The Impact and Effectiveness of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives: Freedom of Information

Abstract

Analysis of the impact and effectiveness of Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation has been hampered by lack of systematic evidence and conceptual confusion about what kind of right it represents. This article discusses some of the main conceptual parameters of FOI theory, before reviewing the available evidence from a range of studies. It presents case studies of civil‐society activism on FOI in India and South Africa to illustrate the extent to which access to information is having an impact, in particular on socio‐economic conditions. After reviewing the range of approaches used, it concludes that the academic community and the FOI community of practice need to come together to devise robust and rigorous methodologies.

Gauging the Impact of Transparency Policies

“…This is not to say that impacts are difficult to infer from the evidence; it simply means that impacts may not be measurable in a conventional way. In a review of the impact of freedom of information (FOI), Calland and Bentley (, S84) lament that “there are very serious and substantial gaps in knowledge because of the absence of a robust methodology to measure impact.” The conclusion that emerges is that because robust methodologies are lacking, we have “little evidence of the effectiveness of FOI” (Calland and Bentley , S72). Yet the logic confounds measurement with effect.…”

Sunlight or Window Dressing? Local Government Compliance with South Africa's Promotion of Access to Information Act

“…However, the frequent shortcomings of implementation and compliance after passage are also well known (Darch and Underwood 2010;Hazell 1989;Michener 2011aMichener , 2011b; Open Society Justice Initiative [OSJI] 2006;Roberts 2006). These include legal design (Berliner 2016), internal procedures and records management (Dokeniya 2013;Neuman and Calland 2007;Piotrowski et al 2009), oversight bodies (Holsen and Pasquier 2012), public demand (Calland and Bentley 2013), weak state capacity (Roberts 2010;Szekely 2007), limited political will (Gill and Hughes 2005;Hazell and Worthy 2010), and the balance of power between executive and legislative branches (Michener 2015a(Michener , 2015b. These include legal design (Berliner 2016), internal procedures and records management (Dokeniya 2013;Neuman and Calland 2007;Piotrowski et al 2009), oversight bodies (Holsen and Pasquier 2012), public demand (Calland and Bentley 2013), weak state capacity (Roberts 2010;Szekely 2007), limited political will (Gill and Hughes 2005;Hazell and Worthy 2010), and the balance of power between executive and legislative branches (Michener 2015a(Michener , 2015b.…”

Access to information in the UK and India

“…As systems based on use, they transform and shift over time, innovating and moving in unexpected directions. The RTI Act has led to the development of a national telephone helpline, video appeal hearings for remote locations and experiments with FOI requests via text or online (Calland andBentley 2013: Roberts 2010). In the UK, the Act has led to the development of an online portal WhatDoTheyKnow.com, that enables requests and responses to be published online open to all, which accounts for around 10% of all FOI requests (Hazell et al 2010, 241 (see table 2).…”

“…Second, the pattern in both India and the UK suggests that, underneath the high profile use, most requests are locally focused. The majority of requests in the UK and India are submitted to local or regional government (Worthy 2013: Roberts 2010: Calland and Bentley 2013. Third, the user groups are interestingly different.…”