Transparency to curb corruption? Concepts, measures and empirical merit

Abstract

Policymakers and researchers often cite the importance of government transparency for strengthening accountability, reducing corruption, and enhancing good governance. Yet despite the prevalence of such claims, definitional precision is lacking. As a consequence, approaches to measurement have often cast a wide net, in many cases tapping into the capacity of government institutions more generally, resulting in empirical findings that are ambiguous in terms of interpretation. This paper argues that the operationalization and measure of government transparency should be tailored to two main parameters of the phenomenon under investigation: the principals and purpose of the information. We advance a new measure of government transparency argued to be more suitable for the study of the role of government transparency with respect to probity. The data derive from a survey of public administration experts in 102 countries carried out by the Quality of Government Institute and allow for a more reliable analysis of the effects of transparency on reducing corruption, and the analyses suggest that an association indeed exists.

Transparency in Government: A Review on the Failures of Corruption Prevention in Indonesia

“…The uses and recommendations of transparency as a requirement for creating better public administration quality, for enhancing accountability so that it becomes more robust and substantial, are constantly touted and discussed. Hence, the concept of transparency is often discussed together with a number of attributes to achieve good governance, although it is known and realized that in reality the dimensions and sizes are still difficult to find and apply (Bauhr & Grimes, 2017;Hollyer, et al, 2014) It has been agreed and shared that successful implementation of transparency also implies that there are improvements and success in efforts of increasing accountability and this will subsequently result in positive public legitimacy of the government. This will consequently increase public trust and values, and conversely if transparency failed, this would impact the public's level of trust in the government, which may decrease and even become nonexistent, and this is very disconcerting.…”

A silver bullet?

“…There is vast academic research on its meaning and operationalization, yet no consensus on what it specifically means [39,50]. It has been recognized that given the different conceptualizations of transparency, there has been an abuse of conceptual stretching [5,39,48]. It is thus important to clearly define transparency for this article.…”

“…Different languages described transparency as an adjective for that something can be "seen through". Combining both conceptualizations, it is possible to conclude that at the very least transparency is about disclosure or access to information [4,5,39,50].…”

Does consultation count for corruption? The causal relations in the EU-28

“…The question about the causal relationship between consultation and corruption is topical since the literature and international organizations have argued that consultation can reduce the likelihood of corrupt exchanges between private interests and public administration by increasing transparency and participation (Bauhr & Grimes, 2017;Cucciniello et al, 2016;UNODC, 2004). (Meta)-Regulatory procedural instruments, however, work in social, political and institutional contexts, and this too varies across the EU (Radaelli, 2005).…”