@Silvanavf
Openness and transparency are overused buzzwords these days. At the risk
of sounding redundant, these two qualities are related to the asymmetry of the
informational resources between governments and citizens in an information age
(in words of Castells). In this context, not only freedom of information (FOI)
has amounted to more than a hundred laws worldwide but also open government
data (OGD) initiatives have become a trend for governments everywhere (these
numbers have increased after the launch of the Open Government Partnership- OGP[1]).
References to openness and transparency can be found in blogs, academic
papers and now, more than ever, in political speeches (specially when close to
election’s times). Not only these concepts are overused, there is also an
over-demand for measurements, rankings and assessments. This last statement
relates to the demand side of information as advocacy groups and practitioners
find it difficult to promote something based on certain impact when it is
difficult to prove. On the supply side of information, public administration’s
champions need to “sell” the benefits that these types of polices bring (and to
show them that the pros surpass the cons) to the staff implementing these
policies as well as the heads of the agencies and/or governments taking the
decisions.
In this context, during the first semester of 2015 we have witnessed the
launch of several initiatives that try to measure the impact, results and other
variables related to the disclosure of government-held information and data.
Some of those exercises are related to open government data, others to
transparency in a broader sense. All these global exercises should be added to
the long list of available measurements, rankings and index in FOI and OGD
fields. Thus, are these exercises enough? Do we need to think a new way to
assess them both?
- Rankings, ratings and other
measurements
Global rankings, ratings, indexes, barometers, they all refer to the
idea of placing the elements of a given universe in a certain order. However,
this order is not arbitrary. Thus, rankings, ratings, among others, refer to
the placement of a certain list of objects according to a set of
criteria/variables. In this sense, it does not necessarily mean that the objects
in the first positions of that ranking are more valuable/useful than the ones
at the bottom. It just means that those first objects are closer to preferable
conditions set by the author of that scale. Thus, it is important to highlight
that in all cases (FOI and OGD) these measurements reflect the availability of
information and not the impact of this initiatives (policies and/or
legislations)
There are numerous examples to illustrate these ideas. Some of them from
the Open Data field are, for example the indexes, such as Global Open Data
Index[2] by OKFN,
which presents information on the current state of open data release around the
world, according to a list of criteria. In terms of ratings, a clear example is
the RTI (Right to Information) rating developed by Access Info Europe and the
Centre for Law and Democracy. This exercise is based on placing a large list of
RTI legislation according to the correlation between the text of the law and a
set of standards (most of them originated in Mendel’s work “Principles on
Freedom of Information Legislation” back in the 90s when he was a member of
Article 19)
The Open Data Barometer is another example of this list of initiatives.
This exercise is more rigorous in the correlation between the information they
present and the name of their initiative. A barometer reflects changes in
circumstances or opinions and, thus, the gathered information aims to reflect
changes in the disclosure of data disclosed in open reusable formats.
Despite the lack of literature, in particular in terms of measurement
and impact, in the FOI and even more in the OGD field, there is some relevant
work on the area. In the case of FOI, there is some analysis on the different
types of rankings and index. In these exercises, they mostly refer to the link
between FOI and transparency. This close relationship between FOI and
transparency (as a necessary previous step towards accountability[3], in most cases) has been portrayed in most of the assessments. As
explained by Sheila Coronel a couple of years ago, “the existing ratings differ
only in the countries they cover and some of the indicators they use. There is
already much overlap in this field” [4]. A similar situation can be
pictured in the OGD field.
Even though both fields are intrinsically related there are some
important points that differ FOI and OGD (I won’t go into the details as I
wrote about this in previous posts). Despite all the differences in the
assessments there are also some other variables in both within and between both
fields. This is my attempt at classification:
Scope:
•
One Country (government and civil society) Even though
this is not the focus of this post but it is important to include them here.
•
Global (international). Mostly from INGOs and/or IGOs
Object:
•
Information
•
Open Data
•
Proactive disclosure
•
Reactive disclosure
•
Public information
•
Personal information
Types of
Assessment:
•
Performance/implementation
•
Legal assessment
Thus, if we take
these variables we can classify some of the assessments in both fields, as
follow:
Access to Government-held Information
(RTI/FOI)
Open Government Data- Right to Data
- Recommendation for future
assessments combining both fields:
Summing up some of the above-mentioned ideas and looking into the future
of both fields, there are some points I would like to share (hoping to get
feedback to keep thinking about these issues).
Firstly, if we are talking about different initiatives (even though they
share similar resources), different goals and different scopes, we also need to
think about the need to design different assessments (or joint assessments but
focusing on different elements).
Thus,
we need to have a baseline in both areas (in global initiatives) to which the
different assessments can add their own particularities. There are basic
elements in both fields such as the presence of FOI legislation according to
international standards and the actual possibility of reusing (licensing and
copyright) the disclosed data in reusable formats. This means that in each of
the accessed districts, users have a guaranteed right to access government-held
information (legislation) and also a guaranteed access to preferable format (to
request OGD and not only obtain the data via governments’ proactive disclosure).
In
terms of implementation (as sometimes the letter of the legislation has little
to say about the actual right to access government-held information and data in
a given country), it is necessary to count with statistics on compliance in FOI
and OGD. This type of information will allow advocates and researchers to
produce an accurate picture of the access to information and data in a given
district.
Another
important point is to have statistics on the use of that government-held
information and data (even though the proactive disclosure of OGD makes this
type of figures really difficult to gather).
These
are all basic elements that scholars and advocates in both fields already know.
However, there are another sort of recommendations, closely related to the
common sense, but it is important to remember when designing a
global/international measurement in FOI and/or OGD. They are:
-
Clear goals (what do we want to
measure and what for?)
-
Clear methodology according to the
goals (don’t follow established practices just because everybody is doing the
same thing but don’t try to reinvent the wheel if it is not necessary either)
-
If you are not adding value, don’t
waste resources. In some cases, “the existing ratings differ only in the
countries they cover and some of the indicators they use. There is already much
overlap in this field”
-
Acknowledgment of the
particularities of each initiative (different types of disclosure, scope, etc.)
- Acknowledgment
of the particularities of each reality (context matters)
I
started this post saying that, following Sheila (Coronel Columbia Journalism
School) we are in “the midst of an explosion in the measurement of government
openness and the accessibility of information to the public”. In this context,
it is extremely important to learn from past mistakes and also to avoid “reinventing
the wheel”. And why this is important? Just because, as mentioned by Alan
Hudson (Global Integrity), “assessments, done right, can be an entry-point for
learning and reflection”, and both fields really need to learn from each other
and to reflect about how to improve not only the availability of information
and data but also the actual use to promote not only transparency but also
accountability (among many other important goals).
Notes:
[1] “The Open Government Partnership is a multilateral initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance. In the spirit of multi-stakeholder collaboration, OGP is overseen by a Steering Committee including representatives of governments and civil society organizations.”
“The Open Government Partnership formally launched on September 20, 2011, when the 8 founding governments (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States) endorsed the Open Government Declaration, and announced their country action plans. In just two years, OGP has welcomed the commitment of 57 additional governments to join the Partnership.”
[2] It is used to be called Open Data Census, which it was clearly a methodological mistake as only some countries are reviewed in the exercises (not all the elements of the universe, clearly)
[3] Despite the many differences- emphasis on the formats in the case of the OGD assessments, for example- in both cases the measurements and assessments relate to the availability of different types of information. In both cases, the measurements are just indicators of opaque (mostly) and clear transparency (in words of Jonathan Fox), depending on the case.
[4] There is a broad agreement among transparency researchers that the presence of FOI laws is an insufficient measure of transparency (Coronel, 2012)
