Advertisement

Defining subnational open government: does local context influence policy and practice?

  • M. ChatwinEmail author
  • G. Arku
  • E. Cleave
Research Article

Abstract

What is open government? The contemporary conceptualization of open government remains rooted in transparency and accountability, but it is embedded within the political economy of policy, where forces of globalization through supranational organizations strongly influence the creation and dispersion of policy across the globe. Recognizing the direct impact of subnational governments on residents, in 2016 the Open Government Partnership (OGP) launched the Subnational Pioneer’s Pilot Project with 15 participating government authorities globally. Each subnational participant submitted an action plan for opening their government information and processes in 2017. The uniformity of the OGP action plan provides a unique opportunity to assess the conception of open government at the subnational level globally. This paper uses a document analysis to examine how open government is conceptualized at the subnational level, including the salience of various components, and how local context can influence the development of action plans that are responsive to the realities of each participating jurisdiction. This paper assesses whether being a part of the political economy of policy homogenizes the action plans of 15 subnational governments or allows for local context to influence the design of commitments still aligned within a general theme.

Keywords

Open Government Partnership Policy Subnational government Globalization International development Geographic context 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author wishes to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for funding provided through the Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship-Doctoral Award. Special thanks to Brittany Lane from the Open Government Partnership for assisting with access to the subnational action plans and to all reviewers who generously donated their time to assist with this study.

References

  1. Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayee, J. (2008). Decentralization and governance in Ghana. Regional Development Dialogue, 29, 34–52.Google Scholar
  3. Bohle, D., & Neunhöffer, G., (2007). Why is there no third way?: The role of neoliberal ideology, networks and think-tanks in combating market socialism and shaping transformation in Poland. In D. Plehwe, B. Walpen, & G. Neunhöffer (Eds.), Neoliberal hegemony: A global critique (Vol. 18, pp. 89–105). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bojonegoro Regency Government. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  5. Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and geographies of actually existing neoliberalism. Antipode, 34, 349–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chatwin, M., & Arku, G. (2017). Beyond ambiguity: Conceptualizing open government through a human systems framework. JeDem, 9(1), 52–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chatwin, M., & Arku, G. (2018). Co-creating an open government action plan: The case of Sekondi-Takoradi metropolitan assembly, Ghana. Growth and Change, 49(2), 374–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. City of Austin. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  10. City of Buenos Aires. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  11. City of Madrid. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  12. City of Paris. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  13. City of Seoul. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  14. Clarke, A., & Francoli, M. (2014). What’s in a name? A comparison of ‘open government’ definitions across seven open government partnership members. Journal of eDemocracy, 6(1), 248–266.Google Scholar
  15. Cleave, E., Arku, G., & Chatwin, M. (2017). Cities’ economic development efforts in a changing global economy: Content analysis of economic development plans of cities in Ontario, Canada. Area, 49(3), 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cornwall, A. (2008). Democratising engagement what the UK can learn from international experience. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  17. Crabtree, B., & Miller, W. (1999). A template approach to text analysis: Developing and using codebooks. In B. Crabtree & W. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 163–177). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Creighton, J. (2005). The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through citizen involvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dahl, R. (2006). On political equality. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dawes, S. S., & Helbig, N. (2010). Information strategies for open government: Challenges and prospects for deriving public value from government transparency. In M. A. Wimmer et al. (Eds.), Electronic government: Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 50–60). EGOV 2010, LNCS 6228.Google Scholar
  22. De Blasio, E., & Selva, D. (2016). Why choose open government? Motivations for the adoption of open government policies in four European countries. Policy and Internet, 8(3), 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diamond, L. J. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Elgeyo Marakwet County Government. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  25. European Commission. (2014). Open government. Retrieved on September 20, 2017 from: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-government.
  26. Fessha, Y., & Kirkby, C. (2015). A critical survey of subnational autonomy in African states. The Journal of Federalism, 38(2), 248–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Francoli, M. (2011). What makes governments open? Sketching out models of open government. Journal of eDemocracy, 3(2), 152–165.Google Scholar
  28. Glassman, J., & Samatar, I. (1997). Development geography and the third-world state. Progress in Human Geography, 21, 164–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Global Communities (CRC). (2015). 2015 Sekondi-Takoradi citizens’ report card. CHF International. A report.Google Scholar
  30. Glover, D., Hernandez, K., & Rhydderch, A. (2016). A foresight scenario method for thinking about complex sustainable development interactions. In J. Sumberg, & G. Gioacchino (Eds.), Transforming development knowledge (Vol. 4, pp. 55–70). Institute for Development Studies (IDS) Bulletin.Google Scholar
  31. Griffiths, S., Foley, B., & Prendergast, J. (2009). Assertive citizens: New relationships in the public services. Social Market Foundation.Google Scholar
  32. Hansson, K., Belkacem, K., & Ekenberg, L. (2015). Open government and democracy: A research review. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 50–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). (2005). The IAP2 public participation toolbox. Retrieved on July 10, 2017 from http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/toolbox.pdfS.
  35. Jones, M. (1998). Restructuring the local state: Economic governance or social regulation?. Political Geography, 17(8), 959–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kassen, M. (2013). A promising phenomenon of open data: A case study of the Chicago open data project. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 508–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kelly, P. F. (1999). The geographies and politics of globalization. Progress in Human Geography, 23(3), 379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Khan, S., & Foti, J. (2015). Aligning supply and demand for better governance: Open data in the open government partnership. OGP Independent Reporting Mechanism.Google Scholar
  39. Kigoma Ujiji Municipal Council. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  40. Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (2010). Preface. In D. Lathrop & L. Ruma (Eds.), Open government: Collaboration, transparency and participation in practice (pp. xix–xxv). O’Reilly: Beijing.Google Scholar
  41. Lee, J. (2013). Can you hear me now? Making participatory governance work for the poor. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 7, 405–443.Google Scholar
  42. Loffler, E. (2009). Why co-production is an important topic for local government. Governance International. Paper Commissioned by LARCI.Google Scholar
  43. MacLeod, G., & Goodwin, M. (1999). Space, scale and state strategy: Rethinking urban and regional governance. Progress in Human Geography, 23, 503–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Magnusson, W. (2005). Are municipalities creatures of the provinces? Journal of Canadian Studies, 39(2), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McDermott, P. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meijer, A., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: Connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Minogue, M. (2001). Should flawed models of public management be exported? Issues and practices. In W. McCourt & M. Minogue (Eds.), The internationalisation of public management: Reinventing the third world state. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  48. Morozov, E. (2013). The meme hustler: O’Reilly’s crazy talk. The Baffler, 22. Retrieved August 12, 2017 from http://www.thebaffler.com/past/the_meme_hustler.
  49. Moynihan, D. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review, 66, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Municipality of Sao Paulo. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  51. Nam, T. (2012). Citizens’ attitudes toward open government and government 2.0. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(2), 346–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. OECD. (2005). Modernising government: The way forward. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. OECD. (2010). Better regulation in Europe. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. OECD. (2016). Open government: The global context and the way forward. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. OGP. Eligibility criteria. Retrieved August 19, 2018 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/resources/eligibility-criteria.
  56. OGP. (2012). Open government partnership: Articles of governance. Retrieved May 2, 2017, from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/OGP_Articles-Gov_Apr-21-2015.pdf.
  57. OGP. (2014). Open government guide. Retrieved June 10, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/resources/open-government-guide.
  58. OGP. (2016a). Digital booklet. Retrieved June 10, 2017 from http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/091116_OGP_Booklet_digital.pdf.
  59. OGP. (2016b). Subnational government pilot project. Retrieved January 10, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/how-it-works/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  60. OGP. (2017). Government point of contact manual. Retrieved on July 10, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/OGP_POC-Manual_2017_EN.pdf.
  61. Ohemeng, F. (2010). The dangers of internationalization and “one-size-fits-all” in public sector management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(5), 456–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Osmani, S. (2008). Participatory governance: An overview of issues and evidence. United Nations, 1.Google Scholar
  63. Parks, W. (1957). The open government principle: Applying the right to know under the constitution. The George Washington Law Review, 26(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  64. Phillips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Plehwe, D., Walpen, B., & Neunhöffer, G. (Eds.). (2006). Neoliberal hegemony: A global critique. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Province of Ontario. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  67. Regional Government of La Libertad. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  68. Ribot, J., Chhatre, A., & Lankina, T. (2008). Introduction: Institutional choice and recognition in the formation and consolidation of local democracy. Conservation and Society, 6, 1–11.Google Scholar
  69. Robinson, M., & Heller, N. (2015). Subnational governments and the open government partnership: Issues and options paper. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from http://www.opengovpartnership.org/howit-works/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  70. Romzek, B., & Dubnick, M. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, R. (2015). Toward an integrative assessment of open government: Proposing conceptual lenses and practical components. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(1–2), 170–192.Google Scholar
  72. Sangiorgi, D. (2012). Transformative services and transformation design. International Journal of Design, 5, 29–40.Google Scholar
  73. Schauer, F. (2011). Transparency in three dimensions. University of Illinois Law Review, 4, 1339–1358.Google Scholar
  74. Schick, A. (1998). A contemporary approach to public expenditure management (English). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  75. Scottish Government. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  76. Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  77. State Government of Jalisco. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  78. Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17), 1–10.Google Scholar
  79. Tbilisi Government. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/subnational-government-pilot-program.
  80. Weinstein, J. (2013). Transforming multilateralism: Innovation on a global stage. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1, 3–7.Google Scholar
  81. Weiss, L. (2000). Developmental states in transition: Adapting, dismantling, innovating, not ‘normalizing’. The Pacific Review, 13(1), 21–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/095127400363631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. White House. (2009a). Presidential document, memorandum of January 21, 2009, transparency and open government, 74 Fed. Reg. 4685 (Jan. 26, 2009). Retrieved March 30, 2017 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government.
  83. White House. (2009b). Open Government Directive. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf.
  84. Wirtz, B., & Birkmeyer, S. (2015). Open government: Origin, development, and conceptual perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(5), 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. World Bank. (2016). Open government impact and outcomes: Mapping the landscape of ongoing research. A report.Google Scholar
  86. Yilmaz, S., Beris, Y., & Serrano-Berthet, R. (2010). Linking local government discretion and accountability in decentralisation. Development Policy Review, 28(3), 259–293.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2010.00484.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Yu, H., & Robinson, D. (2012). The new ambiguity of open government. UCLA Law Review Discourse, 178, 180–208.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations