The Swedish People’s Awareness of The Public Sector Information Directive – a Pilot Study

Abstract

This article is based on a pilot study that investigated the Swedish people’s awareness of the Swedish Public Sector Information (PSI) directive, their understanding of the difference between the PSI-directive and the Public Access Act and whether they had the prerequisite skills required for the use of the Public Sector Information (PSI). Sweden has a long tradition of readily access to official documents which could have delayed the implementation of the European PSI-directive that was enacted in 2003. Sweden implemented its Public-Sector Information (PSI) directive in 2010. The Directive focuses on the commercialization of government information to create an information market and to promote innovation. In Sweden, the PSI directive is intrinsically linked to the e-Government development policy. The study applied a literature review and interviews as data collecting techniques. Sixteen interviews were conducted with varying occupations such as students, a personnel manager, a head of a unit, a doctoral student, a pensioner, a clinical research associate, a workers’ union employee, a web designer, two archivists, a head of an archival institution, an associate professor, a receptionist, and two shoemakers. The conclusion is that there is a need to create awareness about the PSI directive, offer training, and to create an IT infrastructure and projects to promote information about the PSI to avoid a societal a digital divide. The reviewed literature confirmed that PSI usage is still concentrated in the hands of a few citizens that is, those that are already digitally empowered. The study had limitations since it based on a limited number of respondents which means that the results cannot be generalized.

Assessing the failure of Open Government Data initiatives in Brazil

“…In the Swedish case, a number of challenges related with implementation were underscored ranging from budgetary constraints to lack of policy frameworks, lack of interest or awareness among the administrative agencies regarding OGD initiative, variance in digital access, etc. all of which culminated in lack of awareness among the stakeholders about the potential of OGD (Svard, 2021). In the case of Taiwan, the public servants cited disequilibrium between individual and organizational accountability as major reasons for impediments in execution of OGD initiatives-thanks to the lack of desired administrative behavior for institutionalizing the same (Huang et al, 2020).…”