Advertisement

Public Value and Private Organizations

  • Holly JarmanEmail author
  • Luis F. Luna-Reyes
  • Jing Zhang
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 26)

Abstract

The first chapter of the book introduces our key question: how can private actors be incentivized to share their data in a way that promotes the public value of the information disclosed? We are interested in whether and how these different organizations can be encouraged by governments and other interested actors to share the information that they hold. The means by which this might be accomplished—particularly how these private actors might be encouraged to collaborate among themselves and with governments—is a major focus of the book. The chapter explores the concept of public value in the context of data disclosure by private organizations, using empirical evidence from the I-Choose project. We argue that while disclosing product information can enhance the public sphere, information disclosure alone is not enough to guarantee this. Disclosure must be supported by innovative governance mechanisms. The chapter explains why disclosing private product data is considered valuable by some policymakers and advocates and considers the barriers to disclosing product information.

Keywords

I-Choose Public value Smart disclosure Open data 

References

  1. Abolafia, M. Y. (2001). Making markets: opportunism and restraint on Wall Street (2. print). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  2. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baue, B., & Murninghan, M. (2011). The accountability web: Weaving corporate accountability and interactive technology. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 41, 27–49.Google Scholar
  4. Benington, J. (2011). From private choice to public value? In J. Benington & M. H. Moore (Eds.), Public value: theory and practice (pp. 31–51). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Benington, J., & Moore, M. H. (Eds.). (2011). Public value: theory and practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Boeder, P. (2005). Habermas’ heritage: The future of the public sphere in the network society. First Monday, 10(9). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1280/1200
  7. Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: counterbalancing economic individualism. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Calhoun, C. J. (Ed.). (1992). Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Castells, M. (Ed.). (2007). Mobile communication and society: A global perspective: A project of the Annenberg Research Network on international communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: social movements in the internet age. Cambridge, UK/Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Center for Technology in Government. (2011). Open government and public value: conceptualizing a portfolio assessment tool. Retrieved from http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/online/pvat/PVAT_ConceptualizingtheTool.pdf
  12. Dunleavy, P. (2002). Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice: Economic explanations in political science (Nachdr.). London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Executive Office of the President. (2013). Smart disclosure and consumer decision making: report of the task force on smart disclosure. National Science and Technology Council. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/report_of_the_task_force_on_smart_disclosure.pdf
  14. Fernback, J., & Thompson, B. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and the American collectivity: The dimensions of community within cyberspace report as virtual communities: Abort, retry, failure? Presented at the International Communication Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Retrieved from http://www.well.com/user/hlr/texts/VCcivil.html
  15. Fridell, G. (2007). Coffee and the “double movement” (Chapter 4). In Fair trade coffee: The prospects and pitfalls of market-driven social justice (Reprinted, pp. 135–172). Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fuchs, C., Boersma, K., Albrechtslund, A., & Sandoval, M. (2012). Internet and surveillance: The challenges of Web 2. 0 and Social Media. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Howard, A. (2012, April 1). What is smart disclosure? Retrieved from http://radar.oreilly.com/2012/04/what-is-smart-disclosure.html
  19. Jorgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381. http://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707300703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalampokis, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2011). A classification scheme for open government data: Towards linking decentralised data. International Journal of Web Engineering and Technology, 6(3), 266. http://doi.org/10.1504/IJWET.2011.040725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kraft, M. E., Stephan, M., & Abel, T. D. (2011). Coming clean: Information disclosure and environmental performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lourenço, R. P. (2015). An analysis of open government portals: A perspective of transparency for accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 323–332. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luna-Reyes, L. F., Zhang, J., Roy, R., Andersen, D. F., Whitmore, A., & Andersen, D. L. (2013). Information strategies to support full information product pricing: The role of trust. Information Polity, 18(1), 75–91.Google Scholar
  24. Luna-Reyes, L. F., Zhang, J., Whitmore, A., Jarman, H., Picazo-Vela, S., Andersen, D. L., et al. (2014). Full information product pricing: An information strategy for harnessing consumer choice to create a more sustainable world. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34(1), 637–654.Google Scholar
  25. McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 165. http://doi.org/10.2307/2110792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Michalos, A. C. (2008). Trade barriers to the public good: Free trade and environmental protection. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  28. Moore, M. H. (2013). Recognizing public value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674066953.Google Scholar
  29. Nescafe. (n.d.). The Rainforest Alliance – working together for sustainable agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.nescafe.com/rainforest_alliance_sus_en_com.axcms
  30. Niskanen, W. A. (1994). Bureaucracy and public economics. Aldershot, Hants, England; Brookfield, VT: E. Elgar.Google Scholar
  31. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  32. Paige, J. M. (1997). Coffee and power: revolution and the rise of democracy in Central America (1. Harvard Univ. Press paperback ed., 3. printing). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rainforest Alliance. (2015). Our global impact: Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/work/impact/map/agriculture
  34. Rainforest Alliance. (n.d.). Our work with Nescafé. Retrieved from http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/about/company-commitments/nescafe
  35. Ran, W., Jarman, H., Luna-Reyes, L. F., Zhang, J., Andersen, D. L., Tayi, G. K., et al. (2016). Supply-chain transparency and governance systems: Market penetration of the I-choose system. In J. Zhang, L. F. Luna-Reyes, T. A. Pardo, & D. S. Sayogo (Eds.), Information, models, and sustainability: Policy informatics in the age of big data and open government. Basel, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Rheingold, H. (2008). Using participatory media and public voice to encourage civic engagement. In W. Lance Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 97–118). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rice, R. A., Ward, J. R., Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, & Natural Resources Defense Council. (1996). Coffee, conservation, and commerce in the Western Hemisphere: How individuals and institutions can promote ecologically sound farming and forest management in northern Latin America. Washington, D.C.; New York: Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center; Natural Resources Defense Council.Google Scholar
  38. RussiaToday. (2013, August 21). NSA collected thousands of US internet communications “with no terror connection” [News]. Retrieved from http://on.rt.com/icwoby
  39. SAGARPA. (2012). Impactos del Café en México. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación. México, D. F.Google Scholar
  40. Sayogo, D. (2013). Incentives to disclose: Private sector transparency to support smart disclosure policy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  41. Sayogo, D. S., Zhang, J., Liu, H., Picazo-Vela, S., & Luna-Reyes, L. (2014). Examining trust as key drivers in smart disclosure for sustainable consumption: The case of I-choose, In Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference on Open Innovations and Sustainable Development in Government: Experiences from around the World, Digital Government Society of North America (pp. 137–146). Aguascalientes, Mexico: ACM.Google Scholar
  42. Sayogo, D. S., Zhang, J., Pardo, T. A., Tayi, G. K., Hrdinova, J., Andersen, D. F., et al. (2014). Going beyond open data: Challenges and motivations for smart disclosure in ethical consumption. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 9(2), 3–4. http://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762014000200002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sayogo, D. S., Zhang, J., Luna-Reyes, L., Jarman, H., Tayi, G., Andersen, D. L., et al. (2015). Challenges and requirements for developing data architecture supporting integration of sustainable supply chains. Information Technology and Management, 16(1), 5–18. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-014-0203-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sayogo, D. S., Ran, W., Tayi, G. K., Luciano, J. S., Luna-Reyes, L. F., Depaula, D., et al. (Forthcoming). Ontological modeling of certification and inspection process to support smart disclosure of product information. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age.Google Scholar
  45. Schattschneider, E. E. (1935). Politics, pressures and the tariff: A study of free private enterprise in pressure politics, as shown in 1929–1930 revision of the tariff. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, T. W. (2015). Trends in national spending priorities, 1973–2014 (General Social Survey). Chicago: NORC at the University of Chicago. Retrieved from http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Spending_1973-2014.pdf
  47. Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance? The American Review ofPublic Administration, 36(1), 41–57. http://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sunstein, C. (2012, March 30). Informing consumers through smart disclosure. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/30/informing-consumers-through-smart-disclosure
  49. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Thaler, R. H., & Tucker, W. (2013, February). Smarter information, smarter consumers. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2013/01/smarter-information-smarter-consumers
  51. USDA Foreign Agriculture Service. (2011). Coffee consumption growing and producer inventories building (Required Report – public distribution No. MX1039). Mexico City: US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  52. van der Laan, S. (2009). The role of theory in explaining motivation for corporate social disclosures: Voluntary disclosures vs “solicited” disclosures. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 3(4). Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/aabfj/vol3/iss4/2
  53. Wankhade, L., & Dabade, B. M. (2006). Analysis of quality uncertainty due to information asymmetry. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 23(2), 230–241. http://doi.org/10.1108/02656710610640961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilson, W. (1886). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zuiderwijk, A., Jeffery, K., & Janssen, M. (2012). The potential of metadata for linked open data and its value for users and publishers. Journal of E-Democracy and Open Government, 4(2), 222–244.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public HealthUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsUniversity at AlbanyAlbanyUSA
  3. 3.Graduate School of ManagementClark UniversityWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations