The New Ambiguity of “Open Government”

David Robinson and I have just released a draft paper—The New Ambiguity of “Open Government”—that describes, and tries to help solve, a key problem in recent discussions around online transparency. As the paper explains, the phrase “open government” has become ambiguous in a way that makes life harder for both advocates and policymakers, by combining the politics of transparency with the technologies of open data. We propose using new terminology that is politically neutral: the word adaptable to describe desirable features of data (and the word inert to describe their absence), separately from descriptions of the governments that use these technologies.

Clearer language will serve everyone well, and we hope this paper will spark a conversation among those who focus on civic transparency and innovation. Thanks to Justin Grimes and Josh Tauberer, for their helpful insight and discussions as we drafted this paper.

Download the full paper here.

Abstract:

“Open government” used to carry a hard political edge: it referred to politically sensitive disclosures of government information. The phrase was first used in the 1950s, in the debates leading up to passage of the Freedom of Information Act. But over the last few years, that traditional meaning has blurred, and has shifted toward technology.

Open technologies involve sharing data over the Internet, and all kinds of governments can use them, for all kinds of reasons. Recent public policies have stretched the label “open government” to reach any public sector use of these technologies. Thus, “open government data” might refer to data that makes the government as a whole more open (that is, more transparent), but might equally well refer to politically neutral public sector disclosures that are easy to reuse, but that may have nothing to do with public accountability. Today a regime can call itself “open” if it builds the right kind of web site—even if it does not become more accountable or transparent. This shift in vocabulary makes it harder for policymakers and activists to articulate clear priorities and make cogent demands.

This essay proposes a more useful way for participants on all sides to frame the debate: We separate the politics of open government from the technologies of open data. Technology can make public information more adaptable, empowering third parties to contribute in exciting new ways across many aspects of civic life. But technological enhancements will not resolve debates about the best priorities for civic life, and enhancements to government services are no substitute for public accountability.

Original post

Leave a Comment

3 Comments

Leave a Reply

Profile Photo Kristy Dalton

I don’t think we benefit by rigidly defining “Open Government” as government providing information that must be ‘politically important’. Open government shouldn’t be limited to just airing out the skeletons in our closet, so to speak.

I consider an Open Government to mean broadly an “accessible” government. If our citizens want (and request often) information that is meaningful to them, such as bus schedules, city ward information, public art locations, etc., then I think the government that provides this information in the most helpful, data driven ways, is indeed providing a more Open Government.

Seems strange to me to publish an academic paper proposing that we clarify our terminology. If you’re well known and respected in this space, just start publicly using the new terms, and others will adopt =)

Profile Photo David Kuehn

I agree there is confusion between the purpose of transparency and the methods. I do not recall the same ambiguity prior to recent technology that provides new forms of public access.