Book Review

Abstract

The book, edited by Maarten Hillebrandt (Utrecht University School of Governance) and Päivi Leino Sandberg and Ida Koivisto (both Helsinki University Law School) is the outcome of an Academy of Finland research project into European government transparency (2017–2021).

This project produced multiple research studies and seminars involving several renowned names in the field of European transparency studies. Following the focus of each of the project's three core seminars, the book is structured along 3 parts:

How to research transparency? This part focuses on methodological questions to give us insight into how to study something intangible as transparency.

Against transparency? Conceptualising the problematic sides of government openness. Here the reader finds the theoretical underpinnings of transparency form the perspective of critical studies.

From institutional manifesto to information society? New horizons in the EU's transparency agenda. The final part of this book examines how transparency works in the EU.

The chapters all well written in a clear book structure and project collaborators from across Europe wrote a chapter. Authors from the following countries and institutions wrote a chapter for the book : Finland (University of Eastern Finland, University of Helsinki), Germany (University of Duisburg-Essen, University of Freiburg), Italy (Ca’Foscari University of Venice, European University Institute), Netherlands (Leiden University, Radboud University Nijmegen, University of Amsterdam, University of Maastricht, Utrecht University), UK (Kings College London), Switzerland (Università della Svizzera italiana). The authors work in different disciplinary fields: aesthetics and art; communication, culture and society; contemporary culture; European law; European law and legislative studies law; governance and global affairs; law and digital democracy; management and public administration; philosophy; moral and political philosophy; political science; public law; public management; public policy and governance; transnational European Law. Given the complexity of the book's topic the editors made a good decision to invite authors covering a variety of disciplinary fields, allowing a multifaceted approach to get insight into transparency as an ideal and a practice in (in)visible European government.

In their Introduction the editors state that ‘transparency’ as a concept is characterized by ambiguity and multi-interpretability and argue that:

“(…) it is easy and common to ignore the fact that transparency has a shadow. Instead of being unequivocally a cornerstone of good governance, it has also negative connotation of unwanted exposure (see, Koivisto, 2022). Thus, transparency cannot be but an ambivalent value. Sometimes it is considered good, sometimes bad. Relatedly, it is also associated with many faults of our time: pervasive control, widespread mistrust, superficial and exhibitionistic self-representation, on the one hand, and a desire for immediacy and authenticity, on the other. The ambivalence as well as the mentioned analogousness with these problems reveals transparency's ultimately performative operational logic (see chapter 6 Koivisto: The human face of legal transparency? Performance in action and chapter 8: Alloa Escaping the transparency trap: In defense of playacting.” (p.2)

As a linguist I think this is an intriguing statement. I fully agree with the editors that the very notion of ‘transparency’ can invoke different perceptions. It is of utmost importance to be aware that we call have our own connotations and reflections about ‘transparency’. You as reader of this review could consider writing down your own connotations and reflections related to the notion of ‘transparency’ before you continue with the review of this book.

‘Transparency’ can be considered as a so-called hurrah word (Scholtes, 2012, p. 79) or a valence issue, defined by Scholtes (2012) as: “an undisputed value you cannot be against. Calling for ‘transparency’ is always a good thing. It shows active involvement in what is happening in society or in one's own environment.” (p. 6 - original in Dutch, translated by Deepl 28.02.2025)

‘Transparence’ could also be called an ideograph, a notion coined by McGee (1980) who considers this as the link between rhetoric and ideology:

An ideograph is an ordinary-language term found in political discourse. It is a high-order abstraction representing collective commitment to a particular but equivocal and ill-defined normative goal. It warrants the use of power, excuses behavior and belief which might otherwise be perceived as eccentric or antisocial, and guides behavior into channels easily recognized by a community as acceptable and laudable. (p. 15)

This volume's chapters offer us insight into the characteristics of ‘transparency’ related to European government. Their critical approaches focus on ideal and practice of ‘transparency’ as “a high-order abstraction representing collective commitment to a particular but equivocal and ill-defined normative goal” (McGee, 1980, p.15). Therefore, I recommend this book not only to scholars but also to the broader public who are aware of the necessity to look beyond the obvious.

I would like to end this review with the metaphor of Penelope's shroud that Deirdre Curin uses in her Epilogue to characterise the essence of the chapters composing the book:

The research in the book's various chapters is both analytically and empirically backwards looking but also in part radically forward looking and critically without agreeing (almost inevitably in such an elaborate multi-authored research project and book) what the ultimate destination, or even if there is or possibly can be one. (…) Maybe this book rather represents transparency as Penelope's shroud: you do it, undo it, and redo it. The transparency shroud is woven and the unpicked and rewoven in an ongoing process driven way, rather than ever reaching a final point. (p. 332)

You could consider reading this book, and then after finishing it, look back at your connotations and reflections I suggested you write down. This would allow you to see how your own transparency shroud is woven, by you as a researcher and a citizen.

References

McGee

M. C.

(1980). The “ideograph”: A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66(1), 1–16.

Scholtes

H. H. M.

(2012). Transparantie, icoon van een dolende overheid [Dissertation]. Tilburg University.