifically the
pillars on which it is based: transparency, the public sphere, participation and accountability.
Following this, the concept of society moving towards a phase of post-democracy has been
explored, where the role or access citizens have in developing and understanding
government’s decision making is slowing being eroded. In what ways, according to this
theory, is democracy subsequently failing on several levels will also be discussed. Finally,
how access to the Internet can improve the current position in the light of post-democracy
and what challenges are standing in the way shall be further investigated.
3.1
Democracy: Definition and traditional pillars
Providing a full definition of democracy is a complex task as many scholars offer
different points of view of this political system. There are various theories, concepts and
models of democracy and it would be difficult to provide a description that will satisfy
everyone. In literal meaning, the word democracy comes from ancient Greek word
dēmokratiā, which combines dēmos - the “people”, with kratos - “rule”, “power” or
“strength”. These two words combined means “rule by the people” and this is the very basic
explanation of this type of political system. By this definition, there must be a process by
which the people exercise this power for democracy to be in place. Next, in order for a
contestation to take place, which is based on sound reasoning and rational decisions, the
people must first be properly aware of all factual and relevant information relating to the
issues under contention. According to Robert Dahl, democracy requires free flow of
information, transparency and the existence of a well-functioning public sphere, therefore
freedom of speech, gatherings, and press, among other necessities, is necessary.
Following on from Dahl’s concept, Balkin recognized three main purposes for
transparency in a democratic society: providing the public with the information, increasing
public participation, and holding organizations accountable. In other words, via transparency
and using their right to participate, the public have a much greater opportunity to hold
governments accountable for their actions. Accountability is the next requirement of
democracy, as stated by Schmitter and Karl: “democracy is a system of governance in which
rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly
through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives“ (103).
Miszczak 19
Although only a brief introduction to the components of democracy, I have used these
definitions and concepts as the basis of my further research. As such, the core requirements,
or pillars, of a well-functioning democratic system have been defined as political
participation, a well-functioning public sphere, transparency and accountability. These four
pillars have been discussed in further detail as follows.
3.1.1
Participation
The public participation in discussion and decision-making process is a key element
of the definition of democracy coined by Bobbio and Schattschneider. Bobbio described a
democratic regime as “(…) a set of procedural rules for arriving at collective decisions in a
way which accommodates and facilitates the fullest possible participation of interested
parties” (19). According to Schattschneider this participation is facilitated by the actors in the
democratic order: "democracy is a competitive political system in which competing leaders
and organizations define the alternatives of public policy in such a way that the public can
participate in the decision-making process” (41). It is important to note that involvement in
the decision-making process is determined by the technical capabilities: in a direct
democracy, all citizens can take part in making public decisions, without the need of
selecting intermediary or appointing officials to represent them. Such system is of course
practical only in small communities, where all members can physically gather, to discuss
matters and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Modern democracy, due to the
large size of communities, offers very limited opportunities for direct involvement and
therefore, the most common form of democracy is representative democracy. This is the form
of this political system, where people designate officials to make political decisions, invent
laws, and design policies for the public, as defined by Pennock:
(…) where ‘the people’ includes all adult citizens not excluded by some generally
agreed upon and reasonable disqualifying factor (…). Rule means that public policies
are determined either directly by vote of the electorate or indirectly by officials freely
elected at reasonably frequent intervals and by a process in which each voter who
chooses to vote counts equally (…) and in which a plurality is determinative (9).
After analysing various types of citizen participation, it is important to stress the importance
of equality of all classes within the society so that the voices from all classes can be heard:
Miszczak 20
Democracy is the form of state within which the distribution of power in the state is
determined exclusively by the social factors of power, but is not shifted in favour of
any one class through the application of material means of coercion" (Otto Bauer, qtd.
in Meyer 65).
As outlined in Chapter 2, improved citizen participation in the policy making process
is a key benefit after the release of OGD - “Change the default setting of government to
Open, Transparent and Participatory”.
3.1.2
Freedom of expression and the existence of Public Sphere
Guaranteed freedom of expression is also often quoted as a crucial feature of
democracy and a philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn was a famous advocate of the
connection between democracy and freedom of speech (Marlin 226–227). In his work titled
“Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government”, Meiklejohn argues that for a democratic
community, which is self-governed by the people, a fully informed electorate is necessary.
As such, a free movement of information and ideas is necessary for this to work.
The area that enables such free flow of information where individuals can express
their opinions, identify societal problems and form public opinion is called “public sphere”.
This term, coined by a cultural theorist Jürgen Habermas, is defined as “realm of our social
life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed (where) access is
guaranteed to all citizens“ (Habermas, Lennox, and Lennox 49). It is "a discursive space in
which individuals and groups congregate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where
possible, to reach a common judgment" (Hauser 86). The public sphere can as well be seen as
"a theatre in modern societies in which political participation is enacted through the medium
of talk" (Fraser 57). In summary, the existence of public sphere is an important factor in the
success of freedom of expression as it provides a platform where ideas are exchanged.
According to Thomas Emerson, freedom of speech also acts as a method of coming to an
agreement: "the principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a more adaptable and
at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between
healthy cleavage and necessary consensus” (Marlin 228–229). Freedom of expression is
connected to the promise listed in Chapter 2 “Create new models of journalism to separate
signal from noise to provide meaningful insights”.
Miszczak 21
3.1.3
Transparency
According to Meiklejohn, the actors in power must not withhold the information and
manipulate the electorate as this is against the ideal of democracy. Also in the view of Robert
Dahl, in order for voters to be able to make fully educated decisions, they require freedoms
such as freedom of speech, gatherings, and press (Dahl 173). Both Meiklejohn’s and Dahl’s
conceptions of democracy require free flow of information, in other words - transparency. It
is commonly known in the public domain that access to public information is a key to
upholding a democratic ideal. The idea behind a democratic and transparent society is that
every member of the community “(…) has an equal level of physical, intellectual and social
access to information and can equally re-use public information and thus take part in public
discussion” (Haloen 85). Vishwanath and Kaufmann see transparency as “increased flow of
timely and reliable economic, social and political information, which is accessible to all
relevant stakeholders” (3). Stasavage offers a more demanding approach to transparency
where he claims that transparency occurs when government discloses not only the policy
decision but also the information that led to making such decision (3). This is based on the
fact that in many cases the administration is the only source and collector of the relevant data
and discloses this information at their discretion. Finally, Bellver and Kaufman made the
observation that is crucial in understanding transparency and it’s implications. They have
noted the close link between transparency and accountability: “(...) transparency is a tool to
facilitate the evaluation of public institutions, the information provided needs to account for
their performance” (4). In other words, transparency is a bridge for achieving another crucial
element of democratic order. Improved transparency is again linked to a promise noted in
Chapter 2 “Change the default setting of government to Open, Transparent and
Participatory”.
3.1.4
Accountability
The term accountability means that the general public is able not only to select the
representatives and rulers, but also hold them accountable for their actions, as described by
Schmitter and Karl: "Modern political democracy is a system of governance in which rulers
are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through
the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives” (Schmitter and Karl 76).
More specifically, Bovens describes accountability as “a relationship between an actor and a
forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conduct, the
Miszczak 22
forum can pose questions and pass judgment, and the actor may face consequences” (450).
These consequences, as described by Przeworski et al, are quite often linked to the success of
a government or politician in future elections (40). The accountability relation take place
when “(1) voters vote to retain the incumbent only when the incumbent acts in their best
interest, and (2) the incumbent chooses policies necessary to get re-elected” (Przeworski,
Stokes, and Manin 40). To sum up, the general principle, that public authorities should be
answerable to the public, is fundamental in a democratic society. Improved accountability is
linked to the promise “Fight government corruption, improved accountability and enhance
governments services”.
Based on the details of these pillars, it can be concluded that participation, freedom of
expression, access to information and accountability are crucial factors in the functioning of
democratic society (Khagram, Fung, and Renzio n.pag.).
3.2
Post-Democracy: Democracy is failing
As many academics argue, due to years of development and many historical events
shaping the societies, modern democracy in western countries is far from the ideal,
theoretical standard due to various reasons (Meltzer and Richard; Crouch, Castoriadis and
others). The term “Post-Democracy”, coined by the British academic Dr Colin Crouch, is
based on the concept that developed democracies are moving away from some of the pillars
on which they are traditionally based on.
In Post-Democracy, Crouch argues, elections are held and governments change, and all
of the institutions of democracy are in place, because they have been established in the past
(“Post-Democracy” n.pag.). The focus and drive of politics, however, is no longer with the
democratic process but it has gone elsewhere. Crouches uses the analogy with the postindustrial society, where people don’t give up using the products of industry and these
products are still around, but the energy and the dynamics of the economy have vanished.
The author compares the producers of the industrial age to the democratic institutions that are
still in existence, but the society doesn’t use them in an adequate way.
The reason why such transformation takes place, Crouch continues, is due to the
inability of creating active identities within the socio-economic divisions in the society.
Crouch claims there is still considerable vigour in the society around some topics such as
gender or certain ethnic culture identities, but socio-economic groups within a society are
losing the capacity of creating a clear identity. This is applicable to all socio-economic
Miszczak 23
groups, with two exceptions - the political and economic elites. These are the only elites,
Crouch argues, that play major role in forming policies.
It will be an exaggeration, however, to say that the society is already post-democratic,
Crouch continues. There are many aspects of the society that show very vigorous democracy,
but there are tendencies that suggest democracy is more a legacy of the past than something
that we are actively creating and reinforcing. In “Coping with Post-Democracy” Crouch
states:
(...) Enough elements of it are recognisable in contemporary politics to make it worth
while asking where our political life stands on a scale running between it and the
maximal democratic model; and in particular to appraise in which direction it seems
to be moving between them. It is my contention that we are increasingly moving to
wards the post-democratic pole (Coping with Post-Democracy 2).
3.2.1
Problems with Participation and Engagement
Crouch highlights the importance of public participation and engagement. He claims
that “democracy thrives when there are major opportunities for the mass of ordinary people
to participate through discussion and autonomous organizations, in shaping the agenda of
public life, and when they are actively using these opportunities” (Crouch, Post-Democracy
2–3). In post-democratic society, Crouch argues, pervasive culture of participation and
engagement is increasingly exhausted. As in theatre, the general democratic public becomes a
passive audience observing a production designed for their consumption: “(…) public
electoral debate is a tightly controlled spectacle, managed by rival teams of professionals
expert in the techniques of persuasion, and considering a small range of issues selected by
those teams. The mass of citizens plays a passive, quiescent, even apathetic part, responding
only to the signals given them“ (Crouch, Coping with Post-Democracy 2). In this instance, a
signal is an action or a call to action, addressed at the wider public, developed by
government, politico-economic elite or public relations (PR) entity. The widespread political
debate and political participation are lacking. The idea of system where “people have the
power” functions only in the way that citizens can select their representatives through
periodic elections and thus citizens have very limited contribution in policymaking.
Prominent groups that do make their voice heard in the public participation process are the
elites with influential political and business interests and due to their lobbying activities,
Miszczak 24
Crouch claims, the priorities of the government are unduly influenced. At the same time, the
relations with the masses are shaped by ‘spin doctors’ and other advertising professionals: the
opposing groups of PR-experts who manipulate and control the subjects of public discourse
during pre-election campaigns and this way “turn democratic elections into spectacles”
(Crouch, Post-Democracy 10).
3.2.2
Problems with Construction of the Public Sphere
Parallel to the problem of limited public participation lays the issue of space of national
debate and political expression, where opinions about various political matters can be freely
exchanged, without the manipulation from the outside. As Crouch put it, this manipulation
comes from elites with influential political and business interests (Crouch, Post-Democracy
10). It is believed that the existence of public sphere - a platform for debate across a diverse
range of views - is crucial for a well-functioning democratic society (Habermas 174).
Coleman stated that “absence of spaces or occasions for the public to engage in open and
critical discussion in which opinions can be exchanged and reviewed and policy decision
influenced” is one of the shortcomings of the today’s institutional arrangements (370).
The combination of various media platforms that are in existence today can be regarded
as the closest form of a public sphere available in the modern world. Karl Marx claimed that
free press was an autonomous area where interests can be expressed and coined: “the ‘free
press’ is the product of public opinion and, at the same time, also produces public opinion; it
can transform a particular interest to a common interest” (Marx and Engels 190). Also the
newer mass media (radio, television) were also considered to become a platform, where
voices of the society could be first expressed and then heard by the policy-makers, so that the
public involvement could shape the political reality (Splichal, “‘New’ Media, ‘Old’ Theories
Does the (National) Public Melt into the Air of Global Governance?” 391). However, the
more traditional media systems (printed press, radio and TV) are not ideal in this respect due
to the various reasons. For example, Habermas noted that large newspapers, which are
designed to bring profit, are turning the press into “agents of manipulation, propaganda and
misinformation” (185). Secondly, he continues, the media is no longer a place where citizens
can get their information about political matters. Instead, it is a space for advertising and an
arena for political forces: “it became the gate through which privileged private interests
invaded the public sphere” (185). Thirdly, adding to the shortcomings of creating a public
sphere, other academics (Gurevitch and Blumler; Barnett; Bagdikian) claim that the quality
Miszczak 25
of information in mass media is generally low. The news, focusing on gossip, scandal,
violence and sex, are more entertaining than informing and even political news focus more on
characteristics of people and less on their programmes, ideologies and ideas. All of these
shortcoming result in absence of serious political debate. As a result, the creation of a public
sphere formed by these traditional mass global communication networks is subsequently
reduced and with these shortfalls in mind, traditional media as of today cannot be considered
to be able to constitute a well-functioning public sphere.
Theories of post-democracy have recently been countered by more optimistic visions
that are tied to the rise of the Internet and technological solutions that followed. In the light of
post-democracy, just mere existence of the Internet may help significantly with previously
discussed problems such as lack of a well-functioning public sphere, lack of transparency,
limited public participation in political matters, and the ability to hold governments to
account for their actions and decisions.
The presence of Internet plays a major role in the debate about the existence of the
public sphere in todays’ world. The web may be seen as an area where a new type of public
sphere may function, a sphere where users can communicate freely and exchange opinions on
blogs, forums, social media etc. This new platform of discussion hold the promise that it that
would “compete with traditional (national) public spheres” (Splichal, “‘New’ Media, ‘Old’
Theories Does the (National) Public Melt into the Air of Global Governance?” 392). The
reason for this is that in this space, even the ordinary, unprivileged people have an
opportunity not only to gain information, but also share their opinion and observations.
According to Splichal, such perfect order, where all members of society have access to
information, may suggest a rise in the quantity of active members in the processes of
communication. This rise occurs by inclusion of individuals and groups of participants
formerly excluded from the communication process because of social, economic, or political
reasons (Splichal, “Why Be Critical?” 26). The Internet has been in existence for just over 25
years now so this opportunity to gain previously unavailable or difficult to obtain information
is still fairly new, yet the changes in communication it brought are clearly visible. The
authors of article wrote on the 25th anniversary of the World Wide Web claim that it “has
changed humanity forever, and created a new virtual world within a generation” (Owen
n.pag.). One important part of this virtual world is that an average person in a developed
country can now challenge authority so openly and actually share their opinion with an
extended public.
Miszczak 26
The release of OGD published online can be viewed as a fuel for this deliberation,
public opinion and debate. At the same time, a central point of Crouch’s theory of postdemocracy is the lack of participation and the widespread social debates on political topics.
One can then conclude that the Internet makes these widespread discussions technically
feasible, unlike traditional media formats, and therefore has a natural potential of improving
the public sphere. Due to the large number of actors involved in debates online (activists,
interest groups, bloggers, media and other players), the topics of debates can no longer be
controlled by the “competing teams of PR experts” as Crouch noted that occurs in postdemocracy. In theory, everyone can analyse the data, develop conclusions and start a debate
about any topic and this debate will not be taking place “behind closed doors”.
With respect to Splichal’s comment about the Internet’s ability to compete with the
“traditional (national) public spheres”, I would like to raise a different view about the role of
the Internet in “competing” with the public sphere created by the traditional media. Due to
the constant flow of information between traditional media platforms and the Internet, the
Internet can be considered to add significant coverage, depth and size of the already existing
(yet poorly functioning) public sphere - as opposed to ‘competing’. As this varying point of
view is not considered critical in the further topics of this research thesis, no further
discussion will be included.
Although the link between the Internet and providing a more robust public sphere is
clearly visible, a limiting factor is the access to this facility in many parts of the world.
Secondly, the other aspect of the Internet’s ability to develop a model public sphere is the
actual willingness of people to use it in political ways and participate in forming policies. It is
important to ask question weather this possibility is indeed exercised and if there are forms of
engaging citizens to get politically involved in the online world. These and other shortcoming
of this idea will be analysed in Chapter 4.
3.2.3
Problems with Transparency and Accountability
As the components of the democratic system are heavily linked, I would also like to
discuss the problems with achieving transparency and accountability. Although these specific
problems were not directly mentioned by Crouch when he discussed post-democracy, I
consider it appropriate to identify the challenges of these two aspects.
The previous paragraphs regarding lack of political engagement from the general
public brought to attention the problem of transparency. Information is an invaluable asset to
Miszczak 27
the electorate, which requires this knowledge about government actions and processes,
particularly in the area of spending. It has been previously stated that in the “post-democratic
theatre” the important political decisions are made in a secretive manner, behind closed
doors. These secretive policies may develop opaque forms of governance. The lack of
transparency may result in reduced citizens’ political participation and understanding on
“how the governmental machine functions” (Sgueo and Bani n.pag.).
Transparency is also an essential element in building up accountability. If some
government policy is unavailable for any reason, the likelihood of accountability is
dramatically reduced, as the public does no have an opportunity to process the information
and provide feedback. In terms of accountability, it is the idea of the modern democracy that
officials in power “can be held to account for their decisions and particularly for their use of
public funds” (Davies, “How Might Open Data Contribute to Good Governance?”). The key
issue in the practical side of accountability is the role of media (Djerf-Pierre, Ekström, and
Johansson 962). In a book titled “Custodians of Conscience” Ettema and Glasser explain that
is it the watchdog function of the media that plays the major role in holding elected
representatives and rulers to account. One role of the media system is to reveal political
scandals and journalists, by taking on a role of “ombudsman”, ask questions on behalf of the
general public (Clayman). However, as described above, the problem is that traditional media
are considered not to undertake this function fully and properly. Should the media play a role
in holding decision-makers to account, further instances of corruption or other forms of missuse of power can be identified, allowing the electorate to be more informed and subsequently
act accordingly (Angélico; “Open Government Partnership”; Mari).
To summarize Crouch’s theory of post-democracy, democracy is failing on two
levels: lack of public participation and the lack of existence of a well-functioning public
sphere, where citizen’s influence and national debates about politics are not manipulated by
lobbyists, PR experts and businesses. I have also considered two additional levels of
transparency and accountability, which I believe are important in analysing the shortcomings
of democracy. OGD is considered by some to be able to help with this problem. The strong
and weak aspects of this claim are outlined in the following chapter.
This chapter outlined the pillars of democracy, how these are currently failing in
western society, and the theory of post-democracy. Chapter 4 identifies the potential
challenges that need to be overcome in order to shift from post-democracy, improve
participation, public-sphere, transparency and accountability. In particular, I am going to
Miszczak 28
focus on OGD as a potential tool for political empowerment and what obstacles need to be
addressed so that political empowerment via OGD can be achieved.
Miszczak 29
4
Chapter 4
Along with various theoretical promises linked to OGD as a tool to overcome post-
democracy, it is important to note what the challenges may be as well as practical obstacles
standing on the way to achieve truly democratic results. Chapter 3 outlined the theory that
society is gradually moving towards the phase of Post Democracy, as well as discussing the
challenges of political participation, the construction or development of a well-functioning
public sphere, transparency and political accountability in a democratic society. This chapter
focuses on the issues arising from using OGD as a tool to improving democracy with respect
to participation, public sphere, transparency and accountability.
4.1
Challenges relating to Participation
The first challenge in overcoming post democracy via the use of OGD was ensuring
that users have technical capabilities of accessing and interpreting this information. The next
challenge is related to achieving one of the previously mentioned components of healthy
democratic system: a system where citizens participate in the policy making process. In the
case of OGD, participation is about changing the role of citizens from merely “read-only”
users, to units who can benefit from government data access and further opportunities this
access provides. This type of participation has various forms. It may involve merging data
from different data sets, discovering new interesting patterns, creating applications and
providing feedback, with an aim to improve the quality of already available government data
(Ding et al. 325) as well as influence the policy making process.
The first challenge in increasing this participation is raising the public interest in the
use of OGD. As previously noted, increased public access to data may not translate to an
increase in personal interest (due to the presence of the data divide). McClean noted that most
discussion on this subject proceeds on the (wrong) assumption that the individual citizens are
both interested in and capable of using government data in political contexts (5). In
“WikiLeaks: The Illusion of Transparency”, Canadian academic Alastair Roberts claimed
that a general public is simply not eager to ‘dig into’ complicated datasets in order to obtain
information, even if this information is related to controversial subjects (10–11). In a report
titled “Being Open About Data: Analysis of the UK Open Data Policies and Applicability of
Open Data”, Antii Haloen claims that the number of people who use the possibility to
scrutinize or control public authorities is not very high (117). In the UK, there are two major
groups with a high level of interest in accessing and using this data: organized civil groups
Miszczak 30
such as representatives of media, NGOs or businesses; and seemingly unconnected
individuals, who are already “interested in public policy and involved in public discussion by
other means” (Haloen 89). It remains a challenge to involve the members of other group of
society, who constitute a very large part of the population of the country. Readiness to get
involved depends on many, not strictly IT knowledge-related, factors.
For example, in the document “Empowerment or democratic divide? Internet-based
political participation of young immigrants and young natives in Germany”, Spaiser explored
the possible existence of a divide in internet-based political involvement between young
Germans and minority groups of young adults in this country. The study found that the
minority groups, mainly Turkish and Arabs living in this country, are more active and
effective in terms of internet-based political involvement (120). Their activity ranged form
searching and checking information in order to become more aware of political issues, to the
organization of political activities and campaigning (117). Spaiser found that different factors
influenced the dissimilarities between the two group’s levels of involvement. In the case of
young German adults the lack of interest in participating was found to be strictly related to
their higher socio-economical status (120). The political environment or locations where they
lived were further factors influencing their lower level of participation. In the case of the
young Turkish and Arab adults, however, the relatively lower socio‐economic status and
subsequent underlying grievances (related mainly to discrimination) resulted in higher level
of participation. Also playing a role were the higher skill level of these individuals to use the
Internet to partake as compared to the young German adults (117).
I understand that the results of Spaiser’s research conclude that the technology has
particular affordances (or abilities), however if they are used or not depends not only on the
technologies themselves, but by the institutional, cultural, legal, economical contexts in
which these technologies are used. This issue must be addressed during measuring the
affordances of Open Government Data to increase the political participation.
The additional challenge on the participation level is related to the technical resources
to facilitate and improve the quality of collaboration. Haloen notes that the overall quality of
engagement can be further improved when the individuals who are already engaged have
even better opportunities to get involved (89). In words of Noveck, enabling effective
collaboration requires a two-sided approach, including both conceptual and technical
challenges. On conceptual level, the design needs to provide solutions that make participation
practical and useful. On technical level, on the other hand, the designed software needs to be
able to support the participation: “ (…) designing new democratic institutions also depends
Miszczak 31
on designing appropriate collaborative practices and embedding that design in software” (19).
Designing these practices with confidence is a challenge because they should be created with
public preferences in mind. In the past, the fast pace of technological modernisation in some
fields made it more difficult to identify public expectations (Coyle 6).
Researches quoted above agreed that facilitating political participation with OGD
require overcoming challenges on several levels: increasing interest in using OGD in political
ways, addressing the barriers in participation that stem from a context in which the
technology is used and providing technical facilities for better collaboration.
4.2
Challenges related to the Public Sphere
There are a number of problems that need to be solved before the effect of overcoming
post-democracy is achieved and transparency and accountability are improved. One such
problem is granting easy access to the information and communication infrastructure to all
citizens despite their social-economic status and IT skills, so that an average citizen can
freely participate in the public sphere.
British researcher Alan McKenna claims in modern times with the emergence and
development of information and communication technologies, it is also everyone’s right to
participate in a new, so called Information Society - the new type of culture, which followed
agricultural and industrial eras (“A Human Right to Participate in the Information Society”),
where citizens and organisations obtain a number of different benefits from the creation and
distribution of information (Webster). McKenna defines how humans can enforce the right to
be a part of Information Society: each human must have “(…) access to decision making and
access to education, to be able to use the infrastructure and possess the capacity to act on
knowledgeable basis” (213). It can therefore be summarised that in an ideal order, all sources
of inequalities such as for example age, gender, race, class, possession and political
exclusivity are eliminated, and all citizens have the relevant means that will enable access to
the public sphere.
I would like to discuss some particular challenges that stand in the way of such a
perfect order: accessibility of information, technical capabilities to digest the data and cost.
Miszczak 32
4.2.1
Access to Information
If the Internet is considered to improve the already existing, yet poorly functioning
public sphere, then the inequalities in access to the Internet should be addressed.
Approximately 40% of the world’s population has home access to the internet (“The World
in 2014”; “Number of Internet Users (2014) - Internet Live Stats”) which means that 60% of
the world’s population doesn't have a chance to take a part in the global conversation on-line.
Yet facilitating Habermas’s “ideal speech situation” requires liberty and equality, which
don’t occur in all communities. Even though Internet access is steadily increasing (“Number
of Internet Users (2014) - Internet Live Stats”), the future will show how much of the
worldwide community will eventually be involved under this public sphere umbrella.
Although it outside the scope of this research thesis, I would like to highlight the fact that
those communities and individuals most in need of an increased level of public information,
opinions and ideas are those least likely to have it (e.g. those living in developing countries,
living under dictatorships and strong public oppression). Public spheres are subsequently
non-existent or offer very limited value in informing the populous. As noted in the
introduction, this research paper focuses on conditions analysed by democratic, developed
countries only.
4.2.2
Digital Divide and Data Divide
From a new media perspective, excluding certain groups of people from participating
in the process of taking part in information exchange brings forward the concept of oftendiscussed “digital divide”. In 2001, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development published a report titled “Understanding the Digital Divide”, in which the term
is defined as:
(…) The gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at
different socio-economic levels with regard to their opportunities to access
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and to their use of the internet
for a wide variety of activities. The digital divide reflects various differences among
and within countries (OECD, Understanding the Digital Divide 5).
Craig Warren Smith, the founder of Digital Divide Institute, explains what "closing the
divide“ means in practice:
Miszczak 33
Closing the digital divide means more than just giving the poor the same technologies
already received by the rich. Closing the Divide involves restructuring the
telecommunications sectors in each nation so that broadband benefits can flow to the
masses, not just the elite urban sectors of emerging markets (“DigitalDivide”).
In “Open data: Empowering the empowered or effective data use for everyone?”
Gurstein mentions that the actions aimed to extend access to data can ultimately create a
“data divide” (analogous to the “digital divide”) between “those who have access to the basic
infrastructure and the background knowledge and skills to make use of the data and those
who don’t” (Gurstein n.pag). Such data divide would mean that the benefit of OGD would be
to even further empower those who are already powerful and well provided for.
Consequently, Gurstein continues, those who may indeed need the perks of these
opportunities may find themselves further disadvantaged. As noted in “Benefits, Adoption
Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government”, the use of OGD is limited to “the
happy few, those who are educated and have time to explore new business opportunities”
(Janssen, Charalabidis, and Zuiderwijk 263). According to Davies’ research on the
demographic of OGD, users in the UK are mostly male (6-to-1 in survey results), and in
general terms they represent private sector and academic institutions, with some presence of
users from the voluntary sector as well (Davies, “Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector
Reform” 7).
Despite the potential similarities between the digital and data divides, Gurstein also
observed some significant differences. He noted that the digital divide relates mainly to
“infrastructure” issues such as geographical location or quality of the Internet access at a
given location. With these issues technical issues in mind, everyone at the “wrong side of the
divide”, despite their socio-economic status, will be affected by the obstacles in access to
information (n.pag.). With respect to the data divide, however, this obstacle is concerned
mostly with “content” issues. The lack of knowledge on how to access and use the available
information would have, as Gurstein writes in his blog post titled “A Data Divide? Data
“Haves” and “Have Nots” and Open (Government) Data“, “damaging negative effects and
result in particularly significant lost opportunities for the most vulnerable groups and
individuals in society”. As an analogy to this situation, data divide can be represented as an
individual being in possession of a book written in a foreign language. The individual is
aware that they have access to the book, the information inside may be useful, but they
cannot read or interpret the text.
Miszczak 34
A good example of “lost opportunities” regarding the data divide is described in a
research paper titled “GovWILD: Integrating Open Government Data for Transparency”, in
which Christoph Böhm and other authors address the underlying practical issues regarding
access to OGD. The group of authors conducted research aimed to analyse, which specific
companies or organisations benefit from cash flows initiated by US President Barack Obama.
They investigated a number of datasets from USA, European Union and Germany as well as
data published online by New York Times magazine. The authors observed several potential
challenges expected for a less experienced user to establish which companies benefited from
Barak Obama’s cash flows. The researchers pointed out that “interested individuals want to
investigate the provided information, but using and understanding the relevant sources is a
difficult task for a user” (n. pag).
There are many reasons why exploring interesting data sets may prove difficult:
differences in datasets formats, structures and semantics and quality: “On the technical level,
most datasets are only available as online web sites and need to be crawled first, and
downloadable data sources use different formats to represent the data (CSV, TSV or XML).
The quality of data documentations varies largely” (Böhm et al. pag.). In order to answer the
specific question about beneficiaries of Obama’s cash flow, Böhm and co-authors invented
GovWILD, a web-based model application that integrates and ‘cleanses’ OGD on a large
scale. Authors claim that thanks to the application the hidden connections between public
officials and the representatives of different industries can be identified. Also, by combining
relevant financial data, it is possible to explore the network of politics and markets. The tool
is a good example of how a significant volume of OGD can be used to understand or uncover
relationships between two separate parties using advanced analytical methods. Naturally, an
average citizen doesn't have the facilities to develop such programs, leading to the conclusion
met by the researches Dawes, Helbig, Maier-Rabler and Huber that in the case of “digital
divide”, the inequalities in ability to make use of open data by everyone can’t simply be fixed
merely by the provision of given information.
In order to make OGD be of maximum democratic value in a broad sense, it is
essential to ensure that “those for whom access is being provided are in a position to actually
make use of the now available access (to the Internet or to data) in ways that are meaningful
and beneficial for them” (Gurstein n.pag.). In the article titled “Socio-technical Impediments
of Open Data” Zuijderwijk and her fellow-researches conducted analysis that showed that
currently there is little attention paid to the user perspective, yet ultimately this is the user
(either an individual or group) who generates value from this open data.
Miszczak 35
4.2.3
Overcoming the Divides
Drawing on Gurnstein’s theory of the content issues of “data divide”, one can
conclude that at this point simply the access to trusted sources of facts and information is not
sufficient. Therefore, OGD suppliers also need to invest in building opportunities to
maximise the amount of citizens that can use raw data and transfer it to comprehendible
information, useful analysis and finally achieve democratic inclusion. A civic activist and
blogger William Perrin may be an example of a person who does have an interest in OGD,
but the technical barriers standing behind it cause frustration. In his recent blog entry he
wrote:
I do like open data but the recent talk of big data puts me off – implicit in the
language, although often inadvertent is the implication that you have to be big to get
this stuff working for you. It makes me feel excluded – I am just a little guy with a
little company who wants to make a difference in a small community (...) For open
data to deliver on its promise it needs to be open and welcoming to the little guy
(n.pag.).
To ensure greater inclusion, open government must embrace activities to provide the
right technical possibilities to maximise the use of the data. Such activities could be worked
examples on websites, workshops, tutorials, etc., all designed to educate the citizens to bring
them closer to the benefits from free, unrestricted flow of information. Jesse Lichtenstein
summed this up in an article titled “Why Open Data Alone Is Not Enough”:
The concern that open data may simply empower the empowered is not an argument
against open data; it is argument against looking at open data as an end itself. Massive
data dumps and even friendly online government portals are insufficient. Ordinary
people need to know what information is available, and they need the training to be
conversant in it. And if people are to have anything more than theoretical access to
the information, it needs to be easy and cheap to use. That means investing in the
kinds of organisations doing outreach, advocacy, and education in the communities
least familiar with the benefits of data transparency. If we want truly open
Miszczak 36
government, we still have to do the hard work of addressing basic and stubborn
inequalities. However freely it flows, the data itself isn’t enough (n.pag.).
In “Sunlight or sunburn: A survey of attitudes toward online availability of US public
records”, Munson and his fellow-researches examined how technologies can be used to
achieve new forms of accessibility to public records. Technical characteristics examined in
this research included the various levels of usability. Munson’s responders recommended the
need of conducting educational programs and raising awareness about open data to the
general public (111). Some of them declared that these applications might impact their future
behaviour (102). Similarly, in “Young adults' online participation behaviours: An exploratory
study of web 2.0 use for political engagement” Bridges et al. conducted research where
usability of state websites, in combination with citizens searching habits, had a crucial role in
participation activities (Bridges, Appel, and Grossklags). These two examples echo the
comments of Lichtenstein that mere access to the data does not necessarily result in tangible
or useful results.
The authors of “Governing in the Information Age” note that general value of public
information for the society derives from unforeseen and flexible uses of the data by all
members of the society, and not just by those groups who already have knowledge and skills
on how to make these datasets useful (Bellamy and Taylor). Removing the data divide and
including in the discourse the formerly excluded members of the community may not only
bring the benefits to the formerly excluded ones, but also to the general public. Members of
various loosely connected communities of interest are very valuable in the discourse because
their presence in the debate can lead to creating and using more collective knowledge.
4.2.4
The Cost of Access
The final challenge related to public sphere is the cost associated with the collection,
storage and distribution of various forms of data sets. As there is a cost associated with this
data handling process, this then presents a challenge in achieving a well-function public
sphere, as access to this data should be free of charge i.e. all barriers for access should be
removed.
Summarising the challenges for the public sphere, supporting the use of OGD should
not be viewed as secondary to publicising it. The publicising of data needs to be accompanied
by infrastructure that is able to handle the data in an easy-to-use way, maximising the
Miszczak 37
accessibility and number of users. The reason why it is important to ensure that all groups of
society have unbiased access and knowledge on how to use the OGD is that “knowledge has
to be related to other knowledge if it is to count as knowledge” (Gottschalk-Mazouz 220).
Quoting Maier-Rubler and Huber, “an isolated chunk of data is worth as little as an isolated
chunk of knowledge” (187). It can therefore be concluded that knowledge is networked and,
in other words, in the hands of their owners (citizens), the value of data grows as it creates
more collective knowledge, which can then be exchanged in the public sphere and thus
potentially improve the policy-making. For this access to information to occur, the mentioned
barriers need to be either gradually removed.
4.3
Challenges relating to Transparency
The potential for OGD to improve transparency needs to be assessed from two
perspectives. The first relates to the quality of data published online and its usefulness for the
general public, and the other relates to the transparency of actual decision-making process.
4.3.1
Value of data published online and its usefulness for the general public
More open data does not necessarily result in more transparent organisations. If an
organization discloses data related to mundane and apolitical topics only, it does not
contribute significantly for the transparency. It is easy to consider the possibility that a
government or governmental body might disclose large amounts of data, thereby offer those
outside of institutions a partial window onto their operations, without effectively improving
its actual transparency.
To cite an example, there is an initiative started by the Open Knowledge Foundation
in October 2013, which aims to assess countries based on the availability of OGD in ten main
areas (“Government Data Still Not Open Enough – New Survey on Eve of London Summit |
Open Knowledge Foundation Blog”). The Open Data Index aims to answer questions such as
how much data is actually being released, what data’s legal and technical availability is and
which countries are the most advanced in relation to open data. The index presents the
availability of information concerning issues such including: transport timetables,
governments budgets, government spending, election results, company register, national map,
national statistics, legislation, postcodes and emission of pollutants. According to the authors,
the results show that still a lot remains to be done, as the regimes are still not offering their
citizens enough data in an adequate form. For example, Figure 4 below shows the level of
Miszczak 38
transparency relating to a range of government issues or topics. Of the top ten ranked
countries, government spending clearly has the least level of transparency. Also, the degree
of openness with respect to company reregisters was disappointing. This particular
information, the authors of the survey claim, “is critical for range of reasons - including
tackling tax evasion and other forms of financial crime and corruption” (“Government Data
Still Not Open Enough – New Survey on Eve of London Summit | Open Knowledge
Foundation Blog”).
Figure 4: Open Data Index 2013, Open Knowledge Foundation
This goes in line with the other problem relating to the transparency of OGD. MeierRabler and Huber claim that the bureaucratic tradition of political institutions stands on the
way of providing truly innovative solutions via Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs):
The state-of-the-art of ICTs in supporting citizen participation is in stark contrast with
the bureaucratic tradition of political institutions. To public administration officials,
the mere online replication of offline bureaucratic procedures already appears like an
innovation. But for democratic innovation that aims at citizen empowerment, this can
only be the first step on a long way to go (184).
Miszczak 39
The consequence of this behaviour, Moore claimed, is a lack of management, which
would deliver public services more suitable to the needs and hopes of their users:
Public managers create public value. The problem is that they cannot know for sure
what that is. Even if they could be sure today, they would have to doubt tomorrow, for
by then the political aspirations and public needs that give point to their efforts might
well have changed (57).
Coyle noted that Moore presented the concept of public value as a method of “shifting
public managers away from the limited responsibility of completing their organisations’
operations in traditional roles” towards increasing an organisation’s value to society (5). In
other words, with public value approach in mind, providers should cooperate with users to
produce results that meet the needs of the end users. This way, public bodies are re-orientated
to “ends” rather than to “means”.
Coyle claims that the above effect can only be achieved “through an intentional
process in which public organisations engage with citizens and are responsive to their refined
preferences” (Coyle 9). The notion of citizens’ “refined preferences”, as Coyle explains,
means that the authorities should do more than just to respond to the needs expressed directly
by the citizens, which directly results in a greater level of transparency from the public’s
perspective (10). Gundlach assumes that only the society itself can determine what is of
public value (14). In other words, “public value requires policy or services to be responsive to
what is valued by the public, but also to shape what the public needs” (Horner and Hutton
44). This complex approach means that it is crucial to conduct deliberate and genuine policy
consultation supported by appropriate evidence so that the public are adequately informed
and engaged in the outcome. In order to gauge OGD’s capability to increase transparency, it
is important to measure which topics are relevant for the general public and what information
the public requires in order to make informed political decisions.
4.3.2
Transparency of decision-making process
With respect to policy-making, an example from South Korea shows that knowledge
of the policy-making process is desired as much as understanding the government’s
proceedings, in the context of combining both transparency and participation. The authors of
“E-participation and transparent policy decision making” use the case of the Cyber Policy
Forum of the Seoul Metropolitan Government in South Korea to outline the proposal for an
Miszczak 40
e-forum based on public participation and the challenges with maintaining on-going support
and involvement (Chun and Cho). This forum is designed to give the citizens a chance to
understand policy issues and also to enable discussions (Holzer n.pag.). Government
officials’ opinions and international recognition suggest this forum is a success case - a
global survey of city websites from 2013 has once again recognized Seoul as the leading city
in terms of the overall functioning of the metropolitan e-government (“Seoul and Toronto
Achieve Top Rankings in Municipal E-Governance International Survey”). Yet, according to
Chun and Cho, the levels of participation are limited. The government limits its activities to
gathering opinion, however the feedback on opinions is not supplied: “the citizen
participation provides an opportunity for a government to gather citizens’ opinions and
different perspectives, but it is not always transparent what the government does with the
gathered data and what discussions or decisions are made to reflect or to discard opinions”
(130). It is the authors’ suggestion that the transparency of the policy decision-making
process is essential to achieve a new, re-defined level of public participation. They propose
opening the “black box of policy making” through sharing the data influencing the policies
and through creating decision tools to support “government to citizens” and “citizens to
government” interaction during public participation (140).
4.4
Challenges related to Accountability
Accessing the success of OGD in terms of government accountability is a complex task
due of number or reasons concluded by the author. Note that this paper focuses on social
accountability which can be defined as an “approach towards building accountability that
relies on civic engagement (…) in which it is ordinary citizens and/or civil society
organizations who participate directly, or indirectly in exacting accountability” (Malena,
Forster, and Singh 3).
Firstly, the accountability can only be achieved providing that the actions of the
government are transparent. Secondly, the populous needs a space to share information and
discuss opinions, thus requiring a well-functioning public sphere. Lastly, citizens must be
willing to participate in political deliberations if they wish to hold government to account. In
other words, transparency, public sphere and participation are crucial factors required for the
achievement if political accountability and also empowerment of the citizenry.
The next step will be to present the evidence to the wider public and the media play an
important role in this procedure. Malena et al. claim that the independent media is an
important force in terms of accountability, because the tasks of the media include educating
Miszczak 41
citizens, as well as observing government performance and identifying revealing errors (13).
The authors add that the level of media independence and pluralistic ownership can play a
crucial part in the accountability of the political system (13). When access is available to the
wider public where it informs and provides a catalyst for action, this information holds a
greater significance and impact. Therefore, they continue, a good strategy for a successful
social accountability initiative is to ensure that both traditional and new, independent types of
media, are used to increase the general consciousness around public issues, as well as create
“a platform for public debate” (13). When accessing the ability of media to present
information and be a platform for public debate, all types of media must be considered and
analysed to see if they display public pressure through extensive media coverage about a
specific issue.
The final and most significant aspect of accountability is the process of providing
feedback to the elected representatives. Ideally a direct interaction between the government
or its representatives and the public should take place, however it is rarely possible on a large
scale. Apart of informal feedback mechanisms such as creating public pressure through
petitions, protests etc., citizens can also use formal means of execution, for example through
legal processes (Malena, Forster, and Singh 9). The most formal and also the most popular
mechanism of accountability are democratic elections, when citizens can extend or remove
support for the government representatives. The problem with this arrangement, the authors
continue, is that during political elections the citizens still can only choose between a small,
pre-selected number of individuals or political parties (3). Authors stress that elections don’t
provide an opportunity to express opinion and hold officials accountable for a particular
issue. Also citizens cannot express their preferences about specific matters and instead, they
must vote either for an individual or party (3). When assessing the capability of OGD to
improve the political accountability, it is also worth to examine what potential feedback
possibilities there are in order to enforce the accountability.
4.5
Summary and Introduction to Frameworks
As outlined in this chapter, there are a number of challenges arising from the use of
OGD as a tool to improving democracy. These range from the technical ability of the
individual through to the understanding the policy making process of an elected government.
In order to measure the extent at which these issues are present and subsequently how
effective an open government is, an evaluative framework designed to measure democratic
Miszczak 42
effects of OGD release across a range of aspects is required. The challenge for such a
framework is ensuring it can be applied across a wide range of governmental institutions of
varying maturity, whilst ensuring the results are comparable regardless of which government
is assessed.
The four key elements noted previously in this research paper are considered essential for
such a framework. The key criteria that should be measured against these four pillars, all of
which have been discussed in this research paper, are outlined below:
•
Participation
o Rising the public interest in the use of OGD through increased appeal and
outlining the benefits;
o Involving as many groups of society as possible; and
o Improving the quality of engagement for those already actively involved.
•
Public Sphere
o Closing the data divide, provision for educational programs and raising
awareness;
o Removing barriers to access and improving accessibility to all; and
o Ensuring unbiased discourse.
•
Transparency
o Ensuring an increase in relevant information regarding government policies and
decision making process is accessible to the public;
o Governments moving towards a proactive level of transparency;
o Reduced government corruption; and
o Consistency in the data format and quality released to the public.
•
Accountability
o Improving the watch-dog function of the media, NGOs and other parties; and
o Increasing the level of feedback possible to the elected representatives;
The criteria listed above, although not exhaustive, provide the platform used in
preparing my proposed framework. Chapter 5 follows includes assessments on various
existing frameworks and how effectively they measure democratic aspects of OGD.
Miszczak 43
5
Chapter 5
The previous chapter outlined the various challenges present when OGD is used a tool
for improving democracy. This chapter provides an assessment of existing frameworks that
measure certain democratic aspects of OGD specifically participation in political matters,
public sphere, transparency and political accountability. How well these frameworks measure
these aspects of OGD is included and forms the basis of my proposed framework.
5.1
Framework Assessment
In order to determine if OGD implementation has theoretical potential to strengthen
democracy and therefore overcome the stance of post-democracy, it is important to use an
evaluative framework that will help with assessing this claim. As previously explained, this
framework should measure specifically weather OGD implementation can improve people’s
participation in political matters, enhance and enrich the public sphere, and improve
government transparency and accountability.
For this assessment I have selected four existing frameworks developed by various
authors. The fifth item selected is not a framework but has been included due to the strong
connection on the principles for public data relating to transparency. It should be noted that
following extensive research on existing frameworks, there is a clear shortfall of frameworks
available which cover all of the four promises of OGD.
The selected works are as follows:
1. Understanding Open Government Data and addressing its Impact by Felipe Heusser,
April 2012
2. Understanding The Impact of Releasing and Re-Using Open Government Data by
Karolis Granickas, August 2013
3. The Two-Door Perspective: An Assessment Framework for Open Government,
Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazán, 2011
4. Internal data monitoring for Open Government, Berhnard Krabina, May 2012
5. Public Data Transparency Principles by Public Sector Transparency Board (UK),
published in Open Data White Paper, June 2012
I am now going to look closer at the five selected works listed outlining the key
components of each and include discussion on the measurements or tools proposed linked to
Miszczak 44
the four promises of OGD release. I have included a critique for each in the context of
developing my own framework.
5.2
5.2.1
Heusser’s framework
Outline and Summary
In the paper titled “Understanding Open Government Data and Addressing Its
Impact”, the proposed methodological framework is designed to empirically measure the
hypothesis behind several outcome-claim (benefits) highlighted in the paper. These outcomeclaims are OGD’s potential ability to foster transparency, accountability, better public
services and a more equitable growth. At the time of writing, this framework was in draft
form and not “a complete version of how to measure OGD outcomes” (37). That noted, it is
useful starting point “to further expand attempts to measure other details or aspects behind
OGD outcome-claims” (37).
The framework is composed of four elements (37):
1) The identification of the outcome claim to be tested;
2) The proposition of an hypothesis for each of the OGD outcome claims;
3) A test that can allow us to check the hypothesis;
4) A statement of the method (or methods) used to perform each test.
Heusser classifies transparency as either reactive or proactive (21). If public
information is obtained as result of a request to a public authority then the transparency is
reactive. When information is gathered from sources that have been published previously and
without request, then the transparency is proactive.
Regarding reactive transparency, Heusser claims that thanks to the implementation of
wider-reaching or more robust OGD policy, awareness of this available information is raised
among citizens who are in turn more likely to submit information requests. Because
government-held data becomes easier to retrieve, it is also easier for public officials to
answer such requests (38). His proposed method of testing this claim is to determine if the
number of information requests submitted to public agencies increases after implementing an
improved OGD policy. The following step is to determine if bureaucrats subsequently find it
easier to retrieve information to respond to public requests on the basis of this OGD
information being available to the public agency employees.
Miszczak 45
Regarding proactive transparency, his hypothesis is that implementing OGD policy
leads to an increase in the number and quality of information available online. This claim is
tested by observing the amount of data and information available online and its growth over a
set period. Specifically, measuring the number of bytes of information available on
government websites or portals before and after implementation of OGD initiative, and
recording the number of hits or downloads that occur over time (38).
With respect to accountability, Heusser claims the following (38):
•
OGD policy enables more actors to exercise accountability;
•
Existing watch-dogs have more tools to account as a result of OGD; and
•
More formal and informal titles are in place to legitimate the accountability
relationship.
In order to test these claims, Heusser proposes the following (39):
•
Observe if existing watchdogs perceive that there is more information and tools to
exercise accountability than there was prior to OGD policy implementation;
•
Investigate if bureaucrats and civil servants that liaise with information requests
perceive an increase in public oversight;
•
Observe if the implementation of OGD policy fosters more accountability actions
from actors who traditionally practice accountability - media, watchdogs, NGOs; and
•
Observe if the implementation of OGD policy fosters more formal and informal titles
that give legitimacy to the accountability relationship.
His proposed methodology to test these claims includes structured interviews with
watchdogs, media groups, NGOs and civil servants. With respect to the claim about fostering
more formal means to exercise accountability, Heusser proposes to analyse any potential
changes in legislation before and after implementation of OGD that formally create or
strengthen an accountability relationship (39).
5.2.2
Critique and Assessment
Although this is only a preliminary framework, the tests and methodology used to
measure levels of transparency and accountability are a very useful starting point in
developing my proposed framework. They identify the timeframes for the tests and the
Miszczak 46
methods are suitable for individuals without direct access to actual personnel working in the
government. The structured framework towards testing and methodology is key in ensuring a
consistent approach from those who use it.
Several of the testing methods noted, in particular relating to accountability, include
structured interviews with the relevant parties. Although I acknowledge there are few
alternatives readily available, I consider this level of investigation has an inherent shortfall in
ensuring both consistency and quality of feedback. Conducting this type of investigation over
time may be difficult to maintain due to changes in personnel, and individual’s opinions and
perspectives. Acknowledging this shortfall, I shall be utilizing this testing method as part of
my framework.
Heusser’s framework does not specify that the information available ideally needs to be
relevant for the general public. Increased data released to improve transparency is not a
guarantee to meet the open data requirement relating to, for example, policy making. I will
expand on this item in my framework focusing on additional measures to ensure the
information released is both relevant and useful to key government policy and decision
making issues.
In general, I consider the information within this framework very applicable as the
basis of a wider-reaching framework. As such, the information relating to participation and
accountability have been included in my proposed framework. Note that Heusser’s
framework did not include the tools to measure levels of participation or effectiveness of
public sphere, however the framework did not intend to cover these aspects.
5.3
5.3.1
Granickas’ framework
Outline and Summary
European Public Sector Information Platform published a report titled “Understanding
The Impact of Releasing and Re-Using Open Government Data” by Karolis Granickas. The
framework included in this research paper does not provide specific tools to measure
democratic aspects of OGD, but rather provides guidelines on how these investigations
should be approached. The aspects covered in this framework are civic participation,
increased inclusion and empowerment, and access to information.
With respect to measuring these three items, Granickas proposes the following (26):
Measuring Participation
Miszczak 47
•
Observe if there are new tools and applications created that provide ways for the
public to engage into decision-making and policy shaping procedures; and
•
Measure if certain groups of society perceive there are more ways to engage into
decision-making and policy shaping procedures.
Measuring increased inclusion and empowerment:
•
Observe if there are new tools and applications created to provide new ways for the
public to obtain relevant data and information, plus their traffic and usage; and
•
Measure the perception of certain groups of society and check if these groups of
society believe there are more ways to get relevant data and information, which can
eliminate knowledge asymmetry as a result of data provision and re-use.
Measuring Access to information:
•
Observe the amount of data and information available online (proactive
transparency); and
•
Measure public perception as to if it believes there are more information available
thus their right to know is better secured.
5.3.2
Critique and Assessment
Based on the suggested measurements of the increased inclusion and empowerment,
and access to information aspects, I will consider these to be part of the public sphere. As
noted in Section 4.2, the public sphere is strongly related to access to information. In the case
of Granickas’ framework, the existence of this information and then the ease in accessing this
data is covered. The suggested measurements shall be adopted in my proposed framework.
I consider the number of impacts listed as part of Granickas’ framework quite narrow
considering the extent literature review and complexity of measuring democratic affects of
OGD release (in this case, measuring the social impacts of OGD). Although it was noted that
this framework was a starting point for further research, I would have expected more
discussion on quantitatively measuring participation due to the relative simplicity and ability
of the average user to conduct.
Granickas does not specify reference points at which to measure any changes as a
result of OGD release or improved policy. This does not result in a base-case or control point
at which to measure from.
Miszczak 48
No measures of transparency or accountability are provided in this framework.
5.4
5.4.1
Sandoval-Almazán’s framework
Outline and Summary
Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazán published “The Two-Door Perspective: An Assessment
Framework for Open Government” which proposes “an assessment framework to contribute
on the line of reflection and understanding of open government initiatives” (166). The main
goal of his paper is to assess the openness and transparency of open governments. Although
not directly mentioned, I consider there are various aspects in this framework representing
participation and access to information (public sphere) and have been noted accordingly in
my assessment. As noted in the framework, “assessing open governments means to
understand the degree of accomplishment of the goal of transparent and accessible
government information available to citizens and public servants” (173).
With respect to openness and transparency, the author introduces the concept of a “two
door perspective”, which helps to understand the different ways in which the public receives
the information.
The back door perspective is the government gatekeeper: the government owns all of
the information obtained and stored by the government and such information in general
should be kept away from the public (i.e. Cold War approach). This is based on the notion
that information considered too sensitive is kept away from the public as a tool for social
control. Some data may be released via the Internet, but in general a great deal of data
remains secretive and government itself is the gatekeeper (174).
The front door perspective represents the political discourse where “citizens can take
the control of information, can retrieve any data or document, consult files, make questions
and handle the same information as government officials”. In this system, both government
and citizens share the common goal of sharing information (176). The gatekeepers in the
front door perspective are the interfaces of Information of Communication Technologies (the
previously discussed digital and data divides).
Both back and front door perspectives describes how governments may become more
open, where the key difference being the approach to the openness and collaboration with the
citizens. Note that collaboration is practically only facilitated in the front door perspective.
The author proposed different sets of components that can be tested for each
perspective for both transparency, participation and public sphere as outlined in Table 1. The
details in Table 1 do not represent the varying levels of public transparency of each
Miszczak 49
perspective noted in the text above, but rather the benefits OGD can bring to each. In other
words, what can be gained from each perspective under a broad and robust OGD policy. For
the purposes of this assessment, the various components have been divided based in their
relationship with transparency, participation and public-sphere.
OGD impact: levels
Back door perspective
Front door perspective
Transparency
- Creates new information
- Interacts with citizens addressing
channels for government
outlets
- Reduces corruption
- Publicizes government process
- Government officials are easy to
exposing some laws and
reach by any communication
regulations
means
- Monitors government
Participation
interests and information concerns
- Citizens can track processes,
activities and publicizes
programs and government
it
performance
N/A
- Enhances public database to be
reusable and dynamic
- Enables citizens’ interaction with
government officials, programs and
an inside process to co-produce
information and data
- Public opinions are measured and
assessed
- Citizens are able to criticize and to
enrich government procurement
and public expenditure
- Access to public
sphere
- N/A
- Reduces the digital division among
citizens to promote more
government openness
Table 1: How to measure impacts of Open Government Data using two-door perspective by
Sandoval-Almazán
Miszczak 50
Sandoval-Almazán notes that between these two ‘pairs of doors’ lie the issues of the
actual decision-making process. This “black box of the policy-making process” is not
transparent and limits information transfer to citizens (175). In particular, the criteria of
decision-making and the options of choice remain unknown to citizens: “in this component,
political solutions are made without citizens’ supervision” (175). The author claims that this
black box is the last stage to open initiatives in the open government. However, the measures
of assessing the decision-making process have not been included in this short framework.
5.4.2
Critique and Assessment
This framework does not provide any tools or recommended methods of measuring the
impact of OGD, rather it simply provides the benefits gained or indicators between two forms
of open governments. This framework does not include any tools for measuring either the
increase in OGD release or a how ‘open’ an open government claims to be.
Although there is a lack of measurement tools, I consider the indicators noted for the
front door perspective, representing a high level of open government (including transparency,
participation and public sphere), offer governments aspiring to a high level of transparency
the targets they require. As these align directly with the requirements of my proposed
framework, I shall be including these goals accordingly.
The author raises the point of the ‘black-box’ situation that is both the most sensitive
and important for citizens. Methods of assessing, or guidance on how to approach this critical
point in the decision-making process have not been included in this framework. As I consider
this key towards my proposed framework, I shall be including this as a indicator for
transparency.
No direct discussion on accountability is included in Sandoval-Almazán’s framework.
5.5
Krabina’s framework
5.5.1
Outline and Summary
Krabina’s framework, presented during the 2nd Conference for E-Democracy and Open
Government in Krems, Austria (2012), provides metrics (or scoring system) to measure the
suitability or usefulness of data available from government agencies (294–299). The criteria
selected and the corresponding scoring grid was developed in consultation with Vienna city
Miszczak 51
administration and the Environment Agency Austria. The selected criteria is outlined as
follows (297–299):
•
Non- disclosure/ Legal restrictions (Is the data subject to non- disclosure obligations
or other legal restrictions?);
•
Personal References (Does the data include personal references or can individuals be
identified?);
•
Company References (Does the data include company references or can individual
companies be identified?);
•
Copyright (Is the agency sole possessor of copyright?);
•
Value (How high is the estimated value of disclosure (for the public, for companies,
for other agencies...);
•
Cost (How high is the cost of disclosure?);
•
Content- Related Data Quality (How high is the data quality? (timeliness,
completeness, accurateness, faultiness);
•
Technical Availability (Available data formats, open standards, 5- Stars-Model, OGD
formats);
•
Synergy (Is the data /are services being made available for other purposes?); and
•
Compliance with OGD principles (Can the OGD principles be met?).
Due to the scope of my research, I will only assess several components of Krabina’s
framework that are more relevant for measuring political impacts of OGD. From my review
of this framework, all of the criteria outlined can be classified as issues related to the
transparency of OGD. A summary of those components selected including the corresponding
metrics is included in Table 2 below.
Criterion
Metrics
Non- disclosure/ Legal
0: Non-disclosure obligation
restrictions
1: Restrictions exist, are hardly changeable (e. g. EU
restrictions)
2: Restrictions exist, changeable (e. g. regional or district
council with extraordinary resolution)
3: Restrictions exist, easily changeable (e. g. regional or
district council with simple majority)
Miszczak 52
4: Restrictions exist, very easily changeable (e. g. internal
rules and practices)
5: No restrictions
Copyright
0: Copyrights of third parties prohibit disclosure
1: Subject to license fees and approval
2: Subject to license fees, approval obtained
3: No license fees, subject to approval
4: No license fees, no approval needed
5: Sole possession of copyright ensured
Value
0: No value
1: Very low value
2: Low value
3: Medium value
4: High value
5: Very high value
Content- Related Data
0: Data quality unjustifiable
Quality
1: Data quality very low
2: Data quality low
3: Data quality medium
4: Data quality high
5: Data quality very high
Technical Availability
0: Data available on paper only
1: Data available electronically
2: Data available in machine readable format
3: Data available in OGD formats
4: Data available with URI / as RDF
5: Data available as linked data
Table 2 – Criteria and Metrics extracts, Krabina (297-299)
With respect to the metrics included in this framework, those criteria classified as
zero represents that disclosure is not currently feasible. There are no weightings assigned to
each criterion, meaning each is of equal importance. Krabina does suggest that weightings
Miszczak 53
can be applied based on the individual’s preference, however this has not been considered in
this instance.
5.5.2
Critique and Assessment
The key aspect of this framework is the inclusion of metrics / scoring system against
the various criteria, offering the user an opportunity to quantitatively measure or compare
data sets. This level of analysis offers a direct method for measuring the level of transparency
of OGD between different government agencies or parties. As such, these criteria and metrics
have been included in my proposed framework.
Although there are no tools included for measuring participation, public sphere or
accountability, this first step on measuring transparency offers guidance on the structure and
form for future frameworks measuring these other items.
There are a number of criteria related to transparency raised in this framework that are
not covered by any other framework. I consider this robust framework was subsequently as a
result from the feedback received from the government officials and experts consulted as part
of Krabina’s research.
5.6
Public Sector Transparency Board – Principles
5.6.1
Outline and Summary
The publication “Public Data Transparency Principles” by Public Sector Transparency
Board (UK), June 2012, is not a framework as it does not attempt to measure the already
existing initiative. Instead, it offers a set of principles that should accompany OGD release to
which all of the data releasing government departments should aspire. The objective of this
work to ensure that OGD is published in ways “which allow people to use it easily and
reliably” (Open Data White Paper 22). The principles developed are as follows (Open Data
White Paper 22–24):
1. Public data policy and practice will be clearly driven by the public and businesses that
want and use the data, including what data is released, when and in what form;
2. Public data will be published in re-usable, machine-readable form;
3. Public data will be released under the same open license which enables free re-use,
including commercial re-use;
Miszczak 54
4. Public data will be available and easy to find through a single, easy-to-use, online
access point;
5. Public data will be published using open standards, and following relevant
recommendations of the World Wide Web Consortium;
6. Public data from different departments about the same subject will be published in the
same, standard formats and with the same definitions;
7. Public data underlying the Government’s own websites will be published in re-usable
form;
8. Public data will be timely and fine-grained;
9. Release data quickly, and then work to make sure that it is available in open standard
formats, including linked data forms;
10. Public data will be freely available to use in any lawful way;
11. Public data will be available without application or registration, and without requiring
details of the user;
12. Public bodies should actively encourage the re-use of their public data;
13. Public bodies should maintain and publish inventories of their data holdings; and
14. Public bodies should publish relevant metadata about their datasets and this should be
available through a single online access point; and they should publish supporting
descriptions of the format provenance and meaning of the data.
The Public Sector Transparency Board also recognized that the published data should be
reusable. For assessing the degree to which individual datasets are re-usable, they proposed to
use the Five Star deployment scheme created by Sir Tim Berners-Lee which was originally
posted on author’s blog “Design Issues” (Berners-Lee). The intention is to include a star
rating attached to each data set and a gauge of the usefulness and Refer to Table 3 below.
Level
Format
★
Make your data available on the web (in any format)
★★
Make it available as structured data (for example Microsoft Excel instead
of image scan of a table)
★★★
Make it available in an open, non-proprietary format (for example, CSV
or XML instead of Microsoft Excel)
★★★★
In addition to using open formats, use Uniform and Resource Locators
Miszczak 55
(URLs) to identify things using open standards and recommendations
from W3C, so that other people can reference an individuals data
★★★★★
In addition to using open formats and using URLs to identify things, link
your data to other people’s data to provide context
Table 3 – Five Star Deployment scheme (Sir Tim Berners-Lee)
5.6.2
Critique and Assessment
The set of principles provide a clear set of goals, which, if OGD is released using this
list, ensures a degree of uniformity is met when comparing data. As this is clearly a key
requirement of any future measurement tools developed in this area of study, I have included
a number of these principles in my proposed framework.
Although the list of principles covers a wide variety of aspects relating to OGD
development and release, ensuring this level of quality is met is considered to be relatively
difficult to achieve. As such, a ranking system of importance would be useful which would
provide an increased level of guidance on what aspect of OGD development and release
should be prioritised.
The Five Star Deployment scheme provides a similar approach to Krabina’s
frameworks as it ranks or scores the format level of data sets. This offers the user a greater
ability to search for information closer to their individual needs and again, introduces a
measurement tool aimed at ensuring a degree of uniformity in the processing and cataloguing
of data. This has been included in my proposed framework.
5.7
Framework Assessment Summary
To conclude this assessment, I note the inherent difficulty in undertaking comparative
analysis of assessment tools that utilise a variety of measures and approaches. What I have
demonstrated in doing so, however is to highlight the patchwork and deficiencies of tools
available to practitioners seeking to determine the extent to which OGD meets its potential to
improve democratic practice.
This chapter provided an assessment on the available frameworks and guidance
documents measuring the impact OGD has on democracy and upholding its four pillars. In
the following chapter, I introduce my proposed framework that utilises elements of the
Miszczak 56
evaluated frameworks, but also includes my specific recommendations and suggested
improvements to create a more robust and encompassing framework.
Miszczak 57
6
Chapter 6
In the previous chapter I summarised and critiqued several frameworks and documents
which provide tools for measuring value of OGD in democratic systems, as well as the
suggesting guidance when producing and releasing OGD into the public domain. This chapter
introduces my proposed framework in response to that analysis, which includes additional
measures aimed at improving the breadth and value of guidance for the user, whilst ensuring
the criteria stated in Chapter 4 are covered.
6.1
Proposed Framework Overview
This evaluative framework builds on the existing tools and measurement guidance on
different democratic aspects of OGD, specifically, participation, public sphere, transparency
and accountability. The framework is initially based on a number of existing documents,
combined into a single format allowing a consistent approach to both identifying and
measuring the various criteria relating to the four aspects of democracy noted.
I have noted that the reference documents primarily focus on measurement or guidance
towards transparency. My framework is also intended to measure the improvement to
democracy as a result of OGD release over time and not at a discrete point.
As details from each of the five reference documents have been built upon in this
proposed framework, specific criterion has been marked based on the corresponding author
of the original document as follows:
(H) - Understanding Open Government Data and addressing its Impact by Felipe Heusser,
April 2012
(G) - Understanding The Impact of Releasing and Re-Using Open Government Data by
Karolis Granickas, August 2013
(S) - The Two-Door Perspective: An Assessment Framework for Open Government,
Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazán (2011)
(K) - Internal data monitoring for Open Government, Berhnard Krabina, May 2012
(P) Public Data Transparency Principles by Public Sector Transparency Board (UK), June
2012
Where no reference mark exists, this indicates that particular criterion is original to this
framework.
Miszczak 58
The framework is presented methodically in the context of the four democratic
components discussed throughout this research paper: participation, the public sphere,
transparency and accountability.
Miszczak 59
6.2
Participation component
The following elements outline the metrics associated with measuring the value and outcomes of Open Government Data with regard to
improving participation in democratic processes.
Indicators (when is this working?)
What needs to be measured?
How this needs to be measured?
There are new tools for participation
There are new tools and applications created
that provide ways for the public to engage into
decision-making and policy shaping procedures
(G)
Measure the perception of certain groups of society as
to if they believe that there are more ways to engage
into decision-making and policy shaping procedures
(G)
Identify where and how often tools are being utilized
where they did not previously exist
The existing tools for participation are used to a
greater extent by the individual or group
There are appropriate feedback opportunities
Citizens have tools for interaction with
government officials, programs and an inside
process to co-produce information and data and
these tools are being used more frequently (S)
How citizens utilize available tools to
participate in democratic processes.
Public opinions are measured and assessed (S)
Measure the increase in public political participation in
civic groups (political parties, NGOs, unions etc.)
before and after the release of OGD policy, through
existing mechanisms.
Structured interviews with parties lodging the
feedback
Miszczak 60
Indicators (when is this working?)
Citizens are encouraged to participate
Quality of participation is being increased (P)
What needs to be measured?
How this needs to be measured?
Public perception that there are opportunities
for their feedback through channels available to
them
Structured interviews with parties lodging the
feedback
Existence of incentives directed at raising the
public interest in the use of Open Government
Data, also in political contexts
Measurement of number of government-based
incentive programmes
Citizens’ willingness to engage and contribute
to policy deliberation using OGD
Interviews with the public
The number of references to OGD in formal
public submissions to legislative and policy
consultations.
Quality of engagement is increased due to
better opportunities given for those who are
already engaged.
Quantitative measurement of the number of references
to OGD in formal public submissions to legislative and
policy consultations.
Structured interviews with parties already participating
in political discourse.
Quality of reference and analysis in public
submissions to formal public submissions to
legislative and policy consultations.
There are appropriate licences allowing for reuse of OGD (P)
Public data is published in re-usable form (P)
Public data is released under open license
which enables free re-use, including
commercial re-use (P)
Is the OGD published in re-usable form? (P)
Measurement of data sets with appropriate licences
5-star deployment scheme (P)
Miszczak 61
Indicators (when is this working?)
Data released from different government
agencies follow the same format (P)
What needs to be measured?
Public data from different departments about
the same subject is published in the same,
standard formats and with the same definitions
(P)
The umber of applied cases where consistent
terminologies and comparable metrics are used
in reports and submissions to formal public
submissions to legislative and policy
consultations.
How this needs to be measured?
Analyse if new applications take advantage of flexible
formats of OGD.
5 star deployment scheme (P)
Document the number of applied cases where
consistent terminologies and comparable metrics are
used in reports and submissions to formal public
submissions to legislative and policy consultations.
Miszczak 62
6.3
Public Sphere component
The following elements outline the metrics associated with measuring the value and outcomes of Open Government Data with regard to improving
the quality and effectiveness of the public sphere in democratic processes.
Indicators (when is this working?)
There are actions taken to maximise public
utilisation of OGD (P)
Easy accessibility (P)
What needs to be measured?
If there are new tools and applications created
to provide new ways for the public to obtain
relevant data and information (G)
How this needs to be measured?
Observe if there are new tools and applications created
to provide new ways for the public to obtain relevant
data and information (G)
The traffic and usage of such tools increases
Measure the perception of certain groups of society,
conduct structured interviews to check if these groups
of society believe there are more ways to get relevant
data and information, which can eliminate knowledge
asymmetry as a result of data provision and re-use (G)
Monitoring the usage of the tools
Usability of these data sets
Public data is available and easy to find through
a single, easy-to-use, online access point (P)
Further research required
Questionnaires with users of OGD websites to check
their perception of usability
Miszczak 63
Indicators (when is this working?)
No restrictions to access
OGD is free of charge
The discourse in unbiased
What needs to be measured?
The increase in successful downloads of OGD
sets
How this needs to be measured?
Measurement of download history from OGD portals
Evidence of use of OGD
Further research required
There are no restrictions as to who, when and
what data sets can download, no limits in
number of downloads per user.
Absence of complaints of restricted access to
OGD data sets.
There is no cost involved in accessing the
information
Further research required
If lobbyists, PR-expert and other actors
influence the debate resulting from OGD
Further research required
The umber of OGD data sets referenced by a
variety of competing interest groups as
evidence for their own position (where they are
not contesting the data)
Measuring the number and proportion of OGD
resources requiring payment for data access
Miszczak 64
6.4
Transparency component
The following elements outline the metrics associated with measuring the value and outcomes of Open Government Data with regard to improving
transparency in democratic processes.
Indicators (when is this working?)
There is more information available via
OGD (H)
More awareness about the information
available (H)
What needs to be
measured?
Amount of data published by
the public bodies without
requests (proactive) (H)
Amount of data published by
the public bodies as a result of
information request(s)
(reactive) (H)
Number of information
requests made and responded
to (H)
Public perception of
transparency is better (H)
Better opportunities to supply data after
a demand (H)
Revealed corruption as a result of OGD
release (S)
There is transparency regarding
Bureaucrats find it easier to
retrieve public information to
answer requests (H)
Instances of corruption
revealed where OGD played a
role in exposing the
corruption
If information and details of
How this needs to be measured?
Score/Metric (where applicable)
Measurement of number different
data sets available by department/
institution by request
Measurement of number different
data sets available by department/
institution by request
N/A
Checking if the number of
information requests submitted to
a number of public agencies
increase or not after implementing
OGD policy (H)
Checking public perception as to if
it believes there are more
information available thus their
right to know is better secured (G)
Structured interviews with
bureaucrats who deal with
responding to information requests
Compare number of instances of
corruption revealed prior and
before OGD implementation
N/A
Further research required
N/A
N/A
N/A
Satisfaction with response to requests
N/A
Miszczak 65
Indicators (when is this working?)
decision making (black box) (H) (S)
Non- disclosure/ Legal restrictions (K)
What needs to be
measured?
the process of policy-making
are transparent (Existing
published explanatory
material surrounding
decisions)
How this needs to be measured?
Score/Metric (where applicable)
Is the data subject to nondisclosure obligations or other
legal restrictions? (K)
Empirical analyses of OGD
0: Non-disclosure obligation
1: Restrictions exist, are hardly
changeable (e. g. EU restrictions)
2: Restrictions exist, changeable (e. g.
regional or district council with
extraordinary resolution)
3: Restrictions exist, easily changeable (e.
g. regional or district council with simple
majority)
4: Restrictions exist, very easily
changeable (e. g. internal rules and
practices)
5: No restrictions (K)
Empirical analyses of OGD
0: Copyrights of third parties prohibit
disclosure
1: Subject to license fees and approval
2: Subject to license fees, approval
obtained
3: No license fees, subject to approval
Compliance with relevant
privacy legislation
Copyright (K)
Is the agency sole possessor
of copyright? (K)
Miszczak 66
Indicators (when is this working?)
What needs to be
measured?
How this needs to be measured?
Score/Metric (where applicable)
4: No license fees, no approval needed
5: Sole possession of copyright ensured
(K)
Value of the information (K)
Value (How high is the
estimated value of disclosure
(for the public, for companies,
for other agencies...) (K)
Structured interviews with the
users of OGD
Data quality (K)
How high is the data quality?
(timeliness, completeness,
accurateness, faultiness) (K)
Empirical analyses of OGD
Public data policy and practice is clearly
driven by the public (P)
The public expresses their
wishes as to what data is
released, when and in what
form (P)
Public organisations engage
with citizens and are
responsive to their “refined
preferences”
Measurement of number of
information requests and uptake
before and after implementation of
OGD policy
Measurement of number of data
sets released via government
websites and agencies before and
after implementation of OGD
policy
0: No value
1: Very low value
2: Low value
3: Medium value
4: High value
5: Very high value (K)
0: Data quality unjustifiable
1: Data quality very low
2: Data quality low
3: Data quality medium
4: Data quality high
5: Data quality very high (K)
N/A
N/A
Miszczak 67
6.5
Accountability component
The following elements outline the metrics associated with measuring the value and outcomes of Open Government Data with regard to improving
accountability of decision-making actors in democratic processes.
Indicators (when is this working?)
There are more accountability actions from
actors that have traditionally been holding
government into account
What needs to be measured?
The implementation of OGD policy fosters more
accountability actions from actors who
traditionally practice accountability - media,
watchdogs, NGOs (H)
Civil servants that liaise with information
requests perceive an increase in public oversight
(H)
How this needs to be measured?
Structured interviews with watchdogs media,
NGOs and civil servants questioning if they
perceive they conduct accountability actions more
often (H)
Analyses of media coverage, focusing on the
number of critical articles based on evidence
derived from OGD
Structured interviews with watchdogs media,
NGOs and civil servants (H)
OGD policy enables more actors to exercise
accountability (H)
There are more actors who publicly scrutinize
the government (new watch dogs)
Analyses of media coverage, including social
media, blogosphere.
There are new accountability tools (H)
New and existing watch dogs have more tools to
account as a result of OGD (H)
The existing accountability tools are being used
more often
More formal and informal titles are in place to
legitimate the accountability relationship (H)
The existing accountability tools are being used
more often
The implementation of OGD policy fosters more
formal and informal titles that give legitimacy to
the accountability relationship (H)
Structured interviews: check if existing watchdogs
perceive that there is more information and tools to
exercise accountability than there was prior to
OGD policy implementation (H)
Structured interviews with watchdogs media,
NGOs and civil servants
Analyse any potential changes in legislation before
and after implementation of OGD that formally
create or strengthen an accountability relationship
(H)
Miszczak 68
Indicators (when is this working?)
There are relevant feedback opportunities
(including feedback leading to exposure of
government wrong-doing)
What needs to be measured?
There are mechanisms in place to provide
feedback to the government and relevant
agencies
Does the feedback lead to formal actions?
How this needs to be measured?
Analysis of government agencies and internet
portals facilitating public feedback
Analyses of the data used leading to formal action
and if it was resulting from OGD policy
Miszczak 69
6.6
Proposed Framework – Critique
My proposed framework provides a comprehensive approach to the assessment of
OGD utilisation to support democratic outcomes. The benefits of this approach are that it
provides a consistent methodology with which to assess OGD initiatives intended to improve
the value of that data and contribution to democratic principles. It does this by structuring the
criteria according to the democratic outcome desired, and breaking each down into a more
precise method. It does so by leveraging and building upon existing frameworks for
constituent elements. This immediately provides a more user-friendly and practically
applicable model.
The framework was created based on existing documents describing attempts to
measure various effects of OGD, each of which focus on different aspects. Some are more
detailed and offer quantitative tools to measure certain aspects of OGD, whereas others offer
more general guidance on how to undertake assessments of OGD release.
Regarding the reach of my proposed framework, it includes almost all aspects of the
other authors’ frameworks as to ensure all available criteria were covered and suggested
methodologies were included. The reason I consider this a suitable approach is due to the
current shortfall in frameworks measuring these items comprehensively. One of the key
objectives for my proposed framework is collating and matching each of the aspects I
considered linked to participation, public sphere, transparency and accountability included in
the reference documents.
There do however remain some caveats and shortcomings of the model, which are in need
of further development:
•
My framework is a step forward, but lacks nuances and also technical means to
measure all of the aspects, that will be enriched through case study application and
further study. There was a number of items marked “further research required”. This
was indicated for criteria that were considered too complex or elusive to define a
suitable measurement tool or approach within the context of this research thesis.
These aspects were far more general where an adequate measurement tool was
considered beyond the limitations of a university research thesis.
•
In the context of this, there are limitations in testing my proposed framework. It is
acknowledged that testing different sets of OGD and completing a critical assessment
Miszczak 70
on each would yield invaluable feedback on my framework; yet this is not possible to
fulfil in the scope of this research thesis.
•
Once the framework is tested, flaws in its design may be discovered and it may be
determined that it and needs to be altered to better meet the needs of users.
•
There are a number of criteria noted in my framework that lists the measurement as a
structured interview of a particular party. Although this would provide relevant
information or feedback on that particular aspect, I consider this to be a relatively low
level of data collection on the basis of time and resources required to interview the
parties, as well as the widely varying levels of feedback expected. Although this can
be considered a suitable approach for the relevant criteria, I would recommend future
research is required to establish a more robust and/or quantitative measurement tool.
•
It is also important to calibrate the proposed model with a metric scoring system
throughout to further strengthen it application and comparability of measurements.
This chapter, which includes my proposed framework, was based on the literature
review undertaken throughout this research thesis on OGD as a tool for improving
democracy. The pros and cons have been outlined which offers the user an understanding of
the applications and limitations of my proposed framework. The follow chapter summarises
the findings and conclusions of this research thesis as a whole, and includes details of further
research in this particular field.
Miszczak 71
7
Chapter 7
Throughout this research thesis I have demonstrated the challenges in measuring how
Open Government Data is used to progress democratic outcomes. I have grounded this
analysis in four fundamental pillars of democracy: participation, the public sphere,
transparency, and accountability. I have introduced a new framework that builds on existing
approaches and enhances them by developing a comprehensive tool. This allows for a more
robust, repeatable and comparable analysis of OGD initiatives, in terms on their impact on
democratic outcomes and practice. This chapter outlines the key findings from my research in
a broad perspective while identifying benefits and shortfalls of the frameworks referenced.
Recommendations for future research are also outlined.
7.1
Findings and Conclusions
•
Based on the research conducted on the existing frameworks available on this topic, I
do not consider that any of them specifically or effectively measure the democratic
effects of OGD. Rather, the frameworks are limited to measuring different parts of
democracy. I consider the principle reason for this is due to the overall complexity of
measuring this topic. The widely varying views, theories and perspectives on what
constitutes a democratic society, and specifically a well functioning one, is difficult to
encapsulate in a single framework.
•
My proposed framework is designed for use by researches dealing primarily with
OGD, democracy, e-government and ICTs. It should be used for example as a
benchmark when OGD policy is being implemented or as a method of evaluating the
existing OGD infrastructure.
•
The lack of quantitative assessment or tools noted in my analysis echoes those
difficulties raised by the authors of the other frameworks. This lack of reliable
quantitative methodologies is a result in part because ODG connects humanities and
digital information.
•
The difficulty with producing a framework aimed at measuring democracy, either as a
whole or various components of, is again when users have differing opinions when
one aspect is considered to have been fully ‘delivered’. As an example, when exactly
is a government considered transparent? Can this be reached at a single point, or
would some people consider a transparent government is reached based on a single
aspect of their responsibilities? Consider the specific risk that where transparency
Miszczak 72
uncovers corruption, but then leads to a tightening of controls around information,
clearly transparency has in effect been undermined. As such, I would recommend
that prior to using any frameworks measuring aspects of democracy in the context of
OGD release, that appropriate targets are set for both the government’s democratic
maturity and extent of improvements one aims to introduce or benchmark.
•
A further challenge in developing a framework is when the government is at a
different level or maturity of democracy (i.e. political stability, history of democratic
tradition, etc.). I suggest that frameworks need to be applied in a flexible way to suit
the democratic situation of a country. These will obviously be at the discretion of the
researcher who has in-depth knowledge of the government’s position and ambition to
drive democratic improvement.
•
The framework I propose is informed by the challenges, issues and current policy
settings commonly found in developed democracies.
•
Articulating different aspects of OGD benefits in an accurate manner is possible
through the use of a quantitative measuring system. Introducing quantitative scoring
systems as part of a framework enables the user to quickly and precisely relate aspects
of democracy against others. This in turn allows better opportunities for critical,
criteria-based, analysis on the chosen democratic component. Quantitative assessment
is also a key component when measuring changes or improvements in a democratic
society due to the release of OGD across a set period. Considering this, participation
and transparency are the two aspects included in my framework that include
quantitative assessment as both are based on direct figures of individuals or groups
involved in a process, or packets of data utilised over a period of time.
•
Assessment of these two elements (participation and transparency) quantitatively then
allows for more informed evaluation of the contribution of OGD to accountability.
•
I have argued that there are various conditions that need to exist to determine the
success of OGD in terms of improving democracy. For example, the existence of
pluralistic ownership of the media, good access to the Internet and pre-existing groups
of watchdogs and interest groups devoted to analysing the proceedings of the
government. Even though these conditions are not strictly related to OGD, their
presence is required to achieve democratic outcomes.
•
The readiness of citizens to participate in the political matters is also an important
factor that requires further research. It is important to understand under what
Miszczak 73
conditions citizens are politically motivated, and if and what incentives for political
participation exist. In other words, in order to better understand the basics of political
participation, it is important to note what benefits (real and perceived) this
involvement may bring for an average citizen.
7.2
Recommendations for Future Research
•
Test the proposed framework through application to a case study.
•
Articulate the gaps in the framework and recommend additional measures or tools to
complete the framework, based on real-world case study examples.
•
Explore if and how the development of ICTs changes the way we communicate. This
is the subject of a separate research and would ideally be structured as a longitudinal
study to assess the outcomes on democratic practices.
***
Miszczak 74
Bibliography
Ackerman, John M., and Irma E. Sandoval-Ballesteros. “The Global Explosion of Freedom
of Information Laws.” Administrative Law Review 58.1 (2006): 85–130. EBSCOhost.
Web. 10 Feb. 2014.
Anderson, Kevin. “Tim Berners-Lee Launches UK Public Data Website.” The Guardian 21
Jan. 2010. The Guardian. Web. 15 June 2013.
Angélico, Fabiano. “Transparency Is an Expensive Business for Fledgling Democracies.” The
Guardian 20 Apr. 2012. The Guardian. Web. 14 June 2014.
Bagdikian, Ben H. The Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press, 1997. Print.
Balkin, Jack. “How Mass Media Simulate Political Transparency.” Faculty Scholarship
Series (1999): n. pag.
Banisar, David. Freedom of Information and Access to Government Records Around the
World. Privacy International, 2006. Print.
Barnett, Steven. “Will a Crisis in Journalism Provoke a Crisis in Democracy?” The Political
Quarterly 73.4 (2002): 400–408. Wiley Online Library. Web. 9 Feb. 2014.
Bellamy, Christine, and John A. Taylor. Governing in the Information Age. Open University
Press, 1998. Print.
Berners-Lee, Tim. “Linked Data - Design Issues.” Design Issues 27 July 2006. Web. 28 May
2014.
Bobbio, Norberto. The Future of Democracy: A Defence of the Rules of the Game. University
of Minnesota Press, 1987. Print.
Böhm, Christoph et al. “GovWILD: Integrating Open Government Data for Transparency.”
ACM Press, 2012. 321. CrossRef. Web. 11 May 2014.
Miszczak 75
Bovens, M. a. P. “Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework.”
European law journal 13.4 (2007): 447–468. dspace.library.uu.nl. Web. 26 Apr.
2014.
Bridges, Frank, Lora Appel, and Jens Grossklags. “Young Adults’ Online Participation
Behaviors: An Exploratory Study of Web 2.0 Use for Political Engagement.”
Information Polity 17.2 (2012): 163–176. MetaPress. Web. 27 Aug. 2013.
Castoriadis, Cornelius. “The Problem of Democracy Today.” Democracy & Nature, The
International Journal of Politics and Ecology 3.2 (1997): 18–35. Web. 14 June 2014.
8.
Chun, Soon Ae, and June-Suh Cho. “E-Participation and Transparent Policy Decision
Making.” Information Polity 17.2 (2012): 129–145. MetaPress. Web. 30 Aug. 2013.
Clayman, Steven E. “Speaking on Behalf of the Public in Broadcast News Interviews.”
Reporting Talk. Cambridge University Press, 2006. Studies in Interactional
Sociolinguistics.
Coleman, Stephen. “E‐democracy: The History and Future of an Idea.” The Oxford
Handbook of Information and Communication Technologies. Ed. Chrisanthi Avgerou
et al. Oxford University Press, 2009. CrossRef. Web. 10 June 2013.
Coyle, Diane. Public Value in Practice - Restoring the Ethos of Public Service. BBC Trust.
Web. 31 Aug. 2013.
Crouch, Colin. Coping with Post-Democracy. London: Fabian Society, 2000. Print. Fabian
Ideas.
---. Post-Democracy. Wiley, 2004. Print.
Dahl, Robert Alan. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. Yale University Press, 1973.
Print.
Miszczak 76
Davies, Tim. “How Might Open Data Contribute to Good Governance?” Open Data Impacts
11 Dec. 2012.
---. “Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform.” N. p., Aug. 2010. Web. 23 June
2013.
Dawes, Sharon, and Natalie Helbig. “Information Strategies for Open Government:
Challenges and Prospects for Deriving Public Value from Government
Transparency.” Electronic Government. Ed. Maria Wimmer et al. Vol. 6228. Springer
Berlin / Heidelberg, 2010. 50–60. SpringerLink. Web. 24 May 2012. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science.
Dietrich, Daniel et al. “Open Data Handbook Documentation.” 14 Nov. 2012.
Digital Public Spaces. Future Everything, 2013. Web. 9 Sept. 2013.
“DigitalDivide.” DigitalDivide. N. p., n.d. Web. 25 June 2014.
Ding, Li et al. “TWC LOGD: A Portal for Linked Open Government Data Ecosystems.” Web
Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 9.3 (2011): 325–
333. ScienceDirect. Web. 20 May 2013.
Djerf-Pierre, Monika, Mats Ekström, and Bengt Johansson. “Policy Failure or Moral
Scandal? Political Accountability, Journalism and New Public Management.” Media,
Culture & Society 35.8 (2013): 960–976. mcs.sagepub.com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048.
Web. 26 Apr. 2014.
Ettema, James S., and Theodore L. Glasser. Custodians of Conscience: Investigative
Journalism and Public Virtue. Columbia University Press, 1998. Print.
“European Legislation on Reuse of Public Sector Information.” Digital Agenda for Europe.
N. p., n.d. Web. 19 June 2014.
Miszczak 77
Fioretti, Marco. “Open Data, Open Society: A Research Project about Openness of Public
Data in EU Local Administrations.” Laboratory of Economics and Management of
Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa 2010. Web. 30 Aug. 2013.
Fraser, Nancy. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually
Existing Democracy.” Social Text 25/26 (1990): 56–80. JSTOR. Web. 17 June 2013.
Gottschalk-Mazouz, Niels. “Internet and the flow of Knowledge: Which Ethical and Political
Challenges Will We Face?” Wittgenstein and the Philosophy of Information.
Proceedings of the 30th International Ludwig Wittgenstein-Symposium in Kirchberg,
2007. Ed. Herbert Hrachovec et al. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 2008. 215–232.
sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080. Web. 9 June 2013.
“Government Data Still Not Open Enough – New Survey on Eve of London Summit | Open
Knowledge Foundation Blog.” N. p., 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 3 June 2014.
Granickas, Karolis. Understanding the Impact of Releasing and Re-Using Open Government
Data. European Public Sector Information Platform, 2013. Web. 6 Sept. 2013.
European Public Sector Information Platform Topic Report.
Gundlach, Hardy. Public Value in der Digital- und Internetökonomie: [in ... Hamburg fand
am 13. und 14. November 2009 die Jahrestagung der Fachgruppe Medienökonomie
der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft statt].
Köln: Halem, 2011. Print.
Gurevitch, Michael, and Jay G. Blumler. “Political Communication Systems and Democratic
Values.” Democracy and the Mass Media. Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Public Policy.
Gurstein, Michael B. “Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or Effective Data Use for
Everyone?” First Monday 16.2 (2011): n. pag. firstmonday.org. Web. 16 June 2013.
Miszczak 78
Habermas, Jurgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a
Category of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Thomas Burger. Cambridge: Polity Press,
1996. Print.
Habermas, Jürgen, Sara Lennox, and Frank Lennox. “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia
Article (1964).” New German Critique 3 (1974): 49–55. JSTOR. Web. 15 Sept. 2013.
“Hack for the Change.” National Day of Civic Hacking. N. p., n.d. Web. 23 June 2013.
Hadden, Dough. “Does Open Government Mean Audit Is a Civic Duty.” Sustainable Public
Financial Management 10 May 2012. Web. 2 June 2013.
Haloen, Antii. Bein Open About Data: Analysis of the UK Open Data Policies and
Applicability of Open Data. London: Finnish Institute in London. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.
Harrison, Teresa, Theresa Pardo, et al. Delivering Public Value Through Open Government.
Albany, New York: Centre of Technology in Government, University at Albany,
2011. Web. 14 July 2013.
Harrison, Teresa, Guerrero Santaigo, et al. “Open Government and E-Government:
Democratic Challenges from a Public Value Perspective.” College Park, Maryland,
USA: Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, State University
in New York, 2011. www.egov.vic.gov.au. Web. 20 June 2013.
Hauser, Gerard A. “Vernacular Dialogue and the Rhetoricality of Public Opinion.”
Communication Monographs 65.2 (1998): 83–107. Taylor and Francis+NEJM. Web.
17 June 2013.
Heusser, Felipe. Understanding Open Government Data and Addressing Its Impact. N. p.,
2012. Print.
“Historic Global Open Government Partnership Launches in New York City - O’Reilly
Radar.” N. p., n.d. Web. 1 Sept. 2013.
Miszczak 79
Hogge, Betty. Open Data Study: New Technologies. London: Transparency & Accountability
Initiative, 2010.
Holzer, Marc. “South Korea Is Aiming at Ubiquitous Government.” 6 Sept. 2010.
Horner, Louise, and Will Hutton. “Public Value, Deliberative Democracy and the Role of
Public Managers.” Public Value: Theory and Practice. Ed. John Benington and Mark
H. Moore. Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print.
“Improving the Transparency and Accountability of Government and Its Services - Policy GOV.UK.” N. p., n.d. Web. 1 June 2014.
Janssen, Katleen. “The Influence of the PSI Directive on Open Government Data: An
Overview of Recent Developments.” Government Information Quarterly 28.4 (2011):
446–456. ScienceDirect. Web. 19 June 2014.
Janssen, Marijn, Yannis Charalabidis, and Anneke Zuiderwijk. “Benefits, Adoption Barriers
and Myths of Open Data and Open Government.” Information Systems Management
29.4 (2012): 258–268. Taylor and Francis+NEJM. Web. 31 May 2013.
Jetzek, Thorhildur, Michel Avital, and Niels Bjorn-Andersen. “The Generative Mechanisms
of Open Government Data.” Utrecht, The Netherlands: N. p., 2013. Web. 20 June
2013.
Kaufmann, Daniel, and Ana Bellver. Transparenting Transparency: Initial Empirics and
Policy Applications. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 2005.
papers.ssrn.com. Web. 24 June 2014.
Kelly, Gavin, Geoff Mulgan, and Stephen Muers. “Creating Public Value: An Analytical
Framework for Public Services Reform.” 2002.
Kelsey, Tim. “Transparency in the NHS Not Only Saves Lives – It Is a Fundamental Human
Right.” The Guardian 12 Mar. 2013. The Guardian. Web. 14 June 2013.
Miszczak 80
Keogh, Bruce. “Transparency Is the Best Way to Restore Public Trust in Our NHS.” The
Guardian. N. p., 28 June 2013. Web. 9 Sept. 2013.
Khagram, Sanjeev, Archon Fung, and Paolo de Renzio. Open Budgets: The Political
Economy of Transparency, Participation, and Accountability. Washington, D.C:
Brookings Institution, 2012. Print.
Krabina, Bernhard. “Internal Data Monitoring for Open Government.” 2nd Conference for EDemocracy and Open Government (CeDEM 2012). Danube-University Krems,
Austria: N. p., 2012. 295–302. Print.
Kundra, Vivek. “Digital Fuel of the 21st Century: Innovation through Open Data and the
Network Effect.” GEODATA POLICY. geodatapolicy.wordpress.com. Web. 23 May
2012.
Lathrop, Daniel, and Laurel Ruma. Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and
Participation in Practice. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2010. Print.
Lichtenstein, Jesse. “Why Open Data Alone Is Not Enough.” Wired Magazine 28 June 2011.
Web. 8 June 2013.
Maier-Rabler,, Ursula, and Stefan Huber. “‘Open’: The Changing Relation between Citizens,
Public Administration, and Political Authority.” eJournal of eDemocracy & Open
Government 3.2 (2011): 182–191. Print.
Malena, Carmen, Reiner Forster, and Janmejay Singh Singh. “Social Accountability: An
Introduction to the Concept and Emerging Practice.” The World Bank: Social
Development Paper 12 Jan. 2004. CiteSeer. Web.
Mari, Angelica. “Brazilian States Open up Their Data to Combat Corruption.” The Guardian
20 Nov. 2013. The Guardian. Web. 14 June 2014.
Marlin, Randal. Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press, 2002. Print.
Miszczak 81
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Karl Marx, Frederick Engels Volume 1, Volume 1,.
London: Lawrence & Wishart Electric Book, 2010. Open WorldCat. Web. 15 Sept.
2013.
McClean, Tom. Not with a Bang but a Whimper: The Politics of Accountability and Open
Data in the UK. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 2011.
papers.ssrn.com. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.
McKenna, Alan. A Human Right to Participate in the Information Society. Hampton Press
Inc, 2011. Print.
Meijer, Albert, and Marcel Thaens. “Public Information Strategies: Making Government
Information Available to Citizens.” Info. Pol. 14.1,2 (2009): 31–45. ACM Digital
Library. Web. 12 June 2014.
Meiklejohn, Alexander. Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government. The Lawbook
Exchange, Ltd., 1948. Print.
Meltzer, Allan H., and Scott F. Richard. “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government.”
Journal of Political Economy 89.5 (1981): 914–927. JSTOR. Web. 14 June 2014.
Meyer, Alfred g. Leninism. Harvard University Press, 1957. Print.
Moore, Mark. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. New edition.
Harvard University Press, 1997. Print.
Munson, Sean A. et al. “Sunlight or Sunburn: A Survey of Attitudes toward Online
Availability of US Public Records.” Information Polity 17.2 (2012): 99–114.
MetaPress. Web. 31 Aug. 2013.
Noveck, Beth Simone Simone. Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government
Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Brookings Institution
Press, 2009. Print.
“Number of Internet Users (2014) - Internet Live Stats.” N. p., n.d. Web. 14 June 2014.
Miszczak 82
---. N. p., n.d. Web. 14 June 2014.
O’Reilly, Tim. “Gov 2.0: It’s All About The Platform.” TechCrunch 4 Sept. 2009. Web. 12
Sept. 2013.
---. “Gov 2.0: The Promise Of Innovation.” Forbes 8 Oct. 2010. Web. 12 Sept. 2013.
O’Sullivan, David, and Lawrence Dooley. Applying Innovation. SAGE Publications, Inc,
2008. Print.
Obama, Barack. “Transparency and Open Government | The White House.” whitehouse.gov.
N. p., n.d. Web. 21 June 2014.
OECD. Effective Communications Between the Public Service and the Media. Paris:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1996. OECD. Web. 9
Sept. 2013.
---. The Call for Innovative and Open Government. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2011. OECD. Web. 25 May 2013.
---. Understanding the Digital Divide. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, 2001. OECD. Web. 30 Aug. 2013.
“OGP Minimum Eligibility Criteria.” OGP Participation. N. p., 2012. Web. 25 July 2013.
Open Data Field Guide - Executive Summary. Socrata Inc., 2013. Web. 30 Aug. 2013.
Open Data Handbook Documentation. London: Open Knowledge Foundation, 2012. Web.
24 Feb. 2014.
Open Data White Paper. Releasing the Potential. London: HM Government, 2012. Web. 3
June 2014.
Open Data. Driving Growth, Ingenuity and Innovation. Deloitte LPP, 2012. Web. 10 Sept.
2013.
“Open Government Data.” Open Knowledge Foundation. N. p., n.d.
“Open Government Data Toolkit.” The World Bank. N. p., 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 19 May 2014.
Miszczak 83
“Open Government Partnership - About.” N. p., 2014. Web. 23 July 2013.
“Open Government Partnership UK National Action Plan 2013 to 2015.” N. p., 27 June 2013.
Web. 14 June 2014.
“Ordnance Survey Open Data: Economic Value Study - Publications - GOV.UK.” N. p., n.d.
Web. 10 Sept. 2013.
“OS OpenData Economic Value Study Released Under FOI.” mapgubbins. N. p., n.d. Web.
10 Sept. 2013.
Owen, Jonathan. “25 Years of the World Wide Web: Tim Berners-Lee Explains How It All
Began.” The Independent. N. p., n.d. Web. 11 June 2014.
“Participating Countries.” Open Government Partnership. N. p., 2014. Web. 17 June 2014.
Pennock, James Roland. Democratic Political Theory. Princeton University Press, 1979.
Print.
Perrin, William. “Small Data Helping in Your Neighbourhood - Anyone Can Do It - Talk
About Local.” Talk About Local 30 Apr. 2013. Web. 23 June 2013.
“Post-Democracy.” TheEuropean. Text. N. p., 26 Mar. 2012. Web. 12 Jan. 2014.
Przeworski, Adam, Susan C. Stokes, and Bernard Manin. Democracy, Accountability, and
Representation. Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
Puddephatt, Andrew. Right to Information. UNDP - Bureau for Development Policy –
Democratic Governance Group, 2004. Print.
“Readiness Assessment Tool | Data.” The World Bank - Data. N. p., 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 19
May 2014.
Roberts, Alasdair S. WikiLeaks: The Illusion of Transparency. Rochester, NY: Social Science
Research Network, 2011. papers.ssrn.com. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.
Miszczak 84
Sandoval-Almazán, Rodrigo. “The Two Door Perspective: An Assessment Framework for
Open Government.” eJournal of eDemocracy & Open Government 3.2 (2011): n. pag.
Google Scholar. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.
Schattschneider, Elmer E. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in
America. 1 edition. Hinsdale, Ill: Cengage Learning, 1975. Print.
Schmitter, Philippe C., and Terry Lynn Karl. “What Democracy Is. . . and Is Not.” Journal of
Democracy 2.3 (1991): 75–88. Project MUSE. Web. 1 June 2014.
“Seoul and Toronto Achieve Top Rankings in Municipal E-Governance International
Survey.” N. p., n.d. Web. 30 Aug. 2013.
Sgueo, Gianluca, and Marco Bani. We-Transparency. Rochester, NY: Social Science
Research Network, 2012. papers.ssrn.com. Web. 11 June 2014.
Spaiser, Viktoria. “Empowerment or Democratic Divide? Internet-Based Political
Participation of Young Immigrants and Young Natives in Germany.” Information
Polity 17.2 (2012): 115–127. MetaPress. Web. 27 Aug. 2013.
Spanish Open Data Portal Annual Report. Characterization Study of the Infomediary Sector.
N. p., 2012.
Splichal, Slavko. “‘New’ Media, ‘Old’ Theories Does the (National) Public Melt into the Air
of Global Governance?” European Journal of Communication 24.4 (2009): 391–405.
ejc.sagepub.com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048. Web. 21 May 2013.
---. “Why Be Critical?” Communication, Culture & Critique 1.1 (2008): 20–30. Wiley Online
Library. Web. 29 May 2013.
Stasavage, David. “Transparency, Democratic Accountability, and the Economic
Consequences of Monetary Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science 47.3
(2003): 389–403. eprints.lse.ac.uk. Web. 24 June 2014.
“The World in 2014: ICT Facts and Figures.” ITU. N. p., n.d. Web. 14 June 2014.
Miszczak 85
Tim Berners-Lee: The next Web of Open, Linked Data. N. p., 2009. Film.
Tinholt, Dinand. The Open Data Economy: Unlocking Economic Value by Opening
Government and Public Data. CapGemini, 2013. Web. 14 June 2013.
Vishwanath, Tara, and Daniel Kaufmann. Towards Transparency in Finance and
Governance. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 1999.
papers.ssrn.com. Web. 24 June 2014.
Webster, Frank. Theories of the Information Society. Routledge, 2002. Print.
Yu, Harlan, and David G. Robinson. The New Ambiguity of “Open Government.” Rochester,
NY: Social Science Research Network, 2012. papers.ssrn.com. Web. 19 June 2013.
Zijstra, Ton. “The Business Case For Open PSI (Part II).” European Public Sector
Information Platform. N. p., 11 May 2010. Web. 13 Sept. 2013.
Zuiderwijk, Anneke et al. “Socio-Technical Impediments of Open Data.” Electronic Journal
of e-Government 10.2 (2012): 156–172. Print.