Developing transparency through digital means?

Examining institutional responses to civic technology in Latin America

Other formats: Plain text, PDF, EPUB.

This page is a reformatted version of a 2016 paper published in the Journal of eDemocracy & Open Government – available here. See research.mysociety.org for more information.

Abstract

A number of NGOs across the world currently develop digital tools to increase citizen interaction with official information. The successful operation of such tools depends on the expertise and efficiency of the NGO, and the willingness of institutions to disclose suitable information and data. This study examines such institutional interaction with civic technology. The research explores empirical interview data gathered from government officials, public servants, campaigners and NGO's involved in the development and implementation of civic technologies in Chile, Argentina and Mexico. The findings identify the impact these technologies have had on government bureaucracy, and the existing barriers to openness created by institutionalised behaviours and norms. Institutionalised attitudes to information rights and conventions are shown to inform the approach that government bureaucracy takes in the provision of information, and institutionalised procedural behaviour is shown to be a factor in frustrating NGOs attempting to implement civic technology.

Research Methods

The research consisted of three case studies focusing on the impact of civic technologies upon institutional behaviour in Latin America, specifically examining Argentina, Chile and Mexico. These countries were selected for comparison for their common language, their relative affluence and internet penetration within Latin America, and the diversity and developed state of their indigenous civic technology communities. The states are also members of the Open Government Partnership, having made commitments to openness as well as implementing legal channels through which citizens are able to request access to official information. In the cases of Chile and Mexico, this was through formal Freedom of Information legislation, whereas, in Argentina, this legal channel consisted of a Presidential decree. A total of 47 semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant government officials, politicians, and civic technologists. The participants were identified through a thorough review of the civic and government sphere in each territory, and this review was conducted in partnership with several indigenous groups to ensure a balanced and inclusive sample. Further snowball sampling was conducted during the interview phase to ensure the relevant individuals were included in the sample. A minor limitation in constructing the sample was experienced in Argentina with regard to accessing certain government officials, however five interviews with relevant government officials were conducted and this was considered sufficient to ensure a valid sample and thorough overview of the governance and execution of information disclosure at the federal level within Argentina. Semi-structured interviews were formulated for individuals according to their affiliation, which was broken down into three main categories: official, politician or non-governmental stakeholder. The questions posed focused on official and unofficial working practices concerning the disclosure of information, professional governmental and non-governmental networks of individuals interested in information rights and open data, collaboration between non-governmental organisations and institutions, official and unofficial channels through which information could be acquired and communications conducted, legal and bureaucratic structures that governed the disclosure of data and information, the official hierarchy governing information flows including political interests, the development and implementation of international and national information policies, procedures for disclosure and broader media and community communications. Interviews were allowed to flow with the direction of conversation, with certain subjects being revisited later in the interviews to avoid restricting the points that participants were wishing to illustrate. Participants were given the option of conducting the interviews in either English or in Spanish with translation, and of the 47 interviews, 43 were conducted in English. Whilst caution must be exercised in quoting individuals using a second language, all participants communicating through the medium of English confirmed full fluency and confidence to participate in English prior to the interviews. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and coded for specific themes and points of interest. In addition to interviews, a number of official government reports and strategies were reviewed, and literature produced by civic technology organisations such as reports and accounts was used to provide background and context. These materials assisted in developing the interview questions and talking points, as well as validating anecdotal evidence gathered during the interview stages.

Findings

Country-Specific Findings

The three countries studied exhibited clear legal and structural differences in their approach to information and data disclosure. The following sub-sections provide country-specific detail and context to each case study which demonstrates the institutional and bureaucratic factors at play in the disclosure of data and information.

The quality of government RTI, open data and open government approaches reduces significantly the further away from Santiago the government body in question is situated. A significant part of this Santiago bias is due to logical factors; It is the capital (and largest) city in Chile, accommodates a significant number of international offices (including the UN), and is home to the country's political and educated classes. Connectivity is high in Santiago, and the resident population is on average more affluent than that outside of the capital. As such, the Chilean civic technology community has begun to grow, albeit in a concentrated area. Organisations such as FCI (Fundacion Cuidadano Intelligente) have taken the initiative to use ICTs to engage ordinary citizens in politics and policies, and have been successful in becoming a ‘critical friend' to government in the development and operation of open government principles. In response to the pressure from organisations such as FCI, the Chilean government has moved from a closed and unrepresentative method of policy making to introducing measures designed to consult more widely with the public. Public use of civic technologies to engage with government information and policy-making in Santiago, as well as targeted campaigning by civic technology NGOs themselves, was considered to be a direct cause of certain government departments consulting more widely in policy-making. However, this has not been universal across government departments, nor has it penetrated local or municipal government. It was noted by participants that potentially controversial or unpopular policies are known to be directed to bypass public consultation and go straight to implementation, thus blemishing the new consultation programmes with accusations of tokenism. This again demonstrates that normalised bureaucratic practices are throttling the flow of information from government to the public sphere, particularly where the implementation of civic technologies is enabling citizens to become more engaged in policy.

Key Themes

The three case studies, as expected, exhibit significant variations due to their very different histories, economies, cultures and development. Civic technology has had a perceptible impact upon government action and bureaucratic thinking within each nation, and whilst these impacts have manifested in a number of ways, there are three key areas in which civic technology has shaped government behaviours in these case studies; in international relations, in a growing digital divide, and in bureaucratic practice.

Services in the Growing Digital Divide

The institutional response to increases in connectivity and digital innovation is, in each case study, significantly different between national government and local or municipal government. It is not, however, the same in each case study. Whereas the central governments of Chile and Mexico demonstrate clear top-down commitments to, and implementation of, RTI and open government principles, in Argentina, it is the local and municipal levels of government, in particular in Buenos Aires, that are communicating with the civic technology community and supporting entrepreneurship and innovation in ICTs. In this isolated example, municipal governmental behaviour has actually shifted to embrace civic technology as a problem-solving solution in the delivery of public services. What is common in each case however, is the divergence between provision for those citizens who are digitally engaged, and those who do not have the physical access or skillset to engage with services in this way. Low levels of competition in the telecommunications market in Latin America, plus variations in coverage, mean that many citizens cannot afford or cannot access digital services or ICTs. Those who do have access tend to be the affluent, political and well-educated classes that are the most digitally engaged both within government and in civil society, and it is this small homogenous community that dominates the civic technology and open government conversation. At the macro-institutional level therefore, the impacts of civic technologies have been minimal in fundamentally changing government behaviours or priorities in servicing the least affluent communities. The wide variations in how layers and departments of government are approaching civic engagement via ICTs, with departments mostly operating in isolation, indicate that a digital divide could continue to grow without sufficient strategic intervention, and that the intended democratising effect of civic technology will inadvertently end up working only for those pre-existing socially and politically efficacious groups.

References

Acemoglu, D., and Robinson, J. A. (2006). De facto political power and institutional persistence. The American Economic Review, 96(2), 325–330. doi:10.2307/30034667 Alaveteli (2016) Getting Started. Retrieved from http://alaveteli.org/docs/getting_started/ Araya, M. E., and Barria, T. D. (2009). E-participation en el Senado Chileno; Aplicaciones Deliberativas? Convergencia,51(6), 236–268. Badger, E. (2012). The next big start-up wave: Civic technology. Retrieved from http://www.citylab.com/tech/2012/06/next-big-start-wave-civic-technology/2265/ Bailur, S., and Longley, T. (2014). The impact of online Freedom of Information tools: What is the evidence? Retrieved from https://www.mysociety.org/files/2014/11/FOI-Impact_Part-2-Practitioner-Study-06.pdf Bailur, S., Wittemyer, R., Anand, S., Park, K.-R., and Gibler, B.-S. (2014). New Routes to Governance: A Review of Cases in Participation, Transparency, and Accountability. In B.-S. Gigler and S. Bailur (Eds.), Closing the Feedback Loop(pp. 43–70). Washington D.C.: World Bank Publications. Barnett, W. A., Hinich, M., and Schofield, N. (1993). Political economy: Institutions, competition and representation: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium in Economic Theory and Econometrics(Vol.7). Cambridge University Press. Barry, J. J. (2009). A digital sublime or divide?: the impact of information communication technology on the poor in Latin America. In A. Breuer and Y. Welp (Eds.), In Digital technologies for democratic governance in Latin America: opportunities and risks(pp. 33–55). Routledge. Bauhr, M., and Grimes, M. (2013). Indignation or resignation: The implications of transparency for societal accountability. Governance, 27(2), 291–320. doi:10.1111/gove.12033 Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & McClure, C. R. (2008). Citizen-centered e-government services: benefits, costs, and research need: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Digital government research.(pp. 137-142).Digital Government Society of North America. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., and Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 264–271. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001 Best, M. L., and Wade, K. W. (2009). The Internet and democracy: Global catalyst or democratic dud? Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 29(4), 255–271. doi:10.1177/0270467609336304 Boulianne, S. (2009). Does Internet use affect engagement? A Meta-Analysis of research. Political Communication,26(2), 193–211. doi:10.1080/10584600902854363 Breuer, A., and Welp, Y. (Eds.). (2014). Digital technologies for democratic governance in Latin America., Routledge. Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2002). Assessing and improving partnership relationships and outcomes: a proposed framework. Evaluation and program planning, 25(3), 215-231. Calland, R., and Bentley, K. (2013). The impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives: Freedom of information. Development Policy Review, 31, s69–s87. doi:10.1111/dpr.12020 Costa, S. (2013). Do freedom of information laws decrease corruption? Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 29(6), 1317–1343. doi:10.1093/jleo/ews016 Dagnino, E. (2011). Civil Society in Latin America. In The Oxford handbook of civil society (pp. 122–133). United States: Oxford University Press Inc. Doctor, R. D. (1991). Information technologies and social equity: Confronting the revolution. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(3), 216–228. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199104)42:3<216::aid-asi7>3.0.co;2-y Edwards, D., Brock, K., & McGee, R. (2016, February). Transforming governance: What role for technologies?, Retrieved August 23, 2016, from IDS, http://mobile.opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/11675 Fine, G. A., and Harrington, B. (2004). Tiny Publics: Small groups and civil society. Sociological Theory, 22(3), 341–356. doi:10.1111/j.0735-2751.2004.00223.x Fox, J. (2007). The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability. Development in Practice, 17(4-5), 663–671. doi:10.1080/09614520701469955 Gaventa, J., & McGee, R. (2013). The impact of transparency and accountability initiatives. Development Policy Review,31, s3–s28. doi:10.1111/dpr.12017 Gibson, R., and Cantijoch, M. (2013). Conceptualizing and measuring participation in the age of the Internet: Is online political engagement really different to Offline? The Journal of Politics, 75(03), 701–716. doi:10.1017/s0022381613000431 Gigler, B.-S., and Bailur, S. (Eds.). (2014). Closing the feedback loop: Can technology bridge the accountability gap?, New York, NY, United States: World Bank Publications. Global Right To Information Rating. (2015). Global Right To Information Rating Country data. Retrieved August 17, 2016, from http://www.rti-rating.org/country-data Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2012). A good man but a bad wizard. About the limits and future of transparency of democratic governments. Information Polity, 17(3,4), 293–302. doi:10.3233/IP-2012-000288 Groshek, J. (2009). The democratic effects of the Internet, 1994—2003. International Communication Gazette, 71(3), 115–136. doi:10.1177/1748048508100909 Groshek, J., and Bachmann, I. (2014). ). A Latin Spring?: examining digital diffusion and youth bulges in modeling political change in Latin America. In A. Breuer and Y. Welp (Eds.), Digital technologies for democratic governance in Latin America: opportunities and risks(pp. 17–32). Routledge. Hinich, M., and Mungler, M. (1993). Political Ideology, Communication and Community. In W. Barnett and M. Hinich (Eds.), Political Economy: Institutions, Competition, and Representation : Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium in Economic Theory and Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hughes, E. (1937). Institutional Office and the Person. American Journal of Sociology, 43(3), 404–413. doi:10.1086/217711 Janssen, K. (2012). Open government data: Right to information 2.0 or its rollback version? Retrieved August 17, 2016, from SSRN, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2152566 Khurram, H. (2015). Increasing the impact of Civic Tech Platforms. Retrieved from http://https://www.omidyar.com/blog/increasing-impact-civic-tech-platforms Knight Foundation. (2015). Assessing Civic Tech Impact: Case Studies and Resources for Tracking Outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.knightfoundation.org/media/uploads/publication_pdfs/NI_Knight_CivicTechAssessment_Mar2015.pdf Lopez, M. H., Gonzalez-Barrera, A., & Patten, E. (2013). Closing the digital divide: Latinos and technology adoption. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Mainwaring, S., and Scully, T. (Eds.). (1996). Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America,Stanford: Stanford University Press. McCall, M. K., & Dunn, C. E. (2012). Geo-information tools for participatory spatial planning: Fulfilling the criteria for "good" governance? Geoforum, 43(1), 81–94. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.07.007 Meijer, A. J. (2009). Understanding modern transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(2), 255–269. doi:10.1177/0020852309104175 Meijer, A. J. (2012). Introduction to the special issue on government transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences,78(1), 3–9. doi:10.1177/0020852311435639 Mendoza, G. Q. (2013). Open government in Latin America limited to transparency, and access to information. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 269-270). ACM. doi:10.1145/2479724.2479767 Meyer, J., and Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. doi:10.1086/226550 Moon, M. J., & Welch, E. W. (2005). Same bed, different dreams? A comparative analysis of citizen and bureaucrat perspectives on e-government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(3), 243-264. MuckRock (2016) About MuckRock. Retrieved from https://www.muckrock.com/about/ North, D. C. (1981). Structure and Change in Economic History. Politics and Society, 11(4), 511–512. doi:10.1177/003232928201100416 Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs OECD (1999) OECD Communications Outlook. Retrieved August 17, 2016, from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-communications-outlook-1999_comms_outlook-1999-en O'Neill, O. (2002). A question of trust: The BBC Reith lectures 2002. Cambridge University Press Open Government Partnership (2016) About. Retrieved from http://www.opengovpartnership.org/about Open Government Partnership (2014) Open Government Partnership: Four Year Strategy 2015-2018. Retrieved from http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/4YearAP-Online.pdf Patel, M., Sotsky, J., Gourly, S., and Houghton, D. (2013). The Emergence of Civic Tech: Investment in a growing field. Knight Foundation: Miami. Available at: http://www.knightfoundation.org/media/uploads/publication_pdfs/knight-civic-tech.pdf Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78. doi:10.1353/jod.1995.0002 Rhodes, P. (2012) Nordic countries dominate the world in internet penetration, graphoftheweek.org, Available from http://www.graphoftheweek.org/2012/03/nordic-countries-dominate-world-in.html Rumbul, R. (2015a). Who Benefits From Civic Technology? Demographic and Public Attitudes Research into the Users of Civic Technology. mySociety. Retrieved fromhttps://www.mysociety.org/files/2015/10/demographics-report.pdf Rumbul, R. (2015b). Critical friend or absent partner? Institutional and organisational barriers to the development of regional civil society. European Urban and Regional Studies, 0969776414564017. Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, R. J. (2012). Are government internet portals evolving towards more interaction, participation, and collaboration? Revisiting the rhetoric of e-government among municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29, S72–S81. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.09.004 Schedler, A. (1999). Conceptualizing Accountability. In L. Diamond and M. Plattner (Eds.), The Self-restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies(pp. 13–28). London: Lynne Rienner. Scott, R. (1987). The Adolescence of Institutional Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493–511. doi:10.2307/2392880 Selznick, P. (1996). Institutionalism "Old" and "New." Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 270–277. doi:10.2307/2393719 Sjoberg, F. M., Mellon, J., and Peixoto, T. (2015). The effect of government responsiveness on future political participation.SSRN. doi:10.2139 Slaughter, A.-M. (2012). Remarks, the big picture: Beyond hot spots and crises in our interconnected world., Penn state journal of law and international affairs Sommer, L., & Cullen, R. (2009). Participation 2.0: A case study of e-participation within the New Zealand Government. In System Sciences, 2009. HICSS'09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1-10). IEEE. Suri, M. V. (2013). From crowd-sourcing potholes to community policing: Applying Interoperability theory to analyze the expansion of "open311". SSRN. doi:10.2139 Tang, M., Jorba, L., & Jensen, M. J. (2012). Digital media and political attitudes in China. Digital Media and Political Engagement Worldwide: A Comparative Study, 221-239. Welp, Y. (2008). América Latina en la era del gobierno electrónico. Análisis de la introducción de nuevas tecnologías para la mejora de la democracia y el gobierno. Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, 173– 192. Welp, Y. (2013). Bridging the political gap? The adoption of ICTs for the improvement of Latin American parliamentary democracy. E-Parliament and ICT-Based Legislation: Concept, Experience and Lessons. doi:978146661852710.4018/978-1-4666-1852-7.ch087 Wittemyer, R., Bailur, S., Anand, N., Park, K.-R., Gigler, B.-S. (2014). New Routes to Governance: A Review of Cases in Participation, Transparency, and Accountability, in Closing the Feedback Loop, World Bank Publications: Washington D.C. Wong, W., & Welch, E. (2004). Does e-government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of website openness and government accountability. Governance, 17(2), 275-297. Worthy, B. (2010). More open but not more trusted? The effect of the freedom of information act 2000 on the United Kingdom central government. Governance, 23(4), 561–582. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01498.x Worthy, B. (2012). Book Review: Freedom of Information in Scotland in Practice, by Kevin Dunion, Information Polity, 17(2), 197-199. Worthy, B., and Hazell, R. (2014). The impact of the freedom of information act in the UK. Retrieved August 19, 2016, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstrac

Related research