Identifying transparency

Abstract

Recent scholarship on transparency has been voluminous, and transparency policies continue to garner international adherents through global initiatives such as the Open Government Partnership. Yet extant scholarship has failed to address the empirical parameters for what constitutes 'transparency' and what does not. This lacuna gives way to misuses and abuses, jeopardizing the analytical utility of the term and the integrity of so-called 'transparency' policies. This article provides a framework and a vocabulary for identifying and evaluating transparency, which depends on two necessary and jointly sufficient conditions: the visibility of information, and its inferability -the ability to draw accurate conclusions from it. By disaggregating these two conditions for identifying transparency, this article provides a framework for the emerging research agenda on the quality of transparency.

Policy Evaluation via Composite Indexes: Qualitative Lessons from International Transparency Policy Indexes

“…Another set of scholarship, grounded in the literature on comparative politics and public policy, analyzes adoption processes, compliance with transparency norms, and transparency's effects (see for example, Cuillier, 2010;Darch & Underwood, 2005;Khagram, Fung, & de Renzio, 2013;Kosack & Fung, 2014;Mitchell, 1998;Neuman & Calland, 2007;Open Society Justice Initiative, 2006;Roberts, 2006;Wehner & De Renzio, 2011). Within this last strand of the literature, a growing field of scholarship critically analyzes how transparency policies are operationalized or evaluated (see for example Bellver & Kaufmann, 2005;Darch, 2013a;Fung et al, 2007;Ghosh & Kharas, 2011;Kosack & Fung, 2014;Michener & Bersch, 2013;Nelson, 2001;Veljkovic, Bogdanovic-Dinic, & Stoimenov, 2014). The current effort fits into this last set of works, but is unique in focusing on the use of a ubiquitous measurement instrument -the composite index -and a single unit of analysis -international transparency policy evaluations.…”

“…While transparency may theoretically have "multiple meanings" (Kosack & Fung, 2014, p. 67), the current analysis relies on a broad, determinate, and detailed conceptualization of the term (Michener & Bersch, 2013). For the purposes of this paper, transparency is defined as the visibility and inferability of information (Michener & Bersch, 2013).…”

“…Yet should evaluations be able to claim that transparency ends with the public provision of information? Relying on the definition specified earlier, transparency has two necessary and jointly sufficient dimensions (Michener & Bersch, 2013). It must be both visible -in the sense of being "complete" and "findable" -as well as being inferable in the sense that information can lead to accurate conclusions (Michener & Bersch, 2013).…”

“…For the purposes of this paper, transparency is defined as the visibility and inferability of information (Michener & Bersch, 2013). The essential idea is that "transparent" information should be visible in the sense of being complete and easily accessible and inferable in the sense of lending itself to accurate conclusions.…”

The effects of technology use on efficiency, transparency, and corruption in municipal governments

“…Furthermore, the empirical parameters in the studies of transparency are not yet defined clearly [43], [44]. The quality of transparency represents a gap in e-government studies.…”