A paper to sum up the discussion on this blog

I prepared a paper which sums up all the issues discussed so far in this blog.
It contains a first proposal for benchmarking eGov transparency. It is aimed at both eGov and web2.0 practictioners.
I just put it on GoogleDocs, you can find it here.
Look forward to your feedback.

Obama Tech Plan: Transparency is key

Some important evidence supporting transparency as key features of e-government:

“The Plan calls for citizen engagement in the work of federal agencies
and demonstrates respect for the intelligence and expertise of the
American people. He calls for opening up the closed practices of
government and using new technology to enable genuine citizen
participation and engagement in our democracy.”

Cairns Blog: Barack Obama Unveils Unprecedented Plan for Open Government

what are the most important data to be made public?

One of the key issues to discuss is the definition of public data.
The 8 principles state that this is different in every country. Is there a shared definition, or at least a minimal definition, at international level? is there a list / taxonomy of data?

Let’s start a list - I largely draw on existing projects:
- air pollution data
- planning applications (privacy concerns?)
- public spending data (incl. structural funds, agricultural funds)
- legislative documents (also draft?)
- MPs votes
- party donations
- maps (to be better specified)
- citizens feedback / satisfaction surveys
- external consultancies

Feel free to add your favorite data or tell your priorities.

Paul Johnston’s proposals on benchmarking egov2.0

Interesting contributions to the discussion by Paul Johnston of Connected Republic (a Cisco initiative). He makes some specific proposals on indicators to measure transparency in one of his latest posts.

Is transparency key? Comments from Patrizia Fariselli

In response to my earlier question, I received valuable insights from Patrizia Fariselli of Universita’ Cattolica di Milano. (Thanks!) Her main argument is that transparency counts only if “related to specific policy/bureaucratic objects and processes”. My argument is that (web-based) transparency could drive this change, rather than wait for it to happen.
>>

I agree on the above comments, but they claim for a clearer definition of transparency, whose ambiguity explains the current rhetorical, often misleading use.

Transparency is not a quality per se – as ‘good governance’ is. In a democratic setting transparency gets value when and if it is functional to the achievement of good governance. In a democratic setting, government (Gov) and public administration (PA) play a public role - to serve the collective – under the collective’s political mandate. Over time, the cumulative knowledge, competence, and practice of Gov/PA apparatus concur to a stability and effectiveness net effect, against the political turnover. Yet, that does not justify any conceptual separation between the policy making/bureaucratic sphere and the citizens sphere, whose continuous interplay make sense of the ‘public’ quality of the Gov/PA role and services.

Instead, such a separation is implicitly assumed in the models forcing the Gov/PA/citizens political relationship into the management mono-dimension, where efficiency and consumer satisfaction become the prevailing evaluation criteria. Within these models, which transform the interactive/political relationship into a vertical/managerial one, the Gov/PA are or are to be (with the support of digital network technologies) efficient suppliers of services to the tax payers/consumers.

Within such a framework, the notion of transparency is the same as in the market context: it addresses typical performance, competition and consumer choice issues, although in the public sphere there are no competitors, no prices, no alternative goods/services.

For citizens/consumers transparency would mean to be ensured that the service is available at the lower cost and that the supplied service is exactly the necessary one.

Further transparency, such as a (digital) window to watch policy makers and bureaucrats at work, or an electronic cahier de doleances for connected citizens, is as much possible as much inessential, because citizens/consumers are given voice options in a double disproportionate way: on the one hand, minorities of citizens accessing additional communication (digital) channels may over-influence the political and policy course, but on the other hand, that would create a mediatic distorsion more than an impact on the political/policy processes.

Within the model of political mandate from citizens to administrators serving the collective with public services, transparency takes a different and more substantial meaning. It has to do with control, accountability, feed-back and change. These criteria make transparency an effective tool for policy evaluation and design, to the extent it penetrates into policy making and bureaucratic processes – that is it becomes structural component – instead of an imperfect overlap of separated communication channels with unbalanced power.

Therefore transparency does not matter per se, but it matters if tightly coupled with specific policy/bureaucratic objects and processes. More than a one-way effort of good-will citizens/consumers to break the glass protecting the ‘suppliers’, transparency must have an organisational dimension, which may be dramatically enhanced in the so-called e-Government.

Citizens’ access to public information related to specific policy/bureaucratic objects and processes is indispensable to make transparency an effective tool for improving the interactive/political relationship between citizens and administrators, rather than a rhetorical escamotage. Open access to public information increases the power of control/feedback/change not only of the end-segment of the political chain (the individual citizen), but also of the intermediaries – who need to be insiders to play their role – and of the Gov/PA communities, who are not only dispenser, but also users of public information for implementing and for being accountable for ‘good governance’.

Can really transparency be the key eGovernment goal?

Beside proposing it, I also have some doubts about transparency as new “killer value” of eGovernment.

First, I cannot forget that the very first episode of “Yes, Minister” was called “Open Government”. And it made fun about this rethoric - that was more than 20 years ago.

Secondly, I wonder if this is just for the people really interested in public affairs, which is not the majority of the population. Putting services online appears more concretely useful than providing information about the in-working of government.

Thirdly, it’s much more difficult to deal with for government than putting services online. It could make government ungovernable.

So I am not sure that citizens and government are so keen on transparency.

But I also have strong arguments in favour.

First, just have a look at the “The Power of Information” review carried out for the UK Cabinet. It capture most important points.

Secondly, transparency may appear not very concrete, but can be a strong driver of innovating public services, maybe the most important one in absence of competition. Just think what would be the impact of publishing the mortality rates of different hospitals.

Thirdly, government are not monolithic institutions. There are innovative people inside, including politicians, who want change and can use transparency for their advantage.

Fourth, transparency happens also outside government control. Citizens can publicly complain on blogs, and there is always www.wikileaks.org .

UPDATE: Fifth, government can benefit to better understand complex multi-dimensional problem by making data available for analysis by more people.