Openness and transparency: origins, meaning and implications

7Given that the topic of transparency is omnipresent when it comes to Open Government, it deserves particular attention. Where does the concept of transparency applied to the public sphere come from, and how can it be linked to open government approaches? Actually, it is one of those new imperatives of public action that seem to have developed since the late 1970s, often being put in relation with the new information technologies. The principle of transparency in government is even older, since it could be traced back to the 18th century, when some enlightenment philosophers, including Kant and Rousseau, paired government secrecy with corruption (Hood and Heald, 2006).

8Transparency has become essential in the discourse of public organizations today, together with the participatory imperative for citizens (Blatrix, 2009; Michel 2018). In France, for example, an official agency called “High Authority for the Transparency of Public Life” [6] was created in 2013 to check tax returns, declarations of assets and absence of conflicts of interests for elected representatives. Thus, transparency is conceived as a mean to make scrutiny possible. However, the term “transparency” has long been little used by researchers who relied, instead, on access to information or decision, or chose to analyze the more or less open or closed nature of political systems. Besides, Meijer (2012) emphasizes the lack of solid conceptualizations regarding many works on the subject. In fact, as stated by Catellani & alii (2015), transparency cannot be confused with truth, and it is neither an end nor a means per se, but rather a way to offer hope and guidance. In addition, its evocative power is strong, and recalls the fight against obfuscation and occult powers, introduced as a fundamental principle during the Enlightenment (Boutaud, 2005).

9Transparency is also a watchword used and disseminated by international organizations (such as OECD, UN, World Bank, IMF…) in the context of promoting good governance. However, Meijer & alii (2012) draw attention to the fact that a synergistic relationship between transparency and participation cannot be expected. They may even weaken each other when, for example, consulted individuals are reluctant to declare their position openly when the results of consultation are intended to be transparent. “Many reports of activities, reference documents, websites of organizations provide an ‘appearance’ of transparency by the accumulation of data, but cannot make sense in the absence of any perspective” (Catellani & al, 2015, page 8). The works of Mouratudidou (2015) stress that transparency can both help lift opacity or strengthen it.

10Two kinds of transparencies are presented by Coglianese (2009): fishbowl transparency and reasoned transparency. Fishbowl transparency consists of increasing the quantity of data or information released, such as documents available online or videos transmitting happenings in official meeting rooms. The reasoned type refers to expanding the explanations of official governmental actions. It seeks to clarify why one path was taken, instead of others. Even though fishbowl transparency can seem attractive, it can also constrain actions and encourage officials and politicians to behave as seems more appropriate to the audience. Besides, transparency can be seen as part of “mythical constructions” that governments need in order to promote their action. According to Chevallier (1988), such myths also exert an action on the reality, becoming engines of reform; they can be seen as a sign of the necessary combination of material forms and ideological forms, of the real and its representation.

11Ginsberg (2011) emphasizes that “attitudes toward transparency can change over time, often affected by the political climate of the country, or by significant events that may change opinions on what and how much information should be publicly available”. Such affirmation stresses the fact that open government and transparency will never be a set concept. It necessarily gives rise to choices and to implicit guidance on what should be made public. Moreover, public data must not only be available but also understandable to public, which is not always the case. Therefore, simply sharing information does not mean being truly open to society… The amount of additional work generated in such process may slow down decision-making from political spheres and their agencies. Ginsberg also thinks that increasing transparency and participation can be positive for popular trust in government, but that side effects such as deceleration of actions may increase the workload or threats to national security.

12Overall, if transparency approaches are usually presented as part of the open government policies, they appear to be diverse and more or less operational. Besides, since openness has become part of the performance management paradigm for governments (Erkkila, 2012), it may generate unintended consequences that do not always facilitate accountability in public actions.

Accountability regarding the government ecosystem

13By targeting “domestic reformers”, the OGP initiative assumes the existence of objectives beyond the specifics of national contexts and configurations, which are considered as being universal and common goods. The explicit goal is accountability to citizens on the functioning of government and its administrations. However, the motivations and expectations associated with these initiatives may vary a lot.

14In particular, the term “open government” may encompass a whole series of concerns, and sometimes refer to the need to rethink the conditions of the legitimacy of public action. Technological developments and digitization of data can play a decisive role here, especially since they could encourage the demand for openness and transparency in countries where democracy is only emerging (Harrison et al., 2012). Knowing that some developing countries have recent and not yet very consolidated democracies, open data can be seen as a first step and an effective doorway for government transparency.

15However, according to Yu and Robinson (2012), there is also a danger that governments provide more data, but not more accountability. The motivation of the decision-makers to initiate this type of approach is generally presented with evidence but the objectives are not always explicit. And when they are, it is often a matter of concern for improving democracy. Yet, the establishment of a public policy in favor of transparency and open data can also evoke concerns about economic performance, regardless the level of development of the considered countries. This is suggested by some authors who recall that the desire to adapt the bureaucratic administration to democracy is about responding to the expectations of citizens considered to be customers while, and at the same time, taking into account requirements of efficiency (Ariely, 2013).

16Politicians, administrators, citizens, organizations, and intermediate stakeholders, can thus be considered as part of a whole ecosystem that is challenged by various expectations. According to Weinstein (2013), this ecosystem is dynamic and composed of cycles: the government releases data/information, intermediaries receive them, and transform them into “cleaned, corrected, and integrated datasets”; these intermediaries then return newer and more useful information to the cycle, making it available to users. In the ecosystem, communication technologies, such as internet, play an important role as they contribute to the reduction of the cost of obtaining and sharing information. Weinstein considers that the “open government ecosystem” is structured by a particular legal, economic and political environment. Although it seems natural, the ecosystem needs to be carefully managed by the government administration, so it continues to encourage new cultures of innovation and citizen interaction, which requires preparation, follow-up and continuous adaptation to the environment.

Research methodology

18The comparison of the three countries relies on several sources: information on dedicated websites in each country, a series of interviews currently underway, reports produced by the OGP network, and theoretical works about the interpretation of this data. Actually, each country develops what is called “action plans” according to the terms of the OGP program, and monitors the implementation of its commitments. Their progress reports can be accessed on dedicated national websites. In addition, there is an Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) to evaluate the action plans of the various countries every two years.

19Our method is qualitative and based on theoretical research, secondary analyses, and interviews. The interview phase has started in the three countries, with different categories of actors: initiators of the process, experts consulted by politicians, or representatives of institutions set up on these foundations [7]. The aims of the semi-structured interviews were mainly to reconstruct the involvement process of each of the three countries, and to understand the motivations that led them to join the partnership.

United States

20The keystone of the international OGP initiative was the strong engagement of a more transparent government formed by the former president of the United States, Barack Obama, following his presidential campaign. The previous US administrations were sometimes considered to be hiding information from the public, most of the time using security as the main reason for this stance (Coglianese, 2009). Obama, still as a candidate, promised to change this reality; such commitment was concretized on his first full day in office, January 21^st 2009, when he signed two memoranda related to transparency in government: one of them was called “Transparency and Open Government”, while the second was focused on the “Freedom of Information Act” (FOIA). In addition, the US administration created a series of online forums opened to the public, and launched directives to guide executive departments and agencies on implementation of specific actions lying on the principles of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. The “Leading Practices Awards” were published in official blogs in order to reward agencies and departments which had shown outstanding performance, with the additional intention of sharing its most useful practices. The information on the criteria used in the classification obtained by each department, were released to the public. Ginsberg, in “The Obama Administration’s Open Government Initiative: Issues for Congress” (2011) describes in detail the steps taken in order to achieve these initial goals.

21More generally, principles of transparency and accountability can be seen as embedded in Federal law and in the U.S. Constitution. Freedom of expression, protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, is generally regarded as essential to the American political system. Of particular importance is the constitutionally protected role of the press which daily discloses to the public information about the activities of the government, sometimes revealing certain secrets concerning the government’s functioning. The US was one of the first countries in the world to adopt an “access to information” law, the 1966 FOIA. In signing this Act, President Lyndon Johnson stated: “This legislation springs from one of our most essential principles: a democracy works best when the people have all the information that the security of the nation permits.”

22In 2008, the victorious election campaign of Barack Obama was marked by the massive use of information technologies to mobilize political support networks. The success of this policy led to the idea of building an international partnership: “it was such a success in the US that people said, why don’t we bring these countries into something that is not United Nations, not prescriptive but where we can promote open government…”; “Originally US government invited the Brazilian government and India and they began to discuss on how to create at an international level what Obama had created at a national level” [8]. At that time, Brazil and India were economically ascendant which is not the case for Brazil any more, as we will see below.

23As stated in the OGP website, “Since the first day of his Administration, President Barack Obama made Open Government a high priority. The Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government was the first executive action to bear the President’s signature” [9]. Thus, the American approach of the OGP is characterized by its dynamic that was both national and international. It was supposed to complement the efforts of international institutions, such as the IMF, the World Bank, or the UN to promote international cooperation, in order to encourage good practices that could be shared among countries. Therefore, it incorporated various types of stakeholders, including nongovernmental players, civil society groups, including the private sector, and it promoted the idea that improving governance was “a priority for countries, no matter how wealthy or developed” (Weinstein, 2013).

24In the first National Action Plan, the Obama Administration committed to identifying the best practices for public participation in government, and to suggest metrics which would allow agencies to assess progress toward this goal. In 2014, a legislation was unanimously passed by the U.S. Congress, requiring Federal agencies to publish their spending data according to clear standards that would help to improve the quality of government information, help inform government decisions, and make government function with more efficiency. In order to build the third U.S. Open Government National Action Plan (2015), a wide range of consultations has been organized, inside and outside of government, including U.S. departments, agencies, and subnational governments, as well as the general public, civil society groups, foundations, academia, and the private sector.

25Opportunities for public participation in government have been expanded, especially through “We the
People”, website at the level of White House policy-making (for e-petitions), and at the agency level (for “best practices”). Regarding the e-petitions, the goal was to improve the public’s ability to sign petitions without directly using the White House website, thereby allowing interest groups to host their own petitions. In 2015, the General Services Administration (GSA) [10], in collaboration with participants from civil society, published the “Public Participation Playbook” [11]. During its development, the GSA relied on the playbook when federal agencies and private sector participants used it to address cyber-vandalism.

26Additionally, the processes of “open data” can be considered as participatory in the open government program. As stated by Weinstein and Goldstein (2017), “while the open government and open data movement emerged separately, they may be stronger together “. Given that Jeremy Weinstein served as a White House advisor for the implementation of the OGP initiative, his argument in favor of a “more unified movement that is bringing technology and innovation to the age-old task of making government work for people”, highlights the importance of information technology in action plans of the U.S. program. However, some civil society organizations found that the participatory process for the development of the “playbook” that was mentioned above, did not offer sufficient time for members to engage fully. Guidance was often advisory and too vague rather than setting out clear steps relating to other mandatory participation laws. According to Coglianese (2009), Obama’s initial speech favoring transparency created expectations that were too high and too difficult to fulfill due to the complexity of governing. Therefore, the great emphasis on open government seems to have created some disappointment. In severe terms, Piotrowski (2017) concludes: “In sum, the OGP is an administrative reform that was launched with great fanfare, but limited influence in the US context.” As noted above, according to Coglianese, the US case was closer to a “fish bowl” optic, which could carry two possible drawbacks: on one side, a system of constant surveillance because of “big data” practices and digital access to all kind of information and, on the other, the fact that people live in “bubbles”, which can create distortions of the lens, especially with partial real-time information, taken without distance or knowledge on the context.

Brazil

27Brazil was one of the founders of the initiative in 2011. The country was invited by the US, among other states and NGOs, to participate in the early meetings regarding the Open Government Partnership. These partners were chosen because of their demonstrated progress in this area.

28Many years before the start of the partnership, actions aimed at governmental transparency had already been implemented in Brazil. In 2000, the Fiscal Responsibility Law was created in order to better control public spending in a moment of economic crisis in the country. Two years later the bidding process became electronic and, consequently, faster, cheaper, more transparent, and more accessible to companies nationwide. The two main actions that led Brazil into the Open Government path were the creation, in 2003, of the Controladoria-Geral da União (“General Controller of the Union”) – CGU – and in 2004, of the Portal da Transparência (“Transparence Portal”). The first was intended to combat, within the federal executive branch, fraud and corruption, and to promote protection of public assets. This inter-ministerial structure was transformed in 2016 into the Ministry of Transparency, Supervision and Controllership-General of the Union. It has to be noted that this Portal da Transparência was launched by the CGU in November 2004, long before the Obama initiative, reinforcing the vanguard of the Brazilian initiative and justifying the choice of the American government.

29Brazil is a very young democracy as its latest Constitution dates from 1988 [12]. The development of access to information in Brazil responded to external pressures, including the requirements set down since 1990 by conventions, treaties, multilateral banks and international institutions (such as the IMF), after its past marked by a closure to the world.

30In this context, the Open Government Partnership was seen as potentially advantageous, since, according to Neves, it would provide more strength in the international arena, and more legitimacy at the national level. Only a few months after the official signature of the Partnership, in November 2011, the Access to Information Law (Lei de Acesso à Informação – LAI) was adopted. Although Brazil had already proved to be a model referring to open data, it still had no formal regulations on passive transparency, which was required to answer the citizens’ information demands. Concretely, its approval process was accelerated by the OGP membership.

31Brazil and the US were nominated as first co-presidents of the Partnership and in April, 2012 the first Annual Conference of OGP took place in Brasília. During the opening speech, the former Brazilian president, Dilma Roussef, spoke of Brazil’s initiatives regarding open government, and she affirmed that OGP would be a platform for countries to exchange experiences on best practices. Roussef also argued that “the greater the transparency and the more effective the channels of participation and management, the stronger and more just democracy becomes” [13].

32Concretely, a website called the Portal da Transparência was created to make information on public spending available to the public. Nowadays it has expanded its coverage from public money to public resources, and it also includes data about government properties, staff, personnel, etc. This Portal was innovative in presenting sections for the major sport events organized in Brazil in recent years, (2014 World Cup, 2016 Summer Olympic Games…), and for showing the wages of all public servants of the federal government. Available statistics on access to the portal show that the number of consultations has increased steadily since 2004: from about 64 000 to more than 21 million in 2016.

33According to Guimarães (2014), the participation of Brazilian civil society in the OGP was not as significant as for other countries. For the first Action Plan for example, only a few civil society organizations (“already known by the public administration”) were consulted. However, during the elaboration of the second Plan, between 2012 and 2013, society-at-large was invited to send suggestions, which then were then analyzed by various government agencies to see if they could be added to the plan. In the following years, activities such as the creation of the Civil Society Working Group for counseling the CIGA (Inter-Ministerial Committee for Open Government), and the development of the webpage Participa.br, exemplified the will to include, more fully, the citizens in the Open Government decisions. Self-evaluation reports were made and provided an overview of the implementation of the first two plans. The first report stressed the need for more societal participation in the elaboration of the next plan, and the fact that many of the commitments were actual steps for a bigger achievement. The second report stated that “the majority of the commitments implemented until mid-2014 corresponded to unambitious issues, with actions already being developed in other fronts by the government and civil society, which did not correspond to the essence of the OGP guidelines and innovative principles”.

34Overall, it seems that the country has progressed towards the open government. However, according to many authors, the Brazilian public information system is often considered as chaotic, dispersed, and opaque. Besides, even though the Portal da Transparência provides a good amount of data available on public funds, it is technical and offers little analysis of the spending. Therefore, such conception of transparency might be qualified as “fishbowl transparency”: all the data are accessible, but their interpretation and analysis has to be performed by the user. In other words, a lot is shown, but very little is explained to citizens…

France

35France committed itself rather late to the process, and was the 64th member country to join the OGP initiative. The country waited until 2014 to do so. The speech made in New York by the former French President Hollande, during the 5th anniversary of the Partnership in 2016, mentions the reasons for such a late commitment: “France looked at the Partnership with interest, but considered that since it was France, it did not have to make any additional declaration to the one of the Rights of Man and of Citizens [14]. That democracy was the heart of the idea that founded us and that there was no need to go further in transparency, openness, participation since we were France. (…) We need a civil society that truly takes control of democracy and democracy has become very fragile, vulnerable. And there is a risk that I had not yet completely gauged which is that what we believe irreversible may at one point be subject to contestation: democracy. (…) When, in addition to the extremists, populists seize this confusion or use the same fears to undermine democracy, there is peril.”

36Even though France was not a member of OGP before 2014, the country has been implementing steps that headed in the same direction, as shown through the following examples: in 1997, an Action plan for the information society (PAGSI); in 2001, a web site of the administration (servicepublic.fr); in 2003, an Agency for the development of electronic government (ADAE); in 2004, the ADELE Electronic Administration project; in 2008, the “France Digital 2012: Development Plan for the Digital Economy” [15]; in 2009, a group of eight experts was asked to analyze the situation of the administration and proposed a strategy for developing digital interactions with users. More recently, in 2011, “Open License” was published allowing free re-use of public data from government and state agencies, provided that authorship of the information is mentioned. At the end of the same year, the Government Data Portal, data.gouv.fr, was launched, followed in 2013, by the creation of the HATPV agency (High Authority for the Transparency of Public Life).

37Besides, at this period, the OECD 2009 report entitled “Rethinking e-Government Services: User-centered Approaches” may have contributed to encouraging further steps, when stating that “France has moved from 6th to 11th place in the European Union e-government ranking in 2009, with progress to be made from start to end in the dematerialization of procedures and integration of a proactive approach of the administration towards its users”.

38These actions, among others, can be considered as compatible with the Open Government Program, since they make the country committed to respecting the main principles defined by the declaration of OGP, such as: transparency of public action, citizen participation in the development of public policies, integrity of public action, innovation and use of new technologies to modernize public access, in particular through open data. These commitments have been part of the policy pursued for several years by successive governments, in order to modernize and simplify public access. It thus appears that programs existed in France long before the country joined the OGP approach.

39This focus toward an open and responsible government has survived in spite of political alternations (2007, 2012); although the changes in the administration have a very clear impact on this concern. Indeed, after a new government was established in 2012, a kind of organized amnesia marked official communications marking the measures and progress made: it seemed as though nothing had been done before 2012.

40Then, the first effective OGP “action plan” of France was published in 2015 covering the period 2015-2017, and was entitled “For a transparent and collaborative public action.” The Etalab mission, within the General Secretariat for the Modernization of Public Action, which is, in a way, the direction of innovation of the State, coordinated the elaboration of the plan. Henri Verdier, interdepartmental director of the digital and state information and communication system (DINSIC), was one of those French reformers inspired by the work of the American O’Reilly on “State as a platform” [16]. Regarding the procedures for developing this first plan, several consultation channels can be mentioned: an online consultation, organized by the National Digital Council, collected 156 contributions from 51 contributors, according to the organizers; but only 60 can be actually considered as such, the full number representing also reactions to the proposals. In reality, it is a relatively closed club consisting of about 50 participants, which seems to have contributed to the development of the first plan. The elaboration of the 2nd national action plan for the period 2017-2019 took place via an online consultation. The Etalab mission conducted the consultation, with the purpose of collecting proposals for the definition of new commitments. The Independent Report Mechanism assessment of the first plan has been available since the end of 2017.