Realizing the Vision of Open Government Data (Long Version): Opportunities, Challenges and Pitfalls

8/3/2019 Realizing the Vision of Open Government Data (Long Version): Opportunities, Challenges and Pitfalls

1/35


2/35

Abstract

Actively promoted by a broad spectrum of stakeholders, the Open Government Data movement is gaining

considerable traction, illustrated by the rapid proliferation of initiatives worldwide. While the preponderance of

early experiments emerged in advanced economies, developing countries are increasingly optimistic about

proactively releasing public sector information to achieve a multitude of policy goals. However, to what extent

is Open Government Data replicable in developing countries, and what factors must be addressed if it is to be acatalytic change agent rather than mere development fad? Structured in four sections, this paper provides a

literature review of the Open Government Data movement to date, critically assessing its transferability todeveloping countries and identifying challenges and limitations that will determine its relative social impact.The first section examines the philosophy, drivers and history of Open Government Data. The second section

analyzes the modes of public sector information release featured in developed countries, assessing the validity

of underlying assumptions regarding supply and demand when applied to developing countries. The third andfourth sections illuminate factors contributing to the success or failure of public sector information initiatives,

drawing upon the cumulative experience of e-government, ICT penetration, institutional reform as well as Open

Government Data initiatives to inform future efforts.


3/35

Introduction

Since 2009, a wave of governments, primarily in North America and Europe but including notable examples in

middle income and developing countries, have launched Open Government Data (OGD) initiatives to

proactively release public sector information via online data catalogues. OGD proponents extol its potential to

achieve a broad spectrum of public policy goals, including: enhanced economic growth, improved transparency

and accountability, more efficient and effective provision of public services, as well as strengthened citizenparticipation in governance. Developing country leaders, international donors and civil society are increasingly

promoting OGD as essential to good governance and growth. The successive launches of the World BanksOpen Data Initiative, the international Open Government Partnership, and Kenyas Open Data portal areemblematic of this enthusiasm. Despite its appeal, the emergent Open Government Data movement evidences

problematic assumptions that may relegate it to development fad rather than catalytic change agent, if ignored.

After decades of investment to alleviate poverty and improve governance in developing countries with mixed

results, it is understandable why the international community and developing countries want to view Open

Government Data as a catalyst to remedy persistent problems. Poor governance is chronic in many countries as

citizens suffer under dysfunctional institutions, endemic corruption and the abdication of their governments in

the provision of public goods and services. Despite exceptional economic growth in countries such as China andIndia, persistent inequities prevail both between and within middle and lower-income countries. Finally, the

limited voice and rights of citizens in many states leave them with little recourse to fight political and economicrepression or productively contest the failure of their governments to fulfill their duties.

This search for a definitive solution is combined with opportunism seeking to exploit two recent developmentsfor improved governance and growth: the unprecedented proliferation of information communication

technologies (ICTs) and a ground-swell of grassroots movements organizing themselves through social media

to demand political reform and improved public services. Middle-income and developing countries have beenadopting new ICTs, predominantly mobile phones, with impressive speed, drastically increasing the

connectedness of citizens to information. The Arab Spring, a series of demonstrations and uprisings of

young people throughout the Middle East, was also instructive in awakening the world to the disruptivepotential of social media to create internal pressure for reform.

4

Despite this confluence of promising events, the extent of Open Government Datas impact and its

transferability to middle income and developing countries must be assessed on the validity of its assumptions.Implicit in the OGD concept, are predictions regarding the demand and supply of public sector information. The

OGD movement assumes that the public has the will and capacity to use open government data to achieve social

and commercial value. However, this rosy scenario ignores stark realities of digital exclusion, low informationcapabilities and constrained civic space that characterize many developing countries. The OGD movement also

assumes that governments can be convinced to mandate release of public sector information and that, once

agreed, they have the endogenous capacity to implement such an initiative. However, this disregards enervating

influences of patronage networks, corruption and low civil service capabilities that characterize somedeveloping country contexts. Finally, advocates generally assume that the models of OGD release featured in

developed countries will seamlessly translate into functional modalities in the developing world, irrespective of

differences in environmental conditions and the relative capacities of key societal actors.

It is the contention of this paper, that if the Open Government Data movement is to achieve its aspirations,

potentially flawed assumptions must be exposed and intentionally remedied. To this end, this paper begins bychronicling the philosophy, drivers and history of the Open Government Data movement. The second part

critically assesses the transferability of OGD concepts and modes of release in middle income and developing

countries. Finally, the third and fourth parts of the paper identify underlying challenges and limitations of theOGD movement to inform future efforts.

4 Artwell Dlamini. Arab Spring is a Game-changer in the Corruption Fight. Business Live. May 9, 2011. http://www.businesslive.co.za/incoming/2011/05/09/arab-

spring-is-game-changer-in-corruption-fight.


4/35

Part 1: Philosophy, History and Drivers of Open Government Data

The Open Government Data movement rose to prominence in 2008 with the codification of eight core

principles calling for the release of government data that is: complete, primary, timely, accessible, machine-

processable, non-discriminatory, non-proprietary and license free.5 The movement gained momentum quickly,

attracting influential, high-level champions in the US and UK, as well as grassroots support from civil society

groups. Subsequent to the US and UK launches, more than 100 OGD initiatives have proliferated around theglobe at city, state and national levels.6 Documenting the evolution of the Open Government Data movement to

date is a useful starting point for considering the extent of its impact and potential for replication.

1.1. Defining Open Government Data

As a movement still in its formative stages, Open Government Data does not have one universally agreed upon

definition, with advocates stressing different points. A frequently cited definition comes from the Open

Knowledge Foundation and articulates the ethos of OGD as the ability for anyone to use, reuse and redistribute[a piece of content or data] subject only to the requirement to attribute and share-alike.7 Three foci are

commonly highlighted in the literature on Open Government Data:

A focus on government: Public bureaucracies generate considerable information as a result of theiractivities, including: budgets, plans, reports, social statistics, etc. OGD recognizes the social value ofthis information to provide insight into the priorities, efficiency and effectiveness of government, as well

as its commercial value as fuel for innovators to develop new products and services. 8

A focus on openness: Citizens have a legitimate interest in, and can make productive use of, governmentinformation for the benefit of themselves and society, at large. Therefore, OGD asserts that allgovernment information should be accessible and usable by everyone.9

A focus on data: Citizens can use government information in its finished10 form, as well as repurposingunderlying or raw data in new forms. OGD uniquely emphasizes that governments should proactively

disclose both their final information products, as well as the datasets undergirding them.11

1.2. Paradigm Shifts Inherent in the Concept of Open Government Data

The Open Government Data movement embodies a paradigm shift that effectively re-conceptualizes therelationship between a government and its citizens.12 OGD involves a realignment of power dynamics as the

public sector relinquishes its role as information gatekeeper in lieu of a new role as information publisher.13

The concept of a gatekeeper state originated with African historian Frederick Cooper to describe the tight

control of natural resources exerted by colonial and post-colonial governments intent on using them to maintain

their power base.14 In the era of OGD, information (or data) is a new resource form that governments seek tocontrol. The premise of OGD controverts the idea of proprietary government ownership of its information,

outlining a revised role for government as publisher of information upon which the public should proffer its

own representations and interpretations.15 This involves a significant reorientation of expectations regarding a

governments obligations to its citizens explored below.

5 Open Government Data Working Group, 8 Principles of Open Government Data, last modified December 8, 2007. http://www.opengovdata.org/home/8principles.6 Fundacion CTIC, Public Dataset Catalogs Faceted Browser, (Open Data @ CTIC Sandbox to CTIC, 2011),

http://datos.fundacionctic.org/sandbox/catalog/faceted/.7 Open Knowledge Definition, accessed July 8, 2011, http://www.opendefinition.org/.8 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access: Open Government Data and the Right to (Re)use Public Information (2011), 7,

http://www.access-info.org/documents/Access_Docs/Advancing/Beyond_Access_7_January_2011_web.pdf.9 Ibid.10 Finished form in this instance refers to government information that has been interpreted to some degree such as through visualization or aggregation; whereas raw

data implies minimal or no interpretation.11 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 5.12 Tim Davies, Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform, (MSc diss, University of Oxford, 2010), 16, http://practicalparticipation.co.uk/odi/report/wp-

content/uploads/2010/08/How-is-open-government-data-being-used-in-practice.pdf.13 Tim Davies, Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform, 5.14 Frederick Cooper, Africa Since 1940: The Past of the Present: New Approaches to African History. Cambridge University Press. New York, NY. 2002., 5.15 Tim Davies, Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform, 5.


5/35

First, OGD implies changing the default assumption regarding public information so that the prevailing norm isthat the data available to the public is complete, rather than selective, and withholding information is the

exception rather than the rule. While it is desirable for all government data to be open, certain exceptions can be

mediated through the use of a public interest test to prevent disclosure of information that would abrogateindividual privacy rights or endanger national security.16

Second, OGD necessitates a shift from making information available in response to a specific request, known asreactive disclosure, to preemptively releasing information, commonly referred to as proactive disclosure.17

OGD is interested in catalyzing proactive disclosure of as much government information as possible to

maximize social and commercial value through its timely dissemination and adaptation.18

Third, OGD requires more than accessibility in theory, but also in practice, measured by its usability. There are

two dimensions of accessibility essential to the OGD ethos. If open government data is to be usable, citizens

must easily find it. This raises issues of discoverability and the need for searchable, public interfaces thatcatalogue and present datasets in a coherent manner to interested users.19 Furthermore, once citizens have

discovered information of interest, they should be able to obtain the data in forms that facilitate its use with

minimal barriers. Common considerations include the use of open file formats as opposed to proprietaryplatforms, as well as file types that are machine-readable;20 enabling automated processing of the data.21 An

additional dimension of accessibility is that it is non-discriminatory and available to all without retribution.22

Fourth, central to OGD is the idea that citizens should be able to use and reuse23

data through sharing it in itsoriginal form and/or create new forms with minimal limitations.24 OGD emphasizes that while finished or

aggregated information is of value, governments should also make available the most raw or unadulterated

forms of primary data possible, with minimal aggregation to facilitate maximum creative usage.25 Removal ofuser-fees and use of creative commons licenses are helpful to facilitating reuse of OGD, however, these are best

practices rather than agreed upon standards.26 The existence of machine-readable formats dictates the extent towhich data can be manipulated, used and reused.

1.3. Motivational Drivers of Open Government Data

Although the preponderance27 of government data catalogues launched to date are from OECD countries,28 the

emergence of Open Government Data initiatives in countries such as Moldova, Timor-Leste and Kenya

demonstrate widespread interest in its potential, irrespective of income group or region. Motivational driversencouraging the propagation of OGD are numerous and, at times, provoke conflict between factions within the

movement as to which should be prioritized.29 Beth Noveck, a US official involved with OGD, characterized

this ideological tension as pitting good government reformers against open government data innovatorswith the former emphasizing accountability and the later emphasizing collaboration.30 Despite the unresolved

debate,31 four notable OGD drivers can be identified, including: transparency and accountability, economic

growth and innovation, inclusive participation and government efficiency.

16 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 74.17 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 69.18 Ibid.19 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 8.20 PDF is an example of a file format that is not machine-readable, however, is used frequently for the digitization of paper records.21 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 9.22 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 69.23 Reuse implies that the data is used in a different way than its original form, such as through the use of mash-ups with other datasets to create new information.24 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 9.25 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 31.26 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 46.27 According to the data.gov, out of 21 international OGD portals launched as of July 2011, only 6 were from non-OECD countries: Hong Kong (China), Kenya,

Moldova, Morocco, Singapore and Timor-Leste.28 Data.gov. Open Data Sites. Accessed July 12, 2011. http://www.data.gov/opendatasites#mapanchor.29 Vadym Pyrozhenko, Implementing Open Government: Exploring the Ideological Links between Open Government and the Free and Open Source Software

Movement (paper presented at the 11

th

Annual Public Management Research Conference at Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, 2011), 3,http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/conferences/pmrc/Files/Pyrozhenko_Implementing_Open_Government.pdf.30 Pyrozhenko, Implementing Open Government, 4.31 Ibid.


6/35

1.3.1. Transparency and Accountability

It has been well documented that lack of transparency encourages corruption and inefficiency. Institutional

reform scholar, Robert Klitgaard effectively sums up the challenge with the statement, corruption equals

monopoly plus discretion minus accountability.32 Open Government Data represents a radical shift from a

government culture concerned with security, turf33

and proprietary information to one of transparency where the

default has become unlimited access. Many OGD advocates emphasize its spotlight effect in removing the veilof secrecy enshrouding the public sectors activities, thus facilitating greater scrutiny through reduced

monopoly of information.34 Going beyond transparency, OGD is promoted as an essential ingredient inachieving a stronger feedback loop of accountability.35 Citizens were previously seen as passive, producers orcontributors of data, whereas OGD redefines the role of citizens as active, consumers of data.36 With open

access to government data, individuals and groups can better evaluate public sector performance and advocate

for improved service delivery.

1.3.2. Economic Growth and Innovation

Stressing thesocial and commercial value of government data, some Open Government Data proponents are

motivated by the collaborative potential for entrepreneurial individuals, private sector and civil society

organizations to innovate off the data as a platform37 for new services and public goods.38 These innovationsmay fuel economic growth through increased business opportunities or leverage crowd-sourcing to remedy

persistent social problems.39 This argument has been prominent in OGDs ascendance in middle income anddeveloping countries, exemplified by Kenyas linkage of OGD with its economic growth strategy and bolstering

the expansion of the ICT sector.40 Considering vast challenges faced by these countries, integration of OGD

within a broader government strategy with visible development benefits enhances its popularity.

1.3.3. Inclusive participation

Open Government Data asserts an expanded interest of citizens; not only in what government does, but also inthe data it produces. Proponents of OGD emphasize its potential to redress information asymmetries between

government and the public, which hampers inclusive participation in the civic space.

41

The emphasis oninclusion also implies an interest in bolstering the ability of all segments of society to influence public sector

officials, circumventing exclusive influence loops of patronage networks and lobbying by elites. OGD is

promoted for its democratizing effect, facilitating a more civically literate public able to contributemeaningfully to national dialogue on government priorities and policies.42 Open government data is seen as

enhancing citizens capacity to engage in three mechanisms: formal political participation such as voting in

democratic contexts, collaborative planning and budgeting, and market participation of citizens as

consumers of public goods.43

1.3.4. Government efficiency

Connected with efforts tied into digitizing government44 or e-government, some advocates have promoted

the ability of Open Government Data initiatives to catalyze greater government efficiency through improved

32 Robert Klitgaard. Three Levels of Fighting Corruption. Remarks to the Carter Center Conference on Transparency for Growth in the Americas. May 3, 1999.http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1193.html.33 Francis Fukuyama,. State Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century. 2004: Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY, 53.34 Davies, Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform, 5 and 36.35 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 80.36 Glover Wright et al., Open Government Data Study: India, (Open Society Foundation, 2011), 14, http://www.transparency-initiative.org/reports/open-government-

data-study-india.37 Pyrozhenko, Implementing Open Government, 14.38 Noor Hujiboom and Tijs Van den Broek. Open Data: An International Comparison of Strategies,European Journal of e-Practice 12 (2011), 4,http://www.epractice.eu/files/European%20Journal%20epractice%20Volume%2012_1.pdf.39 Ibid40 Ndemo, Bitange. Freeing Kenyas Data. Presentation at the World Bank Institute, Washington, DC, July 13, 2011.

http://www.livestream.com/worldbankafrica/video?clipId=pla_8dc3cbce-cf6e-4345-91bb-ffeda3a2720f&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb.41

Davies, Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform, 36.42 Hujiboom and Van den Broek, Open Data: An International Comparison, 5.43 Davies, Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform, 33.44 Davies, Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform, 37.


7/35


8/35

movement.58

Recognizing the mutually reinforcing potential, the 2011 International Conference of InformationCommissioners passed a resolution promoting Open Data principles as desirable for governments in fulfilling

their ATI commitments.59

Good governance serves as a second influential movement for Open Government Data, particularly in its foci of

transparency, citizen participation, and feedback loops.

60

E-democracy

61

and e-government

62

can be seen as amore recent manifestations featuring use of digital technologies to achieve good governance goals such asimproved service delivery and responsiveness to citizen feedback.63 OGD has, at times, been explicitly included

as a priority within a comprehensive e-Government strategy using information communication technologies

(ICTs) to disseminate information and encourage citizen participation;64 however, it is equally possible that

OGD occurs later, or not at all.65

The Free and Open-Source Software Movement (FOSSM) has informed Open Government Data from its

inception through the present day.66 The concept of a hack as an innovative technical solution,67 the belief infree information, the civic-mindedness of the hacker community68 and the emphasis on citizen

collaboration,69 all originated in the early days of FOSSM and are now prominent in OGD. The disruptive

potential of ICTs has also informed OGD with its potential for technological leap-frogging

70

and as amechanism for the inexpensive release and application of data at scale.71

1.5. Open Government Data Distinctive Attributes

Although substantively informed by Access to Information, good governance and the Free and Open-Source

Software, the Open Government Data movement is distinctive in its collective emphases on: (1) norms ratherthan rights; (2) disclosure for social and commercial value rather than responsiveness to citizen claims; (3) raw

data rather than interpreted information; and (4) information in formats facilitating re-use and interpretation.

While the ability to use and reuse government data implies a right to do so, unlike Freedom of Information

(FOI) or Access to Information initiatives, Open Government Data is concerned with actual practice mediated

by normative frameworks rather than formal legislative frameworks.72

This distinction means that OGD cantheoretically bypass the prolonged negotiations with recalcitrant legislative bodies that ATI campaigns have to

navigate.73 However, while governments may view selective disclosure under OGD as relatively innocuous, as

citizen demand grows and information is reused in new ways, this calculus may shift, with OGD becoming

more controversial than at first glance.74

OGD has also provoked criticism from rights advocates concerned that

58 Freedominfo.org. Info Commissioners Approve Resolution on Transparency, October 5, 2011, http://www.freedominfo.org/2011/10/info-commissioners-approve-resolution-on-transparency/59 Ibid.60 Hujiboom and Van den Broek, Open Data: An International Comparison, 2.61 Per Harrison et all, e-democracy is focused on the application of the Internet and ICTs to amplify the political voice of ordinary citizens in political processes.Teresa M. Harrison, Santiago Guerrero, Brian G. Burke, Meghan Cook, Anthony Cresswell, Natalie Helbig, Jana Hrdinova and Theresa Pardo. Open Government and

E-Government: Democratic Challenges from a Public Value Perspective, 2. Center for Technology in Government U/Albany. Paper prepared for the 12th AnnualInternational Digital Government Research Conference, June 12-15, 2011, College Park, MD, USA, 2011.62 Per Harrison et all, e-government focuses on the use of technology to enhance the quality and cost-effectiveness of routine activities undertaken by public

organizations. Harrison et all, Open Governemnt and E-Government, 2.63 Alexander Schellong and Ekaterina Stepanets, Unchartered Waters: The State of Open Data in Europe, (CSC: 2011), 1.http://assets1.csc.com/de/downloads/CSC_policy_paper_series_01_2011_unchartered_waters_state_of_open_data_europe_English_2.pdf64 Schellong and Stepanets, Unchartered Waters, 18.65 Wright et al., Open Government Data Study: India, 7.66 Pyrozhenko, Implementing Open Government, 23.67 Pyrozhenko, Implementing Open Government, 17.68 Pyrozhenko, Implementing Open Government, 18.69 Pyrozhenko, Implementing Open Government, 24.70 Wright et al., Open Government Data Study: India, 39.71

Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 11.72 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 8.73 Becky Hogge, Open Data Study (Open Society Foundation: 2011), 22.74 Marcos Mendiburu. Interview by Samantha Custer. In-person and email. Washington, DC. August 16 and September 19, 2011.


9/35

its lack of emphasis on legal rights allows governments to hide behind promises to release more data,75

without codifying their duty to respond to citizens requests for information.76

Open Government Data encourages disclosure of information primarily for its commercial and social value,rather than as a legally obligated responsiveness to citizen claims. Despite its eschewing of legislative

guarantees, it has been argued that an Open Data initiative could stimulate greater demand for information,thereby mobilizing public pressure for better access [to information] regimes.77 Although ATI disclosureprovisions do not specify reusable formats,78 OGD is one vehicle that governments might use to fulfill their

disclosure obligations.79

Transparency and governance oriented movements alike emphasize the importance of citizen awarenessregarding the activities of their governments. However, the public sector information often in focus in these

dialogues are finished products such as budgets, plans, reports, expenditures, policies, etc. While Open

Government Data expects that all these finished products should be available to the public, it goes a step furtherin calling also for the release of raw or un-interpreted datasets that can be shared and used in new ways.

Open Government Data emphasizes the release of public information in formats facilitating re-use andinterpretation to a greater degree than previous movements. The interpretative function of third-party

intermediaries such as civil society organizations or private sector enterprises gains additional prominence in

assisting citizens in making meaning from raw public datasets.80

1.6. Open Government Data for Social Accountability

A critical contention of Open Government Data is that the proactive release of public sector information will

lead to improved governance, increasing the social accountability of government bureaucracies to their citizens.

Accountability implies81 the existence of a social contract82 between a central authority and the public, in

which citizens relinquish certain natural rights in return for protection or public goods provided by their

government. It is upon the integrity and validity of this social contract that the legitimacy of the modern staterelies.83 The normative construct of accountability has been defined both narrowly, specifically to the idea of

giving account for ones actions84 in the use and allocation of public resources,85 as well as broadly including

notions of responsibility, fairness, integrity and transparency.86 The relevant actors in view within

accountability have expanded from a circumscribed emphasis on individual citizens and their interactions withthe state to an expansive conception of a collective civil society87 capable of coordinated action.88 Social

accountability, therefore, amplifies the effect of traditional, internal mechanisms of accountability within the

government with the added voice of civil society.89

Open Government Data, in increasing the transparency of public sector information, theoretically reducesinformation asymmetries for citizens and civic groups, strengthening their ability to monitor the performance of

75 Freedominfo.org. Views on Open Data Contrast During ICIC Sessions, October 6, 2011, http://www.freedominfo.org/2011/10/views-on-open-data-contrast-during-

icic-sessions/76 Becky Hogge, Open Data Study (Open Society Foundation: 2011), 21-22.77 Freedominfo.org. Views on Open Data Contrast During ICIC Sessions78 Mendiburu. Interview. In-person and email.79 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 11.80 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 79.81 D. Miller, J. Coleman, W. Connolly and A. Ryan, eds., The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought. (Blackwell Publishing: 1991), 478.82 See John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Immanuel Kant (1650-1800)83 Miller, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, 279.84 M. Bovens, Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework.European Law Journal, Vol. 13, Issue 4 (2007): 450.85 Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific,A Manual for Trainers of Social Accountability (Manila, Philippines: ANSA-EAP, 2010),

10.86 R. Mulgan,Holding Power to Account: Accountability in Modern Democracies. New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2003, ?.87

E. Peruzzotti, The Workings of Social Accountability: Context and Conditions. Paper prepared for the Workshop Generating Genuine Demand with SocialAccountability Mechanisms, Paris World Bank Office, November 1-2, 2007 Paris, 3-4.88 Ibid89 Peruzzotti, The Workings of Social Accountability, 4.


10/35

public officials, contest policies or demand action. However, while open government and freedom ofinformation are helpful inputs90 to social accountability such as through enabling evidence-based advocacy,91

transparency does not automatically produce scrutiny and therefore is insufficient.92 If Open Government Data

is to realize its claims of improved accountability, policy makers and advocates must substantively address thecapacity of citizens and civic groups to: confidently navigate the data and its underlying systems; and

meaningfully engage with their governments to plan and negotiate change.

93

The Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific (ANSA-EAP) identifies four

catalytic ingredients for social accountability to flourish: organized and capable citizens groups; responsivegovernment; access to and effective use of information; and sensitivity to culture and context.94 The presence of

these ingredients within a society cannot be taken for granted, and yet they are only minimally addressed in the

rhetoric of the Open Government Data movement to date. The stakes are much higher in countries wherecitizens have only limited capacity or civic space to organize themselves and demand good governance from

their governments.

Part 2: Transferability of Open Government Data to Developing CountriesActively promoted by international donors, transnational civil society and governments, Open Government Datainitiatives are proliferating worldwide at a rapid pace. While the first wave of OGD initiatives were

predominately from higher-income OECD countries, the next wave is likely to include a far greater number of

lower and middle income countries than previously, evidenced by those countries that have announcedimminent launches of official government data portals or open data policies.95 This phenomenon provokes

questions regarding the transferability of modalities from Open Government Datas first wave into developing

country contexts with drastically different capacities of societal actors and environmental conditions.

2.1. The Next OGD Frontier96

: Open Government Data for Development?

Open Government Data has garnered considerable interest as a means to achieve a wide array of public policy

goals, including: improved transparency and accountability enhanced economic growth, more efficient andeffective provision of public services, as well as strengthened citizen participation in governance. If developing

countries could harness the full benefits of an OGD initiative to realize the degree of positive change that itpromises, then it would be transformative indeed in improving governance, alleviating multi-dimensional

poverty and strengthening civic engagement by all segments of society. However, the extent of Open

Government Datas impact and its transferability must be assessed on the validity of its assumptions regardingsupply, demand and default models of OGD release applied to middle income and developing countries.

2.2. Models of OGD Release: Limitations of Transfer and Diffusion

Most nascent Open Government Data initiatives, regardless of the relative level of development of the country

involved, frequently cite the US and UK as the examples they want to emulate.97 In this respect, the modalities

used by the US and UK to catalyze and implement their OGD initiatives have become the default model forthe release of public sector information worldwide. This ill-advised perspective has been reinforced by OGD

advocates promoting a transfer and diffusion98 approach to OGD that assumes the universal applicability of

90 Bovens, Analysing and Assessing Accountability, 453.91 Department for Communities and Local Government,Decentralisation and the Localism Bill: an essential guide (London: Crown Copyright), 17.92 Bovens, Analysing and Assessing Accountability, 453.93 Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific,A Manual for Trainers of Social Accountability, 53.94 Ibid.95 Please refer to Annexes 1 and 2 for more information.96 Aman Grewal and Carlos de la Fuente. The Next OGD Frontier: Low and Middle Income Countries. Open Knowledge Foundation Blog. Posted March 22, 2011 by

Jonathan Gray.97 This assertion is based on the authors review of public statements made by governments announcing an Open Data initiative and/or describing the purposes of

launching an online data catalogue, a significant number of which singled out the US and UK initiatives as models.98 Christianthi Avgerou articulates transfer and diffusion as an approach to ICT innovation in developing countries as a process of diffusion of

knowledgetransferred from advanced economies and adapted to the conditions of a developing country. This concept has been extended here for use in the context

of OGD.


11/35

the models used in advanced economies regardless of significant contextual differences in less developedcountries.99 Implicit in this model of OGD release, are predictions regarding the demand and supply of public

sector information. The OGD movement assumes that the public has the will and capacity to use open

government data to achieve social and commercial value. The OGD movement also assumes that governmentscan be convinced to mandate release of public sector information and that, once agreed, they have the

endogenous capacity to implement such an initiative.

2.2.1. Three Actor Groups Working in Tandem

Analyzing the evolution of US and UK initiatives, Becky Hogge identified three actor groups as instrumental tothe success of Open Government Data: top-level political leaders, mid-level government bureaucrats and civil

society.100 Private sector organizations, in stressing the economic benefits of OGD, have also been influential in

furthering initiatives in developed countries.

Political leaders acted as high-level change agents, providing the political will and mandate to overcome the

inertia of entrenched bureaucratic silos and secrecy that could inhibit the release of government data. These

leaders forged effective partnerships with technocratic champions to garner further credibility for the initiative

with the public and galvanize sustained progress101

within their government bureaucracies.Mid-level bureaucrats were a primary supply-side102 driver of Open Government Data based on their

willingness and capacity to release datasets for public use. In many OGD initiatives, top-level mandates wereinstituted to convince mid-level officials that they would be rewarded and not reprimanded for making their

information available103 and tangible examples of productive third party use of the data further smoothed the

way by converting new mid-level OGD champions.104

Civil society was a critical demand-side105 driver of OGD. Civic hackers created new applications featuring

government data to provide new public services or goods. Traditional civil society organizations (CSOs) werekey intermediaries assuming both interpretative and communicative functions in helping citizens understand

the implications of data pertaining to various issues.106

The private sector also contributed to demand, advocating for the OGDs release to generate commercial

value107 and producing applications to repurpose government data. Better-resourced and institutionalized than

civic hackers, ICT companies supported the development of advanced features, data-mashups and

visualizations using OGD.108

2.2.2. Mature versus Uneven Endogenous Demand for Open Government Data

Open Government Data initiatives in developed countries have operated under certain assumptions regarding

the ease of mobilizing endogenous demand at both an institutional and individual level.

The OGD model, to date, has presupposed well-developed grassroots institutions in the form of civil society

organizations and private sector ICT companies that serve as intermediaries to help citizens make sense ofgovernment data and as innovators to develop new public goods and services. In developed country contexts, it

is not unreasonable to presume the existence of a mature civil society and private sector capable of massing

99 Chrisanthi Avgerou. Discourse on ICT and development. Information technologies and international development, 6 (3). 1-18. 2010. SC Annenberg School forCommunication and Journalism. LSE Research Online April 2011. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35564, 4.100 Hogge, Open Data Study, 7.101 Hogge, Open Data Study, 4-5.102 Greg Michener and Katherine Bersch. Conceptualizing the Quality of Transparency. Paper prepared for the 1st Global Conference on Transparency. RutgersUniversity. Newark: NJ. May 17-20, 2011, 13.103 Hogge, Open Data Study, 16.104 Hogge, Open Data Study, 13.105 Michener and Bersch. Conceptualizing the Quality of Transparency, 13.106

Oren Perez. (2009). Complexity, Information Overload and Online Deliberation. Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 2009; Bar Ilan Univ. PubLaw Working Paper No. 10-09. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1031510, 18.107 Pyrozhenko, Implementing Open Government, 34.108 Robinson et all, Government Data and the Invisible Hand, 9-10.


12/35

adequate human capital to advocate for the release of government data and to use it to generate new social andcommercial value once available.

At an individual level, the model assumes a high threshold of digital inclusion and information capabilities 109for citizens to meaningfully participate in, and benefit from, OGD initiatives. Information capabilities goes

beyond access, asserting that the biggest predictor of an individuals ability to benefit from ICTs is theircapability to exert agency in using their livelihood resources, including access to information, to achieve thethings they value doing or being in society.110 Given relatively high levels of ICT penetration and human

capital investment, it may be reasonable to take digital inclusion and information capabilities as a given in

developed country contexts.

Implicit in the concept of endogenous demand and the experience of developed countries has been the existence

of adequate civic space for individuals and groups to mobilize themselves in representative institutions and use

OGD to engage with their governments on issues of importance to them. Many of the OGD initiatives to datehave occurred within the context of democratic systems of government that provide natural mechanisms and

protections for citizens to use government information.

In contrast to the experience of developed countries, endogenous demand for Open Government Data in

developing countries may be weak or uneven due to low digital inclusion and information capabilities among

citizens, as well as limited organizational capacity and accountability for third parties. This raises questions

regarding the efficacy of applying the default model of Open Government Data release in these contexts.

Poor countries and fragile states frequently have less well-developed civil societies either due to limited

resources or restrictive policies than developed country counterparts, hampering citizen capacity to mobilizeand demand reform.111 Less developed markets and the absence of linkages among civic hackers further limits

demand for OGD. Francis Fukuyama has cited insufficient domestic demand forinstitutional reform as thesingle most important obstacle to institutional development in poor countries.112 It is foolhardy to assume that

the realities of insufficient demand do not apply in the context of OGD, and yet the default model views matureendogenous demand driven by the publics desire for government accountability or efficiency as a given.

Middle income and developing countries are leap-frogging legacy technologies and adopting new ICTs withincreasing speed, providing some justification for the view that this is an exceptional opportunity for the

provision of OGD via electronic mediums. While the potential is significant, the reality in many developing

countries is that a fraction of the population, primarily urban elites, has the opportunity to make effective

use113

of these technologies.114

This divergence has been coined the digital divide,115

seen as a form of socialexclusion.116 Launching an OGD initiative could create a data divide, exacerbating inequities.117

The role of intermediaries gains significance as fewer citizens are connected to the digital world, which is thecase in many middle income and developing countries.118 This raises a policy question regarding how to ensure

109 Bjrn-Sren Gigler has operationalized Amartya Sens original concept of human capabilities within the context of ICTs as information capabilities. Gigler notes

four components of informational capabilities pertaining to a persons capability (i) to use ICTs effectively; (ii) to find, process, evaluate, and use information; (iii) toeffectively communicate with others; and (iv) to produce and share local content through the network. Bjrn-Sren Gigler. Informational Capabilities The Missing

Link for the Impact of ICT on Development. Working Paper Series No. 1. E-Transform Knowledge Platform Working Paper. The World Bank. March 2011, 10.110 Gigler. Informational Capabilities, 10.111 Fukuyama, State Building, 30.112 Fukuyama, State Building, 30.113 Gurstein, Michael. Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or Effective Data Use for Everyone? Posted September 2, 2010. Gursteins Community Informatics.

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered-or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/.114 Please refer to Annex 3 for more information on disparities of digital inclusion between and within countries.115 Avgerou. Discourse on ICT and development, 3.116 Shirin Madon,, Nicolau Reinhard, Dewald Roode and Geoff Walsham. Digital Inclusion Projects in Developing Countries: Processes of Institutionalization,2.

Paper presented to the 9th International Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries, So Paulo, Brazil. May 2007.

http://www.ifipwg94.org.br/fullpapers/R0040-1.pdf.117

Gurstein, Michael. A Data Divide? Data Haves and Have Nots and Open (Government) Data. Posted July 11, 2011. Gursteins Community Informatics.http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/a-data-divide-data-%E2%80%9Chaves%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Chave-nots%E2%80%9D-and-open-government-

data/.118 United Nations E-Government Survey 2010. Chapter One: Stimulus Funds, Transparency and Public Trust, 19.


13/35

that existing third party actors use public sector information in a manner that is productive for society and notexploitative of those that do not enjoy commensurate opportunities due to digital exclusion or limited

information capabilities.119 The public domain ideal120 of third party groups using OGD to create social and

commercial value for society could unintentionally strengthen rent-seeking groups121 that asymmetricallyexploit freely accessible information,122 benefiting the interests of some at the expense of others.

2.2.3. Latent versus Constrained Capacity to Supply Open Government Data

Open Government Data initiatives in developed countries have also operated under certain assumptionsregarding the ease of capitalizing on the latent capacity of the public sector to supply OGD, both in terms ofincentives and civil service competence.

As producers of public sector information, mid-level government bureaucrats were crucial to efforts to movefrom well-intentioned OGD policies to action in developed countries. However, as previously discussed

(section 1.2), bureaucrats often view information asymmetries as a source of power and leverage to pursue their

own interests.123 The OGD model presumes the will and capacity of political leaders to address the underlying

incentives of civil servants in this extension of the classic principal-agent dilemma of public administration.124

Consistent with public choice theory, governments that effectively use internal checks and balances toincrease transparency and align incentives of the bureaucracy with appropriate rewards and punishments

increase the likelihood that civil servants will facilitate rather than hinder momentum for OGD.125

The publicsectors commitment to undertake such reforms is highly variable depending on the extent to which politicians

must be responsive to election cycles or other forms of public pressure.

The OGD model assumes that if incentives are aligned, government bureaucracies have the necessary human

and technological resources to fulfill their OGD obligations with minimal intervention. Releasing public sector

information via online data catalogues requires civil servants to process information in electronic form,implying the need for sufficient information capabilities, access to hardware and software, and supporting IT

infrastructure. In developed countries with professional civil service bureaucracies drawn from a well-educated

populace, this assumption may be reasonable.

In contrast, the will and capacity of developing country governments to supply Open Government Data may be

constrained by enervating influences at all levels including: corruption, patronage networks, limited civil

service capabilities and unaccountable politicians immune to electoral pressure. This raises questions regardingwhether the default model of OGD release featured in developed country examples is still feasible.

Any initiative that seeks to remove a source of power from vested interests produces winners and losers 126,and an Open Government Data initiative is not an exception. In many developing country governments, high-

level leaders use the promise of public sector jobs to satiate political opponents and mobilize support from

interest groups. This, in turn, leads to a bloated civil service that may be over populated, under qualified and

beholden to patronage networks. These conditions create perverse incentives for civil servants or entire regimesto manipulate information, militate against the loss of a lucrative source of revenue or otherwise dissemble to

avoid increasing public scrutiny of their performance.127

In contrast to developed countries, there is also considerable deviation in the technological savvy and

information capabilities of civil servants in middle income and developing countries. Computers and digitized

119 Ibid.120 Anupam Chander and Madhavi Sunder. The Romance of the Public Domain. California Law Review. Volume 92 (2004): 1332.121 Fukuyama, State Building, 30.122 Chander and Sunder. The Romance of the Public Domain. 1368.123 Hogge, Open Data Study, 15.124

Fukuyama, State Building, 47-49.125 Fukuyama, State Building, 50.126 Fukuyama, State Building, 33.127 Michener and Bersch. Conceptualizing the Quality of Transparency, 3


14/35

files are recent developments in some government bureaucracies, therefore familiarity with technology is notalways a given. Low levels of human capital development among some civil service bureaucracies have a

constraining effect on their ability to collect, manipulate and interpret information with a high degree of quality.

2.2.4. Minimalist or Variable Role of Government in Open Government Data

There has been divergent thought on the appropriate role of government versus the private sector in OpenGovernment Data. Some advocates urge private sector led development and a minimalist role of government in

providing the raw data.128 Other advocates believe that there is benefit to governments assuming a moresubstantial role to intentionally encourage innovation and use of public sector information. In the default modelof OGD exemplified by developed countries, the prevailing norm has been a circumscribed role of government

primarily limited to publishing datasets, rather than directly developing applications for interpreting data. 129

Some governments have augmented this with instigating collaboration and co-production of services featuringOGD with the private sector such as through sponsoring competitions.

Implicit in the minimalist role of government advocated in developed countries models of OGD release, is an

assumption that the society has the other ingredients it needs to make meaningful use of OGD, including: viable

third parties, high degrees of digital inclusion and information capabilities among society at large, etc. Whilethese assumptions may be justified in developed country contexts, the daunting infrastructure and human capital

challenges in middle income and developing countries may require different models for OGD to gain sufficienttraction to be transformative.130 The optimal allocation of responsibilities between government, the private

sector and civil society likely depends on the relative strengths and weaknesses of these actor groups in a

particular context.

2.3. Exogenous Demand and Supply: Unique to Developing Countries

The default model of Open Government Data practiced in developed countries features supply and demand

almost exclusively arising from endogenous forces such as reformist politicians, competent bureaucrats,empowered citizens and mobilized civil society. However, as discussed previously, internal OGD momentum

may be severely hampered in developing country contexts, either from under-developed demand orunwillingness to supply. This prompts the question of whether it is possible to compensate for constrainedendogenous supply and demand with external forces.

2.3.1. International Donors and Conditionalities

One such exogenous force unique to the experience of middle income and developing countries is the role ofdonors as a potential catalytic actor for OGD. Donors can indirectly influence developing countries through

releasing their own data, such as the World Banks Open Data Initiative,131 or directly tie development

assistance to progress on OGD, effectively creating a new form of governance conditionality.132 The use of

donor-driven conditionalities in development has been controversial and their effectiveness highly variable.Regardless of the mixed record of tying aid to particular policies or actions, broadly speaking there is consensus

that conditionalities are most successful in bringing about the desired result if they are used to bolster, rather

than replace, fledgling endogenous demand for reform.133 For example, donor requirements that countries makeprogress on releasing their public sector information could provide much needed leverage to reform-minded

technocrats or nascent civil society seeking to mobilize support for controversial OGD initiatives.

Another catalytic role for international donors is to document lessons learned from OGD experiences worldwide

and to provide technical assistance to developing countries seeking to unleash the transformative potential of

OGD to achieve progress in a variety of policy areas. Donors could provide a much needed bridging function in

128 Robinson et all, Government Data and the Invisible Hand, 1.129 Hogge, Open Data Study, 14.130

United Nations E-Government Survey 2010. Chapter One, 18.131 Hogge, Open Data Study, 35.132 Hogge, Open Data Study, 37.133 Fukuyama, State Building, 36.


15/35

working with developing country leaders to identify models of OGD release that are conducive to the particularcontextual realities of developing countries.

2.3.2. Externally Induced Supply: Peer Pressure and Demonstration Effect

Small-scale pilots and sub-national experiments predated national initiatives in many developed country

examples, providing proof of concept for political leaders and advocates to mobilize support. In developingcountries there is considerable opportunity for OGD innovation at a state, district or city government level.

Private sector or civil society organizations publishing their own data or limited government data can also sparkcross-border initiatives such as Indias Reserve Bank134 releasing datasets on the Indian economy latermimicked by the Bank of Thailand.135

Subsequent countries embarking on OGD initiatives can learn both from early adopters and current OGDefforts in middle income and developing countries, providing the opportunity for South-South learning. Kenyas

leaders are aware of their ability to influence neighboring countries within the East African Community with

their OGD initiative.136 Countries in other regional groupings could do the same, unleashing the next wave of

OGD worldwide.

2.4. Form vs. Substance: Realizing the Potential of Open Government Data for Development

Writing on the concept of the public domain, Anupam Chander and Madhavi Sunder have rightly exposed thedangerous myth of the commons as the great equalizer and provider of benefits to all without harm.137

Exploitative use of freely accessible information from land titling138 to patenting of indigenous knowledge139

lends credence to the claim that the ability of citizens or groups to benefit from resources in the public domainis highly correlated to their relative capabilities to harness their livelihood resources to realize their goals.140

This can lead to widely divergent results in the context of developing countries already rife with socio-

economic inequalities.141

The prospect of Open Government Data in middle income and developing countries has several potential

outcomes depending on how it is conceptualized and implemented. OGD could be a largely benign force, morehype than substance, neither catalyzing significant improvements nor causing undue harm. Alternatively, OGDcould be a potentially destructive force, providing an additional tool for entrenched elites to exploit

informational resources to their own ends at the expense of the less empowered. Or, OGD could live up to its

transformative potential and facilitate equitable economic growth, inclusive participation of all segments ofsociety and more accountable and efficient governance. Intentional investment in bolstering endogenous

demand and supply for Open Government Data through improving digital inclusion and expanding information

capabilities of citizens could make a tangible difference in their derived benefit from OGD.142

Part 3: Limitations and Challenges Influencing Open Government Data Take-Off and

Institutionalization

With developed and developing countries seeking to launch Open Government Data at an unprecedented rate,identifying the factors contributing to the relative success or failure of these initiatives is increasingly

imperative. However, as most OGD initiatives are still in their infancy, assessing their social impact and

progress is difficult. Considering the experience of e-government to date and anecdotal lessons learned from thetwo earliest OGD initiatives in the US and UK are the best benchmarks that can be used for analysis. The

134 Wright et al., Open Government Data Study: India, 23.135 Wright et al., Open Government Data Study: India, 24.136 Bitange Ndemo. Freeing Kenyas Data.137 Chander and Sunder. The Romance of the Public Domain. 1331.138 Chander and Sunder. The Romance of the Public Domain. 1346.139

Chander and Sunder. The Romance of the Public Domain. 1348.140 Chander and Sunder. The Romance of the Public Domain. 1331.141 Chander and Sunder. The Romance of the Public Domain, 1354.142 Gigler. Informational Capabilities, 19.


16/35

release of public sector information is arguably an extension, or sub-set, of e-government as a service or goodprovided to the public through an electronic medium, creating similar dynamics to that of OGD. As articulated

in section two, most new OGD initiatives are explicitly seeking to emulate the US and UK examples, thereby

making those experiences particularly instructive.

Regardless of the model of release utilized, it is helpful for analysis to compartmentalize an OGD initiative intotwo stages: initial take-off and sustained institutionalization. Take off of OGD in this context considers

factors pertinent to the initial launch or deployment of Open Government Data. Institutionalization, as usedhere, implies addressing challenges pertaining to the scope, impact and implementation of OGD that will

influence its sustained progress in the long-term. Constrained resources and governance characteristic of many

developing countries exacerbates the difficulty of overcoming limitations and challenges influencing the take-off and institutionalization of Open Government Data. However, developed countries, while potentially better

resourced, are not immune. Irrespective of a countrys means, policy makers must successfully address

obstacles to both the take-off and institutionalization of OGD to realize its transformative potential.

3.1. Cultivating an Enabling Environment for Open Government Data Take Off

Four environmental factors have the ability to bolster or retard the initial take-off of an Open Government Datainitiative, including: (1) legislative and regulatory frameworks; (2) national information infrastructure and

policies; (3) government legitimacy and civic space; and (4) organizational culture and norms of thebureaucracy. The extent to which governments successfully leverage these factors to cultivate an enabling

environment will inject considerable momentum into OGD initiatives, whereas if not sufficiently addressed they

can constitute a significant limitation.

3.1.1. Conducive Legislative and Regulatory Frameworks

Even though Open Government Data primarily focuses on actual practice rather than legislative frameworks,

obligations arising from existing legislation can help or hinder OGD take-off. Well-developed legislative andregulatory frameworks in areas including: individual privacy, access to information (ATI), and intellectual

property can reduce transaction costs for private sector or civil society actors to reuse OGD. 143 Conversely,insufficient clarity and inconsistent enforcement inhibits both OGD demand and supply.

Privacy laws seek to balance protection of individual personal information and anonymity with societal goals of

increased transparency. Lack of standards in this area can inhibit the availability of valuable public sectorinformation such as census data or household surveys as agencies are uncertain of what is acceptable to share.

Conversely, established privacy laws could overemphasize individual privacy concerns to the extent that it is

problematic for government agencies to release information. For example, the publics concern over potential

breaches of confidentiality and anonymity with publishing of personal information has been identified as alimiting force in the US implementation of open government144 as well as in encouraging citizen use of e-

government services.145 Governments face a challenge of striving to achieve equilibrium in ensuring protection

of individual privacy with clear and transparent standards, while preventing overly restrictive legislation frombecoming an impediment to the release of public sector information.146

143 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access: Open Government Data and the Right to (Re)use Public Information (2011), 7,

http://www.access-info.org/documents/Access_Docs/Advancing/Beyond_Access_7_January_2011_web.pdf., 38.144 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Challenges to Utilizing Open Government Data. Accessed August 17, 2011.http://portal.hud.gov:80/hudportal/HUD?src=/open/plan/challenges.145 Valentina (Dardha) Ndou, E-Government for Developing Countries: Opportunities and Challenges.Electronic Journal on Information Systems in DevelopingCountries, (2004): 20.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.12

7.9483%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=e-government%20for%20developing%20countries&ei=S0JETtfSNM3pgAeE9_neCQ&usg=AFQjCNEkpvikREuH3-ZUjgvh1en1Zs_y3w.146 Subhajit Basu, E-Government and Developing Countries: An Overview,International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, Volume 18, Issue 1 (2004):

123. doi: 10.1080/13600860410001674779.


17/35

Access to information legislation enshrines the right of citizens to request information and delineates thepublic sectors duty to proactively disclose certain basic categories of information.147 While the introduction

and enforcement of ATI legislation is not a guarantee or an essential prerequisite of an Open Data initiative,

ATI laws create a culture of greater transparency and recognition that information belongs to the public. 148This, in turn, reduces the ability of governments to obfuscate and validates the claims of citizens to public sector

information. Similarly, while governments may fulfill their proactive disclosure obligations without an OGDinitiative, countries with existing ATI enforcement bodies such as Chile, Mexico and India are exploringpotentially beneficial linkages.149

An OGD initiatives long-term viability tenuously relies on adherence to principles and administrative

directives which are difficult to enforce and may be overturned by successive political regimes.150

In contrast,ATI initiatives, in regulating the legal obligations of a government through international covenants and

domestic laws, increases capacity for enforcement.151 Governments seeking to lock in reforms for future

generations and remedy a potential liability stemming from OGDs voluntary nature would benefit frompursuing legislation that embodies OGD principles. This may either be developed as an expansion of an existing

ATI regime, or as a complement to it.

Intellectual property legislation, including articles pertaining to copyright and patent, seek to delineate

acceptable use and reuse of materials, both proprietary and in the public domain. When intellectual property

legislation clearly permits the use and reuse of public sector information with minimal barriers, it can be a

substantial boon to the use of OGD as it has been for e-government initiatives.152

However, in the absence oftransparent intellectual property standards, third party actors become unwilling to invest in developing new

applications around government data, concerned that they may face fines, retribution or appropriation of their

work. Furthermore, intellectual property legislation that treats public sector information as proprietary andapplies significant restrictions will have deleterious effect on its usage by third parties.

Developed countries generally have well-established frameworks and enforcement mechanisms on issues of

privacy, intellectual property and copyright, facilitating the reuse of public sector information. Conversely,many middle income and developing countries are still in the process of developing such legislation, potentially

undercutting an OGD initiatives success.

3.1.2. Sufficient National Information Infrastructure and Policies

The technological backbone of an Open Government Data initiative is the national information

infrastructure153 that serves as a common and integrated architecture framework facilitating data exchange

between government agencies and with the public.154 This concept includes several components:telecommunications infrastructure to manage increased Internet and phone traffic,155 seamless connections

between front-end web interfaces and back-end information management systems,156 interoperability of systems

between agencies or at different levels of government157 and adequate availability of hardware and software

within government bureaucracies. Without a strong national information infrastructure, both supply anddemand of OGD suffers.

147 Mendiburu. Interview. In-person and email.148 Ibid.149 Ibid.150 Ibid.151 Ibid.152 Basu, E-government and Developing Countries, 129.153 Y.N. Chen, H.M. Chen, W. Huang and R.K.H. Ching. Research Note on E-Government Strategies in Developed and Developing Countries: An Implementation

Framework and Case Study.Journalof Global Information Management, Vol. 14, Issue 1 (2006): 26,http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan028242.pdf.154 Zakareya Ebrahim and Zahir Irani. E-government Adoption: Architecture and Barriers,Business Process Management Journal Vol. 11, Issue 5. (2005): 591, doi:

10.1108/14637150510619902.155 Chen et all, Research Note on E-Government Strategies, 591.156Ebrahim and Irani, E-government Adoption, 592 and 594.157 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 18.


18/35

While most early Open Government Data initiatives launched data catalogues on the foundation of expansivetelecommunications and information infrastructure, this is not the reality in many middle income and

developing country contexts.158 Even in developed countries existing information infrastructure may be

insufficient, serving as a limiting force. Inadequate information technology infrastructure within governmentagencies charged with implementing OGD has been a limiting factor in the US159 and the relative success of e-

government initiatives has been cited as directly proportional to the existence of requisite informationtechnology infrastructure.160 If government bureaucracies are unable to remedy insufficient Internet bandwidthor lack hardware and software to easily post information in a variety of formats, they will be hampered in

releasing public sector information to the detriment of an OGD initiative.

Beyond technical infrastructure, the prospect of Open Government Data gives rise to a tsunami161

of newpolicy issues from provenance and records management guidelines to standards governing interoperability of

information systems.162 The presence of a national information policy can reduce transaction costs for

government officials charged with releasing public sector information through the articulation of a definedmandate and transparent standards ensuring consistent implementation. Absence of a policy delineating how

agencies should manage various implementation issues pertinent to OGD perpetuates fragmented efforts and

impedes progress.

163

In developing countries, information policies necessarily must deal with a broader set ofissues including strategies for encouraging ICT proliferation and expanding information capabilities of citizens

to make use of OGD.164

3.1.3. Government Legitimacy165

and Public Trust

Open Government Data is built upon the premise of productive two-way interaction between a government andits citizens, achieved through the publishing of public sector information that is then used by individuals or their

intermediaries to contest public policies or otherwise create new social and commercial value. This concept

necessitates a degree of trust166 between the parties that the information provided by the government is truthfuland accurate and that citizen use of the information will not result in recriminations from the authorities.

Public confidence in the veracity of government-published information is critical to Open Government Datatake-off, essential to spurring demand and use of public datasets.167 However, the existence of perverse

incentives encouraging civil servants or entire regimes to manipulate data168 negatively impacts the acceptance

and use of public sector information. Similarly, lack of confidence in the quality of government data stemming

from concerns regarding limited data collection capacity or lax standards, inhibits its extensive use.169

The perceived ability of citizens to safely interpret and share public sector information for innovation or

contestation of government policies also has a substantial effect on the take-off of an OGD initiative. 170 Withoutadequate social protections in place, use and reuse of OGD will be significantly reduced. Lack of trust is of

particular concern in transitional or fragile states where public perceptions of the legitimacy and/or competence

of civil servants are low171 and it must be remedied if an OGD initiative is to have a chance of success.

158 Chen et all, Research Note on E-Government Strategies, 26.159 Gwanhoo Lee and Young Hoon Kwak. An Open Government Implementation Model: Moving to Increased Public Engagement. Using Technology Series. IBMCenter for the Business of Government, 2011. 26.160 Basu, E-government and Developing Countries, 117.161 Richard Best, Stephen Walker, Trevor Smallwood, Sanjeev Bhagowalia, Sanjeev Bhagowalia, and David L. McClure. International Open Government Data

Leaders - Top Ten Issues and Lessons Learned, 9. Plenary Session Presentation to the International Open Government Data Conference, November 17, 2010.http://semanticommunity.info/@api/deki/files/1870/=iogdc2010_day3_plenary_3pm.pdf.162 Best et all. International Open Government Data Leaders - Top Ten Issues and Lessons Learned, 15.163Ebrahim and Irani, E-government adoption, 605.164 Gohar Feroz Khan, Junghoon Moon, Cheul Rhee and Jae Jeung Rho. E-government Skills Identification and Development: Toward a Stage-Based User-CentricApproach for Developing Countries.Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 20, Issue 1 (2010): 8, http://apjis.or.kr/pdf/MIS020-001-1.pdf.165 Basu, E-government and Developing Countries, 120.166 Basu, E-government and Developing Countries, 113.167 Basu, E-government and Developing Countries, 112.168

Michener and Bersch. Conceptualizing the Quality of Transparency, 2.169 Hogge, Open Data Study, 47.170 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 69.171 Ndou, E-Government for Developing Countries: Opportunities and Challenges. 15.


19/35

3.1.4. Organizational Culture and Norms of the Bureaucracy

Open Government Data necessitates a reorientation in the relationship between a government and its citizens, as

well as between internal units of the bureaucracy itself. While enacting a stroke-of-the-pen reform172 that

mandates OGD is relatively easy, radically altering the underlying norms and culture of the government

bureaucracy to effectively implement OGD is an arduous undertaking.173

The organizational culture of bureaucracies have evolved over time, becoming entrenched as the informal rules

governing the status quo, and embody the potential to facilitate or hamper new initiatives such as Open

Government Data.174 For OGD to take-off, civil servants must navigate a cultural shift from specialized

bureaucracies to networked intelligence.175

This necessitates embracing values of openness, externalorientation and inter-agency coordination,176 which militates against default norms of secrecy, inward

orientation and silos often characteristic of bureaucracies.177

The default norm of secrecy can arise from a historical concerns regarding confidentiality or security, as well as

from fear of failure or loss of face if performance is seen to be lackluster. This can manifest in the arguments

that releasing Open Government Data may be dangerous if the public misinterprets the information or its

release jeopardizes personnel or programs.178

Within complex organizations division of labor and specializationare warranted, however, this can often manifest in dysfunctional conflicts within and between internal units of

the bureaucracy as conflicts over turf.179

Traditionally, government bureaucracies have evidenced an inward, rather than outward orientation, as civil

servants are more often rewarded for pleasing their superiors rather than ensuring high degrees of

responsiveness or service for the public. This situation is intensified in countries where civil serviceappointments are used to reward political loyalty or deter civil unrest from low unemployment. However, the

advent of both e-government and Open Government Data introduces the paradigm of the citizen-customer,

placing new expectations on bureaucracies to proactively learn the preferences and behaviors of those accessingpublic sector information to design systems that encourage its use and reuse.180 Furthermore, Open Government

Data aspires to provoke co-creation of new goods and services, requiring a much higher degree of engagementwith the private sector and civil society than merely being responsive. Together, these new realities necessitate a

significant outward shift in orientation for government bureaucracies.

Proprietary information and operational systems are sources of power and leverage that are frequently

compartmentalized in departmental silos.181 Open Government Data, in advocating the release and sharing of

this information, as well as stressing the interoperability of systems to allow for seamless integration of public

sector information, upsets current organizational fiefdoms. Countries seeking to catalyze OGD face aconsiderable challenge in adjusting incentives to make it more costly for civil servants to withhold

information and encourage the cultural shifts necessitated by OGD.182

Shirley-Ann Hazlett and Francis Hill, writing on the use of e-government for public sector reform, keenlyobserve that, the real value of e-government lies in its ability to force an agency to rethink, reorganize and

streamline their delivery before going online.183 This insight is certainly applicable to the implementation of

Open Government Data. Launching an electronic portal as a front-end interface to provide public sector

172 A stroke-of-the-pen reform, as characterized by David Ellerman, refers to a legal act that is effectively self-executing. David Ellerman. Notes on Institutional

Reforms. February 2001. http://www.ellerman.org/Davids-Stuff/Memos/Inst-Reform.pdf.173 Fukuyama, State Building, 29.174 Ibid.175 Ndou, E-Government for Developing Countries, 2.176 Ndou, E-Government for Developing Countries, 3.177 Ndou, E-Government for Developing Countries, 15.178 Sternstein. One year in, resistance to open government memo lingers.179 Fukuyama, State Building, 53.180 Shirley-Ann Hazlett and Frances Hill. E-government: the realities of using IT to transform the public sector.Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13, Issue 6 (2003):

447. doi:10.1108/09604520310506504.181 Fukuyama, State Building, 54.182 Fukuyama, State Building, 32.183 Hazlett and Hill, E-government: The Realities of Using IT to Transform the Public Sector, 448.


20/35

information is relatively innocuous184

and could even be largely outsourced and achieved with minimalinvolvement of government bureaucrats. However, what is being asked of government bureaucracies is

considerably more, and therein lies the challenge that countries must overcome for OGD to have the greatest

likelihood of success.

3.2. Challenges of Open Government Data InstitutionalizationBeyond catalyzing initial take-off, governments must also grapple with four challenges inherent in successfully

institutionalizing Open Government Data for maximum long-term impact. The first challenge is inclusiveness,particularly ensuring breadth of OGD participation across all social strata. A second challenge ismeaningfulness, addressing depth of use of OGD by individuals and groups to achieve substantive social and

commercial value. Sustainability is a third challenge governments face in institutionalizing OGD and includes

issues of mobilizing sufficient financial and human resources to ensure the smooth functioning of the initiativebeyond its experimental phase. Overcoming resistance refers to the challenge governments face in addressing

the concerns of those that perceive OGD as a threat to their entrenched interests and information monopolies.

3.2.1. Including the Excluded: Bridging the Digital Divide

Realizing the full potential of Open Government Data rests on the assumption of vibrant participation by allsocietal segments without discrimination. The default model of OGD release has presumed that once public

sector information is proactively made available via electronic means, it will be easily accessible by all.However, as discussed earlier (section 2.2.2), substantial access barriers exist for some societal groups, resulting

in their digital exclusion from the benefits of OGD. Countries seeking to achieve take-up of newly released

public sector information must overcome the challenge of inclusion, enhancing the breadth of participation byall societal segments and ameliorating technical, economic and socio-cultural access inequities.

Technical barriers of access are the most widely discussed in the literature, referring to limitations of national

telecommunications and information infrastructure, such as insufficient broadband or unconnected rural areas.This was previously discussed as a technical capacity issue (section 4.1.2) contributing to an enabling

environment for Open Government Data; however, there is an important inclusiveness dimension to this. Ingeneral, infrastructure disparities are highly correlated with economic and social status as well as geographicisolation.185 Constituencies that are politically well-connected, wealthy and/or geographically situated in

proximity to major cities have the potential to disproportionately benefit from OGD due to relatively well-

developed infrastructure. In contrast, communities that do not share these characteristics are more likely to beunderserved by national infrastructure and, by extension, to be underrepresented as active OGD users.

Economic barriers refer to the affordability of the requisite technology to access electronic information for the

majority of citizens. Affordability can be considered as a function of both the overall penetration of ICTs in aparticular market (i.e. the existence of economies of scale to drive down prices) as well as the ability of

individuals to mobilize sufficient assets to purchase the necessary hardware, software and Internet services to

benefit from OGD. This barrier is considerably more difficult to overcome in developing countries withconsiderable poverty at both aggregate and disaggregated levels. Societies able to improve the affordability of

ICTs, either through subsidizing them for low-income groups or introducing market-based mechanisms to

improve ICT penetration and lower prices, will realize higher participation by the poor than without thisintentional assistance.

Socio-cultural issues make up an important third category of barriers, which is often overlooked in the

literature. The status of women and girls, persons with disabilities, and ethnic and religious minorities areexamples of societal mores that could enhance or constrain their ability to benefit from Open Government Data.

How progressive are societal norms regarding the ability of women and girls to use ICTs to access the world of

information and OGD? Does released public sector information include accommodations for the hearing

184 Hazlett and Hill, E-government: The Realities of Using IT to Transform the Public Sector, 446.185 See annex 3 for illustrative Internet penetration rates in a sample of leading and lagging countries.


21/35

impaired or blind to equitably benefit? In linguistically diverse societies, is public sector information availableto all in the language(s) they best understand? Societies where the status and representation of women and girls,

persons with disabilities and ethnic and religious minorities is strong are more likely to achieve more inclusive

participation by these groups. However, in societies without these things, social norms could constitute anaccess barrier limiting the potential participation for traditionally disadvantaged groups.

Open Government Data is a new type of resource with the potential to expand the information capital of a

countrys citizens. However, in order to maximize the benefits and reach of OGD, governments mustintentionally remedy digital exclusion among their constituents or risk negative consequences including:

exacerbating inequities of marginalized groups, increasing the possibility of exploitation due to information

asymmetries and stunted demand for the use and reuse of OGD due to fewer end users. Governments such asIndia186 and Kenya187 have been experimenting with digital inclusion projects to expand access to ICTs

through instituting village technology kiosks188 and training in digital literacy.189 In light of higher penetration

rates of mobile phone technology and radio communication, developing countries should consider hybriddelivery platforms emphasizing mobile applications for accessing government data and radio broadcasts for

mobilizing citizen awareness.

3.2.2. Meaningfulness: Shallow Versus Transformational Use of OGD

Whereas the challenge of inclusion focuses on breadth of citizens access to Open Government Data, countriesface a related, but distinct challenge to achieve depth of its use by citizens. OGD is meaningful190 only insofar

as citizens and intermediaries have the capabilities to use that information, through the exertion of their

agency, to achieve social and commercial value. Falling under the meaningfulnesss rubric are considerationssuch as: expanding the information capabilities of citizens, ensuring the relevance and quality of public sector

information, and encouraging the emergence of productive channels for the use of OGD for citizens to

participate in governance, improve livelihoods or produce new goods or services.

Assessing the impact of e-government initiatives on public sector reform, Hazlett and Hill aptly assert that the

ultimate success of a system is in the hands of its [end] users.191

Juxtaposing this conclusion with the harshreality of low usage levels of online public services in both developed and developing countries,192 it is clear

that there is a significant usability challenge in the take-up of e-government services by citizens. With existing

OGD portals evidencing similarly anemic usage levels,193 it is not unreasonable to conclude that this same

obstacle must be overcome for Open Government Data initiatives to b

Realizing the Vision of Open Government Data (Long Version): Opportunities, Challenges and Pitfalls

Documents

Transcript of Realizing the Vision of Open Government Data (Long Version): Opportunities, Challenges and Pitfalls