The Right to Information laws have been seen as a critical step in the global movement towards increased transparency of governments. In this article, we empirically analyze the implementation of the RTI law in Punjab, Pakistan by studying the experiences of citizens as they try to access information from different government departments. Our research suggests that the RTI law of Punjab incurs a disproportionate administrative burden in the form of high compliance, learning and cognitive costs on citizens. More importantly, a combination of lack of political interest, bureaucratic inertia and low local demand suggest that the RTI law is merely a ceremonial law with the government having limited interest in its effective implementation. Hence, our research suggests going beyond the mere introduction of RTI laws and calls for increased empirical inquiry of the local demand, policy formulation process, and the implementation of such laws.
AckermanJ. M., & Sandoval-BallesterosI. E. (2006). The global explosion of freedom of information laws. Admin. L. Rev., 58, 85.
2.
BaekgaardM., BaethgeC., Blom-HansenJ., DunlopC. A., EsteveM., JakobsenM., KisidaB., MarvelJ., MoseleyA., SerritzlewS., StewartP., ThomsenM. K., & WolfP.J. (2015) Conducting Experiments in Public Management Research: A Practical Guide. International Public Management Journal, 18(2), 323–342.
3.
BerlinerD. (2014). The Political Origins of Transparency. The Journal of Politics, 76(2): 479–491.
4.
BanisarD., (2006). Freedom of Information around the world 2006: A global survey of access to government records laws. Washington, D.C: National Security Archive, George Washington University.
5.
BookmanZ., & AmparanJ.G. (2009). Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Assessing the Implementation of Mexico's Freedom of Information Act. Mexican Law Review, n.s., 1(2): 4–51.
6.
BovensM. (2002). Information rights: citizenship in the information society. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(3): 317–341.
CallandR. and BentleyK. A. (2013). The Impact and Effectiveness of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives: Freedom of Information. Development Policy Review, 31: 69–87. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/dpr.12020.
9.
CrabtreeB., & MillerW. (1999). A template approach to text analysis: Developing and using codebooks. In CrabtreeB. & MillerW. (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 163–177.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
David-BarrettE., & OkamuraK. (2015). Norm Diffusion and Reputation: The Rise of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Governance, 29(2), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12163.
11.
EdelmanL. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1531–1576.
12.
FeredayJ., & Muir-CochraneE. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1).
13.
Freedomofinfo.org. (September 28, 2017). Chronological and alphabetical lists of countries with FOI regimes. Retrieved on August 3, 2018 at http://www.freedominfo.org/?p=18223.
14.
HasnainK. (2017). Shahbaz vows to provide ‘enabling environment’ to foreign investors. Dawn. Retrieved on December 30, 2018 at https://www.dawn.com/news/1334806.
15.
HazellR., & WorthyB. (2010). Assessing the performance of freedom of information. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 352–359.
16.
IslamR. (2006). Does more transparency go along with better governance?Economics and Politics, 18(2), 121–167.
17.
JakobsenM., JamesO., MoynihanD., & NabatchiT. (2016). JPART virtual issue on citizen-state interactions in public administration research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. muw031. doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw031.
18.
LawrenceT. B., SuddabyR., & LecaB. (Eds.). (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge university press.
19.
MargettsH. Z. (2011). Experiments for Public Management Research. Public Management Review, 13(2), 189–208.
20.
MendelT. (2008). Freedom of information: a comparative legal survey. (Vol. 149). Paris: UNESCO.
21.
MichenerG., & RodriguesK. (2015). “Who Wants to Know?” Assessing Discrimination in Transparency and Freedom of Information Regimes. In Global Conference on Transparency Studies.
22.
MintzA., ReddS. and VedlitzA.2006. Can we Generalize from Student Experiments to the Real World in Political Science, Military Affairs and International Relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(5): 757–76.
23.
MoynihanD., HerdP., & HarveyH. (2014). Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen-state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43–69.
24.
NisarM. A. (2017). Children of a Lesser God: Administrative Burden and Social Equity in Citizen–State Interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 104–119.
25.
NyeJ. S. (1997). In government we don't trust. Foreign Policy, 99–111.
26.
NyeJ. S. (1997). Why people don't trust government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27.
Open Society Justice Initiative. (2006). Transparency and Silence: A survey of access to information laws and practices in 14 countries. New York: Open Society Institute, 47–48.
28.
RellyJ. E., & SabharwalM. (2009). Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: A cross-national study. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 148–157.
29.
RobertsA. (2001). Structural pluralism and the right to information. The University of Toronto Law Journal, 51(3), 243–271.
30.
RobertsA. (2006), Blacked Out: Government Secrecy in the Information Age, Cambridge University Press.
31.
RobertsA. (2010). A great and revolutionary law? The first four years of India's Right to Information Act. Public Administration Review, 70(6), 925–933.
ScottP. G. and PandeyS. K. (2000). The influence of red tape on bureaucratic behavior: An experimental simulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(4), 615–633.
35.
SharmaA. (2013). State Transparency after the Neoliberal Turn: The Politics, Limits, and Paradoxes of India's Right to Information Law. Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 36(2), 308–325.
36.
ShepherdE., StevensonA., & FlinnA. (2010). Information governance, records management, and freedom of information: A study of local government authorities in England. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 337–345.
37.
SinghS., & KarnB. (2012). The Implementation of Right to Information Act, 2005 in India. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, 4: 22–27.
38.
SnellR. (2006). Freedom of information practices. Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, 291–307.
39.
StubbsR. and SnellR. D. (2014). Pluralism in FOI Law Reform: Comparative Analysis of China, Mexico and India. The University of Tasmania Law Review, 33(1):141–164.
40.
ThomasDr (2006) A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation27(2): 237–246.
41.
TummersL., WeskeU., BouwmanR., & GrimmelikhuijsenS. (2015). The Impact of Red Tape on Citizen Satisfaction: An Experimental Study. International Public Management Journal, 19(3), 320–341.
42.
WalkerR. M., JamesO., & BrewerG. A. (2017). Replication, experiments and knowledge in public management research. Public Management Review, 19(9), 1221–1234.
43.
WebbM. (2010). Success stories: rhetoric, authenticity, and the right to information movement in north India. Contemporary South Asia, 18(3): 293–304.
44.
WebbM. (2012). Activating Citizens, Remaking Brokerage: Transparency Activism, Ethical Scenes, and the Urban Poor in Delhi. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 35(2): 206–222.
45.
WhiteN. (2007). Free and Frank: Making the New Zealand Official Information Act 1982 Work Better. Institute of Policy Studies.
46.
WorthyB. (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.
