Advertisement

Do Open Data Initiatives Promote and Sustain Transparency? A Comparative Analysis of Open Budget Portals in Developing Countries

  • Jyldyz KasymovaEmail author
  • Marco Aurelio Marques Ferreira
  • Suzanne J. Piotrowski
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 20)

Abstract

This research provides a comparative analysis of open budget portals in the context of budget transparency. Specifically, we examine open data portals in the Ministry of Planning, Budget, and Management in Brazil and the Finance Ministry in Kyrgyzstan. We utilize interviews with public administrators, archival information, and an analysis of the portals. Furthermore, we use Meijer’s 2013 transparency theoretical framework to assess the relationship between budget portals and transparency in Brazil and Kyrgyzstan. The paper finds that both jurisdictions face similar challenges promoting online disclosure, including a lack of infrastructural development and a limited use of portals by the public. Although centralized online budget disclosures have not promoted a sense of transparency across the broader public, the media has used these disclosures effectively. This has led to a wider public discourse on budgeting in both countries. The authors highlight the specific roles played by the Open Budget Index and international players in advancing and sustaining budget transparency in these countries.

Keywords

Information Disclosure Budget Process Open Budget Infrastructural Development Institutional Complexity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aladwani A (2013) A cross-cultural comparison of Kuwaiti and British citizens’ views of E-government interface quality. Gov Inf Q 30(1):74–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alves JA, Heller P (2013) Accountability from the top down? Brazil’s advances in budget transparency despite a lack of popular mobilization. In: Khagram S, Fung A, De Renzio P (eds) Open budgets: the political economy of transparency, participation, and accountability. Brookings Institution, Washington, pp 76–104Google Scholar
  3. Basiago AD (1995) Methods of defining ‘sustainability.’. Sustain Dev 3(3):109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bastida F, Benito B (2007) Central government budget practices and transparency: an international comparison. Public Adm 85:667–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basu S (2004) E-government and developing countries: an overview. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 18(1):109–132. doi: 10.1080/13600860410001674779 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carstens L (2010) Defining, inspiring, and implementing sustainability. Nat Civic Rev 99(3):11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CGU (2012) The Comptroller General. In Portuguese. http://www.cgu.gov.br/imprensa/Noticias/2012/noticia10212.asp. Accessed 23 Nov 2013
  8. AETS Consortium (2011) Support to preparation of new Rule of Law action in the Kyrgyz Republic. http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/kyrgyzstan/documents/press_corner/news2012/background_note_on_transparency_and_accountability_december_9_2011_qa_en.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2013
  9. Cordella A, Bonina CM (2012) A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: a theoretical reflection. Gov Inf Q 29(4):512–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuillier D, Piotrowski SJ (2009) Internet information-seeking and its relation to support for access to government records. Gov Inf Q 26(3):441–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Portal da Transparencia (2012) Portal of transparency of the federal government. In Portuguese.http://www.portaldatransparencia.gov.br/servidores/. Accessed 11 Nov 2013
  12. Dabla-Norris E, Allen R, Zanna L, Prakash T, Kvintradze E, Lledo V, Yackovlev I, Gollwitzer S (2010) Budget institutions and fiscal performance in low-income countries’. IMF working paper 10/80. International Monetary Fund, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis J (1998) Access to and transmission of information: position of the media. In: Deckmyn V, Thomson I (eds) Openness and transparency in the European Union. European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht, pp 121–126Google Scholar
  14. Dawoody AR (2011) The global participant-observer emergence, challenges and opportunities. Innov J 16(1):1–20Google Scholar
  15. De Renzio P, Krafchik W (2007) Lessons from the field: the impact of civil society budget analysis and advocacy in six countries’ practitioners’ guide. International Budget Project, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. Dener C, Min C-Y (2013) Financial management information systems and budget transparency: do governments report on where the money goes? World Bank, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dingwerth K, Eichinger M (2010) Tamed transparency: how information disclosure under the global reporting initiative fails to empower. Glob Environ Polit 10(3):74–96, AugustCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dubé L, Paré G (2003) Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS Q 27(4):597–636Google Scholar
  19. Eaves D (2009) The three laws of open government data. http://eaves.ca/2009/09/30/three-law-of-open-government-data/. Accessed 10 Sept 2014
  20. Ferreira MAM, Olveira A, Silva AAP (2013) Monitoring of public policies in Brazil: a tool for promoting transparency and accountability policy. In: Fourth congress GIGAPP—IUIOG, Madrid, Spain. In PortugueseGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldfrank B, Schneider A (2006) Competitive Institution building: the PT and participatory budgeting in Rio Grande do Sul. Lat Am Polit Soc 48:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gollwitzer S (2010) Budget institutions and fiscal performance in Africa. J Afr Econ 20(1):111–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grimmelikhuijsen SG, Welch EW (2012) Developing and testing a theoretical framework for computer-mediated transparency of local governments. Public Adm Rev 72(4):562–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gurstein M (2011) Open data: empowering the empowered or effective data use for everyone? First Monday 16(2) February. http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3316/2764. Accessed 12 June 2013Google Scholar
  25. Hajer M (1993) Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: the case of acid rain in Britain’. In: Fischer F, Forester J (eds) The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 43–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heeks R (2003) Most e-government-for-development projects fail: how can risks be reduced? I-Government working paper series. University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  27. Helbig N, Nakashima M, Dawes S (2012) Understanding the value and limits of government information in policy informatics: a preliminary exploration. in: Proceedings of the 13th annual international conference on digital government research, 4–7 JuneGoogle Scholar
  28. Hordijk M (2009) Peru’s participatory budgeting: configurations of power, opportunities for change. Open Urban Stud J 2:43–55Google Scholar
  29. International Budget Partnership (2012) Open budget survey. International Budget Partnership, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. Kalkanov K (2013) Nurturing the culture of openness in the budgetary process. E-Newsletter. http://soros.kg/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/E-newsletter_-1_Soros_ru.pdf. Accessed 4 July 2013Google Scholar
  31. Khagram S, Fung A, De Renzio P (2013) Open budgets: the political economy of transparency, participation, and accountability. Brookings Institution, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  32. Koliba C, Zia A, Lee BH (2011) Governance informatics: managing the performance of inter-organizational governance networks. Innov J 16(1):1–26Google Scholar
  33. Kolstad I, Wiig A (2009) Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resource-rich countries? World Dev 37(3):521–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krishnamuthy R, Desouza K, Johnston E, Bhagwatwar A (2014) A glimpse into policy informatics: the case of participatory platforms that generate synthetic empathy. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 33(21):365–380Google Scholar
  35. Lampe C, LaRose R, Steinfield C, DeMaagd K (2011) Inherent barriers to the use of social media for public policy informatics. Innov J 16(1):1–17Google Scholar
  36. Research and Markets (2013) Kyrgyzstan—telecoms, mobile, Internet, and forecast. Taylors Lane, Dublin. http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/4d0280/kyrgyzstan_telec. Accessed 30 July 2013
  37. Meijer A (2013) Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency. Public Adm Rev 73(3):429–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meijer A (2014) Transparency. In: Bovens M, Goodin RE, Schillemans T (eds) The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 507–524Google Scholar
  39. OECD (2011) Proactive disclosure of information. In: Government at a glance 2011. OECD, Paris, pp 142–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Otunbaeva R (2011) Speech by the President of the Kyrgyz Republic. In: 5th EITI global conference. OECD Conference Center, ParisGoogle Scholar
  41. Overseas Development Institute (ODI) (2007) Budget monitoring and policy influence. Briefing paper 16, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Pasquier M, Villeneuve JP (2007) Organizational barriers to transparency: a typology and analysis or organizational behaviour tending to prevent or restrict access to information. Int Rev Adm Sci 73(1):147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pérez CC, Bolívar MPR, Hernández AML (2008) E-government process and incentives for online public financial information. Online Inf Rev 32(3):379–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Prat A (2005) The wrong kind of transparency. Am Econ Rev 95(3):862–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Premchand A (2001) Fiscal transparency and accountability, idea and reality. Paper prepared for the workshop on Financial Management and Accountability, RomeGoogle Scholar
  46. Ramkumar V, Petkova E (2007) Transparency and environmental governance. In: Florini A (ed) The right to know: transparency for an open world. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 279–308Google Scholar
  47. Ríos AM, Benito B, Bastida F (2013) Determinants of central government budget disclosure: an international comparative analysis. J Comp Policy Anal 15(3):235–254Google Scholar
  48. Robinson M (2006) Budget analysis and policy advocacy: the role of non-governmental public action. IDS working paper 279. Institute of Development Studies, BrightonGoogle Scholar
  49. Santos BDS (1998) Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: toward a redistributive democracy. Polit Soc 26(4):461–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shukuralieva N (2012) The family in power: a new past for an old country. J Cent Asia Caucasian Stud 7(13):30–56Google Scholar
  51. Sintomer Y, Herzberg C, Rocke A (2008) Participatory budgeting in Europe: potentials and challenges. Int J Urban Reg Res 32(1):164–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. The Institute of Social and Economic Studies (INESC) (2011) Measuring subnational budget transparency, participation, and accountability: Brazil. International Budget Partnership, Washington. http://internationalbudget.org/wp-content/uploads/Measuring-Subnational-Budget-Transparency-Participation-and-Accountability-Brazil_final.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2013Google Scholar
  53. Toktakunov N (2007) Promoting transparency in the budget process in the Kyrgyz Republic. E-newsletter. International Budget Partnership. http://internationalbudget.org/wp-content/uploads/newsletter40.pdf. Accessed 28 Sept 2013
  54. Tulundieva N (2011) The concept of managing the budget of the country. In Russian. Academy of Management under the President of Kyrgyzstan, BishkekGoogle Scholar
  55. UNDP (2011) Kyrgyzstan’s energy sector: a poverty and social impact assessment. http://km.undp.sk/uploads/public1/files/vulnerability/Senior%20Economist%20Web%20site/PSIA_Energy_Kyrgyzstan.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2013Google Scholar
  56. Vieira VLR (2007) Transparency portal awarded in 12 innovations contest in Federal Public Management. In Portuguese. ENAP, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  57. Wachhaus TA (2011) Governance as a framework to support informatics. Innov J 16(1):1–14Google Scholar
  58. Wagle S, Shah P (2001) Participation in public expenditure systems. An issue paper. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  59. World Bank (2014) Internet users. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.P2/countries. Accessed 23 Sept 2014
  60. Zaharchenko T (2009) On the way to transparency: a comparative study on post-Soviet states and the Aarhus convention. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jyldyz Kasymova
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marco Aurelio Marques Ferreira
    • 2
  • Suzanne J. Piotrowski
    • 3
  1. 1.SUNY Buffalo StateBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.The Federal University of Vicosa (UFV)VicosaBrazil
  3. 3.Rutgers UniversityNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations