Policy Sciences

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-09347-7

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Defining subnational open government: does local context

influence policy and practice?

M. Chatwin1   · G. Arku1 · E. Cleave1

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
What is open government? The contemporary conceptualization of open government
remains rooted in transparency and accountability, but it is embedded within the politi-
cal economy of policy, where forces of globalization through supranational organizations
strongly influence the creation and dispersion of policy across the globe. Recognizing the
direct impact of subnational governments on residents, in 2016 the Open Government
Partnership (OGP) launched the Subnational Pioneer’s Pilot Project with 15 participating
government authorities globally. Each subnational participant submitted an action plan for
opening their government information and processes in 2017. The uniformity of the OGP
action plan provides a unique opportunity to assess the conception of open government at
the subnational level globally. This paper uses a document analysis to examine how open
government is conceptualized at the subnational level, including the salience of various
components, and how local context can influence the development of action plans that are
responsive to the realities of each participating jurisdiction. This paper assesses whether
being a part of the political economy of policy homogenizes the action plans of 15 subna-
tional governments or allows for local context to influence the design of commitments still
aligned within a general theme.

Keywords  Open Government Partnership · Policy · Subnational government ·

Globalization · International development · Geographic context

Introduction

The current conception of open government has risen in prominence since the late 2000’s,
catalyzed by President Barrack Obama releasing a presidential memo and directive in
2009 (White House 2009a, b). Globally, governments are recognizing the importance of
“opening” government due to the potential to achieve benefits such as: process efficiency,
increased government legitimacy and raising living standards through the participatory
design of services (Meijer et  al. 2012; Chatwin and Arku 2017a). The push for open-
ing governments was further formalized through the launching of the multi-lateral Open

* M. Chatwin
mchatwin@uwo.ca
1
Department of Geography, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5C2, Canada

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Policy Sciences

Government Partnership (OGP) in 2011 by a coalition of eight governments: Brazil, Indo-

nesia, Philippines, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, the UK, and the USA. The OGP mem-
bership has expanded to 75 national governments and 15 subnational governments with
ongoing expansion (OGP, About). Against this backdrop, academics, politicians, policy
makers and practitioners continue to pursue insight into how open government reforms can
lead to sustainable improvement in the lives of people.
But, what is open government? In a broad sense, the principles of open government are
still rooted in transparency and accountability, but have evolved to encompass additional
components, most notably public participation and the improvement of public services
(Clarke and Francoli 2014; Chatwin and Arku 2017a). The Obama Administration memo
framed open government as information transparency, accountability, collaboration, public
participation, and technology. The OECD adds further specificity, defining open govern-
ment as:
The transparency of government actions (exposure to public scrutiny), the accessi-
bility of government services and information to citizens, and the responsiveness of
government to new ideas, demands and needs (OECD 2005: 29).
as well as being a
culture of governance based on innovative and sustainable public policies and prac-
tices inspired by the principles of transparency, accountability, and participation that
fosters democracy and inclusive growth (OECD 2016: 20).
Thus, open government can be broadly understood as policy approach to democratic gov-
ernance reforms in information transparency, public participation, and accountability.
Though the concept of open government has matured and expanded over the past dec-
ade, key critiques have emerged. First, a broadening interpretation of open government,
based on largely normative arguments, has resulted in a lack of clarity and has raised
concern among scholars that it is losing its effectiveness and being used to merely score
political points (Yu and Robinson 2012; Clarke and Francoli 2014). Uncertainty about
what open government policy truly represents, makes it difficult for governments at all geo-
graphical scales and contexts to adopt substantive and cohesive policy, leading to open
government initiatives demonstrating significant variability in authenticity, scope, goals,
and processes. While open government has the potential to create impact, as there are often
local stakeholders that rally for it and assist in its policy development, there is danger if
these policies are not constructed carefully. They risk becoming merely superficial and
symbolic implementations of globally homogenized policy, rather than substantive ways
to improve local governments by addressing the local context and its issues. This presents
a risk of “open-washing” or cosmetic government actions that do not impact openness or
accountability (Chatwin and Arku 2017b). A frequently seen example of open-washing
occurs when governments present open data and new technologies as “open” government
when in reality the data released are politically neutral and governments continue to avoid
accountability for their actions (Yu and Robinson 2012). A second critique addressed in
this paper is that much of the existing scholarship and policy reviews have been focused
on national-level implementation of open government policy, suggesting a gap within the
research domain as efforts within subnational governments are currently under-researched.
To address these critiques, this research critically analyzes the conceptualization
and commitment to open government at the subnational level. Subnational is a broad
term; however, it is often used to categorize non-national government participants and
is inclusive of regional, provincial, county, and local authorities. In this paper, the term

13
Policy Sciences

represents governments below the national level who participated in the pilot phase of
the OGP initiative (see Table 1 for participating jurisdictions). To investigate the objec-
tive of this paper, this research is guided by the questions: how is open government
conceptualized—in terms of policy, practice, and outcomes—at the subnational level?
Is local context a dominant site of production or is open government becoming a broad
and homogenized concept across global jurisdictions? What are the most salient tenets
of open government at the subnational level?
To answer these questions, this research comprehensively analyzes the fifteen “first-
wave” open government action plans developed for the OGP Subnational Pioneer’s
Pilot Project. The policy documents, developed by subnational governments from a
diverse range of geographical and political-economic contexts, represent the first large-
scale and coordinated efforts into opening government below the national level. These
documents were analyzed thematically and then compared through statistical analysis,
allowing this research to investigate an under-explored area of governance and policy
development. Further, it allows for the identification of commonalities in the global
conceptualizations of open governance, as well as the elucidation of how local context
(geographic, social, political, economic, technological) influences the implementation
of different forms of open government reforms.

Table 1  Participating subnational governments

Subnational government Country Population Type of government

Africa
Elgeyo Marakwet County Government Kenya 400,000 Regional
Kigoma Ujiji Municipal Council Tanzania 215,000 Local
Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Government Ghana 445,000 Local
South America
City of Buenos Aires Argentina 2,891,000 Local
Regional Government of La Libertad Peru 1,859,000 Regional
Municipality of Sao Paulo Brazil 11,967,825 Local
Europe
City of Paris France 2,241,346 Local
City of Madrid Spain 3,200,000 Local
Scottish Government UK 5,295,000 Regional
North America
State Government of Jalisco Mexico 7,351,000 Regional
Province of Ontario Canada 13,500,000 Regional
City of Austin United States 885,000 Local
Asia
Bojonegoro Regency Government Indonesia 1,450,889 Local
Seoul Metropolitan Government South Korea 10,000,000 Local
Tbilisi Government Georgia 1,170,000 Local

13
 Policy Sciences

Open government at the subnational level: theoretical context

Ultimately, the end-state or desired impact of open government is stronger democratic gov-
ernance and improved livelihoods (Ribot et  al. 2008; OGP 2014; OECD 2016; Chatwin
and Arku 2017a). While the term open government first appears in scholarly work in rela-
tion to information transparency (Parks 1957), the conceptualization of open government
has substantially evolved. President Obama’s 2009 memo laid the foundation for the cur-
rently accepted key tenets of open government. The memo states, “We will work together
to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and
collaboration” (White House 2009a). The memo was followed by an open government
directive that reiterated transparency, accountability, participation, and collaboration as the
focus of open government (White House 2009b). These elements prescribed by the US NB
Government have become the underlying tenets central to the idea of open government for
both scholars and practitioners globally (McDermott 2010; OGP 2012; Sandoval-Almazan
and Gil-Garcia 2015; OECD 2016). Specifically, information transparency, accountabil-
ity, and public participation have been identified by the OGP as the most important areas
of focus in open government policy development, implementation, and monitoring (OGP
2014).
While its key tenants are deeply rooted in liberal democratic theory and good govern-
ance, “open government” has been described within existing research as lacking a strong
theoretical foundation (Yu and Robinson 2012; Sandoval-Almazan and Gil-Garcia 2015).
For example, Morozov (2013) is critical of the wide-ranging bounds of the term and Clarke
and Francoli (2014) describe it as a semantic “shapeshifter”. The emergence of open
government as a policy approach at the subnational level is embedded within the politi-
cal economy of policy, where forces of globalization and neoliberalism strongly influence
the creation and dispersion of policy across the globe. Neoliberalism as a political para-
digm is primarily defined as an opposition to state socialism and promotes an individual-
ized concept of freedom and responsibility. Globalization and neoliberalism promote open
government reform paradigms as a means to economic growth, decentralization, and indi-
vidual responsibility (Bohle and Neunhöffer 2007; Hansson et  al. 2015). The promoted
benefits of open government policy are based on normative arguments, in the absence of
nuanced discussions of their merits, and spread through a wide range of actors, networks,
social forces, and discourses around the world in institutions, supranational polities, policy
arenas, and think tanks (Weiss 2000; Plehwe et  al. 2006). Namely, open government is
continuously promoted and defined by globally influential institutions, and their extended
formal and informal networks, such as the OGP, Organization for Economic Collaboration
and Development (OECD), United Nations, World Bank, European Commission, and oth-
ers (see World Bank 2015; OECD 2016; Chatwin and Arku 2017a). As a result, ideas, and
concepts, both good and bad, are increasingly being transferred through global circuits of
policy migration. A critique of the migration of these policy scripts is that they become
increasingly abstract and homogenized through each iteration of migration. If the general
effectiveness and political credence of open government is in question, so too are the con-
ceptualization and adaptability of open government across the diverse contexts of levels of
government globally. While many developing countries have experimented with importing
policy reforms from more developed countries, these attempts have been riddled with chal-
lenges when the local context such as culture, institutional dynamism, and external actors
are not considered (Schick 1998). Minogue (2001) suggests that there must be substantial
adaptation of migrating policy to accommodate local conditions or governments will end

13
Policy Sciences

up with “empty” and ineffectual reforms. Similarly, Ohemeng (2010) suggests that policy
prescriptions being transferred around the world must respect local culture, groups, organi-
zations, and structures.
Hansson et  al. (2015) advocate that the core of open government should be a return
to classic democratic ideas as outlined in Dahl’s (1989) liberal democratic theory. The
essence of open government is a return to broad public dialogue to reach a shared under-
standing of problems, their context, and how decisions are made. In this light, we turn to
Dahl’s (1989) theory to inform our analysis of the conceptualization of open government
and assist in assessing its core tenets. The liberal democratic theory provides a flexible
theoretical framework to analyze the core tenets of open government while insisting that
those affected by policy decisions have equal influence. Dahl’s theory is built on the tenets
of effective participation, supported by equality in voting at the decisive stage, enlight-
ened understanding including final control of setting the agenda, and equal representa-
tion through inclusion, and an acknowledgement of fundamental rights (Dahl 1989, 2006;
emphasis added). The following sections will outline how the core tenets of open govern-
ment align with the effective participation, enlightened understanding and equal represen-
tation aspects of Dahl’s theory.

Effective participation

Effective participation is a foundational component of open government and is a basic

right of democracy seen as essential for increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of gov-
ernments, especially at the subnational level (Arnstein 1969; Cornwall 2008). Research
suggests that with appropriate sociopolitical and administrative structures, institutions
informed by broad civic participation are more representative, efficient with resources,
and sustainable in their development (Osmani 2008; European Commission 2014; Kassen
2013; Glover et al. 2016). Dahl (1989) suggests that the public must have equal and ade-
quate opportunity to set the agenda and express their reasoning for supporting one choice
over another. Similarly, Lee (2013) notes that for participation to be meaningful, the pub-
lic must be involved in setting the original agenda. Further, the involvement of the public
must be at a “decisive” stage. Participation, when decisions are being made, ensures that
the input of the public is listened to rather than collected and then disregarded. There are
numerous typologies of public participation that delve deeper than Dahl into specifying
what effective participation looks like. These models are often visualized as a ladder or a
continuum from nonparticipation to absolute public control (Arnstein 1969; IAP2 2005).
In Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation framework, the rungs on the lower
end of the participation spectrum are labeled; informing, consulting and placation. In these
scenarios, the public can hear and be heard to various degrees, but ultimately, the power of
decision making still rests with the government (Arnstein 1969). The International Asso-
ciation for Public Participation (IAP2) (2005) framework mirrors this continuum, with
informing and consulting at the lower end. The higher levels of participation are partner-
ship and delegated power (Arnstein 1969), or involve, collaborate, and empower (IAP2
2005). These typologies point to the extent to which power is transferred to the public in
decision making and design. Both frameworks highlight that the level of benefit the public
receives through improved service delivery and decision making is greater when there is an
increased transfer of power.

13
 Policy Sciences

Contemporary approaches to public participation often encourage extensive consulta-

tion, but do not necessarily address issues of power redistribution, trust, and resources (Lee
2013). These processes are referred to in some existing studies as “cosmetic” or tokenis-
tic participation (Arnstein 1969; Lee 2013). In contrast, reforms built upon open govern-
ment principles create a political framework in which the public has an increased ability to
influence the workings of their government by engaging throughout the policy and service
design processes (Creighton 2005; OGP Guide 2014). Dahl (1989) suggests that participa-
tion does not need to be at every stage, but rather the value is for the public to be present at
decisive stages. The desire, through opening government, is to see traditional government
public be replaced with higher levels of public partnerships and delegated or transfer of
power (Arnstein 1969; IAP2 2005). Broadly, this suggests that the level of benefit the pub-
lic receives through improved service delivery and decision making is greater when there
is an increased transfer of power.
One area where open government policy facilitates effective public participation is
through “co-creation”, a foundational element of the OGP approach, where stakeholders
collaborate in service design and decision making (White House 2009a; OGP 2017). Issues
of collaboration sit at the nexus of Dahl’s ideas of effective participation and enlightened
understanding. For the public to meaningfully collaborate, and for this to be beneficial to
the government (and in turn, the public), they must have both the appropriate information,
mutual respect for each others ability to contribute, and access to a forum where they can
use their knowledge and perspectives in a meaningful way (Lathrop and Ruma 2010; Lee
2013). While this level of collaboration is limited within traditional governance structures,
it is a vital component of open government and is critical for ensuring peaceful societies
and sustainable development (Glover et al. 2016).

Enlightened understanding

There is direct link between Dahl’s idea of enlightened and the concept of transparency
within open government. Governments are information collectors, producers, and users,
and must make decisions leading to policy, about how their information is used and how
it benefits the public (Dawes and Helbig 2010). Transparency—access to government data
and information, collection techniques, documents, and proceedings—enables the public
to understand the workings of their government. It is one of the central pillars to effec-
tive regulation, supporting accountability, and sustaining confidence in the legal environ-
ment by ensuring less influence by special interests (OECD 2010). Transparency, therefore,
facilitates the dissemination of information and empowers the public with greater knowl-
edge, creating the potential for previously excluded groups to exert influence on govern-
ment decision making (Schauer 2011). According to Dahl (1989), for people to know what
their best options are, they must be “enlightened” to some degree. In many regards, trans-
parency components of open government have developed directly from e-government, as
over the past 20 years there has been a movement to allow greater access to government
information and debate through websites, databases, and social media (Nam 2012). How-
ever, a trend in the use of technology is that it is seen as open government instead of a way
to support open government. Contemporary open government literature aligns with Dahl’s
assertion that the public must have control of the agenda; specifically, the public is given
access and rights of participation to the matters that most directly impact their lives (Dahl

13
Policy Sciences

1989, 2006; Lee 2013; OGP 2014). In this way, technology is used as a tool to support
transparency of meaningful information and processes.
Transparency, or enlightened understanding, acts as a building block for effective partic-
ipation and to develop government accountability (Dahl 1989; OGP 2014). Well function-
ing democratic systems involve multiple avenues for people to receive necessary informa-
tion, express their interests and preferences, influence policy, and to scrutinize the exercise
of government power during and in between elections (Diamond 1999). Democratic schol-
ars argue that enlightened understanding is a precursor to equal representation, ensuring
that all members of the populace have the same access to information and government pro-
cess to effectively participate (Phillips 1995; Dahl 2006; Meijer et al. 2012).

Equal representation

Dahl (2006) suggests that an ideal democracy provides equal opportunity for all members
of the public to effectively participate at critical junctures of government decision mak-
ing. Magnusson (2005) earlier advances a similar argument, stating that we cannot grant
that a constitution is democratic if it fails to provide appropriate opportunities for pub-
lic participation and holding government to account. This contrasts typical bureaucracies,
where officials focus attention almost exclusively on the priorities identified by the most
senior officials in the bureaucratic hierarchy, or the elite within the communities (Romzek
and Dubnick 1987). Accountability, in this context, is downward as it is empowering the
public to become engaged with—and be better able to hold responsible—government to
ensure decision making is in the public interest. This requires the enlightened understand-
ing of people through training (to understand the political and bureaucratic relationships,
processes, issues, and practices that dominate government) and access (Yilmaz et al. 2010).
Providing equal and inclusive representation requires a change in the governments percep-
tion of the public: for collaboration between the public and government to be successful,
governments must recognize the value that people and their lived experience bring to the
process (Lee 2013).
Driven largely by public demand, governments are beginning to recognize the public’s
role as an integral part of the design and provision of services that impact them (Loffler
2009; Sangiorgi 2012; Wirtz and Birkmeyer 2015). Studies suggest that the rise of “asser-
tive citizens” is due to technological advances, value changes within modern society, aging
societies increasing the amount of people receiving services, and severe fiscal constraints
(Griffiths et al. 2009; Loffler 2009). The demand to participate is demonstrated in multiple
ways; pressure on government to open their administration and address the limited access
to information to guarantee more participation in City of Seoul (2016), public pressure to
improve services following a Citizen’s Report Card in Sekondi-Takoradi (CRC 2015), and
an increase in dialogue among residents and communities, voluntary organizations, trade
unions, faith groups and political activists about how to harness a surge in participation to
promote more open and inclusive style of governance in Scotland (2016).
An interesting commonality of most open government reforms is the emphasis on
technology (in particular, internet, and database technology). This is notable due to the
geographic and political-economic variability among places that have adopted open gov-
ernment. For technology to be a useful element for reform, it must be used in a way that
supports equal and effective participation. As integrated communication technology con-
tinues to advance, it has the potential to provide innovative and efficient ways of sharing

13
 Policy Sciences

information, increasing overall participation, and facilitating collaborations between gov-

ernments and larger sections of the public (Francoli 2011).

Putting it into practice: the Open Government Partnership

and subnational reforms

While research on open government remains in a nascent stage, there has been consider-
able policy movement. As part of the Obama Administrations emphasis on open govern-
ment, the USA, and a coalition of seven other nations (Brazil, Indonesia, Philippines, Mex-
ico, Norway, South Africa, and the UK) and nine representatives from non-government
organizations, spearheaded open government reforms globally through the 2011 launch of
the OGP. This initial movement was met with considerable international support as the
OGP membership has grown since its inception, to include 75 participating governments,
together making over 2500 open government commitments. To be deemed qualified to par-
ticipate in the OGP, countries must demonstrate commitment in four core eligibility areas:
Fiscal Transparency, Access to Information, Asset Disclosure, and Citizen Engagement
(OGP Eligibility Criteria). Governments must also pass a “Values Check” ensuring that
they adhere to democratic governance norms, specifically around support for the activities
of civil society organizations.
Despite the high rate of adoption, questions have been raised about whether national-
level open government reforms have the ability to significantly impact on the lives on the
public. Ultimately, open government stands at the nexus of a range of contemporary forces
that are shaping political-economic landscapes at all scales. However, it is the subna-
tional governments that are increasingly responsible for their constituent’s well-being and
are therefore a prime scale for open government reform to occur. Interestingly, as policy
formation of open government is increasingly influenced by global forces, the sites of its
implementation are—or need to be—increasingly local. To date, much of the research and
practice on open government has focused on implementation at the national level. Despite
the focus on globalization as an organizing principle within political geography, much of
the debate on governance in a global era has focused on the rescaling of governance in
post-Fordist western states (Glassman and Samatar 1997; Kelly 1999), and the restruc-
turing of urban and regional governance within them (see e.g. Jones 1998; MacLeod and
Goodwin 1999). The proliferation of neoliberal policymaking across the globe has led to a
spatial restructuring of political-economic power, manifest in a downloading of governance
responsibilities from the state to the local level (Brenner and Theodore 2002).
Governance literature suggests that subnational governments have the potential to be
more responsive, accountable, transparent, and less bureaucratic than national-level gov-
ernments, providing a platform for effective reform (Fessha and Kirkby 2015; Robinson
and Heller 2015). Open government reforms can support transparent and sustainable
decentralizing of power from the state to the local. The fundamentals of decentralization
and empowering subnational authorities, especially in developing countries, are uniquely
aligned with the ideals of open government: to enhance public participation by bringing
decision-making power closer to the people, ensure greater accountability of government
to the population; and strengthen efforts to mobilize local resources for development (Ayee
2008). Increased transparency, accountability, and openness have the opportunity to posi-
tively impact the lives of local residents and create potential avenues for economic growth,
ensuring democratic and representative governance through enhancing the common

13
Policy Sciences

interests and collective action of the public through collaborate efforts between civil soci-
ety and the government.
In 2015, the OGP steering committee recognized the innovative work of subnational
governments and that local and regional governments can more directly impact the daily
lives of their constituents (Robinson and Heller 2015). Consequently, the OGP launched
a Subnational Pioneers’ Pilot Project, with the idea of giving participating governments
supportive technical expertise as they discover and promote subnational open government
practices. Adopted within a pilot group of 15 subnational governments (Fig. 1), the pro-
gram created practical opportunities for cross-learning among the subnational governments
(OGP, Subnational Government Pilot Project).
Bringing the open government movement to the subnational level appears to be a good
fit, but its implementation and impact are yet to be fully understood. In particular, it is
unclear how open government is understood—in terms of policy and practice—at the sub-
national level, what elements of national open government policy are being adopted at the
subnational level, what the end goals of the reforms are. Furthermore, due to the diverse
range of subnational governments that are adopting open government reforms, it is also
unclear whether these differ because of geographic differences.

Methods

To analyze how subnational governments conceptualize and apply the tenets of open gov-
ernment, a comprehensive content analysis of action plans was undertaken for all fifteen
participating jurisdictions in the OGP Subnational Pioneers Project (Table 1). An advan-
tage of this analytical approach is that broad learnings can be drawn from a relatively small
number of sources, as long as they are representative of the population being examined
(Moynihan 2006; Cleave et al. 2017).). These government documents are from a diverse
range of levels of subnational government, countries, geographic regions, and population
sizes, and the content analysis allows us to examine for trends and patterns in the docu-
ments (Cleave et al. 2017; Stemler 2001). Thus, the action plans are accepted as a reflection
of broader government actions within the context of emerging open government processes

Ontario, Canada Scotland, UK

Paris, France
Tbilisi, Georgia
Madrid, Spain Seoul, South Korea
Austin, USA

Jalisco, Mexico

Sekondi-Takoradi, Ghana
Elgeyo Marakwet, Kenya
Kigoma, Tanzania
La Libertad, Peru Bojonegoro, Indonesia

Sao Paulo, Brazil

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Fig. 1  Geographical location of participating subnational governments

13
 Policy Sciences

and provide in-depth insight into contemporary and future efforts of subnational authorities
and their engagement with open government reform.
All the action plan documents used in this analysis were publicly available and collected
from the OGP website (OGP Subnational 2016b). Systematically analyzing and compar-
ing the content of policy documents across globally dispersed jurisdictions is often com-
plicated by documents that vary in language, intent, format, and intended audience. The
action plans created for the OGP Subnational Pioneers Project provide a unique oppor-
tunity to analyze documents from 15 different subnational governments. Per the instruc-
tions of the OGP, all action plans are published both in the local official language, as well
as English, and broadly follow the same structure (i.e. following well-defined guidelines
for formatting, length, language, minimum number of commitments to be made, and
stakeholder audience). These similarities allow for the systematic analysis and compari-
son of the content within policy documents across globally dispersed jurisdictions, which
are often complicated by documents that vary in language, intent, format, and intended
audience.
The analysis of the documents was an iterative process (used previously by Hsieh and
Shannon 2005; Cleave et al. 2017), beginning with two researchers independently review-
ing the documents to develop an understanding of their content, and develop an overall
sense of their primary themes. From this, we develop a broad understanding of the content
of the action plans developed by the participating subnational governments. The study then
utilized a hybrid approach of qualitative methods of thematic content analysis, incorporat-
ing the deductive a priori template of codes approach (Crabtree and Miller 1999) and a
data-driven inductive approach (Boyatzis 1998) to gain an understanding of the salience
of each code within the action plans. The study began with 14 codes from a codebook
developed previously by Clarke and Francoli (2014), based on a content analysis of seven
national government OGP action plans written in 2011. During the coding process, the a
priori codes were updated by removing themes that lacked relevance, adding themes, and
refining the code descriptions based on immersion in the data (Table 2).
This paper proceeds from similar studies conducted by Clarke and Francoli (2014)
and De Blasio and Selva (2016) that use textual coding with a software (QDA Miner and
Nvivo) to analyze open government conceptualization. Clarke and Francoli (2014) examine
seven national OGP action plans, whereas De Blasio and Selva (2016) compared three dif-
ferent policy documents each from four European countries. These studies, and the current
study, analyzed their entire corpus of documents using qualitative computer-assisted man-
ual coding to calculate code occurrences. The information is then systematically recorded
as counts for a quantitative analysis of the documents. In line with the approach taken by
Clarke and Francoli (2014), this study is interested in the salience of ideas, specifically the
emphasis placed on an idea in comparison with the rest of the text. Throughout the process,
we paid careful attention to the importance of context, as the documents were carefully
examined to ensure that words were not simply mentioned in passing, but were used as a
key part of the action plan for the government. It is interesting to note that frequently, the
words associated with a code, for example, accountability and transparency, were used in
a section of text that outlines actions in support of another code, such as public participa-
tion or government effectiveness and efficiency. This supports the approach utilized in this
study which involves measuring the emphasis of the concepts in the text rather than the
presence of the words.
Once the documents were coded into themes and the degree of salience observed, the
text coded to each individual theme was analyzed. The threshold for analysis was any code
that represented 4% or greater of the document (Table  3). The text coded to themes less

13
Policy Sciences

Table 2  Codebook
Code Description

Access to information
Accountability
Alternative service delivery
Culture change
Driving economic growth
Improve information management Measure to maintain effective information management practices in
Improve public service
Innovation
Intergovernmental cooperation
Livelihood improvement
Making government more effi-
cient and effective
New technologies
Open data
Prevent corruption
Promote corporate accountability Measures that encourage transparency and ethical conduct, while
Public participation
Reuse of government information Mechanisms to encourage non-governmental actors and other govern-
Strengthen governance
Transparency
Measures that ensure government releases high quality and informa-
tion to the public (ex. Freedom of information legislation, proactive
disclosure policies)
Creating opportunities for public, civil society or internal oversight (ex.
Whistleblower protections) of government activities and expenditures
Enabling non-government actors to deliver goods and services (co-
production, crowdsourcing)
Working within government to build open government principles into a
way of doing business
Using the release of data and information to support economic growth
government (ex. Recordkeeping procedures, digital information
repositories)
Raising the quality of public services, making services more accessible,
user-friendly, and responsive to the needs of the target community
Implementing new approaches to designing and delivering government
services
Work occurring between levels of government within a specific country
to open government
Programs and services to directly impact the livelihood of the public
Raising the productivity of government, streamlining internal work
processes and services, directly addressing clearly identified needs
Implementing new digital approaches to meeting the needs of the public
Specific references to the release of machine readable public sector data
sets
Measures to prevent corrupt behavior and perceptions of corruption
within the public service
tackling corruption, in private industry (especially the financial/bank-
ing sector)
Enabling the public (individuals, civil society and private organiza-
tions) to contribute to the work of government
ments to reuse government information and data (Ex. Open Govern-
ment Licenses)
Building the relationships between the public and government, increas-
ing legitimacy and trust
General references to public sector transparency, without listing specific
measures

than 4% for each country was gathered into an “other” category (if the “other” category
was less than 4%, it was left in the figures). This was done to enhance the visualization
of the most important themes emerging from each country and continent. This included
aggregated data for each subnational government, the regional level, and by type of gov-
ernment. This was then statistically analyzed (ANOVA, z-scores and summary statistics)
to identify themes that were common and those that were unique to specific geographic or
political contexts and to determine whether there were any significant differences between

13

Table 3  Summary of content analysis of action plans
Elgeyo Kigoma Sekondi- City of Regional Munici- City of City of Scottish State Prov- City of Bojon- Seoul Tbilisi
Marak- Ujiji Takoradi Buenos Govern- pality Paris Madrid Govern- Govern- ince of Austin egro Metro- Munici-

13
wet Munici- Metro- Aires ment of Sao ment ment of Ontario Regency politan pal Gov-
County pal politan of La Paulo Jalisco Govern- Govern- ernment
Govern- Council Assem- Libertad ment ment
ment bly

Access to 23.1 24.2 3.4 12.4 36.7 12.9 – 7.3 9.2 5.7 8.2 5.7 – 21.6 21.1
informa-
tion
Account- 4.4 3.4 12.8 10.3 5.6 3.8 0.6 1.2 11.2 5.3 3.2 6.5 5.4 3.5 29.6
ability
Alternative 1.1 – 5.9 – – – – – 0.5 – 2.9 – – – –
service
delivery
Culture 1.4 – 2.9 4.5 – 12.0 5.9 3.9 8.9 – 15.6 1.1 3.5 4.7 –
change
Driving – – 3.9 – – – – – 0.2 – 2.7 – – 2.9 –
economic
growth
Improve 1 10.8 1.9 9.0 2.2 – – – 2.7 – 2.5 5.6 1.3 16.4 5.2
infor-
mation
manage-
ment
Improve 1.7 6.1 15.1 12.9 4.8 – – – 2.2 11.0 – 7.1 10.1 – –
public
service
Innovation 1.6 – – 0.1 – 10.6 7.1 – 2.5 – 0.6 – 0.3 0.4 –
Policy Sciences
 Table 3  (continued)
Elgeyo Kigoma Sekondi- City of Regional Munici- City of City of Scottish State Prov- City of Bojon- Seoul Tbilisi
Marak- Ujiji Takoradi Buenos Govern- pality Paris Madrid Govern- Govern- ince of Austin egro Metro- Munici-
wet Munici- Metro- Aires ment of Sao ment ment of Ontario Regency politan pal Gov-
Policy Sciences

County pal politan of La Paulo Jalisco Govern- Govern- ernment

Govern- Council Assem- Libertad ment ment
ment bly

Intergov- 2.9 16.6 – 2.5 – 2.2 – – – 3.1 – – – – –

ern-
mental
coopera-
tion
Livelihood – – 1.8 1.6 13.9 – – – 10.6 – 0.3 4.0 – 1.8 0.4
improve-
ment
Making 4.9 5.8 – 1.5 1.4 – – 10.6 0.6 – – 2.8 – – 1.1
govern-
ment
more effi-
cient and
effective
New tech- 0.4 1.7 2.0 3.9 5.0 1.9 – 10.1 4.3 11.9 11.9 3.5 4.4 6.1 6.4
nologies
Open data 0.8 2.8 – 19.2 – – 6.8 – 2.6 3.1 23.9 5.4 17.6 3.0 1.1
Prevent 3.7 – 1.4 – 0.2 2.6 – – – 1.8 – 4.2 13.3 1.5 1.3
corrup-
tion
Promote 1.4 – – – – – – 0.9 – 29.0 – 6.3 2.3 – –
corporate
account-
ability

13

Table 3  (continued)
Elgeyo Kigoma Sekondi- City of Regional Munici- City of City of Scottish State Prov- City of Bojon- Seoul Tbilisi
Marak- Ujiji Takoradi Buenos Govern- pality Paris Madrid Govern- Govern- ince of Austin egro Metro- Munici-

13
wet Munici- Metro- Aires ment of Sao ment ment of Ontario Regency politan pal Gov-
County pal politan of La Paulo Jalisco Govern- Govern- ernment
Govern- Council Assem- Libertad ment ment
ment bly

Public 37.1 7.9 41.4 15.8 21.4 48.1 77.8 54.2 36.3 17.1 23.5 34.3 25.0 29.0 33.7
participa-
tion
Reuse of – – – 1.7 0.9 – 0.9 0.2 1.5 – 1.8 – – 8.2 –
govern-
ment
informa-
tion
Strengthen 1.0 1.1 5.0 0.4 1.0 0.6 – – 0.5 10.8 – 1.7 2.5 – –
govern-
ance
Transpar- 4.4 19.7 2.6 4.2 6.7 5.3 0.9 11.7 6.0 1.2 2.8 11.8 14.3 1.0 –
ency
TOTAL: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Policy Sciences
Policy Sciences

the different documents. Additionally, the specific commitments for each subnational gov-
ernment were identified and compared. The qualitative analysis of themes allows for a
deeper exploration of the way open government policy is being formulated. Key quotations
were used to highlight important commitments and policy language, expanding on the sta-
tistical analysis.
The following sections explore these findings, first by examining commonalities and dif-
ferences in the types of commitments developed based on geographical region and subna-
tional government type, and second by examining the four most salient themes identified
within this analysis. Where appropriate, direct quotations from the action plans are used to
help contextualize the findings.

Results

Table  3 provides a summary of the content analysis, presenting the prevalence of each
theme sorted by subnational authority. On average, each theme covered roughly 5% of each
document; however, there was significant variability. For example, the theme of promot-
ing public participation was the most prevalent, representing approximately 33% of all
text coded in this study and comprised 78% of the City of Paris’s policy document; alter-
natively, the theme of intergovernmental communication represented only 2% of the text
coded, was not present in ten of the documents, and was most prevalent in the Kigoma Ujiji
Municipal Council document, but only comprised 17% of the open government language.

Conceptualizing open government at the subnational level

Overall, there was considerable homogeneity or standardization among the documents.

The results of the ANOVA analysis showed that while there was variation between poli-
cies (which is to be expected based on the variability of policy usage), there was no sig-
nificant variation between places (Table 4). This broadly suggests that policies were being
applied at approximately the same rates across all jurisdictions. This assertion is supported
by the summary statistics which show themes of transparency, public participation, access
to information, accountability, and improve public service being used frequently and gen-
erally within a narrow range of prevalence within the text, while themes like alternative
service delivery, culture change, and driving economic growth were noticeably absent
(Table 3). Perhaps unsurprisingly, the most prominent themes across all documents were
public participation, access to information, accountability, and transparency, since these
are highlighted in the OGP guidelines and provide the foundation for the predominant con-
ceptualization of open government.
While there was an overall homogenization of the documents, there remained some var-
iation where individual jurisdictions emphasized themes over others (Table 4). For exam-
ple, the City of Paris emphasizes public participation at a significantly higher rate (78%,
z-score 3.63) than the average of the documents (Table 5). Additionally, there is potential
for distinct variances in the way the policies were discussed across the various govern-
ments. If present, this would suggest a duality where the conceptualization of open govern-
ment is consistent among the participating governments; however, the way open govern-
ment is implemented is heavily influenced by the local context. To explore this duality and

13
 Policy Sciences

Table 4  ANOVA analysis
ANOVA
Source of variation SS df MS F P value F crit

Overall analysis
 Rows 1.494187 18 0.08301 18.92871 4.11E−37 1.644926
 Columns 1.22E−10 14 8.74E−12 1.99E−09 1 1.73119
 Error 1.105127 252 0.004385
Total 2.599314 284
Geographic analysis
 Rows 0.597675 18 0.033204 23.78669 1.23E−26 1.719592
 Columns 1.17E−11 5 2.33E−12 1.67E−09 1 2.315689
 Error 0.125632 90 0.001396
Total 0.723307 113
Government analysis
 Rows 0.141012 10 0.014101 14.5924 0.00011 2.978237
 Columns 2.51E−05 1 2.51E−05 0.025927 0.875285 4.964603
 Error 0.009663 10 0.000966
Total 0.1507 21

the specific nature of the policies, the qualitative results of the four most common themes
are discussed.
Public participation Discussion within the action plans that focuses on public partici-
pation accounted for over 33% of all coded text across the 15 participating governments.
It was the highest coded theme for 10 of the 15 subnational authorities, while the other
governments had public participation as the second or third highest coded theme (Table 3).
For example, the Province of Ontario dedicated 23.9% of text to open data as their highest
theme, but public participation was extremely close with 23.5% of text. Contents of the
action plans used public, civic, or citizen participation and participation or engagement,
interchangeably, and they were all coded under public participation. An interesting note,
reflecting a change globally, is the specific clarification from the Tbilisi action plan as to
who is included within their civic participation plans:
Here and in this document this term is used in specific context and does not signify
only natural person and his/her civic status. This term can be used to describe any
individual who lives in Tbilisi, is registered in Tbilisi or in any way relates to Tbilisi
City Hall governance. In the framework of OGP, rights and responsibilities of these
individuals, in relation with undertaken Commitments in the scope of the Action
Plan 2017, will be legally defined (2016:3).
Similarly, in the City of Paris action plan they created a Paris Citizens Card. This card is
free and available to all residents of Paris, regardless of their legal status. It is intended to
ensure inhabitants can participate “to enrich the representative democracy” (Paris 2016:5)
The action plans highlight a general desire to increase public participation by spe-
cifically targeting marginalized individuals and groups. Marginalized groups are broadly
understood as those who traditionally have had little influence on matters of governance
and who are subject to subordination under the current system (Lee 2013). Many govern-
ments sought public involvement in planning, specifically through participatory budgeting.

13
 Table 5  Z Scores
Elgeyo Kigoma Sekondi- City of Regional Munici- City of City of Scottish State Prov- City of Bojon- Seoul Tbilisi
Marak- Ujiji Takoradi Buenos Govern- pality Paris Madrid Govern- Govern- ince of Austin egro Metro- Munici-
wet Munici- Metro- Aires ment of Sao ment ment of Ontario Regency politan pal Gov-
Policy Sciences

County pal politan of La Paulo Jalisco Govern- Govern- ernment

Govern- Council Assem- Libertad ment ment
ment bly

Access to 1.15 1.27 − 0.99 − 0.01 2.64 0.04 – − 0.57 − 0.36 − 0.74 − 0.46 − 0.74 – 0.99 0.94
informa-
tion
Account- − 0.35 – 0.73 0.42 − 0.20 − 0.42 – – 0.53 − 0.23 – − 0.08 − 0.22 − 0.46 2.91
ability
Alternative – – 0.62 – – – – – – – – – – – –
service
delivery
Culture – – – 0.02 – 1.00 0.21 − 0.06 0.59 – 1.47 – – 0.05 –
change
Driving – – 0.51 – – – – – – – – – – – –
economic
growth
Improve 0.04 0.10 – − 0.04 – – – – – – – − 0.32 – 0.58 − 0.36
infor-
mation
manage-
ment
Improve – 0.20 1.36 1.07 0.04 – – – – 0.82 – 0.34 0.72 – –
public
service
Innovation – – – – – 1.14 0.71 – – – – – – – –

13

Table 5  (continued)
Elgeyo Kigoma Sekondi- City of Regional Munici- City of City of Scottish State Prov- City of Bojon- Seoul Tbilisi
Marak- Ujiji Takoradi Buenos Govern- pality Paris Madrid Govern- Govern- ince of Austin egro Metro- Munici-

13
wet Munici- Metro- Aires ment of Sao ment ment of Ontario Regency politan pal Gov-
County pal politan of La Paulo Jalisco Govern- Govern- ernment
Govern- Council Assem- Libertad ment ment
ment bly

Intergov- – 1.11 – – – – – – – – – – – – –
ern-
mental
coopera-
tion
Livelihood – – – – 1.35 – – – 0.96 – – 0.19 – – –
improve-
ment
Making 0.39 0.50 – – – – – 1.10 – – – – – – –
govern-
ment
more effi-
cient and
effective
New tech- – – – − 0.14 0.02 – – 0.77 − 0.08 1.02 1.03 − 0.20 − 0.08 0.17 0.22
nologies
Open data – – – 1.28 – – 0.10 – – – 1.73 − 0.04 1.13 – –
Prevent 0.21 – – – – – – – – – – 0.27 1.40 – –
corrup-
tion
Promote – – – – – – – – – 0.42 – − 0.42 – – –
corporate
account-
ability
Policy Sciences
 Table 5  (continued)
Elgeyo Kigoma Sekondi- City of Regional Munici- City of City of Scottish State Prov- City of Bojon- Seoul Tbilisi
Marak- Ujiji Takoradi Buenos Govern- pality Paris Madrid Govern- Govern- ince of Austin egro Metro- Munici-
wet Munici- Metro- Aires ment of Sao ment ment of Ontario Regency politan pal Gov-
Policy Sciences

County pal politan of La Paulo Jalisco Govern- Govern- ernment

Govern- Council Assem- Libertad ment ment
ment bly

Public 0.30 − 2.10 0.65 − 1.46 − 0.99 1.20 3.63 1.70 0.23 − 1.35 − 0.82 0.06 − 0.69 − 0.37 0.02
participa-
tion
Reuse of – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.73 –
govern-
ment
informa-
tion
Strengthen – – − 0.15 – – – – – – 0.15 – – – – –
govern-
ance
Transpar- − 0.53 0.92 – – − 0.31 − 0.45 – 0.16 − 0.38 – – 0.17 0.41 – –
ency
Other 0.47 0.01 0.50 0.42 − 0.42 − 0.21 − 0.88 − 0.90 0.62 0.05 1.09 − 0.44 0.13 0.23 − 0.68

13
 Policy Sciences

Some of the governments were responding to an increasing demand for participation from
their constituents and others were attempting to build interest within their population, so
they would engage. The major themes found within the public participation code were:
public includes all stakeholders, government is recognizing they need help, participation
initiatives need to target marginalized voices, and various levels of power sharing.
The discussion of public participation primarily moved from a general acknowledge-
ment that the government needed to engage with different segments of the population:
academia, private sector, civil society, and community; to specific projects or policy to
target underrepresented and marginalized population groups. An example is found in the
City of Paris action plan where they aim to “strengthen the involvement of working-class
districts and priority groups, particularly the most precarious” (Paris 2016:1). Likewise,
Elgeyo Marakwet expressed a desire to move beyond general consultations, toward target-
ing youth, women and the disabled, and giving them direct influence on spending and pol-
icy decisions (2016:7). A unique example of a targeted population was Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolitan Assembly’s focus on large businesses within their jurisdiction (2016). In their
effort to increase internally generated revenue, they suggested, “with the private sector par-
ticipating more in fixing fees, they are empowered to negotiate fair rates and fees in a trans-
parent manner” (Sekondi-Takoradi 2016:17).
There are interesting differences in the way public participation is conducted within
the subnational participants. Public engagement ranges from face-to-face strategies, such
as town halls and training and mobilizing teams of outreach personnel, technology-based
strategies, such as mobile applications, email correspondence and online voting. Sekondi-
Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly hosts bi-weekly “Time with Community” town halls in
rotating communities throughout the metropolitan area. The town halls provide an avenue
for community members to speak directly with the metropolitan management and political
figures who are making the decisions (Sekondi-Takoradi 2016:3). The City of Sao Paulo,
aiming to extend their impact beyond a scale feasible by staff, has trained more than 14,000
people to be “Open Government Agents” (Sao Paulo 2016: 3). The City of Paris recog-
nized that some people can be reached digitally, but others need in-person interaction. To
accomplish a wide scope of in-person engagement, they committed to working through
existing associations (e.g. Parisian Youth Council) (Paris 2016:4). La Libertad local gov-
ernment addressed the challenge of public participation by forming Regional Advisory
Councils so that the public has an institutionalized process for participation. They addition-
ally committed to developing an application to alert the public on water quality and allow
for the public to report problems to appropriate authorities (La Libertad 2016:14).
The various engagement approaches in the documents demonstrated a wide range
of levels of public participation from consultation to power sharing (Arnstein 1969;
IAP2 2005). For example, the Province of Ontario notes that the government is, “cre-
ating more opportunities for the public to contribute to government decision-making”
(Ontario 2016:4, italics added) and in another reference, replaces the word “contribute”
with “weigh-in” (Ontario 2016:2). The City of Austin discusses establishing “feedback
loops” between government and community members (Austin 2016:12), and Elgeyo
Marakwet local government desires platforms that allow the public to give their opin-
ions and feedback (Elgeyo Marakwet 2016:14). Broadly, this language represents par-
ticipation opportunities that allow the public to have their voices heard through various
avenues, but decisions on what to do with these contributions remain in the hands of the
government (Arnstein 1969: IAP2 2005). Other subnational governments use language
that indicates their residents have direct responsibility in the planning and decision-
making process. For instance, Scotland’s action plan referenced an existing program

13
Policy Sciences

that aims to ensure local people “have a direct say in how, and where, public funds can
be used to address local needs” (Scotland 2016:14). Similarly, Madrid wants to become
a city for its inhabitants where, “they are the ones that decide where their city should
go” and “letting people make the decisions” (Madrid 2016:1). The language used by
these two subnational governments aligns with the higher levels of the public partici-
pation frameworks namely “partnership,” or “collaborate,” and “delegated power” or
“empower” (Arnstein 1969; IAP2 2005).
The subnational action plans demonstrated an alignment between the public partici-
pation strategies and the prevalence of technological use within a region. For example,
Elgeyo Marakwet and Sekondi-Takoradi subnational governments are institutionalizing
the use of “Whatsapp” (a smartphone messaging app commonly used by the public) to
complement their face-to-face engagement. This is a wholly appropriate response given the
context. Paris is expanding the scope of an existing mobile application to allow the public
to participate in the co-design of the city. This is in support of other face-to-face offer-
ings, including an innovation laboratory and interviews. Ontario is designing a platform to
engage youth online to participate in designing the services that impact them. There was
a consistent understanding that technology could be used to support participation, from
improving websites and data portals to implementing new mobile applications and online
petition systems. The analysis of the documents generally reflected an appropriate balance
of in-person and digital engagement strategies, but with a preference for engagement that is
lower on the ladder of decision-making control for the public (Arnstein 1969).
Access to information Access to information is at the root of the original conceptualiza-
tion of open government (Parks 1957; Clarke and Francoli 2014). It remains an integral
part of open government today, even at the subnational level, as evidenced by the action
plans. It was the second most prominent theme within the documents accounting for nearly
13% of all coded words. Mention of “access to information” was present in all action plans
except for Bojonegoro and Paris. Seoul summarizes the theme succinctly stating, “Due to
the growing civic demand for disclosing a variety of administrative information, improving
the quality of disclosed information, and giving more access to it, the government has tried
to meet such civic demands” (Seoul 2016:2). Access to information text was focused both
on information about expenditures and service delivery, and the operations of government.
The themes within the access to information code were: making information easily acces-
sible and understandable, and releasing context-relevant information.
The most prevalent theme in the access to information code was each government’s rec-
ognition that it needed to provide quality and understandable information to the public.
As an illustrative quote, Seoul action plan identifies that, “the need is not only for expand-
ing information disclosure quantitatively, but also for improving the quality of informa-
tion disclosure, so that citizens can have easier access to information they need” (Seoul
2016:5). Elgeyo Marakwet acknowledged that most of the information desired by the pub-
lic is already produced by the government. Unfortunately, it is not published in a way that
is easily accessible or understood. Ontario, Madrid, and Tbilisi paid particular attention to
publishing their information online, in a central location, so it is easier to find and in ways
that are easy for the public to understand (i.e. visualizations).
The access to information text in the action plans underscored important contextual
issues within each jurisdiction. For example, in Buenos Aires, the commitments were
focused on ensuring information on sexual and reproductive health, and information on
education services was easily accessible. In a similarly context specific way, Kigoma Ujiji
focused on accessible land planning and water, and La Libertad paid attention to agricul-
tural information and labor. Ontario, Madrid, and Scotland focus on releasing financial

13
 Policy Sciences

information on programs, services, operations, and activities. This diversity in types of

information likely reflects the will of the public and the information they are demanding.
Accountability All 15-subnational action plans referenced accountability as a significant
area of focus with just over 7% of their text dedicated to this code. The interesting distinc-
tion within this code is that the majority of the text focused on accountability as the result
of activities within another code, such as public participation or access to information initi-
atives. For example, Paris has a commitment to launch an innovation laboratory consisting
of government, academia, civil society, and the public (2016:11). Within the description of
this commitment, the coded text highlighted the importance of the laboratory for promot-
ing government accountability to the public. Similarly, Elgeyo Marakwet stated that an ini-
tiative that publishes project contracting and implementation information will lead to, “var-
ious stakeholders having an informed engagement with the government which is vital for
better service delivery and enhanced accountability by the government” (2016: 18). While
all the action plans demonstrated an understanding of the importance of accountability,
Elgeyo Marakwet and Tbilisi articulated the most comprehensive approaches to achieving
it. The components that distinguished these two action plans were: level of specificity for
which they committed to be accountable and broad range of approaches for diverse stake-
holders. For example, Tbilisi committed to creating monitoring roles for the “socially vul-
nerable” in the delivery of a free canteen service that directly impacts their lives (2016:22).
On the other end of the spectrum, Tbilisi committed to creating a role for civic monitor-
ing groups in the oversight of services in healthcare, social services, education, and others
(2016).
There were two distinct groups referenced in being able to hold governments account-
able; civil society and the public. In Buenos Aires, the government committed to provide
access to information of the functions of the three branches of government to make the job
of holding government accountable easier for civil society (2016:8). They suggest that civil
society should be supported in participating, evaluating, and monitoring the fulfillment of
government obligations. Jalisco focused on supporting civil society and the public in moni-
toring their government. By establishing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in their
teacher training, they aim to empower members of civil society to hold the government
accountable for follow through. Jalisco believes that the public can be better supported in
monitoring the contracting processes through an online platform that identifies the status of
projects and who is responsible for them. The Jalisco initiative is similar to a commitment
from Tbilisi, which committed to develop an online project tracker that displays the status
and expected completion dates and allows the public to monitor and provide feedback. The
Tbilisi government further acknowledged that the frequency (limited to annual releases)
and style of their budget documents made it difficult for those without direct expertise to
monitor the process. Their resultant commitment, to civil society and the public alike, is to
make interactive publications of a simplified budget to facilitate accountability (2016).
Transparency Transparency is another theme that has been an integral component of
open government and remains a focus within the subnational action plans. There was just
over 6% of all text coded to transparency with mention in 14 of 15 government documents.
Similar to accountability, transparency was often referred to as a result of other actions in
the areas of access to information, public participation and open data. The themes most
prevalent within the transparency code were the desire to build trust within the public and a
focus on contracting and procurement.
A repeatedly mentioned catalyst for transparency commitments was the desire to build
the trust and confidence of citizens in government and develop their ability to hold the
government accountable. Kigoma Ujiji (2016:20) suggests that being transparent in-service

13
Policy Sciences

provision, “will help build confidence among these actors.” Stated another way, Bojon-
egoro acknowledged, “there is a lack of public trust to the village government due to the
absence of transparency” (Bojonegoro 2016:2). The City of Austin is attempting to combat
a very contextually specific problem in transparency: how they solve the issue of late night
governance. Frequently, their meetings go beyond midnight, which is clearly not condu-
cive to public transparency (Austin 2016:14). Further, Elgeyo Marakwet stated that trans-
parency in financial information would empower the public to oversee how resources are
managed and increase the likelihood of efficiency (2016:16). Buenos Aires articulated an
understanding that transparency would develop civil society’s ability to monitor the actions
of government branches.
A key area of focus for transparency throughout the action plans was in public con-
tracting and procurement processes. Jalisco acknowledged that an existing lack of transpar-
ency in public contracting and misinformation in resource allocation, bidding, awards, and
suppliers, needed to be addressed through various access to information and public par-
ticipation initiatives (2016). Bojonegoro and Sekondi-Takoradi echoed a need for stronger
regulation to promote financial transparency and open procurement systems. The most
commonly referred to methods of transparency were interactive platforms, project track-
ing websites and general open data. For instance, Scotland action plan notes that, “Digital
public service provide a key point of contact between citizens and the State as well as the
means by which citizens can access open data and through which the government can pro-
mote transparency and access” (Scotland 2016:18). The OGP promotes the use of technol-
ogy for increased transparency while recognizing that a lack of equitable and affordable
access can hinder its value for marginalized communities (OGP Digital Booklet 2016a).
Further, the OGP suggests that sector-specific approaches to opening data for transparency
are more effective than government-wide approaches (Khan and Foti 2015).
Overall, it appears that the content of the documents tends to be similar in design,
approach, and language across all jurisdictions. This overall homogeneity to the document
themes presented a duality with how they were applied in each context. There were very
diverse, and contextually relevant, interpretations of each theme suggesting that the homo-
geneity is not causing inappropriate initiatives.

Action plan content based on geography

A key objective of the document analysis was to understand how open government was
conceptualized at the subnational level in distinct geographies. The following section high-
lights the most salient themes in each region and country. When aggregated to the regional
level, the results of the ANOVA analysis showed no significant variation in content of the
documents (Table  4), again demonstrating the level of homogenization that exists with
the policies. However, it was not completely uniform as the z-test identified several poli-
cies whose use deviated from the mean (Table  6). For example, African countries over-
all incorporated intergovernmental cooperation (z-score: 4.96) and alternative service
delivery (z-score: 4.58) than their counterparts in other regions. This variation is likely a
result of the incomplete decentralization within many African countries resulting in limited
resources, reliance on national governments and dependence on private contractors for ser-
vice delivery. Similarly, South American countries privilege access to information (z-score:
4.17) compared to the other regions (with Europe containing it significantly less—z-score:
− 2.93). A potential explanation is that open government and the access to information is

13
 Policy Sciences

Table 6  Summary statistics
Africa South America Europe North America Asia

Access to information 1.15 1.27 − 0.99 − 0.01 2.64

Accountability − 0.35 – 0.73 0.42 − 0.20
Alternative service delivery – – 0.62 – –
Culture change – – – 0.02 –
Driving economic growth – – 0.51 – –
Improve information management 0.04 0.10 – − 0.04 –
Improve public service – 0.20 1.36 1.07 0.04
Innovation – – – – –
Intergovernmental cooperation – 1.11 – – –
Livelihood improvement – – – – 1.35
Making government more efficient 0.39 0.50 – – –
and effective
New technologies – – – − 0.14 0.02
Open data – – – 1.28 –
Prevent corruption 0.21 – – – –
Promote corporate accountability – – – – –
Public participation 0.30 − 2.10 0.65 − 1.46 − 0.99
Reuse of government information – – – – –
Strengthen governance – – − 0.15 – –
Transparency − 0.53 0.92 – – − 0.31
Other 0.47 0.01 0.50 0.42 − 0.42

a way to mitigate corruption that has plagued all levels of government in South America,
while in Europe, where corruption is less obvious, there is less expressed need to prioritize
it. Instead, European participants focus on public participation (z-score: 5.04). These find-
ings suggest that when aggregated by geography, the broader political-economic context is
influencing some of the content in the open government action plans.

Discussion and conclusion

The OGP Subnational Pioneer’s Pilot Project created a unique opportunity to develop a bet-
ter understanding of the conceptualization of open government at the subnational govern-
ment level. The participating governments created action plans in 2016 and implemented
them throughout 2017 with many of the commitments ongoing. Given that the subnational
governments are in the midst of implementation, analysis of the impact of their open gov-
ernment reforms was not undertaken and is a suggested area for future research. Instead,
the current paper primarily seeks to uncover areas of emphasis and how open government
is conceptualized at the subnational level.
The data indicate that participating subnational governments have a conceptualization
of open government that is consistent with prior analysis done at the national level (Clarke
and Francoli 2014). Further, it is consistent with the principles espoused by the OGP. In
fact, a caution drawn from the qualitative and quantitative aspects of this research is that
the OGP could risk being reduced to a classic example of a neoliberal script, promoting

13
Policy Sciences

superficial policy makeovers, rather than substantive change. Across all geographies and
political contexts, there was a consistent homogenization of policies, where the same ones
were continually privileged (Table 3). Indeed, with the policy being prescribed by an exter-
nal entity that is tasked with facilitating the transfer of the policy across jurisdictions, it is
a natural conclusion that any areas of focus would be abstracted and not developed within
the local context. As a result, it is unclear whether this specific grouping of policies put
forward by the OGP represents the optimum mixture of policy for implementing open gov-
ernment, or whether it represents an exercise in political expediency and ease of policy
development. In the latter, there is a risk that open government initiatives do not lead to the
efficiency and effectiveness that they intend.
Despite the high-level influence of homogenized scripts, the qualitative analysis does
identify—to an extent—a duality where there are some context specific tools being devel-
oped and implemented within each jurisdiction. While the overall language and approaches
are similar, there are subtle differences that hint at an understanding of the importance of
policy considering the local context. The analysis of the action plans highlights an impor-
tant success in the OGP pilot project. Elements of the pathways to the commitments in
each government reflected an understanding of their constituents and targeted approaches
to open government to their participation. This reflects the desire of the OGP to allow for
each government involved to dictate the approach to opening their government—albeit
within the confines of the broader script. It was clear that OGP prompted participating
subnational government to emphasize aspects of open government that best address their
needs, underscoring the point that once size does not fit all. The flexible approach adopted
by OGP is consistent with Weinstein’s (2013:5) argument that the conceptualization of
open government must be fluid to allow for adapting to different contexts.
A final note is that the use of technology for public participation, and to a lesser degree
accountability and transparency, continues to be an area of focus for both academics and
practitioners. While the action plans indicated an appropriate balance between in-person
and online interactions for public participation, it is important to monitor the effectiveness
of these solutions. An area of potential OGP support is in collating context-relevant best
practices in public participation initiatives. Existing studies suggest that the focus on the
use of technology is overshadowing the philosophy and softening the potential impact of
open government (Yu and Robinson 2012; Clarke and Francoli 2014). Although there is
no explicit evidence in the action plans to either prove or disapprove this suggestion, the
analysis of the documents demonstrates contextually appropriate focuses on technology.
These range from new websites to project trackers to interactive mapping and applications.
It will be important, and certainly an opportunity for future research, to evaluate whether
new technologies merely labeled “open government” or implementing the philosophy
of open government will dominate as governments adopt reforms. The risk is that gov-
ernments “open-wash” their reforms and use technology to cover their lack of openness
(Chatwin and Arku 2017b). Examining the extent of implementation and impact of these
action plans is beyond the scope of this paper, but the creation of context-relevant action
plans is a significant first step in achieving successful implementation.
The paper set out to understand how open government was conceptualized at the subna-
tional level in diverse geographic contexts. While the data demonstrate very little patterns
of geographic influence on the conceptualization of open government, there are positive
implementation differences that reflect the context of participating governments. The most
salient themes within the action plans were public participation, access to information,
accountability, and transparency. There are indications that countries development status
is more influential than geography on their conceptualization of open government reforms.

13
 Policy Sciences

This is an area for future research and highlights the potential benefits of OGP targeted
support to countries based on the socio-economic, developmental, and political conditions
within each participating government.

Acknowledgements  The first author wishes to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Coun-
cil of Canada (SSHRC) for funding provided through the Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate
Scholarship-Doctoral Award. Special thanks to Brittany Lane from the Open Government Partnership for
assisting with access to the subnational action plans and to all reviewers who generously donated their time
to assist with this study.

References
Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4),
216–224. https​://doi.org/10.1080/01944​36690​89772​25.
Ayee, J. (2008). Decentralization and governance in Ghana. Regional Development Dialogue, 29, 34–52.
Bohle, D., & Neunhöffer, G., (2007). Why is there no third way?: The role of neoliberal ideology, networks
and think-tanks in combating market socialism and shaping transformation in Poland. In D. Plehwe,
B. Walpen, & G. Neunhöffer (Eds.), Neoliberal hegemony: A global critique (Vol. 18, pp. 89–105).
London: Routledge.
Bojonegoro Regency Government. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30,
2017 from https​://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and geographies of actually existing neoliberalism. Antipode,
34, 349–379.
Chatwin, M., & Arku, G. (2017). Beyond ambiguity: Conceptualizing open government through a human
systems framework. JeDem, 9(1), 52–78.
Chatwin, M., & Arku, G. (2018). Co-creating an open government action plan: The case of Sekondi-Tako-
radi metropolitan assembly, Ghana. Growth and Change, 49(2), 374–393.
City of Austin. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https​://
www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
City of Buenos Aires. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from
https​://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
City of Madrid. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https​://
www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
City of Paris. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https​://
www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
City of Seoul. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from https​://
www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
Clarke, A., & Francoli, M. (2014). What’s in a name? A comparison of ‘open government’ definitions across
seven open government partnership members. Journal of eDemocracy, 6(1), 248–266.
Cleave, E., Arku, G., & Chatwin, M. (2017). Cities’ economic development efforts in a changing global
economy: Content analysis of economic development plans of cities in Ontario, Canada. Area, 49(3),
359–368.
Cornwall, A. (2008). Democratising engagement what the UK can learn from international experience.
London: Demos.
Crabtree, B., & Miller, W. (1999). A template approach to text analysis: Developing and using codebooks.
In B. Crabtree & W. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 163–177). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Creighton, J. (2005). The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through citizen involve-
ment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dahl, R. (2006). On political equality. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Dawes, S. S., & Helbig, N. (2010). Information strategies for open government: Challenges and prospects
for deriving public value from government transparency. In M. A. Wimmer et  al. (Eds.), Electronic
government: Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 50–60). EGOV 2010, LNCS 6228.

13
Policy Sciences

De Blasio, E., & Selva, D. (2016). Why choose open government? Motivations for the adoption of open
government policies in four European countries. Policy and Internet, 8(3), 225–247.
Diamond, L. J. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press.
Elgeyo Marakwet County Government. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved
March 30, 2017 from https​://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
European Commission. (2014). Open government. Retrieved on September 20, 2017 from: https​://
ec.europ​a.eu/digit​al-singl​e-marke​t/en/open-gover​nment​.
Fessha, Y., & Kirkby, C. (2015). A critical survey of subnational autonomy in African states. The Jour-
nal of Federalism, 38(2), 248–271.
Francoli, M. (2011). What makes governments open? Sketching out models of open government. Jour-
nal of eDemocracy, 3(2), 152–165.
Glassman, J., & Samatar, I. (1997). Development geography and the third-world state. Progress in
Human Geography, 21, 164–198.
Global Communities (CRC). (2015). 2015 Sekondi-Takoradi citizens’ report card. CHF International. A
report.
Glover, D., Hernandez, K., & Rhydderch, A. (2016). A foresight scenario method for thinking about
complex sustainable development interactions. In J. Sumberg, & G. Gioacchino (Eds.), Transform-
ing development knowledge (Vol. 4, pp. 55–70). Institute for Development Studies (IDS) Bulletin.
Griffiths, S., Foley, B., & Prendergast, J. (2009). Assertive citizens: New relationships in the public ser-
vices. Social Market Foundation.
Hansson, K., Belkacem, K., & Ekenberg, L. (2015). Open government and democracy: A research
review. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 50–555.
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health
Research, 15, 1277–1288.
International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). (2005). The IAP2 public participation toolbox.
Retrieved on July 10, 2017 from http://www.iap2.org/assoc​iatio​ns/4748/files​/toolb​ox.pdfS.
Jones, M. (1998). Restructuring the local state: Economic governance or social regulation?. Political
Geography, 17(8), 959–988.
Kassen, M. (2013). A promising phenomenon of open data: A case study of the Chicago open data pro-
ject. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 508–513.
Kelly, P. F. (1999). The geographies and politics of globalization. Progress in Human Geography, 23(3),
379–400.
Khan, S., & Foti, J. (2015). Aligning supply and demand for better governance: Open data in the open
government partnership. OGP Independent Reporting Mechanism.
Kigoma Ujiji Municipal Council. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March
30, 2017 from https​://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (2010). Preface. In D. Lathrop & L. Ruma (Eds.), Open government: Collabo-
ration, transparency and participation in practice (pp. xix–xxv). O’Reilly: Beijing.
Lee, J. (2013). Can you hear me now? Making participatory governance work for the poor. Harvard Law
& Policy Review, 7, 405–443.
Loffler, E. (2009). Why co-production is an important topic for local government. Governance Interna-
tional. Paper Commissioned by LARCI.
MacLeod, G., & Goodwin, M. (1999). Space, scale and state strategy: Rethinking urban and regional
governance. Progress in Human Geography, 23, 503–527.
Magnusson, W. (2005). Are municipalities creatures of the provinces? Journal of Canadian Studies,
39(2), 5–30.
McDermott, P. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401–413.
Meijer, A., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: Connecting vision and voice. Inter-
national Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10–29.
Minogue, M. (2001). Should flawed models of public management be exported? Issues and practices. In
W. McCourt & M. Minogue (Eds.), The internationalisation of public management: Reinventing
the third world state. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Morozov, E. (2013). The meme hustler: O’Reilly’s crazy talk. The Baffler, 22. Retrieved August 12, 2017
from http://www.theba​ffler​.com/past/the_meme_hustl​er.
Moynihan, D. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public
Administration Review, 66, 77–89.
Municipality of Sao Paulo. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017
from https​://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.

13
 Policy Sciences

Nam, T. (2012). Citizens’ attitudes toward open government and government 2.0. International Review
of Administrative Sciences, 78(2), 346–368.
OECD. (2005). Modernising government: The way forward. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2010). Better regulation in Europe. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2016). Open government: The global context and the way forward. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OGP. Eligibility criteria. Retrieved August 19, 2018 from https​://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/resou​
rces/eligi​bilit​y-crite​r ia.
OGP. (2012). Open government partnership: Articles of governance. Retrieved May 2, 2017, from https​
://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/sites​/defau​lt/files​/attac​hment​s/OGP_Artic​les-Gov_Apr-21-2015.
pdf.
OGP. (2014). Open government guide. Retrieved June 10, 2017 from https​://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.
org/resou​rces/open-gover​nment​-guide​.
OGP. (2016a). Digital booklet. Retrieved June 10, 2017 from http://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/sites​/
defau​lt/files​/09111​6_OGP_Bookl​et_digit​al.pdf.
OGP. (2016b). Subnational government pilot project. Retrieved January 10, 2017 from https​://www.
openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/how-it-works​/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
OGP. (2017). Government point of contact manual. Retrieved on July 10, 2017 from https​://www.openg​
ovpar​tners​hip.org/sites​/defau​lt/files​/OGP_POC-Manua​l_2017_EN.pdf.
Ohemeng, F. (2010). The dangers of internationalization and “one-size-fits-all” in public sector manage-
ment. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(5), 456–478.
Osmani, S. (2008). Participatory governance: An overview of issues and evidence. United Nations, 1.
Parks, W. (1957). The open government principle: Applying the right to know under the constitution.
The George Washington Law Review, 26(1), 1–22.
Phillips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. Oxford University Press.
Plehwe, D., Walpen, B., & Neunhöffer, G. (Eds.). (2006). Neoliberal hegemony: A global critique. Lon-
don and New York: Routledge.
Province of Ontario. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from
https​://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
Regional Government of La Libertad. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved
March 30, 2017 from https​://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
Ribot, J., Chhatre, A., & Lankina, T. (2008). Introduction: Institutional choice and recognition in the
formation and consolidation of local democracy. Conservation and Society, 6, 1–11.
Robinson, M., & Heller, N. (2015). Subnational governments and the open government partnership:
Issues and options paper. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from http://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/
howit​-works​/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
Romzek, B., & Dubnick, M. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger
tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238.
Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, R. (2015). Toward an integrative assessment of open government:
Proposing conceptual lenses and practical components. Journal of Organizational Computing and
Electronic Commerce, 26(1–2), 170–192.
Sangiorgi, D. (2012). Transformative services and transformation design. International Journal of
Design, 5, 29–40.
Schauer, F. (2011). Transparency in three dimensions. University of Illinois Law Review, 4, 1339–1358.
Schick, A. (1998). A contemporary approach to public expenditure management (English). Washington,
DC: World Bank.
Scottish Government. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017
from https​://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved
March 30, 2017 from https​://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
State Government of Jalisco. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30,
2017 from https​://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,
7(17), 1–10.
Tbilisi Government. (2016). Open government subnational action plan. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from
https​://www.openg​ovpar​tners​hip.org/subna​tiona​l-gover​nment​-pilot​-progr​am.
Weinstein, J. (2013). Transforming multilateralism: Innovation on a global stage. Stanford Social Inno-
vation Review, 1, 3–7.
Weiss, L. (2000). Developmental states in transition: Adapting, dismantling, innovating, not ‘normaliz-
ing’. The Pacific Review, 13(1), 21–55. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09512​74003​63631​.

13
Policy Sciences

White House. (2009a). Presidential document, memorandum of January 21, 2009, transparency and open
government, 74 Fed. Reg. 4685 (Jan. 26, 2009). Retrieved March 30, 2017 from http://www.white​
house​.gov/the_press​_offic​e/Trans​paren​cy_and_Open_Gover​nment​.
White House. (2009b). Open Government Directive. Retrieved March 30, 2017 from http://www.white​
house​.gov/sites​/defau​lt/files​/omb/asset​s/memor​anda_2010/m10-06.pdf.
Wirtz, B., & Birkmeyer, S. (2015). Open government: Origin, development, and conceptual perspectives.
International Journal of Public Administration, 38(5), 381–396.
World Bank. (2016). Open government impact and outcomes: Mapping the landscape of ongoing research.
A report.
Yilmaz, S., Beris, Y., & Serrano-Berthet, R. (2010). Linking local government discretion and account-
ability in decentralisation. Development Policy Review, 28(3), 259–293. https​://doi.org/10.111
1/j.1467-7679.2010.00484​.x.
Yu, H., & Robinson, D. (2012). The new ambiguity of open government. UCLA Law Review Discourse,
178, 180–208.

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13