Open Government Data as a Tool to Improve Democracy: a Proposed Framework

(1)

Open Government Data as a Tool to Improve Democracy: a Proposed Framework

Master’s Thesis Submitted 27 June 2014

Author: Natalia Miszczak Student number: 10231927 nmiszczak@gmail.com +44 (0)7513061281

Course Title: MA New Media

Supervisor: dhr. dr. B.G.M. (Martijn) de Waal Assistant Professor

Faculty of Humanities

Department of Media Studies University of Amsterdam

Second Reader: dr. Y. (Yuri) von Engelhardt Assistant Professor

Faculty of Humanities

Department of Media Studies University of Amsterdam

(2)

(3)

Acknowledgements

I would like to that my research supervisor, Mr Martin de Waal, for his guidance and

assistance on preparing this research paper. Without his support and advice, this would have not been possible. To my family and friends, thank you for your on-going support and motivation throughout this process.

(4)

Abstract

Governments around the world have become active members in the evolution of opening up their data for access and re-use by public and private agents alike. The collection and release of Open Government Data has been driven by the promise that democratic governments can be enhanced and improved by its use. In particular, four pillars of

democracy selected as part of this research paper– participation, public sphere, transparency and accountability – can all benefit by the release and use of Open Government Data.

However, an evaluation of the existing academic research and publications currently available suggest a shortfall in frameworks available to measure the benefit the release of Open Government Data has on these four pillars of a democratic society.

This research paper explores the meaning of Open Government Data and the various promises claimed by its supporters. The pillars of a democratic society and how it is moving towards a phase of ‘post-democracy‘ has been discussed in detail.

A proposed new framework, aimed at measuring specific democratic effects of Open Government Data, has been included and uses key aspects of existing frameworks while introduces a number of additional criteria and measurement tools. This proposed framework provides a more systematic approach to measure the role of Open Government Data in overcoming post-democracy and improving participation, public sphere, transparency and accountability of governments. Limitations of the proposed framework and suggestions on further research have also been included.

Key words: Open Government Data, Democracy, Post-Democracy, Participation, Public Sphere, Transparency, Accountability, Framework

(5)

1 Chapter 1

1.1 Introduction

In the last twenty years, governments around the globe have taken actions to become more transparent. Nearly seventy countries have now embraced Freedom of Information Acts in order to facilitate access to information held by government bodies and another fifty have pending efforts (Banisar 6). The last two decades have witnessed large number of states implementing access to information laws.

There are many reasons for this increase in government transparency. Since the late 1980s, the end of the Soviet Union and the development of new democracies have given rise to new foundations and constitutions around the globe. These new documents include rights and obligations on the freedom to information and help to preventing government abuse of power. These constitutional warranties often require the acceptance of new laws on

information access (Ackerman and Sandoval-Ballesteros).

Simultaneously, older democracies such as United States of America or the United Kingdom are seeing the benefits of passing new regulation. For some years the concept of open data and in particular Open Government Data (OGD) – information collected by the authorities, available to anyone to obtain and use for any purpose - has been available (Dietrich et al. 3). Various international bodies have prepared guidelines or exemplary legislation to promote freedom of information. The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and their contributors, are inspiring and encouraging countries to embrace access to information laws as a way to strengthen the transparency and fight corruption (Puddephatt 10). The World Bank has published an online OGD Toolkit (“Open Government Data Toolkit”), which includes a large number of information from the basics of OGD, the tools, licences and presentation techniques. The toolkit also includes 'Open Data Readiness Assessment' (ODRA), a “methodological tool for conducting an action-oriented assessment of the readiness of a government - or even an individual agency - to evaluate, design and implement an open data initiative” (“Readiness Assessment Tool | Data”). Finally, media and civil society groups are pushing for better access to government-held data and for more cooperation in policy making and governance (Banisar n.pag.).

As a result, open data has moved beyond a ‘nice-to-have’ to a necessity for organizational and government performance standards in the 21st Century, as these days

(9)

citizens demand government to be more efficient than ever (Open Data Field Guide -

Executive Summary 4). Consequently, in September 2011, the Open Government Partnership (OGP) was launched in New York. OGP is a “multilateral initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance” (“Open Government Partnership - About”). In order to enter the partnership, authorities must demonstrate a commitment to open government in five fundamental sectors and these criteria include: “improving public services, increasing public integrity, effectively managing public resources, creating safer communities and increasing corporate accountability” (“OGP Minimum Eligibility Criteria”). Participating governments also promise to “uphold the value of openness in engagement with citizens to improve services, manage public resources, promote innovation, and create safer communities” (Yu and Robinson 201). The leaders of all of the eight founding regimes (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States) ratified an Open Government Declaration as well as National Action Plans (“Historic Global Open Government Partnership Launches in New York City - O’Reilly Radar” n.pag.). During the launch, MP Stephen Timms, minister for Digital Britain in the UK, said that he sees this action as an opportunity to improve the relationship between citizens and civil society. Timms added that UK OGD portal data.gov.uk “would help the government become more efficient as public finances were under pressure” (Anderson n.pag.). To date, 64 governments have joined the initiative (“Participating Countries”).

In the UK, such a move was already expected for several years previous to the launch of Open Government Partnership, the UK government had been pushed particularly by a “vocal group of civic hackers” (Hogge 4) to release the data resources. Civic hackers are individuals with similar views and goals who “collaborate with others to create, build, and invent open source solutions using publicly-released data, code and technology, in order to solve challenges relevant to their neighbourhoods, cities, or countries” (“Hack for the Change”). Prior to the launch of OGP, civic hackers were known mostly for the creation of various websites dedicated to political engagement. By applying different methods such as traditional advocacy and demonstrator projects, they urged the government to release its data in an open fashion and in machine-readable formats (Hogge 7). As Hogge observed, joining OGP by UK was an answer to this pressure and it succeeded in “stimulating collaboration between civil servants in the middle layer of government administration and civic hackers of many different backgrounds” (6).

(10)

1.2 Problem and Research Question

Various actors including civic society, the government itself and public and private organizations, are able to benefit largely from using OGD. These benefits, as classified by various researchers, can be of economic and non-monetary character, and include greater civic involvement in policy-making processes and civic control bespoke to the government.

Some claim that OGD could even overturn a current crisis in democratic governance labelled “post-democracy”. The English sociologist and political scientist Colin Crouch coined this term for a new phase of democratic order where the application of democratic rules is gradually limited, and he considered western civilizations are now shifting towards this phase (Coping with Post-Democracy). Due to promoting transparency and being a government control tool, OGD may derive large social value and, as a result, help the

overcome post-democratic phase as well as help to strengthen democracy in different aspects. However, whether indeed OGD can influence and help society leading to more

democratic governance, remains unclear. One problem is that even if it may do so, there are currently very limited frameworks and tools available to measure this success. Of those that are available, it is understood that there is currently none dealing specifically with the democratic benefits of OGD on a broad scale.

The goal of this research paper is to address this issue, with the research question as follows: what should an evaluative framework that is suited to measure specific democratic effects of OGD look like? Specifically, what factors should be included in a framework to measure the role of OGD in overcoming post-democracy and achieving other benefits, which are thought to contribute to improving the quality of democracy in a democratic country (that is increased government transparency and accountability). It is understood that such a

framework suited for adequately measuring democratic aspects of OGD is not readily available to the public.

To answer this research question, I will introduce the reader to the development and current use of OGD in the wider domain, explore the current challenges, and compare and assess the existing frameworks available measuring different aspects of OGD, relating the potential democratic effects of the provision.

(11)

Secondly, I will propose a new framework for measuring democratic benefits of OGD. A critical assessment of this new framework outlining the intended use and limitations shall be provided, before the final remarks and recommendations for future research.

1.3 Research Outline

Chapter two provides an introduction to OGD, its ideas and promises that the supporters and enthusiasts claim.

Chapter three focuses on democracy, in particular its traditional pillars and the

suggested ways in which democracy is currently failing in developed societies. The concept of post-democracy is introduced and how OGD has the potential to avoid the shift of some countries to post-democracy and strengthen the democratic order. The additional democratic effects (non-related to post-democracy) of OGD implementation and how access to the Internet can counter the shift towards post-democracy is also discussed.

Chapter four focuses on the issues arising from the use of OGD as a tool to improving democracy with respect to participation, public-sphere, transparency and accountability.

Chapter five includes the assessment of existing frameworks that measure different democratic aspects of OGD. The results of this assessment form the basis of my proposed framework.

Chapter six provides the details of my purpose-built framework developed specifically to measure if OGD can improve the transparency, participation and accountability in a political context, providing that the Internet can further develop the already existing public-sphere.

(12)

2 Chapter 2

This chapter provides an introduction to OGD, the definitions, attributes, and the current position taken on its use by some developed democratic governments. The various promises relating to the release of OGD into the public realm, as claimed by its supporters, have also been included.

2.1 An introduction to Open Government Data

The common understanding of the word “data” is that of a product of activity conducted by individuals, businesses and governments; in personal, commercial and government spheres. This data is collected in different ways and constantly evolving

technology means that more data can be generated, collected and stored than ever before. The broad scope of government activity means that this is a particularly rich source of data and the volume and significance of the data governments collect is substantial. Janssen claims that the public bodies are in fact one of the largest groups both collecting and populating data in a number of different formats (446). This data comes from the everyday administration of government programs and it is increasingly available to the public.

The authors of “The Generative Mechanisms of Open Government Data” claim that every year, the data generated from all sort of different sources is dramatically increasing the volume of existing records and the amount of information available is expected to double every year (Jetzek, Avital, and Bjorn-Andersen 2). The authors note that due to the amount of data growing at a considerable rate, in addition to the advanced methods of sharing this information, this changes the nature of data from "a closed proprietary reserve to a common shared resource” (2). The authors also add that the possibilities to better use available data are growing due to the technical facilities and advancement to merge and analyse different data sets (2). Vivek Kundra, Chief Information Officer for the United States for the Obama Administration (2008-11), summarises this phenomenon in an article titled “Digital Fuel of the 21st Century: Innovation through Open Data and the Network Effect”. He notes that due to these promised benefits of advanced computing and discovering new information from new or already existing data, combined with the collaboration facilities, the same like oil in the industrial revolution, society and data has “the potential to drive massive social, political and economic change“ (4).

Recent technology now permits access to different forms of data such as raw datasets from governments, institutions and organisations. As previously noted, various groups in

(13)

society demand access to unprocessed information “in ways that allows it to be searched, sorted, remixed, visualized and shared through the Internet” (Davies, “How Might Open Data Contribute to Good Governance?” 148). In Europe, the increasing potential of using such data has been on The European Commission’s agenda since the end of 1980s (Janssen 446), and in 2003, the directive on re-use of public sector information (the PSI directive) was employed (“European Legislation on Reuse of Public Sector Information”).

In 2009, the open data agenda was given more visibility when US President Barack Obama, upon being sworn into office, signed a Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government. The memorandum committed his government “to create an unprecedented level of openness in Government” (Obama n.pag.). He said:

We must use all available technologies and methods to open up the federal government, creating a new level of transparency to change the way business is conducted in Washington, and giving Americans the chance to participate in

government deliberations and decision-making in ways that were not possible only a few years ago (O’Reilly, “Gov 2.0: The Promise Of Innovation. Can Government Become a Platform Of, for and by the People?”).

During the first 100 days of Obama’s presidency, his administration took numerous steps to indicate an improved commitment to governmental transparency. Their effort resulted in the creation of the website data.gov, which is dedicated to hosting national datasets for unrestricted access.

In the UK, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, spearheaded the OGD initiative. In 2009, Berners-Lee gave a persuasive speech at the influential

“Technology, Entertainment, Design” (TED) conference during which he urged the data-collecting bodies to release “Raw Data Now!” (Tim Berners-Lee). As he observed, “(…) it has to start at the top, it has to start in the middle and it has to start at the bottom” (Hogge 5).

The UK quickly followed the move of United States and the official data portal data.gov.uk was launched in early 2010, offering access to some of the data collected by the UK government and other public bodies. Thousands of data streams were uploaded upon its inception “with the goal of enabling new opportunities for public use of this information’ (Harrison, Pardo, et al. n.pag.). This marked the beginning of open data reforms within the UK government in the UK, and these changes continued to expand under the new

(14)

administration from mid-2010. As of June 2014, data.gov.uk has listed 14,343 published datasets in various formats and hosted a range of derived applications.

At this point, it will be useful to provide a full explanation about the various meaning of the word “open” in the context of data and the government. I am also going to discuss further why civil groups, organizations and businesses are pushing this agenda, and outline the promised benefits of OGD.

2.2

Open Data: Definition and Meaning

The label “open” in relation to data may have various meanings. From a technological perspective, the word implies “using computers to handle information efficiently instead of manual human processing” (Yu and Robinson 188). Philosophically, the term suggests accessibility and transparency. It suggests that all the individuals who may profit from data can impart and reuse it in a democratized, open manner. This, according to Yu and Robinson, implies “an absence of legal barriers to innovative new projects, and a larger cultural

enthusiasm for innovative and sometimes unexpected developments” (189).

An advisory council Open Definition (opendefinition.org) provides a description, that aims to set clear criteria for openness of data: “a piece of content or data is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it - subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and share-alike”. More precisely, the most important attributes of open data are as defined by the Open Definition (Open Data Handbook Documentation 6):

• Availability and Access: the data must be available in its entirety and at no more than a realistic reproduction cost. Preferably it should be accessible to download over the Internet, in a convenient and modifiable format.

• Reuse and Redistribution: the data must be provided under terms that allow reuse and redistribution including combining with other datasets.

• Universal Participation: everyone must be allowed to use, reuse and redistribute the data. There should be no discrimination against certain industries or against certain persons or groups of people. For example, there should not be any ‘non-commercial’ restrictions that would prevent ‘commercial’ use, or there should not be any

(15)

To summarise the different meanings, the term “open data” now accumulates both technological and philosophical senses: open data is unprocessed, non-manipulated and available without any limitations on its usage or distribution. The above understanding of the term shall be used as such in this research paper.

2.3 Open Government: different meanings

Until quite recently, open government referred to “politically sensitive disclosures of government information” (Yu and Robinson 178), which in other words means the right of individuals to access the material generated and held by the governments. Yu and Robinson note that over the last couple of years this traditional meaning has evolved and the current meaning transferred towards open technology (189). While the older approach was focused mainly on transparency, Longo claims that the current understanding of “open government” also includes aspects such as participation, collaboration and innovation. Yu and Robinson identify that in relation to open government, the new meaning of “open” is similar to the open source programming movement’s ideology and process where users can contribute and modify the code of their chosen software (Yu and Robinson 188). In terms of open

government, it means that individuals can not only have rights to access the documents, but they also can participate in the procedures of government, the same as the programmers participate in the creation of the software. Harrison et al. claim that the open government is a bridge between the so called digital democracy and digital government: it “(…) closes the gap between digital government (usually more concerned about management) and digital democracy (usually more concerned with political participation)” (84).

Additionally, these new collaborative opportunities require new approaches from governments, and new models for promoting collaboration and generating value (Meijer and Thaens). This particular way of thinking where individuals or organizations may build on “work” completed by others and thus help its development has become a substantial and well-established part of the open government movement. Lathrop and Ruma explained it in “Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice”:

Just as open source software allows users to change and contribute to the source code of their software, open government now means government where citizens not only have access to information, documents and proceedings, but can also become participants in a meaningful way (xix).

(16)

This means that participants (the public), through the use of OGD, have the potential to take part in informed discourse, hold the government to account, provide feedback for the government and assist the government in developing useful applications with the data provided.

In a current and wider sense, “open government” can also mean “a changing

relationship between citizens and authorities - a gain of power in the hands of the governed in respect to the governors” (Maier-Rabler, and Huber 182). In a report on future of open and innovative government by The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the secretary-general stated that citizens would have to take upon much more responsibility and collaborate with the public sector:

In the context of the current technological shift and reliance on IT, citizens and civil society will be empowered to take on greater responsibility and start new partnerships with the public sector. Therefore, collaboration with citizens and civil society will become a cornerstone for future public sector reforms (OECD, The Call for Innovative and Open Government 13).

2.4 The Relationship between Open Government, Government Data and Open Government Data

OGD is the confluence of government data, open data movement and open government philosophy, with these relationships shown in Figure 1 below. Open data and open

government are interconnected, but not the same. A government can be open and transparent, without embracing new, internet-mediated technologies: open data does not necessarily come from the government and not all of the data possessed by the regimes can be classified as “open”. (Yu and Robinson 181). Further to this, (open data) can remain deeply opaque and unaccountable, by providing data on politically neutral topics or in such a way as to avoid true transparency and accountability.

(17)

Figure 1: "Open Government Data", Justin Grimes

The term OGD is not completely clear and can be interpreted in one of two ways. Yu and Robinson note that if “open government” is a phrase that determined the meaning of the word “data”, politically important information is being discussed, whether or not they are delivered by electronic means (181). Then, if the words “open” and “government” are used separately and describing “data”, records that are both easy to access and related to the government are considered, but the information does not have to be relevant from the political point of view (182). Further to these, another interpretation also involves the connection between all of the theories: governmental data is important from the political point of view, delivered in a way that enables easy access to it and suited for further use, re-distribution and manipulation. As explained previously, it is this third (connected)

interpretation that I consider relevant and will be used in this research thesis. 2.5 Promises of Open Government Data

Over the period OGD has been available for various groups to use, manipulate and

analyse, proponents have outlined the benefits or ‘promises’ OGD delivers to society. Kundra notes four key promises as follows:

• Fight government corruption, improve accountability and enhance government services;

(18)

• Create new models of journalism to separate signal from noise to provide meaningful insights; and

• Launch multi-billion dollar businesses based on public sector data.

In addition to those above, other authors have identified other promises:

• Create Greater Collective Knowledge, Collaboration and Innovation (“Open Government Data”); and

• Improve the Government and Change in the Delivery of Public Services (“Improving the Transparency and Accountability of Government and Its Services - Policy - GOV.UK”).

These promises outline a number of obvious advantages to the overall functioning of a democratic society. It is important to understand the details of these listed promises to appreciate the issues and challenges of each in the context of OGD. Discussion of these as follows.

2.5.1 Fight Government Corruption, Improve Accountability and Government Services As explained previously, the “open” in Open Government, Open Data and Open Information means the change of relationship between citizens and establishments. Many people no longer accept the passive role, that the typical (representative) democracy holds for them (Hogge 20). With this type of “contract”, where delegates are supposed to represent citizens’ interests, people are only able to get directly involved sporadically (typically every 3-5 years) during elections. Opening up data enables more substantial involvement between elections and according to Hadden, it creates “a virtual agora of civic discourse” (n. pag.) This agora has several qualities enabling interaction where everyone has access to it, where it is possible to meet anyone else, and everyone’s voice can be heard (Digital Public Spaces 14). Lastly, open data provides this discourse with evidence and facts, rather than opinion (Hadden n.pag.). This may ultimately help to prevent dishonesty, increase accountability and improve government services due to a better control imposed by the society.

(19)

2.5.2 Change the Government to Open, Transparent and Participatory

One of the basic rights of citizens in a well-functioning, democratic society is access to information relating to the activities and policies of their government (OECD, Effective Communications Between the Public Service and the Media 3). Free access to raw

government data provides the possibility of this type of democratic society. Transparency initiatives, as Dawes and Helbig describe, generally serve the goal of control that voters can now impose on the officials. This happens as a result of the renewal of the social contract between government and citizens: providing citizens and other stakeholders “with ‘a window’ into what government is doing and how it works in order to hold elected officials and public agencies accountable for their decisions and actions” (Dawes and Helbig n.pag.).

OGD therefore implies a change of the role of public sector: it changes from

information gate keeper to the information publisher, which in turn may result in a change of power distribution between the public and private sectors well as between the government and the general public (Davies, “Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform” 5). With more fair distribution of information and power, where more power is given to the public, there are chances that the work of the government will improve due to increased

participation, collaboration and transparency, which will subsequently strengthen democracy.

2.5.3 Create new models of journalism

The idea behind this promise is that OGD is typically presented in a form of long documents with countless rows of numbers or figures, where a thorough analysis demands specific tools and knowledge. As a result, such data is often too difficult for most to consume and comprehend. New types of information outlets are being created to make information accessible for journalists and individuals, enabling greater insight and “mining signals out of otherwise noisy data” (Kundra 11).

For example, projects such as “Where Does My Money Go”

(wheredoesmymoneygo.org) created by the Open Knowledge Foundation, show how the UK government is spending taxpayers’ money. To quote a second example, The Open Data Handbook includes a story of how open data prevented a $3.2 billion charity tax fraud in Canada. Data provided to the public and journalist groups by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) helped to discover that billions of dollars in contributions were collected by dishonest organizations without the revenue reaching the target charities or causes. Also various

(20)

(sejmometr.pl) monitor activity in parliament and the policy making processes, giving citizens a better chance of understanding the politics and ensures the accountability of the elected representatives to account. “Sejmometr” includes a list of all Members of Parliament, together with their voting attendance score, level of performances and submitted bills. Users can read all recently approved bills and those that will be subject to a vote in the near future. The website also provides a thorough graphical analyses of the country’s budget, spending and national debt under different Prime Ministers. Figure 2 provides a sample snapshot comparing budget acts in relation to the corresponding prime ministers.1

Figure 2: Polish Budget Acts visualized (Sejmometr.pl)

Thanks to using open data-based websites such as this, citizens are offered a clear and visually stimulating outline of a government’s activity (e.g. involvement of individuals in policy-making process). This provides a small example of historical government data presented in a way to inform a wider audience.

2.5.4 Launching multi-billion dollar businesses based on Public Sector Data

In the digital age, data is an essential part of the life individuals and businesses alike. From everyday activities such as finding a local swimming pool online, to creating a mobile phone application, people and businesses require access to information, frequently held

(21)

and/or populated by the government. By opening its resources, governments may thus support the formation of innovative solutions and businesses that bring both social and commercial values. The professional services firm Deloitte believes that the open data environment can greatly influence the future of the business: “(…) we foresee that open data (...) will be a vital driver for growth, ingenuity and innovation in the UK economy“ (Open Data 3).

Fioretti states that there are two types of economic value of OGD: the value generated in the private sector and the value generated in the public sector (18). Regarding wealth generated in the private sector, several studies (“OS Open Data Economic Value Study Released Under FOI”; “Ordnance Survey Open Data”; Keogh) estimate the value to the UK is in the order of millions of pounds.A recent report “The Open Data Economy: Unlocking Economic Value by Opening Government and Public Data“ (Tinholt) published by an international consultancy group Cap Gemini, examines government open data initiatives around the world. It suggests that evidence of economic returns is growing. To name a few examples, companies selling open data-based services in Spain generate together €330-550 million a year (Spanish Open Data Portal Annual Report. Characterization Study of the Infomediary Sector 25). Garmin, a US company that develops consumer, aviation, and marine technologies, was created using raw government data. Across the European Union economy, the collective direct and indirect applications of open data are projected to be €140 billion annually. Thus, the matching increase in tax revenues is a direct financial benefit (Tinholt 9).

For wealth generated in the public sector, these derive from savings inside the administrations themselves. According to Fioretii, opening data may result in cutting some activities (such as responding to queries, for example), or handling those activities in more efficient way (18).

2.5.5 Create Greater Collective Knowledge, Collaboration and Innovation

New knowledge and new discoveries may derive from the combination and analysis of different data sets. As an example, Dietrich et al. recall the case of Dr Snow, who exposed the connection between drinking water contamination and cholera in 19th century London. Joining facts about casualties with the information about position of water wells resulted in discovering the pattern. His finding resulted in the creation of the new sewage system in London, and subsequently an improvement of the population’s general health.

(22)

The reason why such developments have been taking place for many centuries is that mixing different data sets can result in better understanding of various, even potentially unrelated, issues. As it was explained previously, the freedom to contribute to the work of others is a major factor of the open data philosophy. In the open data era, rather than being merely “read-only” users, citizens have the freedom to mix distributed data from different agencies, discover patterns, create applications and, upon completion, provide “feedback to enhance the quality of published government data” (Ding et al. 325) as well as create more valuable services.

Such a cycle exists in the technology industry where the “platform companies” become big winners. There are enterprises that built additional value on other companies’ work and thus multiplied the impact of the service. O’Reilly notes how Microsoft provided “a PC on every desk and in every home”, the Internet linked them together, Google supported a generation of start-ups and Apple completely changed the phone industry by permitting developers to create various applications. This last step lead to an “explosion of creativity” from society, with more than 50,000 applications created for an Apple device in under 12 months (O’Reilly, “Gov 2.0” n.pag.).

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, one of the co-directors of London’s Open Data Institute, stated “One of the reasons the Web worked was because people re-used each other’s content in ways never imagined by those who created it. The same will be true of Open Data.” (Kelsey, n.pag.). O’Reilly said in a blog post for Tech Crunch, “(…) in each case, the platform

provider raised the bar, and created opportunities for others to exploit” (O’Reilly, “Gov 2.0”). In the case of OGD, such creativity and innovation is certainly achievable as well. In the government context, innovation relates to performance and growth through progress in efficiency, productivity, quality, etc. O’Sullivan and Dooley define innovation as “(…) the process of making changes to something established by introducing something new that adds value to customers and contributes to the knowledge store of the organization” (5).

Customers, in this meaning, are of course the citizens, who rely on government to provide them with the services. However, the citizens themselves may create or drive the innovation in addition to the media, businesses, independent researchers and entrepreneurs. Currently, the trend of creative re-interpretation of open data is enforced by many web 2.0 initiatives such as, for example, crowdsourcing and social networking sites. In New York, dog owners can meet other pet owners from their area by checking who walks the dog at their local park (dogster.com). Websites like mapumental.com in the UK, to quote another example, allow

(23)

citizens to find places to live by looking at aspects such as distance between the location and work, security, affordability and the visual attractiveness of the location.

2.5.6 Improve the delivery of public services

The last promise of OGD is government self-improvement and change in the way public services are delivered. It is not a new idea to use transparency as a tool for developing better public services. In the article titled “Transparency in the NHS Not Only Saves Lives – It Is a Fundamental Human Right”, the author notes examples how transparency affected National Health System in the UK. The measurement plus publication of death rates in public hospitals in UK led to the exposure of very poor standards of patient care at one of the

hospitals in London (Kelsey n.pag.). Clearly publishing this data exposed some major problems with public services, which could no longer be “hidden” from the public. Anther example comes from year 2004 the heart surgeon Sir Bruce Keogh, now British National Health Service (NHS) medical director, persuaded 240 heart surgeons to publish analogous data on results of their teams, including death rates (Keogh n.pag.). The outcomes were surprising in their massive variations. Bad practices were addressed, good practices spread and mortality rates fell over the following years by 22%, making UK heart surgery

demonstrably safer than anywhere else in Europe. This experience could then help to inform clinical standards and training into the future and it was only made possible by the exposure and analysis of current activities. This example is a sound positive result of transparency, that led to delivery of better services by publicly found bodies.

Open data may also drive the efficiency of government services and departments. In a paper titled “The Business Case For Open PSI (Part II)”, Zijstra cites an example where the Ministry of Education in The Netherlands published online data held on the education sector. The number of queries directed to the Ministry has dropped resulting in reduced costs and employee work time. The other, non-monetary benefit of releasing data about education is that parents and communities are more informed about the relative performance and service offerings of their schools, and can act on this information.

2.6 The beneficiaries of Open Government Data

As it stems from examples above, the main beneficiaries of OGD are: • Citizens (general public plus researchers) / Consumers

(24)

• The government itself and related public institutions

Deloitte LPP outlined the complex relation between the data flow between these bodies as shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Data flow inside the community (Deloitte LPP)

This chapter has provided the definitions, meanings and relationships between Open Data and Open Government. The various promises of releasing OGD have been listed which is key to understanding the future growth and interaction between the public and this data. The following chapter discusses democracy and the concept of moving towards the phase of post-democracy.

(25)

3 Chapter 3

The previous chapter outlined the promises of OGD and the various definitions

surrounding this. This chapter discusses the various aspects of democracy and specifically the pillars on which it is based: transparency, the public sphere, participation and accountability. Following this, the concept of society moving towards a phase of post-democracy has been explored, where the role or access citizens have in developing and understanding

government’s decision making is slowing being eroded. In what ways, according to this theory, is democracy subsequently failing on several levels will also be discussed. Finally, how access to the Internet can improve the current position in the light of post-democracy and what challenges are standing in the way shall be further investigated.

3.1 Democracy: Definition and traditional pillars

Providing a full definition of democracy is a complex task as many scholars offer different points of view of this political system. There are various theories, concepts and models of democracy and it would be difficult to provide a description that will satisfy everyone. In literal meaning, the word democracy comes from ancient Greek word dēmokratiā, which combines dēmos - the “people”, with kratos - “rule”, “power” or

“strength”. These two words combined means “rule by the people” and this is the very basic explanation of this type of political system. By this definition, there must be a process by which the people exercise this power for democracy to be in place. Next, in order for a contestation to take place, which is based on sound reasoning and rational decisions, the people must first be properly aware of all factual and relevant information relating to the issues under contention. According to Robert Dahl, democracy requires free flow of information, transparency and the existence of a well-functioning public sphere, therefore freedom of speech, gatherings, and press, among other necessities, is necessary.

Following on from Dahl’s concept, Balkin recognized three main purposes for transparency in a democratic society: providing the public with the information, increasing public participation, and holding organizations accountable. In other words, via transparency and using their right to participate, the public have a much greater opportunity to hold governments accountable for their actions. Accountability is the next requirement of

democracy, as stated by Schmitter and Karl: “democracy is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives“ (103).

(26)

Although only a brief introduction to the components of democracy, I have used these definitions and concepts as the basis of my further research. As such, the core requirements, or pillars, of a well-functioning democratic system have been defined as political

participation, a well-functioning public sphere, transparency and accountability. These four pillars have been discussed in further detail as follows.

3.1.1 Participation

The public participation in discussion and decision-making process is a key element of the definition of democracy coined by Bobbio and Schattschneider. Bobbio described a democratic regime as “(…) a set of procedural rules for arriving at collective decisions in a way which accommodates and facilitates the fullest possible participation of interested parties” (19). According to Schattschneider this participation is facilitated by the actors in the democratic order: "democracy is a competitive political system in which competing leaders and organizations define the alternatives of public policy in such a way that the public can participate in the decision-making process” (41). It is important to note that involvement in the decision-making process is determined by the technical capabilities: in a direct

democracy, all citizens can take part in making public decisions, without the need of selecting intermediary or appointing officials to represent them. Such system is of course practical only in small communities, where all members can physically gather, to discuss matters and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Modern democracy, due to the large size of communities, offers very limited opportunities for direct involvement and

therefore, the most common form of democracy is representative democracy. This is the form of this political system, where people designate officials to make political decisions, invent laws, and design policies for the public, as defined by Pennock:

(…) where ‘the people’ includes all adult citizens not excluded by some generally agreed upon and reasonable disqualifying factor (…). Rule means that public policies are determined either directly by vote of the electorate or indirectly by officials freely elected at reasonably frequent intervals and by a process in which each voter who chooses to vote counts equally (…) and in which a plurality is determinative (9).

After analysing various types of citizen participation, it is important to stress the importance of equality of all classes within the society so that the voices from all classes can be heard:

(27)

Democracy is the form of state within which the distribution of power in the state is determined exclusively by the social factors of power, but is not shifted in favour of any one class through the application of material means of coercion" (Otto Bauer, qtd. in Meyer 65).

As outlined in Chapter 2, improved citizen participation in the policy making process is a key benefit after the release of OGD - “Change the default setting of government to Open, Transparent and Participatory”.

3.1.2 Freedom of expression and the existence of Public Sphere

Guaranteed freedom of expression is also often quoted as a crucial feature of democracy and a philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn was a famous advocate of the

connection between democracy and freedom of speech (Marlin 226–227). In his work titled “Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government”, Meiklejohn argues that for a democratic community, which is self-governed by the people, a fully informed electorate is necessary. As such, a free movement of information and ideas is necessary for this to work.

The area that enables such free flow of information where individuals can express their opinions, identify societal problems and form public opinion is called “public sphere”. This term, coined by a cultural theorist Jürgen Habermas, is defined as “realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed (where) access is guaranteed to all citizens“ (Habermas, Lennox, and Lennox 49). It is "a discursive space in which individuals and groups congregate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to reach a common judgment" (Hauser 86). The public sphere can as well be seen as "a theatre in modern societies in which political participation is enacted through the medium of talk" (Fraser 57). In summary, the existence of public sphere is an important factor in the success of freedom of expression as it provides a platform where ideas are exchanged. According to Thomas Emerson, freedom of speech also acts as a method of coming to an agreement: "the principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a more adaptable and at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus” (Marlin 228–229). Freedom of expression is connected to the promise listed in Chapter 2 “Create new models of journalism to separate signal from noise to provide meaningful insights”.

(28)

3.1.3 Transparency

According to Meiklejohn, the actors in power must not withhold the information and manipulate the electorate as this is against the ideal of democracy. Also in the view of Robert Dahl, in order for voters to be able to make fully educated decisions, they require freedoms such as freedom of speech, gatherings, and press (Dahl 173). Both Meiklejohn’s and Dahl’s conceptions of democracy require free flow of information, in other words - transparency. It is commonly known in the public domain that access to public information is a key to upholding a democratic ideal. The idea behind a democratic and transparent society is that every member of the community “(…) has an equal level of physical, intellectual and social access to information and can equally re-use public information and thus take part in public discussion” (Haloen 85). Vishwanath and Kaufmann see transparency as “increased flow of timely and reliable economic, social and political information, which is accessible to all relevant stakeholders” (3). Stasavage offers a more demanding approach to transparency where he claims that transparency occurs when government discloses not only the policy decision but also the information that led to making such decision (3). This is based on the fact that in many cases the administration is the only source and collector of the relevant data and discloses this information at their discretion. Finally, Bellver and Kaufman made the observation that is crucial in understanding transparency and it’s implications. They have noted the close link between transparency and accountability: “(...) transparency is a tool to facilitate the evaluation of public institutions, the information provided needs to account for their performance” (4). In other words, transparency is a bridge for achieving another crucial element of democratic order. Improved transparency is again linked to a promise noted in Chapter 2 “Change the default setting of government to Open, Transparent and

Participatory”.

3.1.4 Accountability

The term accountability means that the general public is able not only to select the representatives and rulers, but also hold them accountable for their actions, as described by Schmitter and Karl: "Modern political democracy is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives” (Schmitter and Karl 76). More specifically, Bovens describes accountability as “a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conduct, the

(29)

forum can pose questions and pass judgment, and the actor may face consequences” (450). These consequences, as described by Przeworski et al, are quite often linked to the success of a government or politician in future elections (40). The accountability relation take place when “(1) voters vote to retain the incumbent only when the incumbent acts in their best interest, and (2) the incumbent chooses policies necessary to get re-elected” (Przeworski, Stokes, and Manin 40). To sum up, the general principle, that public authorities should be answerable to the public, is fundamental in a democratic society. Improved accountability is linked to the promise “Fight government corruption, improved accountability and enhance governments services”.

Based on the details of these pillars, it can be concluded that participation, freedom of expression, access to information and accountability are crucial factors in the functioning of democratic society (Khagram, Fung, and Renzio n.pag.).

3.2 Post-Democracy: Democracy is failing

As many academics argue, due to years of development and many historical events shaping the societies, modern democracy in western countries is far from the ideal,

theoretical standard due to various reasons (Meltzer and Richard; Crouch, Castoriadis and others). The term “Post-Democracy”, coined by the British academic Dr Colin Crouch, is based on the concept that developed democracies are moving away from some of the pillars on which they are traditionally based on.

In Post-Democracy, Crouch argues, elections are held and governments change, and all of the institutions of democracy are in place, because they have been established in the past (“Post-Democracy” n.pag.). The focus and drive of politics, however, is no longer with the democratic process but it has gone elsewhere. Crouches uses the analogy with the post-industrial society, where people don’t give up using the products of industry and these products are still around, but the energy and the dynamics of the economy have vanished. The author compares the producers of the industrial age to the democratic institutions that are still in existence, but the society doesn’t use them in an adequate way.

The reason why such transformation takes place, Crouch continues, is due to the inability of creating active identities within the socio-economic divisions in the society. Crouch claims there is still considerable vigour in the society around some topics such as gender or certain ethnic culture identities, but socio-economic groups within a society are losing the capacity of creating a clear identity. This is applicable to all socio-economic

(30)

groups, with two exceptions - the political and economic elites. These are the only elites, Crouch argues, that play major role in forming policies.

It will be an exaggeration, however, to say that the society is already post-democratic, Crouch continues. There are many aspects of the society that show very vigorous democracy, but there are tendencies that suggest democracy is more a legacy of the past than something that we are actively creating and reinforcing. In “Coping with Post-Democracy” Crouch states:

(...) Enough elements of it are recognisable in contemporary politics to make it worth while asking where our political life stands on a scale running between it and the maximal democratic model; and in particular to appraise in which direction it seems to be moving between them. It is my contention that we are increasingly moving to wards the post-democratic pole (Coping with Post-Democracy 2).

3.2.1 Problems with Participation and Engagement

Crouch highlights the importance of public participation and engagement. He claims that “democracy thrives when there are major opportunities for the mass of ordinary people to participate through discussion and autonomous organizations, in shaping the agenda of public life, and when they are actively using these opportunities” (Crouch, Post-Democracy 2–3). In post-democratic society, Crouch argues, pervasive culture of participation and

engagement is increasingly exhausted. As in theatre, the general democratic public becomes a passive audience observing a production designed for their consumption: “(…) public

electoral debate is a tightly controlled spectacle, managed by rival teams of professionals expert in the techniques of persuasion, and considering a small range of issues selected by those teams. The mass of citizens plays a passive, quiescent, even apathetic part, responding only to the signals given them“ (Crouch, Coping with Post-Democracy 2). In this instance, a signal is an action or a call to action, addressed at the wider public, developed by

government, politico-economic elite or public relations (PR) entity. The widespread political debate and political participation are lacking. The idea of system where “people have the power” functions only in the way that citizens can select their representatives through periodic elections and thus citizens have very limited contribution in policymaking.

Prominent groups that do make their voice heard in the public participation process are the elites with influential political and business interests and due to their lobbying activities,

(31)

Crouch claims, the priorities of the government are unduly influenced. At the same time, the relations with the masses are shaped by ‘spin doctors’ and other advertising professionals: the opposing groups of PR-experts who manipulate and control the subjects of public discourse during pre-election campaigns and this way “turn democratic elections into spectacles” (Crouch, Post-Democracy 10).

3.2.2 Problems with Construction of the Public Sphere

Parallel to the problem of limited public participation lays the issue of space of national debate and political expression, where opinions about various political matters can be freely exchanged, without the manipulation from the outside. As Crouch put it, this manipulation comes from elites with influential political and business interests (Crouch, Post-Democracy 10). It is believed that the existence of public sphere - a platform for debate across a diverse range of views - is crucial for a well-functioning democratic society (Habermas 174). Coleman stated that “absence of spaces or occasions for the public to engage in open and critical discussion in which opinions can be exchanged and reviewed and policy decision influenced” is one of the shortcomings of the today’s institutional arrangements (370).

The combination of various media platforms that are in existence today can be regarded as the closest form of a public sphere available in the modern world. Karl Marx claimed that free press was an autonomous area where interests can be expressed and coined: “the ‘free press’ is the product of public opinion and, at the same time, also produces public opinion; it can transform a particular interest to a common interest” (Marx and Engels 190). Also the newer mass media (radio, television) were also considered to become a platform, where voices of the society could be first expressed and then heard by the policy-makers, so that the public involvement could shape the political reality (Splichal, “‘New’ Media, ‘Old’ Theories Does the (National) Public Melt into the Air of Global Governance?” 391). However, the more traditional media systems (printed press, radio and TV) are not ideal in this respect due to the various reasons. For example, Habermas noted that large newspapers, which are designed to bring profit, are turning the press into “agents of manipulation, propaganda and misinformation” (185). Secondly, he continues, the media is no longer a place where citizens can get their information about political matters. Instead, it is a space for advertising and an arena for political forces: “it became the gate through which privileged private interests invaded the public sphere” (185). Thirdly, adding to the shortcomings of creating a public sphere, other academics (Gurevitch and Blumler; Barnett; Bagdikian) claim that the quality

(32)

of information in mass media is generally low. The news, focusing on gossip, scandal,

violence and sex, are more entertaining than informing and even political news focus more on characteristics of people and less on their programmes, ideologies and ideas. All of these shortcoming result in absence of serious political debate. As a result, the creation of a public sphere formed by these traditional mass global communication networks is subsequently reduced and with these shortfalls in mind, traditional media as of today cannot be considered to be able to constitute a well-functioning public sphere.

Theories of post-democracy have recently been countered by more optimistic visions that are tied to the rise of the Internet and technological solutions that followed. In the light of post-democracy, just mere existence of the Internet may help significantly with previously discussed problems such as lack of a well-functioning public sphere, lack of transparency, limited public participation in political matters, and the ability to hold governments to account for their actions and decisions.

The presence of Internet plays a major role in the debate about the existence of the public sphere in todays’ world. The web may be seen as an area where a new type of public sphere may function, a sphere where users can communicate freely and exchange opinions on blogs, forums, social media etc. This new platform of discussion hold the promise that it that would “compete with traditional (national) public spheres” (Splichal, “‘New’ Media, ‘Old’ Theories Does the (National) Public Melt into the Air of Global Governance?” 392). The reason for this is that in this space, even the ordinary, unprivileged people have an opportunity not only to gain information, but also share their opinion and observations. According to Splichal, such perfect order, where all members of society have access to information, may suggest a rise in the quantity of active members in the processes of communication. This rise occurs by inclusion of individuals and groups of participants formerly excluded from the communication process because of social, economic, or political reasons (Splichal, “Why Be Critical?” 26). The Internet has been in existence for just over 25 years now so this opportunity to gain previously unavailable or difficult to obtain information is still fairly new, yet the changes in communication it brought are clearly visible. The

authors of article wrote on the 25th anniversary of the World Wide Web claim that it “has changed humanity forever, and created a new virtual world within a generation” (Owen n.pag.). One important part of this virtual world is that an average person in a developed country can now challenge authority so openly and actually share their opinion with an extended public.

(33)

The release of OGD published online can be viewed as a fuel for this deliberation, public opinion and debate. At the same time, a central point of Crouch’s theory of post-democracy is the lack of participation and the widespread social debates on political topics. One can then conclude that the Internet makes these widespread discussions technically feasible, unlike traditional media formats, and therefore has a natural potential of improving the public sphere. Due to the large number of actors involved in debates online (activists, interest groups, bloggers, media and other players), the topics of debates can no longer be controlled by the “competing teams of PR experts” as Crouch noted that occurs in post-democracy. In theory, everyone can analyse the data, develop conclusions and start a debate about any topic and this debate will not be taking place “behind closed doors”.

With respect to Splichal’s comment about the Internet’s ability to compete with the “traditional (national) public spheres”, I would like to raise a different view about the role of the Internet in “competing” with the public sphere created by the traditional media. Due to the constant flow of information between traditional media platforms and the Internet, the Internet can be considered to add significant coverage, depth and size of the already existing (yet poorly functioning) public sphere - as opposed to ‘competing’. As this varying point of view is not considered critical in the further topics of this research thesis, no further

discussion will be included.

Although the link between the Internet and providing a more robust public sphere is clearly visible, a limiting factor is the access to this facility in many parts of the world. Secondly, the other aspect of the Internet’s ability to develop a model public sphere is the actual willingness of people to use it in political ways and participate in forming policies. It is important to ask question weather this possibility is indeed exercised and if there are forms of engaging citizens to get politically involved in the online world. These and other shortcoming of this idea will be analysed in Chapter 4.

3.2.3 Problems with Transparency and Accountability

As the components of the democratic system are heavily linked, I would also like to discuss the problems with achieving transparency and accountability. Although these specific problems were not directly mentioned by Crouch when he discussed post-democracy, I consider it appropriate to identify the challenges of these two aspects.

The previous paragraphs regarding lack of political engagement from the general public brought to attention the problem of transparency. Information is an invaluable asset to

(34)

the electorate, which requiresthis knowledge about government actions and processes, particularly in the area of spending. It has been previously stated that in the “post-democratic theatre” the important political decisions are made in a secretive manner, behind closed doors. These secretive policies may develop opaque forms of governance. The lack of transparency may result in reduced citizens’ political participation and understanding on “how the governmental machine functions” (Sgueo and Bani n.pag.).

Transparency is also an essential element in building up accountability. If some government policy is unavailable for any reason, the likelihood of accountability is

dramatically reduced, as the public does no have an opportunity to process the information and provide feedback. In terms of accountability, it is the idea of the modern democracy that officials in power “can be held to account for their decisions and particularly for their use of public funds” (Davies, “How Might Open Data Contribute to Good Governance?”). The key issue in the practical side of accountability is the role of media (Djerf-Pierre, Ekström, and Johansson 962). In a book titled “Custodians of Conscience” Ettema and Glasser explain that is it the watchdog function of the media that plays the major role in holding elected

representatives and rulers to account. One role of the media system is to reveal political scandals and journalists, by taking on a role of “ombudsman”, ask questions on behalf of the general public (Clayman). However, as described above, the problem is that traditional media are considered not to undertake this function fully and properly. Should the media play a role in holding decision-makers to account, further instances of corruption or other forms of miss-use of power can be identified, allowing the electorate to be more informed and subsequently act accordingly (Angélico; “Open Government Partnership”; Mari).

To summarize Crouch’s theory of post-democracy, democracy is failing on two levels: lack of public participation and the lack of existence of a well-functioning public sphere, where citizen’s influence and national debates about politics are not manipulated by lobbyists, PR experts and businesses. I have also considered two additional levels of

transparency and accountability, which I believe are important in analysing the shortcomings of democracy. OGD is considered by some to be able to help with this problem. The strong and weak aspects of this claim are outlined in the following chapter.

This chapter outlined the pillars of democracy, how these are currently failing in western society, and the theory of post-democracy. Chapter 4 identifies the potential challenges that need to be overcome in order to shift from post-democracy, improve participation, public-sphere, transparency and accountability. In particular, I am going to

(35)

focus on OGD as a potential tool for political empowerment and what obstacles need to be addressed so that political empowerment via OGD can be achieved.