What’s in a name? A comparison of ‘open government’ definitions across seven Open Government Partnership members

Amanda Clarke,Mary Francoli

doi:10.29379/jedem.v6i3.227

Abstract

No longer restricted to access to information laws and accountability measures, “open government” is now associated with a broad range of goals and functions, including public participation, open data, the improvement of public services and government efficiency. The 59 country strong Open Government Partnership (OGP) suggests that consensus on the value of open government is emerging amongst public officials. Similarly, academics have shown a renewed interest in open government as they discuss, debate and critique the meaning and role of open government reforms today. Yet, despite the diverse aims and tools characterizing contemporary open government, public officials and academics typically approach the subject as a cohesive unit of analysis, making sweeping—and generally non-empirical—claims about its implications, without accounting for the homegrown flavours that may characterize open government in practice. Simply put, the practice and study of contemporary open government suffers a lack of definitional clarity: what exactly is open government today, and how does it vary across governments? In response to these questions, this paper analyses the content of open government policy documents in seven OGP member states (Azerbaijan, Brazil, Canada, Netherlands, Kenya, United Kingdom, and the United States), providing the first systematic, empirically-grounded multi-country comparison of contemporary open government. The paper suggests where the term departs from and retains its original meaning, and how its definition varies across different governments

Highlights

No longer restricted to access to information laws and accountability measures, “open government” is associated with a broad range of goals and functions, including public participation, open data, the improvement of public services and government efficiency
Do contemporary definitions of open government depart from traditional definitions of the term? Second, do current definitions of open government vary across jurisdictions? By answering the first question, the paper responds to work which suggests that contemporary open government is fundamentally different from its 1950s conception
As explored in the literature review, authors have used the term open government in a number of different ways. These contributions are limited insofar as they do not tend to be grounded in systematically generated empirical data describing open government policies and programs as they are formulated by governments themselves

Summary

Introduction

No longer restricted to access to information laws and accountability measures, “open government” is associated with a broad range of goals and functions, including public participation, open data, the improvement of public services and government efficiency. The paper suggests where the term departs from and retains its original meaning, and how its definition varies across different governments. This article does not purport to assess the value or effectiveness of current open government initiatives This is a useful and necessary exercise for future research that will benefit from the greater conceptual clarity offered here. He returns to Locke to remind us that words are used to “stand for the reality of things” (Locke 1690) It is a way for thoughts and ideas to be organized and communicated, ideally with similar meaning. Thinking about language and meaning in this way, we can identify three main rationales for definitional clarity in use of the term open government

Methods

Results

Conclusion