Assessing Open Government Performance through Three Public Administration Perspectives: Efficiency,Democratic Responsiveness,and Legal-rational Process
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2016
Assessing Open Government Performance through Three Public Administration Perspectives: Efficiency,Democratic Responsiveness,and Legal-rational Process
Open government is a growing feature of public administration in governments across the globe. Open government has long been considered vital to democratic society but, with the arrival of digital government, openness has become touted by governments that use information and communication technologies (ICT) without making the necessary legal and institutional reforms to support accountability and transparency. The intersection of openness and ICT challenges our approach to digital government in public administration practice and theory, and it calls for better theoretical frameworks to make sense of open government performance. In this paper, I propose a threefold framework of efficiency, democratic responsiveness, and legal-rational process. The framework is conceptually analyzed through four types of open government: budget transparency, citizen engagement, open data, and freedom of information. The analysis results in the creation of a set of measurement items that help to clarify important aspects of open government performance, and which can be used to generate indicators for evaluating open government initiatives.
AaronsonS. A. (2011). Limited partnership: Business, government, civil society, and the public in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI).Public Administration and Development, 31(1), 50–63.
2.
AgranoffR. & McGuireM. (2003). Inside the matrix: Integrating the paradigms of intergovernmental and network management.International Journal of Public Administration, 26(12), 1401–1422.
3.
AhnM. J. & BretschneiderS. (2011). Politics of e-government: E-government and the political control of bureaucracy.Public Administration Review, 71(3), 414–424.
4.
AlamQ.KabirM. H. & ChaudhriV. (2014). Managing infrastructure projects in Australia: A shift from a contractual to a collaborative public management strategy.Administration & Society, 46(4), 422–449.
5.
AndrewsR. & EntwistleT. (2013). Four faces of public service efficiency: What, how, when and for whom to produce.Public Management Review, 15(2), 246–264.
6.
AnsellC. & GashA. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
7.
BellamyC. & RaabC. (2005). Joined-up government and privacy in the United Kingdom: Managing tensions between data protection and social policy. Part II.Public Administration, 83(2), 393–415.
8.
BertotJ. C.JaegerP. T. & GrimesJ. 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(3), 264–271.
9.
BouckaertG. & PetersB. G. (2002). Performance measurement and management: The Achilles' heel in administrative modernization.Public performance & management review, 25(4), 359–362.
10.
BovensM. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework.European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.
11.
BovensM.SchillemansT. & HartP. T. (2008). Does public accountability work? An assessment tool.Public Administration, 86(1), 225–242.
12.
BroadbentJ.DietrichM. & LaughlinR. (1996). The development of principal–agent, contracting and accountability relationships in the public sector: Conceptual and cultural problems.Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 7(3), 259–284.
13.
BrownT. L.PotoskiM. & Van SlykeD. M. (2006). Managing public service contracts: Aligning values, institutions, and markets.Public Administration Review, 66(3), 323–331.
14.
BruijnH. D. & DickeW. (2006). Strategies for safeguarding public values in liberalized utility sectors.Public Administration, 84(3), 717–735.
15.
BrysonJ. M.CrosbyB. C. & StoneM. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature.Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 44–55.
16.
CaillierJ. G. (2014). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between transformational leadership, public service motivation, mission valence, and employee performance: A preliminary study.Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 218–239.
17.
CamposJ. D. & PradhanS. (1996). Evaluating public expenditure management systems.Washington, DC: The World Bank.
18.
ChristensenT., & Lægreid, P. (2007). Regulatory agencies—The challenges of balancing agency autonomy and political control.Governance, 20(3), 499–520.
19.
DawesS.S. & HelbigN. (2010). Information strategies for open government: challenges and prospects for deriving public value from government transparency. In WimmerM.A.et al. (Eds.), Electronic government: Lecture notes in computer science, EGOV 2010, LNCS 6228 (pp. 50–60). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
20.
DenhardtR. B. & DenhardtJ. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering.Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.
21.
DubnickM. J. & FredericksonH. G. (2009). Accountable agents: Federal performance measurement and third-party government.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(S1), 143–159.
22.
DumasC. L.LaMannaD.HarrisonT. M.RaviS. S.KotfilaC.GervaisN. & ChenF. (2015). Examining political mobilization of online communities through e-petitioning behavior in We the People.Big Data & Society. Advance online publication. Doi:10/1177/2053951715598170
23.
DunleavyP. & HoodC. (1994). From old public administration to new public management.Public Money & Management, 14(3), 9–16. Exec. Office of the President, Memorandum No. M-10-06, Open Government Directive 1 (2009).
FredericksonH. G. (1996). Comparing the reinventing government movement with the new public administration.Public Administration Review, 56(3), 263–270.
26.
FredericksonH. G.JohnsonG. A. & WoodC. (2004). The changing structure of American cities: A study of the diffusion of innovation.Public Administration Review, 64(3), 320–330.
27.
GalnoorI. (1975). Government secrecy: Exchanges, intermediaries, and middlemen.Public Administration Review, 35(1), 32–42.
28.
GoodinR. E. (1982). Rational politicians and rational bureaucrats in Washington and Whitehall.Public Administration, 60(1), 23–41.
29.
GrimmelikhuijsenS. G. & MeijerA. J. (2012). The effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: Evidence from an online experiment.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 137–157
30.
GulickL. H. (1936). Notes on the theory of organization.GulickL. & UrwickL. (Eds.), Papers on the Science of Administration (pp. 3–35). New York, NY:Institute of Public Administration.
HalvorsenK. E. (2003). Assessing the effects of public participation.Public Administration Review, 63(5), 535–543.
33.
HazellR. (1989). Freedom of information in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.Public Administration, 67(2), 189–210.
34.
HealdD. (2006). Varieties of transparency.In Proceedings – British Academy (Vol. 135, p. 25). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
35.
HeinrichC. J.LynnL. E. & MilwardH. B. (2010). A state of agents? Sharpening the debate and evidence over the extent and impact of the transformation of governance.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(S1), i3–i19.
36.
HellerP. (2001). Moving the state: The politics of democratic decentralization in Kerala, South Africa, and Porto Alegre, Brazil.Politics and Society, 29(1), 131–163.
37.
HoodC. (1991). A public management for all seasons.Public administration, 69(1), 3–19.
38.
HoodC. (2007). What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance?.Public Management Review, 9(2), 191–210.
39.
HoodC. & PetersG. (2004). The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of paradox?.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3) 267–282.
40.
JaegerP. T. & BertotJ. C. (2010). Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information.Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 371–376.
41.
JanssenK. (2011). The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: An overview of recent developments.Government Information Quarterly, 28(4), 446–456.
42.
JanssenM.CharalabidisY. & ZuiderwijkA. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government.Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268.
43.
JonesB. D. (2003). Bounded rationality and political science: Lessons from public administration and public policy.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 395–412.
44.
JusticeJ. B.MelitskiJ. & SmithD. L. (2006). E-government as an instrument of fiscal accountability and responsiveness. Do the best practitioners employ the best practices?.American Review of Public Administration, 36(3), 301–322.
45.
KettlD. F. (2006). Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative.Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 10–19.
46.
KimS. & LeeJ. (2012). E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government.Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819–828.
47.
KlijnE. H.KoppenjanJ. & TermeerK. (1995). Managing networks in the public sector: A theoretical study of management strategies in policy networks.Public Administration, 73(3), 437–454.
48.
KrauseG. A. & DouglasJ. W. (2005). Institutional design versU.S.putational effects on bureaucratic performance: Evidence from US government macroeconomic and fiscal projections.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 281–306.
49.
LathropD. & RumaL. (2010). Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice.Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media, Inc..
50.
LeeG. & KwakY. H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement.Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492–503.
51.
McDermottP. (2010). Building open government.Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401–413.
52.
MelitskiJ.HolzerM.KimS. T.KimC. G. & RhoS. Y. (2005). Digital government worldwide: An e-government assessment of municipal web sites.International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 1(1), 1–18.
53.
MergelI. (2012). The social media innovation challenge in the public sector.Information Polity, 17(3), 281–292.
54.
MergelI. (2013). Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the US federal government.Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 123–130.
55.
MoynihanD. P.FernandezS.KimS.LeRouxK. M.PiotrowskiS. J.WrightB. E. & YangK. (2011). Performance regimes amidst governance complexity.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(S1), 141–155.
56.
MoynihanD. P. & IngrahamP. W. (2003). Look for the silver lining: When performance-based accountability systems work.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 469–490.
57.
MoynihanD. P. & PandeyS. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information?.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866.
58.
MulganR. (2000). ‘Accountability': An ever-expanding concept?.Public Administration, 78(3), 555–573.
59.
MulganR. (2014). Making Open Government Work.London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
60.
NalbandianJ. (2005). Professionals and the conflicting forces of administrative modernization and civic engagement.American Review of Public Administration, 35(4), 311–326.
61.
NeumanL. & CallandR. (2007). Making the law work: The challenges of implementation. In FloriniA. (Ed.), The right to know: Transparency for an open world (p. 179–213). New York, NY:Columbia University Press.
62.
Nicholson-CrottyS. (2004). The politics and administration of privatization: Contracting out for corrections management in the United States.Policy Studies Journal, 32(1), 41–57.
63.
PetersB. G. & PierreJ. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–243.
64.
PetersonJ. (1995). Playing the transparency game: Consultation and policy-making in the European Commission.Public Administration, 73(3), 473–492.
65.
PinningtonE.LernerJ. & SchugurenskyD. (2009). Participatory budgeting in North America: The case of Guelph, Canada.Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 21(3), 454.
66.
PiotrowskiS. J. (2008). Governmental transparency in the path of administrative reform.New York, NY:SUNY Press.
67.
PiotrowskiS. J. (2014). Transparency: A regime value linked with ethics.Administration & Society, 46(2), 181–189.
68.
PiotrowskiS. J. & RosenbloomD. H. (2002). Nonmission–based values in results–oriented public management: The case of freedom of information.Public Administration Review, 62(6), 643–657.
69.
PiotrowskiS. J.ZhangY.LinW. & YuW. (2009). Key issues for implementation of Chinese open government information regulations.Public Administration Review, 69(S1), S129–S135.
70.
PoisterT. H. & HenryG. T. (1994). Citizen ratings of public and private service quality: A comparative perspective.Public Administration Review, 54(2) 155–160.
71.
PollittC. & HupeP. (2011). Talking about government: The role of magic concepts.Public Management Review, 13(5), 641–658.
72.
RobbinsM. D.SimonsenB. & FeldmanB. (2008). Citizens and resource allocation: improving decision making with interactive web-based citizen participation.Public Administration Review, 68(3), 564–575.
73.
RobertsA. S. (2005). Spin control and freedom of information: Lessons for the United Kingdom from Canada.Public Administration, 83(1), 1–23.
74.
RosenbloomD. H. (1983). Public administrative theory and the separation of powers.Public Administration Review, 43(3), 219–227.
75.
RosenbloomD. H. & PiotrowskiS. J. (2005). Outsourcing the constitution and administrative law norms.American Review of Public Administration, 35(2), 103–121.
76.
SchachterH. L. (2007). Does Frederick Taylor's ghost still haunt the halls of government? A look at the concept of governmental efficiency in our time.Public Administration Review, 67(5), 800–810.
77.
SmithS. R. (2010). Nonprofits and public administration reconciling performance management and citizen engagement.American Review of Public Administration, 40(2), 129–152.
78.
StokerG. (2006). Public value management. A new narrative for networked governance?. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57.
79.
SwissJ. E. (2005). A framework for assessing incentives in results-based management.Public Administration Review, 65(5), 592–602.
80.
TaylorF. W. (1919). The principles of scientific management.New York, NY:Harper & Brothers.
81.
TerryL. D. (1998). Administrative leadership, neo-managerialism, and the public management movement.Public Administration Review, 58(3), 194–200.
82.
VigodaE. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration.Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527–540.
83.
Vigoda-GadotE. & YuvalF. (2003). Managerial quality, administrative performance and trust in governance revisited: A follow-up study of causality.International Journal of Public Sector Management, 16(7), 502–522.
84.
WangX. (2002). Assessing administrative accountability results from a national survey.The American Review of Public Administration, 32(3), 350–370.
85.
WeberM. (1978). Economy and Society: An outline of Interpretive Sociology. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. (Original work published 1922).
86.
WelchE. W.HinnantC. C & MoonM. J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 371-391.
87.
WestD. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes.Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27.
88.
WilsonW. (1887). The study of administration.Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.
89.
YangK. & HolzerM. (2006). The performance-trust link: Implications for performance measurement.Public Administration Review, 66(1), 114–126.
90.
YuH. & RobinsonD. G. (2012). The New Ambiguity of “Open Government”. 59UCLA Law Review Disc. 178. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2012489
91.
ZylA. (2014). How civil society organizations close the gap between transparency and accountability.Governance, 27(2), 347–356
