Volume 3, Issue 1 • 2011 • Article 8

The Trouble with Transparency: A Critical Review of

Openness in e-Government
Frank Bannister, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Regina Connolly, Dublin City University

Bannister, Frank and Connolly, Regina (2011) "The Trouble with Transparency: A Critical Review of
Openness in e-Government," Policy & Internet: Vol. 3: Iss. 1, Article 8.
http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076
©2011 Policy Studies Organization
 The Trouble with Transparency: A Critical
Review of Openness in e-Government
Frank Bannister, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Regina Connolly, Dublin City University

Abstract
Transparency in public administration is generally held to be desirable, something to be
fostered and enabled. This long standing idea has gained considerable further momentum with the
emergence of e-government and the affordances of computing in general and the Internet in
particular. This paper examines the argument that transparency may, in certain and not uncommon
circumstances, be inimical to good government and good governance and suggests that the
importance of understanding why this is so has increased as information and communications
technology permeates government and society. It suggests that in an electronic age, the scope and
nature of transparency needs to be carefully managed, and that expectations of the benefits of ICT
enabled transparency may be too high.

KEYWORDS: transparency, e-transparency, e-government, trust, policy

 Bannister and Connolly: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government

Introduction

“Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how

they are made.”
John Godfrey Saxe1

The e-government literature, be it academic, professional, or governmental,

abounds with assertions of the anticipated beneficial consequences of the
application of information and communications technology (ICT) in public
administration. e-Government, it is claimed, will lead to government which is
more agile, participative, responsive, efficient, seamless, trusted, and, not least,
open and transparent. All of these predictions come with a strong, normative
undertone; these are positive developments and will lead to desirable outcomes.
While, in recent years, some scholars writing in the e-government
literature have started to question some of the assumptions about the impact and
effectiveness of certain aspects of e-government (Millard 2010; Meijer, Boersma,
and Wagenaar 2009; Christensen and Lægreid 2007; Kraemer and King 2006), to
date these are minority voices. Even fewer scholars in the e-government
community have questioned whether these attributes themselves are always
desirable features of good government or good governance. This despite the fact
that debates on a number of these characteristics can be found in the wider public
administration literature going back many years.
The objective of this paper is to explore the limits of desirability of one of
these attributes: e-transparency. The recent acquisition and release by Wikileaks
of large amounts of information, first from military files and subsequently from
confidential diplomatic traffic (New York Times 2010), has, if nothing else,
brought the question of e-transparency onto the front pages of the world’s press.
The term “e-transparency” is employed here with some reluctance, as it is used in
different ways in a number of literatures, and thus risks bringing with it an
element of confusion. Meijer (2009) uses the expression “computer-mediated
transparency,” which is probably a better term, but e-transparency is more
common and locates the discussion in the general “e-” world (e-government, e-
democracy, e-participation, etc.) of which it is a part. This discussion also needs

1
There are many people to whom similar quotations are ascribed, including Otto von Bismarck.
This is believed to be the original from The Daily Cleveland Herald, March 29, 1869.

1
 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 8

to be positioned in the broader context of non-technology-mediated transparency,

although the focus here will be on the implications, and specifically on the
limitations, of ICT-enabled transparency in three areas (data, process, and policy)
and the particular impact of transparency in all of these on trust.
In approaching this question, certain areas of government activity will be
excluded from the discussion. Clearly there are areas of the state and its activities
where transparency must be restricted. These include much of the work of the
security services, and certain aspects of policing or foreign policy, which need
secrecy if they are to be effective in protecting the national and the public interest,
as well as matters of commercial confidentiality. Having removed these from the
picture, it is not self-evident that there are good reasons why other routine aspects
of government, including data, process, and decision making, should not be made
visible to every citizen, especially now that the technology to make this possible
at a seemingly affordable price exists. This paper will not only argue that there are
traditional reasons for limiting transparency which are unaffected by technology,
but that there are additional reasons which have emerged as the technology itself
has evolved. Writing of transparency in government in general, Breton et al.
(2007, 1) note that:

“The view is widespread that more transparency in institutions leads to better

outcomes. This, however, is surely too enthusiastic a view.”

Building on existing critiques of transparency, this paper will suggest that not
only is the above true of traditional forms of transparency, it is even more true of
e-transparency.

A Framework for Discussion

To determine the appropriate level of transparency and the nature of that

transparency in public administration requires striking a balance between four sets
of values/beliefs (Figure 1).
The first of these is the public’s right to know. In a democratic state, the
government represents, and is paid for by, the citizens. The very expressions
“public servant” and “public representative” embody the notion that such people

http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8 2
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076
 Bannister and Connolly: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government

are answerable to those who pay them or elect them to office. This right has been
embedded in Freedom of Information acts in many countries (Birkinshaw 1997;
Banisar 2004; Mendel 2008) and is implicit in the concept of accountability.
Accountability without transparency is of little value—people cannot be held
accountable if we do not know what they are doing. Florini has argued the case
for the right to know both in general and in a number of contexts (Florini 1998;
2004; 2007). Stiglitz (2003, 116) puts the case neatly when he says that in a
democratic state “… there should be a strong presumption in favour of
transparency.”
Secondly there is good governance. A discussion of this concept is beyond
the scope of this article, but broadly speaking, good governance is about delivery
of public sector services in a way that reflects as closely as possible accepted
public administration values such as efficiency, fairness, integrity, honesty, and so
on (Rhodes 1997; Bovaird and Loeffler 2002; Loeffler 2003; UNESCO 2010).
Some scholars consider transparency to be integral to good governance (Kim et al.
2005; Nanz and Steffeck 2004). However, it has already been suggested that
transparency is incompatible with some aspects of what might be considered good
governance, i.e., keeping citizens safe from certain forms of harm. More subtly, it
is possible that transparency is not compatible with other forms of good
governance (Copits and Craig 1998).
Third are the costs and risks of delivery. One traditional argument against
transparency is its cost (Breton et al. 2007; Stasavage 2006). While ICT has
changed the economics of transparency, even electronically enabled transparency
has both financial and other costs which can be significant. There are also risks,
for example to privacy or of exposure to legal action, as well as new threats, such
as hacking, which may arise from making government ICT systems more
accessible (Zhou and Hu 2008). Polities have to weigh these risks against the
benefits of transparency.
Finally, there are the rights of public servants to personal privacy and
freedom in the workplace and the ability of public administration to operate
effectively. In certain sectors, privacy in the workplace has become a major
source of contention (there is a large literature on this; see Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse (2010) for a concise summary of some of the problems in this
area). Questions about such rights include the extent to which citizens should be
allowed to look over the shoulder of public servants as they work or read their
email logs, and the risk of stifling debate if it has to be held in public view. This is

3
 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 8

a public administration version of the so-called transparency paradox that is

widely discussed in other literatures from medicine to finance.
Of the above, the right to know and the rights of public servants are
substantively normative matters. Good governance is to a large extent normative,
but mostly where the discussion is about ends rather than means. Cost and risk
and administrative effectiveness have some normative aspects, but are largely
instrumental.

Figure 1. Forces influencing policy on transparency

Public’s Right
to Know/Good
Governance

Rights of
Costs and Risk Transparency
public servants

Effective public
administration

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, the question of

what constitutes and differentiates openness and transparency is discussed. Some
of the questions that surround the operationalization of transparency are outlined.
This is followed by a discussion of the challenges associated with different
aspects of transparency, including data transparency, process transparency, and
decision/policy transparency, and the impact of transparency on trust. The paper
concludes with a summary and reflection on the limits of e-transparency.

http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8 4
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076
 Bannister and Connolly: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government

Questions of Definition

Definitions of transparency are not in short supply. Meijer (2009) distinguishes

between two types of definition—descriptive and normative—using definitions by
Oliver (2004) to illustrate the former, and by Moser (2001) for the latter. He
chooses to work with the former, a stance that will be followed here. Nonetheless,
transparency as something normative is deeply embedded in public thinking. The
word itself has, in Hood’s (2006) words, acquired a quasi religious significance.
As a political term, Hood suggests that transparency goes back at least as far as
the late eighteenth century and the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham.
Discussing the problem of definition, Hood proposes that transparency is about
openness to public scrutiny (a definition which, like Moser’s, is implicitly
normative). He proposes a working definition of transparency as the right and the
ability of citizens (and organizations, where relevant) to access government
information and information about government—again a normative definition
(and again quite similar to Moser’s). This is not dissimilar to the definition used
by the United Nations Public Administration Network (UNPAN 1999) which
defines transparency as citizen access to information, and facilitating citizen
understanding of government decision-making processes. From the critical
perspective taken in this article, such values need to be established, not assumed.
A key difference between transparency and other virtuous attributes of e-
government listed in the opening paragraph is that it is not an intrinsic value.
Transparency is not the same as, say, fairness and equality. Heald (2006, 70)
makes this point explicitly:

“There is sufficient force in these limits to urge caution about claims made for
transparency. Specifically, transparency should not be elevated to an intrinsic
value.”

This is important, as it makes for a different and less clear-cut debate than a
discussion of, say, honesty or integrity. One might agree that in certain
circumstances being dishonest is the lesser of two evils, but one would (hopefully)
not doubt that dishonesty is wrong. In contrast, there are circumstances when lack
of transparency may be necessary or even correct, and where opacity is not only
publicly accepted, but publicly desired.

5
 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 8

e-Transparency Versus Non-e-Transparency

Whether ICT changes the nature, definition, or rules of transparency, and, if so,
how, is a matter of growing importance as government agencies become ever
more ICT enabled or delivered. The literature on e-transparency in public
administration tends to concentrate on specific questions or be located in specific
contexts, rather than address broad principles. Many academic writers on this
subject, such as Frick (2008), Heeks (2005), and Michael and Bates (2005),
discuss e-transparency only in particular circumstances. A couple of recent
contributions follow this pattern. Bertot, Jaeger, and Grimes (2010) examine the
use of ICT-enabled transparency as a way of changing the culture of corruption,
while Pina, Torres, and Royo (2010) look at the effect of e-government and e-
transparency, and local government accountability. However, some scholars have
addressed e-transparency in more general terms. Margetts (2006) outlines three
ways in which ICT increases transparency, namely its ability to handle large
volumes of data, the way in which ICT tends to lead to greater formalization of
rules (thereby making them easier to explain), and ease of access. At the same
time, she notes a number of barriers to greater transparency, including limited
knowledge of the technology and absence of good tools, although she points out
that both of these barriers are rapidly decreasing in significance. She also notes,
citing the case of Singapore, that an advanced use of ICT in government does not
automatically lead to more transparency. In another broad, conceptual article,
Meijer (2009) discusses computer-mediated transparency from pre-modern,
modern, and post-modern perspectives.
Margetts identifies three key pre- and post-ICT differences in
transparency: data volumes, formalization, and ease of access. It is proposed here
that there are several other important differences between the two types of
transparency that are worth noting.
The first of these is cost of delivery. While e-transparency is not
necessarily cheap, it is considerably less expensive than traditional forms of
transparency. Many governments have restricted the scope of Freedom of
Information (FoI) acts access because of the high costs involved (Wichmann
1998; Roberts 2000), although others have argued that there is a net economic
benefit from FoI (O’Connor 2010). On the other hand, e-transparency is much
less expensive than processing paper documentation. This is particularly true of

http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8 6
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076
 Bannister and Connolly: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government

areas where transparency has long been the norm, such as government
publications.
A second (and arguably the most important) difference is capability. ICT
enables forms of transparency that, though theoretically possible, were impractical
in a pre-computer age. An important example is the ability to search email
systems or databases for keywords. At a more refined level, as more and more
government moves to electronic communication, it is also the ability to observe
how processes work and, in certain circumstances, to track processes (as in the
Korean OPEN system; Moon 2003). One form of capability worth noting is video
streaming: the Internet enables people not just to follow debates in parliament, but
to observe in real time parliamentary committees at work (Setälä and Grönlund
2006). Government now uses technologies from SMS to social networking as
means of communication.
Another important difference is response time. The Internet enables the
provision of certain types of information in close to real time if that is what is
required. Even without going to that extreme, information can be made available
far more quickly, even if only because it takes less time to load a pdf file on a
website than it does to publish the print edition of a 500-page report. Government
agencies are not only able to keep information up to date, there will be greater
public pressure to do so as the visibility of out-of date information is much higher.
Margetts lists access as a key difference, but increasingly technology
enables governments to empower users to do their own searching. Access to
paper-based public records is necessarily limited, usually to researchers or
historians. Requests for information have therefore to be processed by staff. In
addition to hyperlinking, many public sector websites now provide powerful
search engines or analytic tools. Examples of this are systems that enable citizens
to see where their tax monies are spent (see, for example, the Missouri
Accountability Portal at http://mapyourtaxes.mo.gov/MAP/Portal/Default.aspx).
Each of these, in its own way, changes the dynamic of the relationship
between the public servant/agency and the citizen in ways that are different from
traditional forms of transparency. In particular, the ability of citizens to “mine”
government data creates potential challenges for (and threats to) governments.

7
 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 8

A Model of e-Transparency

Analyzing the concept of (non-e-) transparency, Heald (2006) divides

transparency into two types: event transparency and process transparency. Events
can be inputs, outputs, or outcomes, and processes can be procedural or
operational. Heald points out that transparency can be in four directions: inwards,
outwards, upwards, and downwards. While this is true, in practice it is
transparency inwards that tends to dominate public and academic discourse on
this subject.
For the purposes of this paper, a modified version of Heald’s approach is
proposed, where e-transparency is divided into three categories rather than two,
namely:

• Data transparency. This type of transparency is concerned with the facts and
figures of government. Although expressed as “what?,” it may include
“who?,” “when?,” and “where?” as appropriate.

• Process transparency. This means making available information on the steps

in various processes of government, from policy formulation to issuing a dog
licence. The primary question here is “how?,” although “where?,” “who?,”
and “when?” may also be relevant.

• Decision/policy transparency. This encompasses the requirement to explain

the rationale for decisions and/or the actions and policies of government. The
primary question here is “why?,” although other questions may also be of
importance, depending on the circumstances.

The relationship between primary questions and type of transparency is

summarized in Table 1.

http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8 8
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076
 Bannister and Connolly: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government

Table 1. Types of transparency and principal type of question addressed

What? Who? Where? When? How? Why?

Data X X X X
Process X X X
Decision X X

In many practical situations, two or three of these will be applicable;

process transparency will usually, though not necessarily, require data
transparency, and decision transparency will require, though again not
necessarily, both process and data transparency.
Each of these types of transparency is affected in different ways by
technology. Data transparency can be enabled simply by putting information
online for citizens to explore. A great deal of information is now readily available
in this form that 25 years ago would have required much more effort to find.
Process transparency is facilitated by workflow and tracking technology, but can
be supplemented by a variety of other tools. Decision transparency is facilitated
from simple textual explanations to publication of minutes or correspondence to
streaming of meetings. Technology now enables new forms of what Meijer (2009)
calls “direct transparency,” whereby citizens can observe decision makers in
action. All are affected by the ability of technology to integrate (or at worst, link)
diverse databases or file systems.
In the following sections, the impact of transparency on each of the above
categories is discussed. This is followed by a discussion of what is often
considered to be one of the most important reasons for transparency, trust. Finally
there are some reflections on this.

Problems with Data

As noted in the opening, at the core of transparency is the principle of the

citizen’s right to know—and the most basic form of transparency is the right of a
citizen to know what information the state holds about them, and/or to ensure that

9
 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 8

that information is accurate. Such data range from information routinely collected
by central statistics bureaux (such as the census, household budget surveys, or
monthly inventory level returns) to data gathered as a collateral product of the
business of government (such as the amount of money collected in VAT last
month or the number of people claiming unemployment benefit). At a further
level of depth are data generated internally within the system (such as the number
of staff promoted this year or the salary of the head of a government department).
Some of these types of data, for example, civil service salary scales, are already in
the public domain; but again, a great deal of information is not readily accessible
to the public, although it may be accessible through freedom of information
procedures (see below).

Cost of Provision

It is often assumed that the cost of provision of e-transparency is less than that of
other forms. Cost of provision can be divided into two components, which can be
thought of as front-end cost and running cost. Where systems are designed to
generate information (and many government agencies publish quite large volumes
of data on a regular basis), this is not an issue. Technology can reduce the costs of
such publication dramatically. The problem arises when such data are not
routinely published and/or where the request for data is one-off. Two common
forms of one-off request are the traditional parliamentary question and freedom of
information requests. Both can be expensive to answer and can often raise
questions about sensible use of taxpayer’s funds. Costs can also be driven up by
the need to pre-process or clean data before they are made available to the citizen.
Data may have to be edited to remove private information about third parties or to
protect commercially sensitive material. A good insight into the costs and
complications of making electronic records available is given by Lee and Lee
(2009) in their description and critique of the Korean government’s various
electronic record management projects, collectively known as the E-jiwon or the
electronic digital garden, a project strongly promoted and supported by the Prime
Minister. Despite the substantial resources made available and the high level of
political support, there have been several problems with the E-jiwon, in particular
with the maintenance of the large amount of metadata necessary in such a system.

http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8 10
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076
 Bannister and Connolly: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government

Misinterpretation

While some data are straightforward, other data may be misunderstood or misused
either deliberately or inadvertently, in the latter case because they may be taken
out of context (Huff 1991). A release of data may have socially undesirable
outcomes. A controversial example is school league tables. Governments have
come under increasing pressure (particularly from the newspaper industry) to
make these data available. Like almost all such rankings, these tables are
problematic. They rarely reflect context, and need to be read with care and in the
light of broader information such as local demographic and economic conditions.
Unfortunately, this is not the way they are likely to be presented in the media or
interpreted by many parents. With more technical information, the risks of
misunderstanding increase. For example, there is a large literature on public
misinterpretation of health data. Pressure groups are adept at seizing on selective
information and using availability bias (Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky 1982) to
further their own agendas. e-Transparency increases the ability of groups to
manipulate such data, and thus increases the risk of misinterpretation or misuse.

Inadvertent Release

A particular problem created by modern technology is inadvertent release of

confidential data. This might occur where data, that seems to have been
anonymized, can, using data mining techniques, be used to identify groups and
individuals and, as a consequence, infringe their privacy. There have been a
number of incidents of this type in recent years. Modern data mining, and
statistical and machine learning may enable a skilled user to identify individuals
even from within large anonymized datasets by combining data from a number of
sources (Srihari 2008). Not all of these sources have to be from the state. This
ability to connect information is increasingly used for a variety of purposes from
marketing to the diagnosis of illness (Baker 2009).

11
 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 8

Societal Risk

Finally, some data may be dangerous in the wrong hands. A simple, and real,
example of risky transparency is publishing online information about the
whereabouts of sex offenders. This is a legal requirement in several U.S. states
under the so-called “Megan’s Law” (Klingfuss 2006) and in the UK (where it is
called “Sarah’s Law”; Dugan 2001). Such data enable vigilantes or mobs to take
the law into their own hands. Naming and shaming may be popular, particularly
with the media, but carries risk to individuals.
All of these problems may not (to put this in its weakest form) contribute
positively to best practice or best government. The wrong type of data
transparency can waste government time in its preparation, waste taxpayer
money, and lead to forms of behavior that are not in the best interests of good
government, good governance, the safety of individual citizens, or a healthy
society.

Problems with Process

Categories of Process

A government process generally means something, be it a permit application or

formulating a policy, mutating as it moves in stages from initiation to completion.
As far as could be ascertained in a brief literature and web search, nobody has
published a count of even approximately how many processes, internal and
external, are to be found in a typical modern, democratic state. Even after
eliminating the trivial, the number probably runs to many thousands and possibly
to many tens of thousands. Each of these processes has a series of characteristics
or dimensions which make for a large multidimensional process space. For
example, a process may be routine (issue a passport) or rare/one-off (issue a
licence to build a nuclear power station). It may be formal, following strict rules
or steps (issue a driving licence) or may follow a loose structure with a good deal
of informality and political involvement (determine policy on immigration). It
may be simple with few steps and limited inputs required (renew annual car tax)

http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8 12
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076
 Bannister and Connolly: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government

or highly complicated, involving many highly specialized tasks (certify a new

aircraft for commercial operation). Finally, it may be at the level of the individual
citizen (issue a tax refund) or a corporate entity (check that a food factory
complies with hygiene requirements). These dimensions are illustrated in Figure
2.

Figure 2. Dimensions of process space

Individual Corporate

yt yt
ix ix
el el
p p
m m
o o
C C

Frequency Frequency

Transparency is arguably of minimal interest with most routine transactions

which are the ones, in Margetts’s prognostication, most likely to be formalized.
With common, high-volume, short-timeframe processes (renewing a driving
licence, getting a tax clearance certificate, registering a newborn child, etc.), the
need for much transparency at all is doubtful. Where there are problems with such
services, they are often best dealt with by appeals procedures or ombudsmen.
Process transparency becomes more important in more complicated processes
where more difficult and/or more complex decisions have to be made or
procedures followed. This may include the relatively routine (claiming disability
benefit, seeking planning permission) or major, and politically contentious (such
as granting permission for building a waste incinerator or regulating banking).

13
 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 8

Cost of Provision

Cost of provision can be an even more significant issue than it is for data, as the
question of how the process is to be made transparent may not be obvious or
trivial (see below). In many processes, there is a considerable amount of manual
and verbal activity that is not carried out by (or on) machine and that may not be
recorded directly. To make such information e-transparent, steps must be taken to
put it online. Minutes may need to be redacted and uploaded, documents may
need to be scanned, diagrams transferred from whiteboards to an electronic form,
handwritten notes keyed up, and so on. Formalization and automation or semi-
automation of some processes may reduce costs, but making other processes
transparent may be time consuming and expensive. There is then the additional
cost of maintaining this information.

Mode of Provision

It is not always obvious how one makes a process transparent. Process

transparency generally means more than simply knowing at what stage the
process currently sits. Process transparency needs to make all stages of a given
process clear, as well as to show where in the process a particular transaction or
procedure is, as well as ancillary information that may be necessary to
understanding, including why certain steps are necessary. Where a process is
repetitive, formal, and well defined, this may be straightforward. Flow charts can
be used to show the steps and decision points in the system and the current state
of play can be illustrated by reference to this. For instance, the steps in a public e-
tendering process can be set out clearly on the web, and the position of a given
tender in the process readily shown. In other cases, say assessing a family as
suitable for adopting a child, it could be quite difficult to convey at a detailed
level how a process works, and where it stands for a particular case at a particular
point in time (indeed, each case may be unique). To complicate matters further,
some processes do not proceed in a linear or sequential manner. They may be
iterative, or proceed on a number of parallel tracks akin to a project. The problem
here may not be one of confidentiality or data availability, but of explication and
presentation. It is not obvious that e-transparency will make this any simpler,

http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8 14
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076
 Bannister and Connolly: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government

although it probably provides a better medium for explanation, and undoubtedly a

better mechanism for tracking.

Comprehension

A typical citizen may not understand public sector processes for a variety of
reasons. She may, for example, not be familiar with the legal framework within
which the state has to operate, or within which a process takes place. She may not
be familiar in sufficient depth with the subject matter, or have sufficient expertise
to understand why certain steps are necessary or why they have to be done in a
certain way and/or sequence. Consequently, explaining certain processes can be
difficult to do effectively via electronic media, in particular if understanding
requires pre-knowledge on the part of the recipient. In discussing knowledge
dissemination, Snowden (2002) talks about the upper and lower bounds of
acceptable abstraction and the problems of communicating beyond these
boundaries. These difficulties apply to quite a wide range of government
procedures To what extent therefore are governments required to provide
explanations of what is going on, as well as education in how to understand this?
How low a level of detail should an explanation provide? What level of pre-
knowledge or expertise on the part of the public is it right to assume, and who
should provide this material? Full transparency may require extensive
explanations and background material being made available—an expensive and
complicated process which technology may assist, but which it does not alter in a
material way.

Infringement of Employee Rights

Public servants have certain rights to personal privacy in the workplace. Privacy
can be defined as the right to control access to information about oneself (Westin
2003). What constitutes “information about oneself” in a workplace is not always
self-evident. In a factory, workers are used to being observed by foremen,
supervisors, or CCTV. Modern call centers monitor everything about worker
behavior, from keystrokes to visits to the bathroom. At the most basic level, there
is the question of human dignity in treating people like machines, but in seeking

15
 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 8

to track cases through the system, the question arises of how far the actions,
emails, telephone calls, and conversations of individual staff can and should be
monitored. ICT provides a number of tools to monitor what people do, from
mouse clicks to telephone voice recording, but there is a need to define just how
far the public should be able to snoop into the work life of public servants.

Defensive Thinking

With transparency, there is a risk of a culture of excessive caution and conformity.

As Prat (2006) puts it, the expectation is that the more closely we are watched, the
better we behave. But it can also result in a lack of candor and increased
obfuscation, although Roberts (2006) suggests that the evidence for the former at
least is mixed. Back as far as 1949, Moore and Turmin argued that lack of
transparency was necessary to social functioning. If people have to live in
glasshouses, they will not behave naturally. When public servants (or any other
employees) have to operate in a sort of electronic greenhouse where any citizen
may track their actions, they are likely to act defensively and to game the system
(Roberts 2006; Heald 2006; O’Neill 2002). Personal decision making may be
reduced as decisions are referred upwards whenever possible. The brilliant dissent
is never heard.

Failure to Confront Problems

In any system where there is a “blame culture,” transparency can discourage self-
criticism (and internal criticism generally), including honesty and openness. e-
Transparency widens the scope of this effect. An important part of the health of
any organization is the ability to be self-critical and to face up to problems. When
everything written down is liable to end up on the front page of the tabloid press,
there is a natural tendency not to commit to print, and even an ostrich-like
tendency not to acknowledge problems. This can extend to the destruction or
censoring of documents that even mention internal difficulties. As a result,
problems remain unresolved, improvements do not happen, and the organization
adopts a “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” mindset. In extreme cases, this
can result in an organization becoming seriously dysfunctional.

http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8 16
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076
 Bannister and Connolly: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government

Processes may be inefficient, ineffective, outdated, inequitable, or suffer

from a number of other pathologies. Transparency, in theory, should expose such
problems and result in continual review and improvement. But unless it occurs in
a climate of constructive criticism and in a culture of quality improvement that
does not seek to assign blame, it is likely to lead to cover-ups and, metaphorically
speaking, to a circling of the wagons. As e-transparency facilitates ever-closer
scrutiny, these problems are likely to worsen.

Problems with Decisions and Policy

This type of transparency is about government and public servants explaining

why—this may range from the straightforward (explaining to a citizen why their
application for a firearms licence was turned down, or their planning application
rejected) to explaining government policy and showing how it was determined
(for example, why has the government decided to limit immigration or to reduce
the permissible limit of blood alcohol while driving).

Acquiescence in Opacity

Decision transparency implicitly requires the state not just to give reasons, but to
explain the rationale for its behavior. At the most trivial level, if a citizen has their
application for a firearms licence turned down, it may be sufficient to tell them
that, under current law, their previous conviction for armed robbery debars them
from having such a licence. While such forms of transparency are important, the
more critical form of transparency is in democratic dialogue between citizen and
government under which government answers questions openly and frankly. A
major problem here is obfuscation, i.e., where governments deliberately make
policy or decision making so complicated that it is hard for the lay person or
ordinary citizen to understand what is going on. Salmon and Wolfelsperger (2007)
argue that, in some cases, citizens conspire with opacity in the sense of preferring
not to know. A classic example of obfuscation and opacity is the European
Common Agricultural Policy between 1950 and 1992 whereby governments
conspired (effectively as it turned out) to conceal the long-term objectives of

17
 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 8

policy from the voters. e-Transparency is unlikely to change this much, but
inasmuch as one tactic in obfuscation is to make information hard to get, it may
undermine the ability of the public to acquiesce in the deliberate avoidance of
public debate on certain issues.

Creating a Non-Recording Culture

One of the major risks of all transparency, which is amplified by e-transparency,

is creating a non-recording culture. Where public servants are concerned about the
impact of data release, one solution is to not create or record the data in the first
place. One place where this matters is in writing down views or observations. In
many practical situations, these can be conveyed verbally or off the record to
avoid leaving a traceable record. Meetings are either unminuted or the minutes are
written for the record, rather than reflecting the actual discussion (although the
latter has been common practice for centuries). There is some evidence that this
practice became common in parts of the Irish public following the introduction of
FoI (Molony 2006). There are times when such informality is valuable and times
where a written record, be it paper or electronic, is valuable. A particular problem
recorded by Lee and Lee (2009) is the loss of the audit trail, i.e., where it is not
possible to establish how a piece of data acquired its current value, or how a
decision was made. There are also questions of the long-term historical record.
Will future historians have a reliable record of events as they really occurred? ICT
leaves a trail, so the likely impact of technology here may be to improve the audit
trail, but equally it might lead to a degree of technology avoidance.

Political Correctness

Where a public servant knows that everything that they commit to print or type
into their computer is subject to public scrutiny, one inevitable consequence is
self-censorship (although there are many lapses: an amusing recent example being
about the Pope’s proposed visit to the UK; see Mackinnon 2010). In such a
system the question arises of whether there can be privileged relationships or not.
By a privileged relationship is meant one where communications between two or
more people are confidential or private. One might expect such a relationship to

http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8 18
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076
 Bannister and Connolly: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government

exist at least in certain circumstances between ministers and senior civil servants,
for example. The concept of cabinet confidentiality is well established in principle
(if not always followed in practice). If all dialogue between a minister and his
senior civil servants is open to public scrutiny, debate is likely to be muted.

Conformal Thinking

In a similar way, e-transparency may discourage radical thinking. A useful

analogy is that of the scientific paradigm (Kuhn 1962). In any political system at
any time there can be a prevailing political consensus, and willingness to
challenge such thinking often requires courage, even where such a challenge can
be kept internal. Where there is a likelihood (or a near certainty) that such dissent
will appear in the public domain, there will be pressure to self-censor. Some
politicians will seek to shift blame to public servants. Politicians may not wish it
to be on the record that they were given contrary advice, and the ability of public
servants to speak truth to power will be undermined.

Informal Procedures

Following on from all of the above is the risk of creating a network of informal
procedures. This is the process equivalent of the culture of non-recording of data.
Under such circumstances, a process may be undertaken using informal, non-
recorded meetings, and verbal exchanges. In extreme cases, the record may be
“made up” to create a permanently inaccurate record. An important difference
here arises not primarily from the Internet, but from internal communications
systems, such as email and instant messaging. Furthermore, in a paper-based
system, early drafts generally do not survive, whereas everything remains on
computers and is potentially subject to FoI requests. When a decision is made, the
reasons for this are then retrofitted and documented.

19
 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 8

The Problem of Trust

Transparency and Trust

One of the benefits of transparency—whether it be data, process, or decisions—

which is most often discussed is that it leads to, or even is fundamental to, trust
and/or trustworthiness. The relationship between transparency and trust has
increased in importance in modern discourse about democracy. In part, this is the
result of increasing citizen apathy and disenchantment with Western governments,
which is expressed in low levels of trust in government (Bouckaert and Van de
Walle 2003; Glaser and Hildreth 1999; Putnam 1993; Simonsen and Robbins
2000). This is a matter of concern, particularly as citizen trust in government has
been shown to influence citizens’ compliance with the political order, the
development of social capital (Brehm and Rahn 1997), political efficacy, and
citizen participation in politics (Citrin and Muste 1999).
Engendering public trust is an objective of all governments, and a
particular hope attached to e-transparency (and to e-participation) is that it will
help to restore a perceived loss of trust in government. Trust has multiple
dimensions and results from a number of perceptions. In the literature there is
strong support for the view that a perception of openness and honesty influences
the formation of trusting beliefs (see, for example, Barber 1983; Covello 1992).
Mishra (1996) contends that trust is the result of attributes that include openness,
while an examination of the determinants of trust and credibility in the area of risk
communication (Peters, Covello, and McCallum 1997) indicates that perceptions
of trust and credibility are dependent on three factors, one of which is again a
perception of openness and honesty.
In the literature, this perception of openness and honesty has also been
referred to as a perception of integrity. Integrity is considered to be an essential
antecedent to trust (Gabarro 1978; Butler and Cantrell 1984; Lieberman 1981;
Butler 1991). Trust researchers such as Butler and Cantrell (1984) have created a
model that identifies the five characteristics of trust as integrity, competence,
consistency, loyalty, and openness. Later research by Butler (1991) also suggests
multiple characteristics associated with trustworthiness, and these include
consistency, discreteness, fairness, integrity, and promise fulfillment. In both
cases, the proposed characteristics correlate closely with integrity. Integrity is thus

http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8 20
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076
 Bannister and Connolly: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government

a derivative of the trustor’s perception that the trustee behaves in a manner that
indicates consistent and positive values. In a similar manner, it would seem that
citizens’ perceptions of government consistency and integrity are likely to be
influenced by access to relevant performance information and the willingness of
government to provide that information. Such transparency will in turn influence
the generation of citizen confidence in government and engender a strong trust
response on their part. How valid is this perception?

Claims for Transparency

The relationship between transparency in government and trust beliefs is

supported by the work of Bok (1997) and others including Orren (1997), Blendon
et al. (1997), and Nye and Zelikow (1997), who contend that citizens’ lack of trust
in government does not stem from government inadequacy, but rather from
subjective opinion (rather than objective facts) about government performance.
Such judgments are usually made by citizens who are not adequately informed to
make reliable judgments about government. Supporting this viewpoint, Campbell
(2003) argues that a primary cause for the lack of trust in government is that
citizens are not provided with factual documentation about government
performance and transparency regarding the process of that accomplishment. She
suggests that such performance reporting is critical for building citizen trust. Put
simply, if government provided citizens with more information on performance,
levels of trust would increase. Others disagree. Delli Carpini and Keeter (1996)
contend that increased political knowledge does not have any impact on citizens’
trust beliefs whatsoever. A similar perspective is provided by Bouckaert and Van
de Walle (2003), who suggest that trust in government is rooted in the citizen’s
general disposition to trust, rather than being influenced by actual government
performance, a view which implies that transparency will be at best ineffective in
engendering citizen trust. Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (2002) and Kimball and
Patterson (1997) are more pessimistic, suggesting that increased citizen
knowledge can have the effect of increased expectations and consequently result
in greater disappointment with government performance. O’Neill (2002) is also
quite negative about the potential impact of too much transparency, contending
that it can lead to information overload and confusion, and thus to increased levels
of uncertainty ultimately culminating in a culture of suspicion. These divergent

21
 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 8

contentions have up to now remained predominantly theoretical, and as a result

the debate has been characterized by an absence of empirical support (Tolbert and
Mossberger 2006).

The Ambivalence of Transparency

There has been some recent empirical research that attempts to shed light on this
argument. Unfortunately, the results from studies point in somewhat different
directions. A recent attempt by Cook, Jacobs, and Kim (2010) to examine the
impact of factual information about the performance of specific government
institutions and programs on the public’s knowledge of, and trust in, government
found that the transparent provision of objective information can enhance
citizens’ confidence and trust in government, thereby appearing to confirm Bok’s
view that it is citizens’ lack of knowledge that contributes to lower levels of trust
in government. If true, this would imply that transparency is indeed a necessary
precursor for the development of greater citizen trust in government.
In contrast, recent work by Grimmelikhuijsen (2009; 2010) suggests a
more complicated picture. Grimmelikhuijsen used an experiment to examine the
extent to which web-enabled e-transparency influences trust of a government
agency as conceptualized through the dimensions of competence, benevolence,
and honesty. His results show that the relationship between e-transparency and
these three trust dimensions was not unequivocal, and that while perceptions of
benevolence and honesty are positively affected by the level of transparency,
perceptions of competence may actually be lowered. Critically, the findings show
that while e-transparency increases the level of knowledge about the government
agency (which is to be expected), it does not automatically translate into a higher
level of trust in a government agency. The value of this study lies in the fact that it
provides for the first time empirical evidence that e-transparency may exert a
heterogeneous or ambiguous effect on trust dimensions and, in contrast to the
view of Bouckaert and Van de Walle (2003), that a high degree of e-transparency
does increase certain aspects of citizen trust in government agencies.
Grimmelikhuijsen refers to the negative aspects of his findings as the dark side of
transparency—something that results from a demystification of both government
process and performance. This is particularly interesting, as other researchers such
as Mondak et al. (2007) have contended that increased knowledge would result in

http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8 22
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076
 Bannister and Connolly: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government

citizens having more specific judgment criteria. The results of this study suggest
that if this is true, it may not be to the government’s benefit.

Reflections

This article suggests that there are a number of phenomena which are likely to
limit not only the usefulness of technology-enabled transparency, but which may
make such transparency inimical to good governance in certain circumstances and
which may limit it as a tool for increasing citizen trust in government. These
factors need to be taken into account when formulating policy for e-transparency.
First there is the question of cost. Notwithstanding the interesting
argument of O’Connor (2010), there is evidence that, contrary to popular
expectation, e-transparency may cost more money than it saves as the volume of
available information increases. In much of the hyperbole about open and
transparent e-government, the cost of maintaining up-to-date, accurate, and
comprehensive information online may be seriously underestimated. As was
found in Ireland after the first flush of enthusiasm with FoI, trade-offs between
cost and access will have to be made. Where data and information provision can
be automated, this will not be an issue; but elsewhere it will be.
Secondly, there are systemic risks arising from blame and hassle
avoidance strategies. These are not new and include non-recording, increased
reliance on verbal as opposed to written modes of working, unwillingness to
document problems for fear of later criticism or blame, and retrospectively
creating documents for the record, which take on new dimensions in the electronic
age where email and even telephone conversations become part of the permanent
record. Transparency may lead to defensive thinking and excessive caution—a
return to the avoid-personal-risks-at-all-costs culture that new public management
sought to eliminate. Closely related to this is the problem of conformity. This may
manifest itself in a number of ways: in political correctness, a lack of willingness
to dissent, a diminution of dissent, and self-censorship, all of which will reduce
the quality of thinking and of debate. Societies need civil servants who can speak
truth to power, who are willing to explore out-of-fashion policies or positions, and
who can provide a counterbalance to the power of politicians, and particularly of
the political elites.

23
 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 8

Another series of potential problems arises from misinterpretation and

misunderstanding of information, the ability of the public to understand what it is
being told, and the willingness of some individuals and groups to deliberately use
transparency as a weapon to promote socially undesirable outcomes. Modern
societies are no longer willing to tolerate the patronizing “we know best” attitudes
of previous generations of public servants. However, there is a limit to the
wisdom of the crowd, and there are times when governments have to stop
explaining themselves and lead. Allied to this is the risk of blurring in the public
mind of the roles of elected politicians and unelected public servants. Former
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once commented that civil servants
advise and government decides. The doctrines of accountability, and the
transparency that they imply, highlight the need to differentiate these roles clearly.
Problems here are compounded by questions about the rights, privacy, and dignity
of public servants, and the question as to whether they have an entitlement not to
be subject to continual surveillance or to have everything they write or say subject
to the public gaze, and what limited empirical evidence there is suggests that they
may be right; whatever the data, exposure of the inner workings of government to
public scrutiny may not only not improve citizen trust in government, it may
actually harm it.
Transparency is not, therefore, an unalloyed good. There are times and
places where it is best circumscribed and even avoided. Much of the hyperbole
about e-transparency is based on assumptions about the nature of transparency
and technical rationality that do not always sit well with practical politics and real
citizens. For society a real risk is that in a world of instant, real-time information,
citizens come to expect a type of e-transparency from their government and their
public servants that is not in the interests of best government. For governments, a
real risk is that transparency will not only hamper their operations, it may possibly
damage their reputation. To determine the limits of e-transparency is, as the
debate over the Wikileaks revelations in December 2010 demonstrates, to try to
draw a fine line (Evans 2010). This article had surveyed the scene and suggests
that it is important to be measured in our approach to the implementation of
technology to transparency. In some cases, expectations are overblown: it simply
cannot be done. But even where it can be done, that does not necessarily mean
that it should be done. Sometimes, even in an e-world, it remains better for the
public not to know.

http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8 24
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076
 Bannister and Connolly: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government

References
Baker, S. 2009. The Numerati. New York: Mariner Books.
Banisar, D. 2004. “The Freedominfo.Org Global Survey: Freedom of Information
and Access to Government Record Laws Around the World.”
http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/FOIA/PrivInt/global_survey2004.pdf
(accessed October 24, 2010).
Bertot, J., P. Jaeger, and M. Grimes. 2010. “Electronic Government Strategies and
Implementation.” Government Information Quarterly 27 (3): 264-271.
Birkinshaw, P. 1997. “Freedom of Information.” Parliamentary Affairs 50 (1):
166-181.
Blendon, R., J. Benson, R. Morin, D. Altman, M. Brodie, M. Brossard, and M.
James. 1997. “Changing Attitudes in America” In Why People Don’t Trust
Government, eds J. Nye, Jr, P. Zelikow, and D. King. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 205-216.
Bok, D. 1997. “Measuring the Performance of Government.” In Why People
Don’t Trust Government, eds J. Nye, Jr, P. Zelikow, and D. King.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 55-75.
Bouckaert, G., and S. Van de Walle. 2003. “Quality of Public Service Delivery
and Trust in Government.” In Governing Networks: EGPA Yearbook. ed.
A. Salminen. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 299-318.
Bovaird, T., and E. Löffler. 2002. “Understanding Public Management and
Governance.” In Public Management and Governance, eds. T. Bovaird,
and E. Löffler. London: Routledge, 3-14.
Brehm, J., and W. Rahn. 1997. “Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and
Consequences of Social Capital.” American Journal of Political Science
41 (3): 999-1023.
Breton, A., G. Galeoitti, P. Salmon, and R. Winrobe. 2007. “Introduction.” In The
Economics of Transparency in Politics, eds. A. Breton, G. Galeoitti, P.
Salmon, and R. Winrobe. Aldershot: Ashgate Press.
Butler, J.K. 1991. “Towards Understanding and Measuring Conditions of Trust:
Evolution of a Conditions of Trust Inventory.” Journal of Management 17:
643-663.
Butler, J.K., and R.S. Cantrell. 1984. “A Behavioral Decision Theory Approach to
Modeling Dyadic Trust in Superiors and Subordinates.” Psychological
Reports 55: 19-28.
Campbell, A.L. 2003. How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and
the American Welfare State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Christensen, T., and P. Lægreid. 2007. “The Whole-of-Government Approach to
Public Sector Reform.” Public Administration Review 67 (6): 1059-1066.

25
 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 8

Citrin, J., and C. Muste. 1999. “Trust in Government.” In Measures of Political

Attitudes, eds. J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, and L.S. Wrightsman. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press, 462-532.
Cook, F.L., L.R. Jacobs, and D. Kim. 2010. “Trusting What You Know:
Information, Knowledge and Confidence in Social Security.” The Journal
of Politics 72 (2): 397-412.
Copits, G., and J. Craig. 1998. Transparency in Government Operations.
Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
Covello, V.T. 1992. “Trust and Credibility in Risk Communication.” Health
Environment Digest 6 (1): 1-3.
Delli Carpini, M., and S. Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and
Why it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dugan, M.J. 2001. “Megan's Law or Sarah’s Law—A Comparative Analysis of
Public Notification Statutes in the United States and England Comment.”
Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 617-
644.
heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/loyint23&div=25&g_sent
=1&collection=journals (accessed August 9, 2010).
Evans, H. 2010. “Why it Was—Kust—Right to Publish the Wiki Cables.” The
Financial Times, December 4, 2010.
Florini, A. 1998. “The End of Secrecy.” Foreign Policy 111: 50-63.
Florini, A. 2004. “Behind Closed Doors: Governmental Transparency Gives Way
to Secrecy.” Harvard International Review 26 (1): 18-21.
Florini, A. 2007. “Introduction: The Battle over Transparency.” In The Right to
Know, ed. A. Florini. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1-18.
Frick, M. 2008. “Translucent States: Political Mediation and e-Transparency.”
International Journal of Electronic Government Research 4 (3): 18-101.
Gabarro, J.J. 1978. “The Development of Trust, Influence and Expectations.” In
Interpersonal Behavior: Communication and Understanding in
Relationships, eds A.G. Athos, and J.J. Gabarro. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 290-303.
Glaser, M.A., and B.W. Hildreth. 1999. “Service Delivery Satisfaction and
Willingness to Pay Taxes.” Public Productivity and Management Review
23: 48-67.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. 2009. “Do Transparent Government Agencies Strengthen
Trust?” Information Polity 14: 173-186.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. 2010. “Transparency of Public Decision-Making: Towards
Trust in Local Government?” Policy and Internet 2 (1).
http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol2/iss1/art2/.

http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8 26
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076
 Bannister and Connolly: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government

Heald, D. 2006. “Varieties of Transparency.” In Transparency, The Key to Better

Governance, eds. C. Hood, and D. Heald. Proceedings of the British
Academy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25-43.
Heeks, R. 2005. “e-Government as a Carrier of Context.” Journal of Public Policy
25 (1): 51-74.
Hibbing, J., and E. Theiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth Democracy: American’s Beliefs
about How Government Should Work. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Hood, C. 2006. “Transparency in Historical Perspective.” In Transparency, the
Key to Better Governance, eds. C. Hood, and D. Heald. Proceedings of the
British Academy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1-23.
Huff, D. 1991. How to Lie with Statistics. London: Penguin Books.
Khun, T.S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Kim, P.S., J. Halligan, N. Cho, C.H. Oh, and A.M. Eikenberry. 2005. “Toward
Participatory and Transparent Governance: Report on the Sixth Global
Forum on Reinventing Government.” Public Administration Review 65
(6): 646-654.
Kimball, D., and S. Patterson. 1997. “Living Up to Expectations: Public Attitudes
toward Congress.” Journal of Politics 59 (3): 701-728.
Klingfuss, J. 2006. “State Sex Offender Public Notification Requirements: Easy to
Extreme.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society
of Criminology (ASC), Los Angeles Convention Center, Los Angeles,
CA, November 1, 2006. www.allacademic.com/meta/p125768_index.html
(accessed August 4, 2010).
Kraemer, K., and J. King. 2006. “Information Technology and Administrative
Reform: Will E-Government Be Different?” International Journal of
Electronic Government Research 2 (1): 1-20.
Lee, K.R., and K.S. Lee. 2009. “The Korean Government’s Electronic Record
Management Reform: The Promise and Perils of Digital
Democratization.” Government Information Quarterly 26: 525-535.
Lieberman, J.K. 1981. The Litigious Society. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Löffler, E. 2002. “Governance and Government: Networking with External
Stakeholders.” In Public Management and Governance, eds. T. Bovaird,
and E. Löffler. London: Routledge, 163-174.
Mackinnon, L. 2010. “Civil Servant Who Sent ‘Vile’ Email About the Pope’s
Visit to UK is Named and Shamed, But Keeps His Job.” Scottish Daily
Record, April 27, 2010.

27
 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 8

Margetts, H. 2006. “Transparency and Digital Government.” In Transparency,

The Key to Better Governance, eds. C. Hood, and D. Heald. Proceedings
of the British Academy. Oxford: OUP, 197-207.
Mendel, T. 2008. Freedom of Information: A Comparative Legal Survey. Paris:
UNESCO.
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/26159/12054862803freedom_informati
on_en.pdf/freedom_information_en.pdf (accessed October 22, 2010).
Meijer, A. 2009. “Understanding Modern Transparency.” International Review of
Administrative Sciences 75 (2): 255-269.
Meijer, A., K. Boersma, and P. Wagenaar. eds. 2010. ICTs, Citizens and
Governance: After the Hype!. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Michael, B., and M. Bates. 2005. “Implementing and Assessing Transparency in
Digital Government: Some Issues in Project Management.” In Electronic
Government: Strategies and Implementation, eds. W. Huang, K. Siau, and
K.K. Wei. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 20-43.
Mishra, A. 1996. “Organizational Responses to Crisis: The Centrality of Trust.”
In Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, eds. R.M.
Kramer, and T.R. Tyler. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 261-287.
Millard, J. 2010. “e-Government 1.5: Is the Bottle Half Full or Half Empty?”
European Journal of e-Practice 9: 1-16. www.epractice.eu/files/European
Journal epractice Volume 9.3_1.pdf (accessed July 14, 2010).
Molony, S. 2006. “Harney accused over ‘new culture of secrecy’ in Health.” Irish
Independent, March 20, 2006.
Mondak, J., E. Carmines, R. Huckfeldt, D. Mitchell, andS. Schraufnagel. 2007.
“Does Familiarity Breed Contempt? The impact of Information on Mass
Attitudes toward Congress.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (1):
34-48.
Moon, M.J. 2003. “Can IT Help Government to Restore Public Trust? Declining
Public Trust and Potential Prospects of IT in the Public Sector.”
Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1174303&isnu
mber=26341 (accessed October 25, 2010).
Moore, W., and M. Tumin. 1949. “Some Social Functions of Ignorance.”
American Sociological Review 14 (6): 787-795.
Moser, C. 2001. “How Open is “Open as Possible”? Three Different Approaches
to Transparency and Openness in Regulating Access to EU Documents.”
HIS Political Science Series 80. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies.
Nanz, P., and J. Steffeck. 2004. “Global Governance, Participation and the Public
Sphere.” Government and Opposition 39 (2): 314-335.

http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8 28
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076
 Bannister and Connolly: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government

New York Times. 2010. “Wikileaks, 9 December 2010.”

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/w/wikile
aks/index.html?inline=nyt-org (accessed December 11, 2010).
Nye, J. Jr, and P. Zelikow. 1997. “Conclusion: Reflections, Conjectures, and
Puzzles.” In Why People Don’t Trust Government, eds. J. Nye, Jr, P.
Zelikow, & D. King. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 253-281.
O’Connor, N. 2010. An Economic Argument in Favour of Stronger Freedom of
Information Laws in Ireland, TASC. www.tascnet.ie/upload/file/An
Economic Argument.pdf (accessed October 26, 2010).
Oliver, R. 2004. What is Transparency? New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Neill, O. 2002. A Question of Trust: The BBC Reith Lectures 2002. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Orren, G. 1997. “Fall from Grace: The Public’s Loss of Faith in Government.” In
Why People Don’t Trust Government, eds J. Nye, Jr, P. Zelikow, and D.
King. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 77-107.
Peters, R.G., V.T. Covello, and D.B. McCallum. 1997. “The Determinants of
Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An
Empirical Study.” Risk Analysis 17 (1): 43-54.
Pina, V., L. Torres, and S. Royo. 2010. “Is E-Government Leading To More
Accountable And Transparent Local Governments? An Overall View.”
Financial Accountability & Management 26 (1): 3-20.
Prat, A. 2006. “The More Closely We Are Watched, the Better We Behave?” In
Transparency, the Key to Better Governance, eds. C. Hood, and D. Heald.
Proceedings of the British Academy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 92-
103.
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. 2010. “Fact Sheet 7: Workplace Privacy and
Employee Monitoring.” http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm
(accessed October 23, 2010).
Putnam, R.D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rhodes, R.A.W. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks,
Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Roberts, S. 2000. “Less Government, More Secrecy: Reinvention and the
Weakening of Freedom of Information Law.” Public Administration
Review 60 (4): 308-320.
Roberts, A. 2006. “Dashed Expectations: Governmental Adaptation to
Transparency Rules.” In Transparency, the Key to Better Governance, eds.
C. Hood, and D. Heald. Proceedings of the British Academy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 108-125.

29
 Policy & Internet, Vol. 3 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 8

Salmon, P., and A. Wolfselsperger. 2007. “Acquiescence to Opacity.” In The

Economics of Transparency in Politics, eds. A. Breton, G. Galeotti, P.
Salmon, and R. Wintrobe. Aldershot: Ashgate, 11-35.
Setälä, M., and K. Grönlund. 2006. “Parliamentary Websites: Theoretical and
Comparative Perspectives.” Information Polity 11: 149-162.
Simonsen, W., and M.D. Robbins. 2000. Citizen Participation in Resource
Allocation. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Snowden. 2002. “Complex Acts of Knowing.” Journal of Knowledge
Management 6 (2): 100-111. www.kwork.org/Resources/snowden.pdf.
Srihari, R.K. 2008. “Finding Inadvertent Release of Information.” Wiley
Handbook of Science and Technology for Homeland Security. Wiley On-
line.
Stasavage, D. 2006. “Does Transparency Make a Difference? The Example of the
European Council of Ministers.” Proceedings of the British Academy.
http://as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/5395/transparency.pdf (accessed October 23,
2010).
Stiglitz, J. 2003. On Liberty, The Right To Know And Public Discourse: The Role
of Transparency in Public Life. In Globalizing Rights: The Oxford
Amnesty Lectures 1999, ed. M. Gibney. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
115-156.
Tolbert C.J., and K. Mossberger. 2006. “The Effects of E-Government on Trust
and Confidence in Government.” Public Administration Review 66 (3):
354-369.
Kahneman, D., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty:
Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
UNESCO. 2010. “What is Governance?” http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=2179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
(accessed June 14, 2010).
UNPAN. 1999. “What is Transparency?”
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan012062.pdf
(accessed July 14, 2010).
Westin, A.F. 2003. “Social and Political Dimensions of Privacy.” The Journal of
Social Issues 59: 431-453.
Wichmann, C.J. 1998. “Ridding FOIA of Those “Unanticipated Consequences”:
Repaving a Necessary Road to Freedom.” Duke Law Journal 47 (6): 1213-
1256.
Zhou, Z., and C. Hu. 2008. “Study on the E-government Security Risk
Management.” International Journal of Computer Science and Network
Security 8 (5): 208-213. http://digilib.unsri.ac.id/download/20080531.pdf
(accessed October 23, 2010).

http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol3/iss1/art8 30
DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1076