Week 5-Explore the Impact of Administrative Accountability and Week 6 - Assess the Oversight Functions of Administrative Rulemaking
Fila64
Week5-25YearsofTransparencyResearch.pdf
25 Years of Transparency Research: Evidence and Future Directions.
Images
Diagram Chart Graph Chart Graph
Go to all 8 images >>
Authors:
Cucciniello, Maria1 [email protected]
Porumbescu, Gregory A.2 [email protected]
Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan3 [email protected]
Source:
Public Administration Review. Jan/Feb2017, Vol. 77 Issue 1, p32-44. 13p. 1 Diagram, 4 Charts, 3 Graphs.
Document Type:
Article
Subject Terms:
*Financial management
Transparency in government
Decision making in political science
Prevention of political corruption
Legitimacy of governments
Decision making in public administration
Political science periodicals
History
Reviews & Products:
Google Books (Web resource)
NAICS/Industry Codes:
921190 Other General Government Support
523920 Portfolio Management
Abstract:
This article synthesizes the cross-disciplinary literature on government transparency. It systematically
reviews research addressing the topic of government transparency published between 1990 and 2015.
The review uses 187 studies to address three questions: (1) What forms of transparency has the
literature identified? (2) What outcomes does the literature attribute to transparency? and (3) How
successful is transparency in achieving those goals? In addressing these questions, the authors review six
interrelated types of transparency and nine governance- and citizen-related outcomes of transparency.
Based on the findings of the analysis, the authors outline an agenda for future research on government
transparency and its effects that calls for more systematically investigating the ways in which contextual
conditions shape transparency outcomes, replicating studies with varying methodologies, investigating
transparency in neglected countries, and paying greater attention to understudied claims of
transparency such as improved decision making and management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may
be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original
published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Author Affiliations:
1Bocconi University, Italy
2Northern Illinois University
3Utrecht School of Governance, The Netherlands
ISSN:
0033-3352
DOI:
10.1111/puar.12685
Accession Number:
120437177
Database:
Business Source Complete
Publisher Logo:
Publisher Logo
Images:
Show all 8 Images
DiagramChartGraph
Translate Full Text:
Choose Language
25 Years of Transparency Research: Evidence and Future Directions.
Contents
Methodological Approach
Eligibility Criteria
Review Method and Coding
Results of the Systematic Review
Describing the Corpus of Literature
Definitions: Integrating Two Types of Definitions
Transparency over Time: A Strong Rise in Three Distinct Periods of Research
Geographic Context: Predominant Focus on North America and Europe
Research Methods: Balance between Qualitative and Quantitative Studies
Gaining Insight into Our Research Questions
Question 1: What Forms of Government Transparency Are Identified in the Literature?
Questions 2 and 3: What Outcomes Are Attributed to Government Transparency and What Does ...
Discussion
Ways Forward: Charting Transparency Research in Years to Come
More Systematically Identifying Contextual Conditions That Affect Transparency Outcomes
Replicate Studies Using Different Methods
Replicate Studies across Different Administrative Contexts
Investigate Neglected Transparency Outcomes
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
Footnotes
References
Full Text
Listen
This article synthesizes the cross‐disciplinary literature on government transparency. It systematically
reviews research addressing the topic of government transparency published between 1990 and 2015.
The review uses 187 studies to address three questions: ( 1) What forms of transparency has the
literature identified? ( 2) What outcomes does the literature attribute to transparency? and ( 3) How
successful is transparency in achieving those goals? In addressing these questions, the authors review six
interrelated types of transparency and nine governance‐ and citizen‐related outcomes of transparency.
Based on the findings of the analysis, the authors outline an agenda for future research on government
transparency and its effects that calls for more systematically investigating the ways in which contextual
conditions shape transparency outcomes, replicating studies with varying methodologies, investigating
transparency in neglected countries, and paying greater attention to understudied claims of
transparency such as improved decision making and management.
Practitioner Points
Government transparency is no cure‐all and does not always have positive outcomes.
Transparency is effective at achieving certain outcomes, such as increasing participation, improving
financial management, and reducing corruption.
Transparency is less effective at engendering trust in and legitimacy of government.
Our analysis suggests that government transparency “works” under some conditions but not under
others. What these conditions are needs further investigation.
Over the course of the past two decades, there have been many attempts to bolster transparency at
every level of government. These attempts have been guided by a long‐standing expectation that
enhancing transparency will bring about improvements to the quality of government (Kosack and Fung [
29] , 84; Piotrowski [ 42] ; Roberts [ 49] ). Accordingly, governments now view transparency as a means
of achieving an array of objectives, ranging from fostering greater trust in government to reducing public
corruption and improving financial performance (Benito and Bastida [ 3] ; Bertot, Jaeger, and Grimes [ 5]
; Welch, Hinnant, and Moon [ 56] ; Worthy [ 58] ).
Despite such optimism, scholars have recently questioned the extent to which transparency is actually
capable of fulfilling the range of objectives commonly ascribed to it (Etzioni [ 18] , [ 19] ). In general,
what this expanding line of inquiry illustrates is that the effects of transparency are much less
pronounced than conventional wisdom suggests. Indeed, as a number of empirical assessments have
found, transparency's effects are often limited and differ according to a number of factors such as area
of government, policy domain, and citizen characteristics (de Fine Licht 2014; de Fine Licht et al. 2014;
Grimmelikhuijsen and Meijer [ 21] ; Porumbescu [ 47] ). Others have argued that efforts to enhance
transparency often result in more harm than good, reasoning that continual efforts to enhance
transparency have fueled polarization, indecision, and, ultimately, dysfunction in government (Grumet [
24] ).
In response to such challenges, a growing number of scholars and practitioners are beginning to debate
the role of transparency in the practice of public administration. While few on either side of this debate
would go so far as to actually support general reductions in transparency, what is quickly coming into
focus is a need to think more systematically about how transparency can be used for better governance.
At present, more transparency is often indiscriminately proffered as a solution to the gamut of
challenges facing governments. Yet, like any instrument, transparency is not without its limits—
inevitably, transparency is well suited to address certain issues and poorly suited to address others.
From this perspective, much of the debate over the role of transparency in the practice of public
administration can be attributed to confusion over just what transparency can do and, perhaps more
importantly, what it cannot (Meijer [ 33] ; Roberts [ 51] ). In this article, we focus on government
transparency as an instrument to achieve other outcomes, such as increased trust or less corruption.
Despite this long‐standing debate about the potential outcomes of increased government transparency,
scholarly attention has been disjointed, emanating from various disciplines and looking at various types
of transparency and types of transparency outcomes. The first goal of this article, therefore, is to
disentangle this confusion over the effects of transparency. To set an agenda for future research, we
present a cross‐disciplinary systematic literature review of government transparency published from
1990 to 2015. The second goal is to distill emergent themes from a rapidly evolving body of
transparency literature. The insights provided by a systematic overview help identify where gaps exist in
our understanding of how transparency relates to different facets of government and, thereby,
contribute to the establishment of a more cohesive transparency research agenda.
Our analysis is guided by three specific research questions:
What forms of government transparency are identified in the literature?
What outcomes has the literature attributed to government transparency?
What outcomes does government transparency tend to be (un)successful in achieving?
The systematic literature review yielded a set of 187 records published between 1990 and 2015. In
reporting the systematic review, we adhere to the widely used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA, see online appendix 1) (Liberati et al. [ 30] ). Based on our review,
we find that the literature identifies six forms of government transparency. We also find that the
literature included in our analysis identifies nine distinct goals associated with greater transparency.
However, the results of empirical assessments of the relationships between transparency and the
different goals attributed to it are often far from consistent. Based on these findings, we conclude by
outlining a future research agenda.
Methodological Approach
To our knowledge, no systematic literature reviews have examined transparency outcomes.[ 1] As a
result, we lack a structured and comprehensive accounting of research on how the public sector is using
transparency and to what effect. From a methodological standpoint, a systematic literature review is a
desirable method for providing a comprehensive overview of this area of research because of its explicit,
rigorous, and transparent procedures (Cooper [ 9] ), which, in turn, render reviews easily replicated
(Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart [ 53] ). We outline the methods that were used to identify articles
included for analysis in this study next.
In this study, three strategies were used to identify eligible articles (Cooper [ 9] ). First, we searched two
online databases: ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus. This was done to ensure that a broad spectrum of
research on transparency was included for consideration. The search terms we used were “transparency
and government,” “public sector transparency,” “administrative transparency,” and “transparent
government.” This search generated more than 3,300 studies; it was last conducted in November 2015.
Second, this broad search strategy was supplemented by a manual review of 13 journals in the fields of
public administration, public management, and e‐government and an analysis of 10 books. We
examined key journals on a journal‐by‐journal basis. To do this, we first drafted a list of journals to be
included in the analysis. We then consulted with experts on the topic of transparency to ensure that all
relevant journals that publish regularly about transparency were included while also asking them for
input on relevant studies.[ 2] They identified two more journals to be included in the review
(Information Polity and Government Information Quarterly). We received the last expert e‐mail in
October 2015. Based on the initial list of journals that was compiled, coupled with the recommendations
from experts, 13 journals were included for individual review.[ 3] The last search was conducted in
November 2015 and generated 315 possible studies for inclusion.
Third, to supplement the journal articles retrieved, we also searched Google Books for relevant
monographs on this topic using the same keywords that were used in the earlier searches. In total, 10
monographs were included; the last search was conducted in November 2015.
Eligibility Criteria
After establishing a list of eligible journals and books, we determined eligibility criteria—a key step in
conducting a systematic literature review is establishing clear eligibility criteria. The criteria were
designed to ensure that high‐quality relevant work was included.
Studies from our original searches were included in the systematic review if they met all of the following
eligibility criteria:
Topic: Abstracts or titles of articles included any of the following terms: “transparency and government,”
“public sector transparency,” “administrative transparency,” any “transparent government.” It is
important to note that the term “open government” was not included for analysis because it is generally
believed to be a broader construct reflecting various dimensions, one of which is transparency (e.g.,
Meijer, Curtin, and Hillebrandt [ 35] ; Roberts [ 50] ). For similar reasons, we also did not search for
“freedom of information act (FOIA),” “right to know,” or “access to information.” However, if a given
article included one of the aforementioned terms plus one of the designated search terms, the article
would be included for analysis. Narrowing our search in this way helped ensure that the articles included
for analysis possessed direct implications for the study of transparency. However, given the
interrelatedness of the aforementioned terms to transparency, our findings also offer indirect
implications for research into the effects of open government or freedom of information initiatives.
Study design: Theoretical and empirical studies were included in our analysis because we are interested
in rendering a comprehensive accounting of how public sector transparency is understood, what is
believed to do, and what it has been found to do. Moreover, for empirical studies, we did not
discriminate according to method of analysis: qualitative case studies were included, as were
quantitative studies. While studies that employ transparency as the dependent variable were not
screened out, given the objectives of this study, our analysis emphasizes studies that employ
transparency as an independent variable.
Publication year: Studies that were published between 1990 and 2015 were included. We chose this
broad time line to capture a wide range of transparency studies, starting from the early inception of this
area of inquiry. We acknowledge that there are some older writings that have been highly important in
our thinking about transparency (Bentham 1797; Popper [ 44] ). However, the number of studies
touching transparency as a research topic before 1990 is very scarce. We would need to exponentially
increase our time line to capture a few more studies; therefore, we decided to set the time frame of our
systematic review from 1990 through 2015.
Language: Only records written in English were eligible for incorporation.
Publication status: Only international peer‐reviewed journal articles and books from prominent
publishers in fields such as public administration or political science were eligible (i.e., Palgrave
Macmillan and Cambridge University Press).
Review Method and Coding
Following the literature search, a total of 3,678 studies were identified. To identify studies of direct
relevance, we then engaged in a selection process following the steps outlined by Liberati et al. ([ 30] ).
These steps are illustrated in figure [NaN] .
Following the PRISMA screening process, once all records were collected, the studies were screened to
identify the records that fulfilled the eligibility criteria. This was done by scanning the abstracts and titles
of records included at this stage. Articles that did not match the selection criteria were then removed, as
were duplicate studies.
In the second step, we screened studies by reading the full abstract and the full text when necessary. In
this step, studies were removed if they were deemed to fall outside the scope of the study. Following
this screening process, 187 studies (177 journal articles and 10 books) remained and were included in
the systematic review.
For each study included in the review, we developed a data extraction form to summarize articles
according to the following criteria: the author(s), publication year, title, journal, analytical method, form
of transparency addressed, and effects of transparency. Table [NaN] outlines the particular criteria in
greater detail.
Extraction Form
Category Extraction
Author, publication year, title, journal This basic information was extracted from the title page of the
article.
Methods
We used several classifications extracted from the abstract:
Theoretical or empirical
Qualitative, quantitative, experimental
Form of transparency
Based on frameworks by Heald (26), Cucciniello et al. (11), and Grimmelikhuijsen and Welch (23) we
classified three main “objects of transparency” and three main “activities of transparency”
Objects: administrative, political, budget transparency
Activities: Decision making, policy making, policy outcome
This information was extracted from the abstract or full text.
Outcomes of transparency
We used two broad classifications: effects on citizens and effects on government. Within these broad
categories we specified the effects as follows:
Effects on citizens: legitimacy, participation, trust in government, satisfaction
Effects on government: accountability, corruption, performance, decision‐making process, financial
management, collaboration between governments.
The categorization of forms of transparency requires elaboration. To determine the form of
transparency, we drew on previous transparency frameworks (Cucciniello et al. [ 11] ; Grimmelikhuijsen
and Welch [ 23] ; Heald [ 26] ). One way of looking at transparency is to apply it to a set of activities that
governments perform. Heald ([ 26] ) was one of the first scholars to think of transparency as something
that occurs as a part of separate events and processes of government. Later, this framework was
adapted to make it more suitable for empirical study by Grimmelikhuijsen and Welch ([ 23] ), who
identified three broad points at which government determines the level of transparency: ( 1)
transparency of decision‐making processes, ( 2) transparency of policy content, and ( 3) transparency of
policy outcomes or effects. This is what we classify in this study as “transparency of activities.”
A second way of classifying forms of transparency is according to the area of government (object) that it
elucidates (Cucciniello et al. [ 11] ). This method of classifying forms of transparency does not necessarily
focus on a specific activity but rather on a set of activities associated with a certain object. Cucciniello
and Nasi ([ 12] ) set out three widely investigated objects of transparency: financial or budget
transparency, administrative transparency, and political transparency. Budget transparency refers to the
disclosure of information about the financial situation of a government and outlines how public actors
use the financial resources they are allocated (building on Pina, Torres, and Royo [ 41] ). Administrative
transparency is the disclosure of information from the administration or bureaucracy pertaining to the
activities of public organizations, mission, and operations (Cucciniello et al. [ 11] ). Finally, political
transparency relates to the openness of elected bodies such as parliaments or local councils and refers
to information pertaining to political representatives (Cucciniello, Nasi, and Valotti [ 13] ).
We acknowledge that the classification used in this article (administrative, political, and budget) is not
perfect and that these “objects” of transparency are intertwined and can overlap. However, in the
literature, the distinction between administrative and political transparency has become accepted (see,
e.g., Meijer, ‘t Hart, and Worthy [ 36] ). Moreover, the reason we treat budget (or financial)
transparency separately is that there has been a vast stream of publications that have focused solely on
this type of transparency (Bastida and Benito [ 1] ; Benito and Bastida [ 3] ; Bolívar, Pérez, and López‐
Hernández 2015; Caamaño‐Alegre et al. [ 8] ; Heald [ 25] ), meaning that this well‐developed stream of
transparency literature typically treats budget transparency as something separate from the political or
administrative forms of transparency. In reality, however, financial transparency is interconnected with
both the political and administrative realms.
Financial transparency is interconnected with both the political and administrative realms.
The methods of classifying transparency (object versus activity) outlined here offer alternative
perspectives on how to systematically examine the overarching concept of government transparency,
yet they are not mutually exclusive. For instance, budget transparency may encompass various
activities, such as decision making about the budget, certain policies to improve budget balance, and the
effects of this policy. Conversely, decision‐making transparency could regard various objects, such as the
administrative, political, or financial. Although we realize that every framework requires some
arbitrariness in borderline conditions, we think these established frameworks help identify what the
literature on transparency has been focusing on and, consequently, what kinds of objects or activities
lack attention.
Coding of the studies included for analysis was carried out by each of the coauthors to ensure
agreement in the way articles were coded. The coding scheme was discussed by the authors during
several Skype calls in order to guarantee consistency in coding by way of agreeing on a common way of
coding specific categories. Specifically, having each of the authors code the articles in the analysis
ensures reliability in terms of how each study was coded according to the form of transparency
addressed, the research design that was employed, and the effect of transparency that was identified.
Results of the coding were aggregated into a single spreadsheet and discussed during regular group
meetings. In instances in which questions arose over why an article was coded a particular way, all
authors reviewed the article in question and came to a consensus on the categorization of the article.
Results of the Systematic Review
The 177 articles included in the systematic review (of 187 studies, 10 were monographs) were published
in 69 peer‐reviewed international journals. For a complete list of the journals used, please refer to
online appendix 3. The five outlets that published the most articles on the topic of government
transparency were Government Information Quarterly ( 25), International Review of Administrative
Sciences ( 13), Information Polity ( 11), Public Administration Review ( 11), and Public Administration (
10). This indicates that the main thrust of government transparency research can be found in more
generic public administration journals (International Review of Administrative Sciences, Public
Administration Review, Public Administration) and in journals that span the boundaries of informational
sciences and public administration (Government Information Quarterly, Information Polity). In the next
section, we will discuss how government transparency is defined in the body of literature.
Describing the Corpus of Literature
Definitions: Integrating Two Types of Definitions
The definitions of transparency offered by the articles included in our review can be grouped into two
categories: the first category of definitions focus on information availability and the second on the flow
of information.
In terms of articles that define transparency according to the availability of information, three particular
points of emphasis are identified. The first relates to the availability of information about decision
processes regarding budgetary matters, political issues, and general administrative procedures (e.g., de
Fine Licht 2011, 2014; Meijer, Curtin, and Hillebrandt [ 35] ; Pina, Torres, and Royo [ 41] ). The second
relates to the availability of information detailing the operational aspects of an organization (e.g.,
Tejedo‐Romero and Araújo 2015). The third relates to the availability of information discussing
government performance (Cuadrado‐Ballesteros [ 10] ; Grimmelikhuijsen and Meijer [ 21] ).
Definitions that center on the flow of information are, at their core, relational in the sense that they
consider stakeholders’ access to various types of government information (Heald [ 26] ). Accordingly,
these definitions tend to assess transparency from four perspectives: ( 1) transparency inward (when
those outside can observe what is going on inside the organization), ( 2) transparency outward (when
those inside an organization can observe what is happening outside the organization), ( 3) transparency
upward (from subordinates to superiors), and ( 4) transparency downward (from superiors to
subordinates) (Heald [ 26] , [ 27] ). All four forms of transparency can exist simultaneously; however, the
literature tends to focus on a single perspective. Moreover, while there is research employing each of
the definitional perspectives, the studies included in our analysis place a strong emphasis on the
outward observability of public organizations.
These perspectives on defining transparency are complementary in that the availability perspective
emphasizes the breadth of access to government information, whereas the flow of information
perspective takes into consideration who has access to information. Together, they help piece together
an overarching definition of transparency that explains how much information is accessible to whom.
Moreover, emphasis placed on outward transparency identified in the flow of information perspective
suggests that much of the existing government transparency research views external stakeholders (e.g.,
citizens) as the primary audience of government information. We can use the perspectives in order to
furnish a single broad definition of government transparency that accounts for both perspectives
offered in the literature: “the extent external actors are afforded access to information about the way
public organizations operate” (Porumbescu [ 46] ; see also Grimmelikhuijsen et al. [ 22] ; Meijer [ 34] ).
Transparency over Time: A Strong Rise in Three Distinct Periods of Research
Figure [NaN] reveals tremendous growth in public administration research focusing on transparency
from 1990 to 2015. Indeed, from 1990 to 2000, a total of four articles addressing the topic of
government transparency were published. This small number of articles is distributed across three
different fields of study: public administration (Heald [ 25] ), e‐government (Perritt and Rustad [ 39] ),
and international studies (Birkinshaw [ 6] ; Mitchell [ 38] ). Thus, while transparency has been a topic of
long‐standing importance to the field of public administration, prior to 2001, this topic appears to have
received very little attention from scholars. Following 2001, we see a slight uptick in articles published
on this topic followed by a dramatic increase in 2007 as the number of publications on transparency
more than tripled. Finally, a second large increase is also apparent in 2011, when the number grew from
11 articles published on the subject in 2010 to 18 in 2011 and peaking at 37 publications in 2014. The
shifts outlined in figure [NaN] delineate three distinct trends in transparency research over the 20‐year
time span examined in this study: a seminal period with a few publications spanning 1990 to 2002, a
period in which transparency research grew cautiously and formed a substantive contribution in various
fields from 2004 to 2010, and rapid growth period from 2011 to the present.
Together, these trends demonstrate a broad span of authors publishing on the topic, showing that the
waxing of transparency research is attributable to widespread interest and not just the result of a
handful of productive scholars. A final indication of the growing breadth of scholarly interest in
transparency, which coincides with the rapid rise in publications (since 2011), is the first Global
Conference on Transparency Research, which was organized by Rutgers University in Newark in 2011,
followed by conferences in Utrecht (2012), Paris (2013), and Lugano (2015). Cumulatively, these trends
illustrate a rapidly growing community of scholars interested in the topic of public sector transparency.
Geographic Context: Predominant Focus on North America and Europe
While transparency research has grown rapidly over the course of the past 25 years, it is also important
to understand which areas are receiving the most attention.
Table [NaN] illustrates the distribution of research on transparency by region between 1990 and 2015.
Nearly half of all the transparency research included in this study is concentrated in two regions: North
America and Europe. Additionally, nearly one‐third of all transparency research articles examined in this
study are cross‐national comparisons. However, many of these cross‐national comparisons tend to focus
on more developed nations (e.g., OECD nations). On the other hand, there is a considerable deficit in
transparency research focusing on international organizations, Latin American, African, and Asian
contexts.
There is a considerable deficit in transparency research focusing on international organizations, Latin
American, African, and Asian contexts.
Transparency Studies by Geographic Context
Country (Where Study Was Conducted) Number of Articles Percentage of Articles
North America 35 21%
Europe 51 31%
Asia 18 11%
Latin America 8 5%
Africa 2 1%
Cross national comparative 46 28%
International organizations 4 2%
Total 164 100%
No geographic context specified 23
The distribution of transparency research across regions that we have identified is not uncommon for
public administration (see Ritz, Brewer, and Neumann [ 48] for a similar distribution for publications on
public service motivation). The relative lack of attention paid to transparency in Latin American, African,
and Asian contexts may be explained in three ways, although the data collected for this study do not
offer direct insight into which is most likely. The first is that scholars who write about transparency in
these regions tend to publish their research in non‐English‐language academic journals, which would
result in an underrepresentation of transparency research dealing with these regions.
The second possibility is that there is a genuine lack of research on this topic pertaining to these regions.
These regions are home to a range of developing nations, meaning that the idiosyncrasies of the
administrative contexts in these regions lead scholars to focus their research efforts on other issues.
The third explanation is that there are significant barriers to conducting in‐depth research on the topic
of transparency in these regions. For example, regimes may be unwilling to open themselves up to
scrutiny of scholars, they may lack developed or stable practices and laws pertaining to transparency
that facilitate research on the topic, or there may be language hurdles that inhibit research by
individuals outside of the region. Therefore, a key challenge that accompanies this regional bias in
research on transparency is that we are unaware of the extent to which the claims and findings
identified in primarily Western contexts generalize to other contexts.
Research Methods: Balance between Qualitative and Quantitative Studies
Figure [NaN] illustrates the way the studies included for analysis have examined transparency over time.
As can be seen, there are nearly five times more empirical assessments of transparency than conceptual
analyses (157 empirical studies versus 30 conceptual). However, this empirical emphasis in transparency
research is relatively recent, with a large increase in empirical studies dealing with the topic of
transparency beginning in 2011 (50 empirical studies before 2011 versus 107 after). Given that much of
the earlier work on transparency was conceptual, it could be that these early pieces provided theoretical
grounding for the empirical work in later years. Furthermore, the conceptual and empirical strands of
research on transparency are now occurring at two distinct rates, with empirical research demonstrating
sustained growth and conceptual discussions of transparency remaining relatively stagnant over time.
Given the rate of growth in empirical studies, it is important to consider the research methods being
used. As figure [NaN] reveals, there is a balance between quantitative and qualitative studies, which is
distinct from the findings of systematic literature reviews dealing with other areas of public
administration scholarship in that they demonstrate an emphasis on either qualitative or quantitative
research (see De Vries, Bekkers, and Tummers 2015; Ritz, Brewer, and Neumann [ 48] ; Tummers et al. [
54] ; Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers [ 55] ). Also of note is the subtle trend toward the use of
experiments in transparency research, which, while not yet at the same level of use as strictly qualitative
or other quantitative methods, demonstrates promise for increasing over time.
Thus, all told, the empirical methods used to examine public sector transparency demonstrate
considerable diversity given the relative lack of attention this topic receives when compared research
areas that have received more attention. Moreover, while conceptual studies do not appear to be
increasing much over time, their presence in the literature may also indicate that there is lingering
uncertainty over what transparency is and what it should do.
Gaining Insight into Our Research Questions
Question 1: What Forms of Government Transparency Are Identified in the Literature?
Transparency is a broad term that can be used to describe the prevalence of information pertaining to
any number of aspects related to government. Because of the diversity of information that can enhance
transparency, different frameworks have been identified to specify the precise aspect of governmental
operations being examined. Here, we discuss the different forms of transparency that have been
identified in the public administration literature as well as the amount of attention that has been paid to
those different forms of transparency (see the methods section for an elaboration on this). To facilitate
this discussion, we categorize forms of transparency discussed in the literature according to the objects
of transparency and transparency of public sector activities frameworks overviewed earlier (Cucciniello
et al. [ 11] ; Grimmelikhuijsen and Welch [ 23] ; Heald [ 26] ). The activities and object classifications
offer two perspectives on how to think about government transparency. However, they are not
mutually exclusive.
Table [NaN] shows that, of the studies included in this article, 102 identify and discuss three distinct
forms of transparency: administrative transparency, political transparency, and budget transparency.
These forms of transparency fall under the objects of transparency category. Among these three forms
of public sector transparency, a great deal of attention is paid to budget transparency (47 studies)—how
public organizations use their money and measures they took to public disclose this financial
information. On the other hand, there is much less emphasis placed on administrative transparency (24
studies). This form of transparency discusses the structural features and procedures of public
organizations as well as the different functions they carry out. There have also been a number of articles
on the topic of government transparency that discuss political transparency. These studies explain
political transparency as information about elected officials, ranging from their salary to their
involvement in various decision‐making processes (Cucciniello and Nasi [ 12] ). Together, forms of
transparency grouped under the transparency of objects category typically focus on explicating
administrative processes and costs.
Forms of Transparency Identified in the Literature
Transparency Type Number Percent
Object of transparency 102 57,6%
Administrative 24 13,6%
Political 31 17,5%
Budget 47 26,6%
Transparency of activities 23 13,0%
Decision making 10 5,6%
Policy 5 2,8%
Policy outcome 8 4,5%
Unspecified/general 52 29,4%
Total 177 100,0%
1 This also includes journal articles focusing on organizational and administrative types of transparency.
2 Only journal articles are included in this part of the analysis.
Table [NaN] also reveals that an additional 23 studies included in our analysis identify three more forms
of transparency: decision‐making transparency, policy transparency, and policy‐outcome transparency.
These three forms of transparency can be placed under the transparency of activities category. Among
the studies in this category, there are very few that examine policy transparency—information that
discusses what a particular policy intends to do, how it is doing it, and why it is doing it. However, there
are twice as many studies that discuss decision‐making transparency—information about the debate
and discussions that led to the adoption of a particular policy. A total of eight studies address policy
outcome transparency, which is information that explains how successful a policy was in fulfilling its
objectives (performance). When taken together, the forms of transparency grouped under the
transparency of activities category tend to address the way transparency is impacting citizens’
relationships with their government by demonstrating to citizens the steps their government takes in
order to ensure their well‐being. An interesting observation is that, when compared with research on
the objects of transparency, there is far less attention paid to forms of transparency that fall under the
transparency of activities category.
Finally, a large proportion of studies in our analysis—nearly 30 percent—did not address a particular
form of transparency. Rather, these studies referred to transparency in a general sense. For example,
many of the e‐government studies that examined transparency broadly defined the topic, without
specifying a particular area of emphasis (e.g., Meijer [ 33] ) or explained that their focus was on how the
content on e‐government websites contributed to greater transparency (e.g., Pina, Torres, and Royo [
40] ).
Questions 2 and 3: What Outcomes Are Attributed to Government Transparency and What Does ...
The preceding sections have offered insight into methods used to examine transparency and points of
emphasis in transparency research. In this section, we provide an overview of the goals of transparency
and evaluate the extent to which previous research has found that transparency helps achieve those
goals. To facilitate this discussion, we consider the goals of transparency from two broad perspectives:
effects on citizens and effects on government. The goals of transparency and the perspective they are
assigned to are illustrated in table [NaN] .
Transparency Outcomes in the Literature
Effects on… Theoretical (%) Empirical (%) Effect
…citizens
Legitimacy 0 2 (33.3%) Positive
0 0 Negative
2 (33.3%) 2 (33.3%) Mixed
0 0 No effect
Citizen participation 0 9 (60%) Positive
0 1 (6.7%) Negative
0 2 (13.3%) Mixed
0 3 (20%) No effect
Trust in government 0 7 (38.9%) Positive
1 (5. 6%) 3 (16.6%) Negative
2 (11.1%) 4 (22.2%) Mixed
0 1 (5.6%) No effect
Satisfaction 0 4 (66%) Positive
0 0 Negative
1 (17%) 1 (17%) Mixed
0 0 No effect
Total citizens 6 39
…government
Accountability 3 (15%) 6 (30%) Positive
0 0 Negative
1 (5%) 6 (30%) Mixed
0 4 (20%) No effect
Less corruption 0 7 (100%) Positive
0 0 Negative
0 0 Mixed
0 0 No effect
Performance 1 (7.7%) 5 (38.5%) Positive
1 (7.7%) 0 Negative
2 (15.4%) 3 (23%) Mixed
0 1 (7,7%) No effect
Decision‐making process 0 0 Positive
0 1 (50%) Negative
0 1 (50%) Mixed
0 0 No effect
Financial management 0 4 (80%) Positive
0 0 Negative
1 (20%) 0 Mixed
0 0 No effect
Total government 9 38
Grand total 15 77
3 Notes: Percentages in the table are calculated based on the total number of theoretical and empirical
studies. Studies in the “mixed effect” category offer evidence of both positive and negative relationships
between transparency and a particular outcome of interest. Studies in the “negative effect” category
offer evidence of a negative relationship between transparency and an outcome of interest. Studies in
the “positive effect” category offer evidence of a positive relationship between transparency and an
outcome of interest. Finally, 58 studies focused on explaining government transparency as the
dependent variable (not included in table).
An initial observation from table [NaN] is that transparency has been tied to a broad array of goals. The
majority of the goals ( 5) fall under the government perspective and consider ways that transparency
can improve some aspect of government performance. Four citizen‐centric goals are identified. While
there is a slight disparity in the number of goals associated with the two perspectives, there are
comparable numbers of studies assessing both broad sets of goals—a total number of 45 studies look at
goals associated with citizens, whereas 47 studies look at goals associated with government.
Looking at the distribution of research assessing various goals offers additional insight into the
aforementioned research trends (see online appendix 2). Studies during the seminal period (period 1) of
transparency research typically did not explicitly focus on a particular outcome of transparency. Indeed,
from 1990 to 2002, only six studies attempted to discuss antecedents to and outcomes of more
transparency. However, in period 2, a sustained increase in interest in the determinants and outcomes
of greater transparency is readily observable. Moreover, this growth appears to be more concentrated
on government‐oriented goals than citizen‐oriented goals. Period 3 demonstrates a broadening of
research across the different goals of transparency as research on government‐oriented goals remained
steady while research on citizen‐oriented goals grew. Thus, over time, research into the effects of
transparency appears to have expanded into a number of new areas. While this study does not explicitly
account for research on the antecedents of transparency, it is also interesting to note the large growth
in research on the determinants of transparency (more than a 100 percent increase when compared
with period 1).
Empirical research that examines the success of transparency in achieving the different goals reveals a
complex picture in that there appear to be few instances where existing research is unanimous. We can
start by assessing these results across the broad citizen‐oriented and government‐oriented categories of
transparency goals (see table [NaN] ). At this level, a key observation is that there is much more
inconsistency in results across the citizen‐oriented category of transparency goals when compared with
the findings of studies grouped under the government‐oriented category of goals.
Within the government‐oriented category of goals, we find a consistent association between
transparency and corruption. Specifically, all seven studies in our assessment suggest that greater
transparency results in less corruption. Similarly, a positive relationship between transparency and
financial management is consistently supported in the empirical literature.
A positive relationship between transparency and financial management is consistently supported in the
empirical literature.
The utility of transparency in fostering greater accountability of public organizations turns back more
mixed results, with six studies identifying a positive relationship between transparency and
accountability and six studies offering mixed findings, in that transparency was successful in fostering
accountability in some domains examined within a single study but not in others. Further, four studies
found no relationship between transparency and accountability at all. In general, the lack of a consistent
relationship is attributed to the lack of cultivation of forums that permit citizens to act on the
information they are afforded (Lorenço 2015; Porumbescu [ 47] ). Taken together, it is interesting to
note the differences across findings related to corruption and accountability in that accountability is
often viewed as an intervening construct in the relationship between transparency and corruption. One
explanation for this difference is that greater transparency, at least up to a point, can actually foster
internal adjustments that result in improved organizational performance (Prat [ 45] ). Studies that assess
the link between transparency and different aspects of organizational performance do offer tentative
support, with more than half of the empirical studies finding support for a positive relationship between
performance and transparency (56 percent) and the remaining studies (44 percent) finding support in
some domains but not in others (e.g., Meijer, ’t Hart, and Worthy 2015).
Findings under the citizen‐oriented category of transparency goals, while generally positive,
demonstrate greater inconsistency across studies. This point is perhaps most salient for research that
examines the relationship between transparency and trust in government. One explanation is that there
is wide variety in how citizens view government transparency (Piotrowski and Van Ryzin [ 43] ), and this
makes the effects of transparency on citizen‐centered outcomes much more dependent on a specific
context.
It is also interesting to note that, among the studies examining the relationship between transparency
and trust in government, findings differ according to the method of analysis—experiments and case
studies tend to turn back negative or mixed findings, whereas studies drawing on survey data uncover
more positive relationships. This point extends to studies that examine the relationship between
transparency and perceptions of legitimacy as well—two experimental studies assessing this
relationship turn back mixed findings, whereas studies drawing on observational data find a positive
relationship.
The use of experiments included in our analysis primarily focus on the relationships between
transparency, trust in government, and legitimacy. Therefore, we are unable to consider whether
analytical methods are relevant to understanding variation in findings elsewhere. Findings related to the
potential of transparency to bolster citizen satisfaction and participation tend to be more consistent and
positive. With respect to satisfaction, 80 percent (4 studies) of the empirical studies examined found
evidence of a positive relationship, whereas the remaining 20 percent (1 study) turned back mixed
findings. For participation, a similar pattern is uncovered, with 60 percent of the studies ( 9) suggesting
greater transparency fosters greater participation and the remaining 40 percent falling into the mixed
(13.3 percent or 2), negative (6.7 percent or 1), or no effect (20 percent or 3) categories. As was the case
with the varied findings from studies assessing the relationship between transparency and
accountability, these differences may be attributable to forums (or lack thereof) used by citizens to
engage government.
One final note here is that the bulk of the literature included in our analysis does not attempt to match
particular forms of transparency to specific outcomes. Rather, studies attempt to link transparency,
broadly construed, to particular objectives, such as fostering greater trust, satisfaction, or
accountability. One notable exception, however, relates to budget transparency. The studies included in
our analysis assessed the implications of this form of transparency for various goals more than any other
particular form of transparency identified in the literature. One reason for this may be that the
(potential) effects of budget transparency are more readily apparent than the effects of other forms of
transparency.
Discussion
Our analysis illustrates sustained and widespread growth in research on the topic of transparency in
public administration. Factors contributing to the growth of academic interest in the topic of
transparency appear to stem from shifts in the global, national, and local environments that public
sector organizations operate within. For instance, the multilateral Open Government Partnership
launched in 2011, the Open Government Directive issued by President Barack Obama in 2009, and
enhanced transparency regulations in the European Union (Hillebrandt, Curtin, and Meijer [ 28] ) all
contributed to a push for transparency policies and eventually research.
All told, the literature reviewed in this study identified and reviewed three forms of public sector
transparency focused on a certain “object”—administrative transparency, political transparency, and
budget transparency—and three types focused on “activities”—decision‐making transparency, policy
transparency, and policy outcome transparency. Our analyses have also uncovered a range of outcomes
that are expected to result from enhancing different forms of transparency, which cluster into
government‐centric and citizen‐centric categories. However, while the studies included in our analysis
have identified distinct forms of transparency and distinct goals of transparency, the body of literature
tying particular forms of transparency to particular goals remains underdeveloped.
Our review illustrates that there are some very clear benefits of transparency, particularly when it
comes to government‐centric goals. For example, greater transparency appears to consistently improve
the quality of financial management and reduce levels of public sector corruption. On the other hand,
the relatively large number of mixed results for core transparency goals such as trust, legitimacy, and
accountability suggests that other benefits of greater transparency are less clear‐cut.
One factor that contributes to some of the variation in findings across studies is the method of analysis.
Indeed, the relationships between transparency and trust in government or legitimacy appear be
contingent on whether the study drew on observational data or experimental data. Furthermore, it is
likely that contextual conditions matter as well. In other words, under some circumstances,
transparency may positively contribute to, for instance, accountability, whereas it does not in another
situation. These contextual conditions are hardly explored in a systematic empirical manner, but our
review shows that they merit attention. Some contextual conditions that bear upon the effect of
transparency identified to date include national cultural values (Grimmelikhuijsen et al. [ 22] ), the type
of policy issue at stake (de Fine Licht 2014), the form of government (Michener [ 37] ), and the method
used to enhance transparency (Porumbescu [ 46] ). This point is strengthened by the fact that our
analysis illustrates that there were no goals that transparency consistently failed to achieve. Therefore,
debates over the merits of enhancing transparency must start, in large part, from a premise that the
effects of transparency are very much a product of the environment in which they are implemented (for
excellent illustrations, see Bauhr and Grimes [ 2] ; Lindstedt and Naurin [ 31] ). We address this point in
greater detail in the following section.
Together, the findings of this systematic literature review illustrate just how far transparency research
has come over the course of the past few decades. Whereas government transparency has historically
been proffered as a solution to the gamut of challenges that governments face, the rapidly growing
body of research on this topic is helping to qualify such claims. In doing so, this literature is gradually
piecing together a more accurate understanding of the transformative potential that accompanies
enhancements to transparency. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, this developing body of
literature draws our attention to further research that is necessary to better understand what we can do
to improve the way in which transparency is used to address various issues that are faced by the state.
To this end, while the inconsistency in findings assessed in this study may be viewed as disappointing
and a mark against the transformative potential of transparency, we argue that this variation, in large
part, helps establish a framework for a rich transparency research agenda in the years to come.
Ways Forward: Charting Transparency Research in Years to Come
The progress made to date charts a course for future research that centers on theoretical and
methodological refinement in our understanding of transparency. However, we emphasize that
although there are particular points that future research could address, the current body of
transparency literature is fairly balanced in terms of focus (about one‐third focuses on transparency as a
dependent variable, about one‐third focuses on effects on governance, and a final third focuses on
citizen effects) and methods (half qualitative, half quantitative). Here, we outline four points of
refinement to be considered by future research in order to enrich our understanding of the
transformative potential of government transparency.
More Systematically Identifying Contextual Conditions That Affect Transparency Outcomes
In terms of theoretical refinement, there have been few attempts in the extant transparency research,
both empirical and conceptual, to understand how particular forms of transparency relate to particular
objectives. Rather, transparency is often viewed as either being effective at achieving a particular goal or
ineffective. However, the effectiveness of different forms of transparency will likely vary according to
the outcome it is tasked with achieving. For example, just because one form of transparency may not be
effective at bolstering citizens’ trust in government does not mean that all forms of transparency are
ineffective at bolstering trust in government. This may partly explain the mixed findings of scholars on
transparency outcomes such as trust, legitimacy, and accountability. Moreover, variation in terms of
transparency's ability to effectuate different outcomes may also be attributed to policy domains.
Indeed, this review has also documented instances in which, for instance, the policy domain in which
transparency occurs was found to determine its effect on perceived legitimacy of decision making (de
Fine Licht 2014). To this end, the role of policy domain in framing the effects of transparency must not
be neglected in transparency research. Rather, more systematic exploration of this important contextual
condition is needed.
All told, the mechanisms responsible for lending transparency its effects remain poorly understand. As a
result, practitioners and scholars are often unable to explain why transparency may succeed in achieving
the goals ascribed to it in some situations and fall short in others. Therefore, attempts to introduce
greater precision to our understanding of how transparency affects different aspects of government and
government's relationships with citizens is essential, especially in light of how (relatively) easy it is for
governments today to publicly disseminate information. Indeed, the ease with which governments can
now publicly disseminate information makes it even more critical that future research work toward
developing a more sophisticated understanding of how to treat certain issues government experiences
with certain types of information.
Replicate Studies Using Different Methods
In terms of methodological refinement, our findings also highlight questions related to external validity
and, subsequently, speak to a need for replication studies to refine the external and internal validity of
mechanisms that have been identified in previous research using different analytical methods.
Transparency has been assessed using a variety of analytical tools, ranging from conceptual analyses, to
qualitative analyses, to quantitative analyses, and increasingly, experimental assessments. While the
assortment of methods adds a desirable dimension of analytical depth to this field of research, few have
questioned the extent to which findings identified using one analytical method will hold when assessed
using a different method. In other words, there have been few attempts to gauge external validity
through replicating across methods.
Nevertheless, as the findings of our analyses illustrate, there is some initial evidence that method effects
loom large in the study of transparency given the discrepancies uncovered between survey based
assessments and experimental assessments of the relationships between transparency and trust in
government as well as legitimacy. Furthermore, replicating across methods, and in particular
replications that draw on experimentation, also provides an opportunity to improve our understanding
of the causal mechanisms responsible for transmitting the effects of transparency. At present, there
have been few attempts at replication and thus few attempts to assess the external and internal validity
of relationships tying transparency to different outcomes of interest, which contributes to uncertainty
over just how and when transparency is effective. This uncertainty speaks to questions over just how
robust the relationship is between transparency and outcomes and generates broader concerns over
the value of transparency.
Replicate Studies across Different Administrative Contexts
Building on a need to replicate using different methods, we can also consider a need for further
refinement along a second dimension, which relates to administrative context (see Meijer, ‘t Hart, and
Worthy 2015). Replicating across various administrative contexts offers an additional means of assessing
the external validity of the mechanisms identified in previous research. Our findings illustrate a diffuse
surge in empirical research in recent years, which speaks to the fact that a growing body of authors are
now vetting claims associated with transparency. Yet, at the same time, what is not brought to bear in
the literature is how claims associated with transparency translate across distinct administrative
contexts, in terms of either location or policy domains. For instance, our analysis shows that the large
majority of publications are based on research in North America or Europe. Very few publications in our
review are located in Africa or Latin America (but see, e.g., Michener [ 37] for an analysis of
transparency in Latin America and Abe 2011 for a study on access to information and accountability in
Nigeria). As transparency outcomes are context bound, it is important that transparency practices in
these areas of the world receive scholarly attention, too. As such, just as it is important to understand
how the effects of transparency vary according to the form of transparency, it is also important to shed
light upon how they vary according to context. Doing so will contribute to more effective applications of
transparency.
Investigate Neglected Transparency Outcomes
We found that scholars have devoted attention to a broad array of transparency outcomes. This has led
to a diverse but somewhat scattered body of literature. Potential transparency outcomes such as
participation, trust in government, and accountability have received considerable attention, with more
than 10 studies in each specific area. That said, overall, we still need to know much more to really
understand the contextual and societal conditions (see previous suggestions). More precisely, however,
some outcomes have seen much less attention than other areas, and researchers have only started to
understand how these outcomes relate to transparency.
For instance, the effect of transparency on governance‐related outcomes such as decision making and
improving (financial) management have seen very little scholarly attention. An exception is a cross‐
national comparative study by Benito and Bastida ([ 3] ), who show that the more information the
budget discloses, the less the politicians can use fiscal deficits to achieve opportunistic goals, thus
improving financial management.
The same is true for citizen‐related goals such as citizen satisfaction and legitimacy. While, on one hand,
an attitude such as citizen satisfaction may somehow seem less fundamental then, say, trust in
government, on the other hand, it may be an attitude that is more malleable and thus more prone to be
influenced by government transparency. One exception here is a study by Hong (2014), who found that
perceptions of transparency (because of the use of the Internet as a source of government information)
were associated with higher levels of satisfaction and, in turn, a more favorable relationship with the
city government.
Conclusion
Taken together, the objectives of this research agenda provide further insight into ways of using
government transparency more effectively. While historically the relationship between transparency
and various dimensions of the quality of government was often assumed, further research demonstrates
that this relationship is complex and nuanced. This level of complexity and nuance has led some to
question the value of transparency and its ability to improve the quality of government (see Etzioni [ 19]
; Fukuyama [ 20] ). Despite advancing a number of important claims, such criticisms are ultimately
overstated. Transparency, like anything else, is subject to limitations and faulty application—if it is not
used correctly, it cannot work properly. Indeed, as our analysis indicates, transparency does work for
some goals under certain circumstances but not in others. Therefore, rather than questioning the value
of transparency, it makes more sense to focus on assessing where and how it works. In this systematic
literature review, we provide an analysis of just how transparency is currently studied and, based on this
analysis, outline steps that future research can take to improve the way transparency is understood and
used.
Rather than questioning the value of transparency, it makes more sense to focus on assessing where
and how it works.
Acknowledgments
Gregory A. Porumbescu's work was supported by National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded
by the Korean Government (NRF‐2014S1A3A2044898). Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen acknowledges funding
of an NWO (Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research) grant (no. VENI‐451‐15‐024) that
investigates various effects of transparency. The authors consulted a number of experts on the topic of
transparency in order to ensure that all relevant journals in the field of public administration, public
management and e‐government were included. They would like to thank these experts specifically:
David Heald, Frank Bannister, Alasdair Roberts, Albert Meijer, Suzanne Piotrowski, Jenny De Fine Licht,
Jean Patrick Villeneuve and Greta Nasi for their suggestions. Furthermore, they would would like to
thank Albert Meijer and Lars Tummers for their feedback on an earlier version of this paper.
Footnotes
1 There have been related systematic analyses of open government (e.g., Meijer, Curtin, and Hillebrandt
35; Wirtz and Birkmeyer 57), although this construct, while related, is much broader than transparency
As a result, reviews of open government typically aim to conceptualize open government and are less
focused on the outcomes/effects of open government.
2 Although the experts provided a great number of relevant studies, all of the recommended studies
were eventually included based on our own literature search. This gave us confidence that we used the
correct search strategy and search terms.
3 These were the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Public Administration Review,
Public Administration, Public Management Review, American Review of Public Administration,
International Public Management Journal, International Review of Administrative Sciences, International
Journal of Public Administration, Administration & Society, Governance, Policy and Internet, Information
Polity, and Government Information Quarterly.
References
* Bastida, Francisco, and Bernardino Benito. 2007. Central Government Budget Practices and
Transparency: An International Comparison. Public Administration 85 ( 3 ): 667 – 716.
* Bauhr, Monika, and Marcia Grimes. 2014. Indignation or Resignation: The Implications of Transparency
for Societal Accountability. Governance 27 ( 2 ): 291 – 320.
* Benito, Bernardino, and Francisco Bastida. 2009. Budget Transparency, Fiscal Performance, and
Political Turnout: An International Approach. Public Administration Review 69 ( 3 ): 403 – 17.
4 Bentham, Jeremy. 1797. Farming Defended. In Writings on the Poor Laws, edited by Michael Quinn,
276–90. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press, 2001.
5 * Bertot, John C., Paul T. Jaeger, and Justin M. Grimes. 2010. Using ICTs to Create a Culture of
Transparency: E‐Government and Social Media as Openness and Anti‐Corruption Tools for Societies.
Government Information Quarterly 27 ( 3 ): 264 – 71.
6 Birkinshaw, Patrick. 1997. Freedom of Information and Open Government: The European
Community/Union Dimension. Government Information Quarterly 14 ( 1 ): 27 – 49.
7 *Bolívar, Manuel Pedro Rodríguez, María del Carmen Caba Pérez, and Antonio M. López‐Hernández.
2015. Online Budget Transparency in OECD Member Countries and Administrative Culture.
Administration & Society 47 ( 8 ): 943 – 82.
8 * Caamaño‐Alegre, José, Santiago Lago‐Peñas, Francisco Reyes‐Santias, and Aurora Santiago‐Boubeta.
2013. Budget Transparency in Local Governments: An Empirical Analysis. Local Government Studies 39 (
2 ): 182 – 207.
9 Cooper, Harris. 2010. Research Synthesis and Meta‐Analysis : A Step‐by‐Step Approach. Los Angeles :
Sage Publications.
10 * Cuadrado‐Ballesteros, Beatriz. 2014. The Impact of Functional Decentralization and Externalization
on Local Government Transparency. Government Information Quarterly 31 ( 2 ): 265 – 77.
11 * Cucciniello, Maria, Nicola Bellè, Greta Nasi, and Giovanni Valotti. 2014. Assessing Public Preferences
and the Level of Transparency in Government Using an Exploratory Approach. Social Science Computer
Review 33 ( 5 ): 571 – 86.
12 * Cucciniello, Maria, and Greta Nasi. 2014. Transparency for Trust in Government: How Effective Is
Formal Transparency? International Journal of Public Administration 37 ( 13 ): 911 – 21.
13 Cucciniello, Maria, Greta Nasi, and Giavanni Valotti. 2012. Assessing Transparency in Government:
Rhetoric, Reality and Desire. Paper presented at the 45th Hawaii International Conference on Systems
Science. Los Alamitos, CA.
14 *de Fine Licht, Jenny. 2011. Do We Really Want to Know? The Potentially Negative Effect of
Transparency in Decision Making on Perceived Legitimacy. Scandinavian Political Studies 34 ( 3 ): 183 –
201.
15 *de Fine Licht, Jenny. 2014. Policy Area as a Potential Moderator of Transparency Effects: An
Experiment. Public Administration Review 74 ( 3 ): 361 – 71.
16 *de Fine Licht, Jenny, Daniel Naurin, Peter Esaiasson, and Mikael Gilljam. 2014. When Does
Transparency Generate Legitimacy? Experimenting on a Context‐Bound Relationship. Governance 27 ( 1
): 111 – 34.
17 De Vries, Hanna, Victor Bekkers, and Lars Tummers. 2015. Innovation in the Public Sector: A
Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda. Public Administration 94 ( 1 ): 146 – 66.
18 Etzioni, Amitai. 2010. Is Transparency the Best Disinfectant? Journal of Political Philosophy 18 ( 4 ):
389 – 404.
19 Etzioni, Amitai. 2014. The Limits of Transparency. Public Administration Review 74 ( 6 ): 687 – 88.
20 Fukuyama, Francis. 2015. Why Is Democracy Performing So Poorly? Journal of Democracy 26 ( 1 ): 11
– 20.
21 * Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan G., and Albert J. Meijer. 2014. Effects of Transparency on the Perceived
Trustworthiness of a Government Organization: Evidence from an Online Experiment. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 24 ( 1 ): 137 – 57.
22 * Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan G., Gregory Porumbescu, Boram Hong, and Tobin Im. 2013. The Effect
of Transparency on Trust in Government: A Cross‐National Comparative Experiment. Public
Administration Review 73 ( 4 ): 575 – 86.
23 * Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan G., and Eric W. Welch. 2012. Developing and Testing a Theoretical
Framework for Computer‐Mediated Transparency of Local Governments. Public Administration Review
72 ( 4 ): 562 – 71.
24 * Grumet, Jason. 2014. City of Rivals : Restoring the Glorious Mess of American Democracy. Guilford,
CT : Globe Pequot Press.
25 * Heald, David. 1995. Steering Public Expenditure with Defective Maps. Public Administration 73 ( 2 ):
213 – 40.
26 * Heald, David. 2006. Varieties of Transparency. In Transparency : The Key to Better Governance?
edited by Christopher Hood, and David Heald, 25 – 43. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.
27 * Heald, David. 2012. Why Is Transparency about Public Expenditure So Elusive? International Review
of Administrative Sciences 78 ( 1 ): 30 – 49.
28 Hillebrandt, Maarten Z., Deirdre Curtin, and Albert J. Meijer. 2014. Transparency in the EU Council of
Ministers: An Institutional Analysis. European Law Journal 20 ( 1 ): 1 – 20.
29 Kosack, Stephen, and Archon Fung. 2014. Does Transparency Improve Governance? Annual Review of
Political Science 17 : 65 – 87.
30 Liberati, Alessandro, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Cynthia Mulrow, Peter C. Gøtzsche, John P.
A. Ioannidis, Mike Clarke, P. J. Devereaux, Jos Kleijnen, and David Moher. 2009. The PRISMA Statement
for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions:
Explanation and Elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine 151 ( 4 ): W‐65–94.
31 Lindstedt, Catharina, and Daniel Naurin. 2010. Transparency Is Not Enough: Making Transparency
Effective in Reducing Corruption. International Political Science Review 31 ( 3 ): 301 – 22.
32 * Lourenço, Rui Pedro. 2015. An Analysis of Open Government Portals: A Perspective of Transparency
for Accountability. Government Information Quarterly 32 ( 3 ): 323 – 32.
33 * Meijer, Albert J. 2009. Understanding Modern Transparency. International Review of
Administrative Sciences 75 ( 2 ): 255 – 69.
34 *Meijer, Albert J. 2013. Understanding the Complex Dynamics of Transparency. Public Administration
Review 73 ( 3 ): 429 – 39.
35 * Meijer, Albert J., Deirdre Curtin, and Maarten Hillebrandt. 2012. Open Government: Connecting
Vision and Voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences 78 ( 1 ): 10 – 29.
36 * Meijer, Albert J., Paul ‘t Hart, and Benjamin Worthy. 2015. Assessing Government Transparency: An
Interpretive Framework. Administration & Society. Published electronically on August 19.
doi:10.1177/0095399715598341.
37 Michener, Greg. 2015. How Cabinet Size and Legislative Control Shape the Strength of Transparency
Laws. Governance 28 ( 1 ): 77 – 94.
38 * Mitchell, Ronald B. 1998. Sources of Transparency: Information Systems in International Regimes.
International Studies Quarterly 42 ( 1 ): 109 – 30.
39 * Perritt, Henry H., and Zachary Rustad. 2000. Freedom of Information Spreads to Europe.
Government Information Quarterly 17 ( 4 ): 403 – 17.
40 * Pina, Vicente, Lourdes Torres, and Sonia Royo. 2009. E‐Government Evolution in EU Local
Governments: A Comparative Perspective. Online Information Review 33 ( 6 ): 1137 – 68.
41 * Pina, Vicente, Lourdes Torres, and Sonia Royo. 2010. Is E‐Government Promoting Convergence
towards More Accountable Local Governments? International Public Management Journal 13 ( 4 ): 350 –
80.
42 * Piotrowski, Suzanne J. 2008. Governmental Transparency in the Path of Administrative Reform.
Albany : State University of New York Press.
43 Piotrowski, Suzanne J., and Gregg G. Van Ryzin. 2007. Citizen Attitudes toward Transparency in Local
Government. American Review of Public Administration 37 ( 3 ): 306 – 23.
44 Popper, Karl Raimund. 1945. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London : Routledge.
45 Prat, Andrea. 2005. The Wrong Kind of Transparency. American Economic Review 95 ( 3 ): 862 – 77.
46 * Porumbescu, Gregory. 2015a. Does Transparency Improve Citizens’ Perceptions of Government
Performance? Evidence From Seoul, South Korea. Administration & Society. Published electronically on
July 6. doi:10.1177/0095399715593314.
47 * Porumbescu, Gregory. 2015b. Linking Transparency to Trust in Government and Voice. American
Review of Public Administration. Published electronically on October 5.
doi:10.1177/0275074015607301.
48 Ritz, Adrian, Gene A. Brewer, and Oliver Neumann. 2016. Public Service Motivation: A Systematic
Literature Review and Outlook. Public Administration Review 76 ( 3 ): 414 – 26.
49 * Roberts, Alasdair. 2006. Blacked Out : Government Secrecy in the Information Age. New York :
Cambridge University Press.
50 * Roberts, Alasdair. 2012. WikiLeaks: The Illusion of Transparency. International Review of
Administrative Sciences 78 ( 1 ): 116 – 33.
51 * Roberts, Alasdair. 2015. Too Much Transparency? How Critics of Openness Misunderstand
Administrative Development. Paper prepared for the Fourth Global Conference on Transparency
Research, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland, June 4–6.
52 * Tejedo‐Romero, Francisca, and Joaquim Filipe Ferraz Esteves de Araújo. 2015. Determinants of
Local Governments’ Transparency in Times of Crisis: Evidence from Municipality‐Level Panel Data.
Administration & Society. Published electronically on September 29. doi:10.1177/0095399715607288.
53 Tranfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. Towards a Methodology for Developing
Evidence‐Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of
Management 14 ( 3 ): 207 – 22.
54 Tummers, Lars L. G., Victor Bekkers, Evelien Vink, and Michael Musheno. 2015. Coping during Public
Service Delivery: A Conceptualization and Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 25 ( 4 ): 1099 – 1126.
55 Voorberg, William, Victor Bekkers, and Lars Tummers. 2014. A Systematic Review of Co‐Creation and
Co‐Production: Embarking on the Social Innovation Journey. Public Management Review 17 ( 9 ): 1333 –
57.
56 * Welch, Eric W., Charles C. Hinnant, and M. Jae Moon. 2005. Linking Citizen Satisfaction with E‐
Government and Trust in Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15 ( 39 ):
371 – 91.
57 Wirtz, Bernd W., and Steven Birkmeyer. 2015. Open Government: Origin, Development, and
Conceptual Perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration 38 ( 5 ): 381 – 96.
58 Worthy, Ben. 2010. More Open but Not More Trusted? The Effect of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 on the United Kingdom Central Government. Governance 23 ( 4 ): 561 – 82.
Graph: PRISMA Flowchart for Database Searches and Retaining Studies
Graph: Transparency Research, 1990–2015
Graph: Analytical Methods Used in Transparency Research by Year
Graph: Types of Empirical Studies by Year
Graph: Appendix S1. PRISMA CHECKLIST
~~~~~~~~
By Maria Cucciniello; Gregory A. Porumbescu and Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen
Maria Cucciniello is assistant professor in the Department of Policy Analysis and Public Management at
Bocconi University in Milan, Italy. She holds a PhD in management from the University of Edinburgh,
United Kingdom. Her research focuses on transparency in government, innovation in the public and
health care sectors, coproduction of public services, and the impact of technology on the public and
health care sectors. E‐mail:
Gregory A. Porumbescu is assistant professor in the Department of Public Administration at Northern
Illinois University. His research focuses on public sector transparency, e‐government, and citizen
perceptions of government. His work has appeared in journals such as Public Administration Review,
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, and American Review of Public Administration. E‐
mail:
Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen is assistant professor in the Utrecht School of Governance of Utrecht
University, The Netherlands. He is interested in public sector and court transparency, citizen attitudes,
legitimacy, behavioral public administration, and experimental methodology. His work has appeared in
journals such as Public Administration, Public Administration Review, and Journal of Public
Administration, Research and Theory. E‐mail:
