A Systematic Literature Study to Unravel Transparency Enabled by Open Government Data: The Window Theory

Figures & data

Figure 1. Basic model of transparency.

Figure 2. The window theory: determinants and expected effects of transparency enabled by OGD.

Figure 3. Frequency of publications per year and area.

Table 1. Types of possible effects of transparency.

Expected Effect	Description	Type of effect
Accountability	Transparency is expected to encourage governments to account better for their actions. In practice, accomplishing this can be difficult. Sometimes transparency is viewed as a sine qua non for accountability, although there is no agreement on this.	Positive
Trust and credibility	Transparency can result in more trust, trustworthiness, credibility and legitimacy. Occasionally, a decrease in trust is mentioned, resulting from this openness and seeing how the government works or does not work.	Positive and negative
Civic engagement and participation	Transparency should result in civic engagement as OGD should enable citizens to engage and participate, by providing information. In the literature there is discussion about the limited level of engagement.	Positive
Efficiency	Transparency can help to create efficiency and reduce costs. For example, the improvement of public procurement, allocation of budget and healthcare. Conversely, investments are needed to help create transparency.	Positive
Governance and political turnout	Transparency should result in better governance and political turnout (votes). This is heavily debated in recent literature (fake news).	Positive
Anti-corruption and fraud	Transparency should result into less corruption by reducing bias and the misuse of political power and public funds.	Positive
Overcoming information asymmetry	Transparency should result in overcoming information asymmetry, but some data might not be accurate (low information quality) or manipulated.	Positive and negative
Privacy	Transparency can affect privacy and even violate data protection legislation. For example, the European data protection act requires that civil servants’ identities should not be revealed. This imposes limits on transparency.	Negative

Figure 4. Frequency of determinants per area.

Figure 5. Overview of expected effects and areas.

Table 2. List of determinants of OGD-enabled transparency.

Frequency (total)	Frequency for quantitative studies only	Determinant name	Determinant description	Description of effect	Sources all studies (Papers ID can be found in Appendix A)	Sources for quantitative studies (Papers ID can be found in Appendix A)
44	24	Free Access	Data sets can be directly accessed at no cost.	Data availability is a condition for transparency.	1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73.	1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 21, 24, 31, 32, 37, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50, 53, 54, 55, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 73
44	24	Open Access	Data sets can be used, re-used and distributed without any restrictions.	The easier the use of datasets the higher the levels of transparency that can be created.	1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73.	1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 21, 24, 31, 32, 37, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50, 53, 54, 55, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 73.
27	10	Ontology	Definitions and relationships between data elements to ease usage by machines and the understanding of users.	The better datasets are described the higher the level of transparency.	3, 4, 8, 15, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 44, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70.	3, 4, 33, 44, 53, 54, 63, 65, 66, 68.
27	16	Timeliness	Data sets are up-to-date.	Up-to-date data is a condition for transparency.	3, 4, 14, 16, 25, 28, 30 ,31, 35, 38, 44, 47, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 71, 72, 73.	3, 4, 14, 16, 31, 44, 47, 53, 55, 59, 61, 62, 63, 66, 71, 73.
26	13	Primary	Data sets are disclosed in non-aggregated form or are preselected.	Access to raw data is a condition for transparency.	4, 10, 14, 18, 21, 22, 26, 28 ,29, 30, 35, 39, 44, 45, 46, 48, 51, 52, 54, 57, 59, 63, 64, 71, 73.	4, 14, 21, 22, 26, 39, 44, 46, 54, 59, 63, 71, 73.
24	14	Accuracy	The correctness of datasets.	More accurate data will result in higher levels of transparency.	4, 8, 11, 15, 27, 29, 38, 39, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 52, 53, 54, 56, 59, 61, 63, 71, 72, 73.	4, 11, 38, 39, 42, 44, 47, 53, 54, 59, 61, 63, 71, 73
20	11	Trusted	The conviction among users that data sets are reliable and accurate.	Higher levels of trust in data will result in the use of data for creating transparency.	8, 17, 18, 26, 32, 38, 40, 44, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 55, 59, 60, 61, 71, 72, 73.	26, 32, 38, 40, 44, 47, 55, 59, 61, 71, 73.
20	13	Web 2.0 Features	Inclusion of features enabled by the change from static websites to dynamic (e.g. videos, audio, animations) and user content generation (e.g. social media such as Facebook and Twitter).	Web 2.0 features will make the use of data for transparency more attractive.	16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 30, 37, 45, 50, 55, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 72, 73.	16, 19, 22, 37, 50, 55, 59, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 73.
19	14	Openness appetite	Governmental level of desire to disclose and structure OGD.	The more data is opened the higher the level of transparency.	37, 39, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72.	37, 39, 44, 47, 50, 55, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67,68, 69, 72.
17	13	Technical capacity	Having the expertise and skills to disclose data for creating transparency.	Expertise and skills to disclose datasets is a condition for releasing data for creating transparency.	33, 37, 38, 39, 42, 47, 49, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 66, 67, 72.	33, 37, 38, 39, 42, 47, 54, 55, 59, 61, 62, 66, 67.
15	5	Machine-processable	Data sets are structured in such a way that they can be read and processed by machines.	Automatically processable data will result in higher levels of transparency.	15, 21, 27, 28, 30, 45, 48, 50, 51, 53, 57, 59, 60, 64, 65.	21, 50, 53, 59, 65.
15	6	Open data legislation and plan	A set of legislation and plans to create, maintain and update the OGD.	The more openness is enabled by legislation the higher the level of transparency.	2, 3, 10, 31, 43, 45, 49, 57, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70.	3, 31, 62, 66, 67, 68.
14	7	Usability	The degree to which OGD portals are able to be used or are fit for use by citizens. Also described as user experience and user interface needs.	Higher usability will result in higher levels of transparency.	4, 9, 11, 14, 27, 29, 37, 45, 49, 52, 62, 63, 72, 73.	4, 11, 14, 37, 62, 63, 73.
14	4	Linked data	Method that structures data to be interconnectable.	Linking datasets will result in higher levels of transparency.	28, 30, 35, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 53, 60, 63, 64, 65, 70.	44, 53, 63, 65.
13	9	Complete	Data sets should contain all elements.	Complete datasets will result in higher levels of transparency.	14, 22, 26, 27, 29, 39, 45, 46, 59, 63, 64, 71, 73.	14, 22, 26, 39, 46, 59, 63, 71, 73.
13	8	Compliance	Adherence of systems to standards.	Use of standards will result in higher levels of transparency.	2, 3, 31, 43, 52, 54, 57, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 71.	3, 31, 54, 62, 67, 68, 69, 71.
13	4	Metadata	Metadata are the data that explain the meaning of the data within a dataset.	Datasets described using metadata will result in higher levels of transparency.	17, 28, 29, 48, 49, 51, 54, 56, 60, 64, 65, 71, 73.	54, 65, 71, 73.
13	5	Secrecy	Not disclosing information.	Keeping data secret will block transparency.	6, 12, 27, 29, 36, 38, 43, 46, 47, 48, 54, 70, 71.	38, 46, 47, 54, 71.
12	6	Centralized and permanent history	Having a centralized, single OGD portal with permanent history to ensure that data from the past can still be accessed.	Access to historical data and experiences with data will result in higher levels of transparency.	33, 35, 39, 47, 48, 51, 54, 57, 59, 60, 64, 66.	33, 39, 47, 54, 59, 66.
9	5	Searchability	A feature that allows citizens to find what they are looking for.	The ability to search for datasets in portals will result in higher levels of transparency.	4, 9, 12, 19, 21, 28, 37, 49, 73.	4, 19, 21, 37, 73.
8	1	Nonproprietary	Data formats are not the property of any institution (as this might limit use).	Using nonproprietary data will result in higher levels of transparency.	28, 45, 48, 51, 52, 53, 57, 60.	53.
7	1	Internal resistance	Bureaucratic and political reluctance to open data.	Higher levels of resistance will result in releasing less data for creating transparency.	9, 10, 36, 43, 70, 71, 72.	71.
7	6	Lack of regulatory Framework	Legislation guiding or requiring the disclosing of data.	Lack of legislation for opening data will result in less datasets for creating transparency.	56, 62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 71.	62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 71.
7	2	Misinterpretation	Having a wrong understanding of the meaning of the data.	Inability to interpret or wrong interpretation of data will result in lower levels of transparency.	7, 17, 18, 19, 40, 56, 57.	7, 40.
7	5	Unbiased or flawed methodology	Biased sensors or flawed statistical methodologies providing incorrect data or outcomes.	Biased and flawed data will result in lower levels of transparency.	4, 47, 52, 54, 61, 68, 72.	4, 47, 54, 61, 68.
6	6	Lack of supervision	Management supervision over the handling of disclosure to ensure opening of data.	A lack of management supervision when opening data will result in lower levels of transparency.	62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 71.	62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 71.
6	4	Language Solutions	Supporting different levels of language proficiency or using ideograms to ease understanding.	Language support will result in higher levels of transparency.	29, 31, 35, 55, 65, 67.	31, 55, 65, 67.
6	2	Public Input	Different types of access to support a variety of purposes.	Providing different ways to access data will result in higher levels of transparency.	13, 20, 29, 51, 53, 60.	13, 53.
5	4	Government budget	Bigger budgets allow more opportunity to create, maintain and update an OGD public policy.	Higher budgets for opening data will result in higher levels of transparency.	25, 33, 66, 67, 68.	33, 66, 67, 68.
5	3	Information overload	Offering much more data than people can process.	Opening non-relevant data will result in lower levels of transparency.	7, 18, 19, 28, 40.	7, 19, 40.
5	3	Party policy preference	The political preferences regarding OGD data policy.	Ruling politicians favoring open data will result in higher levels of transparency.	46, 56, 63, 64, 66.	46, 63, 66.
5	3	Security	Data should be protected from manipulation.	Higher levels of security will result in higher levels of transparency.	3, 51, 53, 59, 60.	3, 53, 59.
4	2	FAQs and examples	Frequently asked questions about recurring problems and examples to illustrate good practices.	Support will result in higher levels of transparency.	3, 36, 59, 64.	3, 59.
4	1	License-Free	No license restricting open data use.	Non-restricting licenses for using datasets will result in higher levels of transparency.	51, 52, 53, 60.	53.
4	3	Size	The number of employees of a public organization.	The larger the public organization the more datasets will be released and the higher the level of transparency.	25, 37, 67, 68.	37, 67, 68.
3	3	Political pressure	Influence of other countries on initiating OGD.	Political pressure from other countries will result in higher levels of transparency.	32, 33, 67.	32, 33, 67.
3	1	Opacity	Disclosing data in such a way that it cannot be used.	Opacity will result in lower levels of transparency.	46, 49, 60.	46.
2	1	Intermediaries	Intermediaries processing open data and making them available using software applications and websites.	The more intermediaries who are involved in processing open data the higher the levels of transparency.	45, 68.	68.
2	2	Organizational decentralization	The level of (de)centralisation of decision-making.	Centrally organized organizations will release more data, resulting in higher levels of transparency.	32, 67.	32, 67.
2	0	Technology literacy	The ability to understand and use OGD.	The more literate citizens are, the higher the levels of transparency.	9, 29.	–
2	1	Type of organization	Governments are diverse and range from small to large. Also activities might be outsourced to private parties, who have no obligation to create transparency.	The more complex the administration is, the lower the level of transparency.	32, 56.	32
2	2	Urban area	Geographical location of a government.	Governments in densely populated areas will create higher levels of transparency.	33, 69.	33, 69

Table

ID	Reference	Area	Year	ID	Reference	Area	Year
1	Piotrowski and Van Ryzin (2007)	PA	2007	38	Grimmelikhuijsen and Meijer (2014)	PA	2014
2	Blomgren (2007)	PA	2007	39	Hollyer, Rosendorff, and Vreeland (2014)	PA	2014
3	Pina, Torres, and Royo (2007)	PA	2007	40	de Fine Licht (2014)	PA	2014
4	Rawlins (2008)	PA	2008	41	De Fine Licht, Naurin, Esaiasson, and Gilljam (2014)	PA	2014
5	Relly and Sabharwal (2009)	IS	2009	42	Bauhr and Grimes (2014)	PA	2014
6	Coglianese (2009)	PA	2009	43	Gregory Michener (2015)	PA	2014
7	S. Grimmelikhuijsen (2009)	PA	2009	44	Tan (2014)	PA	2014
8	Furtado et al. (2010)	IS	2010	45	Zyl (2014)	PA	2014
9	Bertot et al. (2010)	IS	2010	46	Cross (2014)	PA	2014
10	Jaeger and Bertot (2010)	IS	2010	47	Auger (2014)	PA	2014
11	McNeal and Hale (2010)	PA	2010	48	Bertot et al. (2014)	PA	2014
12	Worthy (2010)	PA	2010	49	Barry and Bannister (2014)	PA	2014
13	French (2011)	PA	2011	50	Ganapati and Reddick (2014)	PA	2014
14	Grimmelikhuijsen (2011)	PA	2011	51	Janssen and van den Hoven (2015)	IS	2015
15	Chen (2012)	IS	2012	52	Lourenço (2015)	IS	2015
16	Bonsón, Torres, Royo, and Flores (2012)	IS	2012	53	Abu-Shanab (2015)	IS	2015
17	Evans and Campos (2013)	PA	2012	54	Kashin, King, and Soneji (2015)	PA	2015
18	Grimmelikhuijsen (2012)	PA	2012	55	Porumbescu (2015)	PA	2015
19	Bridges, Appel, and Grossklags (2012)	PA	2012	56	Reynaers and Grimmelikhuijsen (2015)	PA	2015
20	Chun and Cho (2012)	PA	2012	57	Worthy (2015)	PA	2015
21	Munson et al. (2012)	PA	2012	58	Grimmelikhuijsen and Klijn (2015)	PA	2015
22	Van Ryzin and Lavena (2013)	PA	2013	59	Venkatesh, Thong, Chan, and Hu (2016)	IS	2016
23	Meijer (2013)	PA	2013	60	Shaikh and Vaast (2016)	IS	2016
24	Themudo (2013)	PA	2013	61	Chen, Vogel, and Wang (2016)	IS	2016
25	Rodríguez Bolívar, Alcaide Muñoz, and López Hernández (2013)	PA	2013	62	Navarro-Galera et al. (2016)	IS	2016
26	Deng, Peng, and Wang (2013)	PA	2013	63	Gandía et al. (2016)	IS	2016
27	Greg Michener and Bersch (2013)	PA	2013	64	Muñoz-Soro et al. (2016)	IS	2016
28	Lourenço (2013)	PA	2013	65	Höffner, Martin, and Lehmann (2016)	IS	2016
29	Owen et al. (2013)	PA	2013	66	Guillamón et al. (2016)	IS	2016
30	Halachmi and Greiling (2013)	PA	2013	67	Grimmelikhuijsen and Feeney (2016)	PA	2016
31	Harrison and Sayogo (2014)	IS	2014	68	David‐Barrett and Okamura (2016)	PA	2016
32	Cuadrado-Ballesteros (2014)	IS	2014	69	Peiffer and Alvarez (2016)	PA	2016
33	Angst et al. (2014)	IS	2014	70	Graham, Gooden, and Martin (2016)	PA	2016
34	Packer, Diochnos, Rovatsos, Gal, and Moreau (2014)	IS	2014	71	Ríos, Bastida, and Benito (2016)	PA	2016
35	Martin, Stadler, Frischmuth, and Lehmann (2014)	IS	2014	72	Reddick, Chatfield, and Brajawidagda (2016)	PA	2016
36	Villeneuve (2014)	IS	2014	73	Song and Lee (2016)	PA	2016
37	Yavuz and Welch (2014)	IS	2014

Piotrowski, S. J., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2007). Citizen attitudes toward transparency in local government. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(3), 306–323. doi:10.1177/0275074006296777

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Meijer, A. J. (2014). Effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: Evidence from an online experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 137–157. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus048

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hollyer, J. R., Rosendorff, B. P., & Vreeland, J. R. (2014). Measuring transparency. Political Analysis, 22(4), 413. mpu001. doi:10.1093/pan/mpu001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pina, V., Torres, L., & Royo, S. (2007). Are ICTs improving transparency and accountability in the EU regional and local governments? An empirical study. Public Administration, 85(2), 449–472. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00654.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Fine Licht, J., Naurin, D., Esaiasson, P., & Gilljam, M. (2014). When does transparency generate legitimacy? Experimenting on a context‐bound relationship. Governance, 27(1), 111–134. doi:10.1111/gove.12021

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Relly, J. E., & Sabharwal, M. (2009). Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: A cross-national study. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 148–157. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2009.01.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bauhr, M., & Grimes, M. (2014). Indignation or resignation: The implications of transparency for societal accountability. Governance, 27(2), 291–320. doi:10.1111/gove.12033

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Michener, G. (2015). How cabinet size and legislative control shape the strength of transparency laws. Governance, 28(1), 77–94. doi:10.1111/gove.12075

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2009). Do transparent government agencies strengthen trust?. Information Polity, 14(3), 173–186. doi:10.3233/IP-2009-0175

 Google Scholar

Furtado, V., Ayres, L., De Oliveira, M., Vasconcelos, E., Caminha, C., D’Orleans, J., & Belchior, M. (2010). Collective intelligence in law enforcement–The WikiCrimes system. Information Sciences, 180(1), 4–17. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2009.08.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jaeger, P. T., & Bertot, J. C. (2010). Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 371–376. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McNeal, R., & Hale, K. (2010). E-disclosure of campaign finance information: Divergent interests in the states. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 7(1), 52–66. doi:10.1080/19331680903255759

 Google Scholar

Bertot, J. C., Gorham, U., Jaeger, P. T., Sarin, L. C., & Choi, H. (2014). Big data, open government and e-government: Issues, policies and recommendations. Information Polity, 19(1–2), 5–16. doi:10.3233/IP-140328

 Google Scholar

Barry, E., & Bannister, F. (2014). Barriers to open data release: A view from the top. Information Polity, 19(1–2), 129–152. doi:10.3233/IP-140327

 Google Scholar

Ganapati, S., & Reddick, C. G. (2014). The use of ICT for open government in US municipalities: Perceptions of chief administrative officers. Public Performance and Management Review, 37(3), 365–387. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576370302

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Janssen, M., & van den Hoven, J. (2015). Big and open linked data (BOLD) in government: A challenge to transparency and privacy? Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 363–368. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2015.11.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 123–132. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.10.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Evans, A. M., & Campos, A. (2013). Open government initiatives: Challenges of citizen participation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(1), 172–185. doi:10.1002/pam.21651

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kashin, K., King, G., & Soneji, S. (2015). Explaining Systematic Bias and Nontransparency in US Social Security Administration Forecasts. Political Analysis, 23(3), 336–362. doi:10.1093/pan/mpv011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bridges, F., Appel, L., & Grossklags, J. (2012). Young adults' online participation behaviors: An exploratory study of web 2.0 use for political engagement. Information Polity, 17(2), 163–176. doi:10.3233/IP-2012-0271

 Google Scholar

Reynaers, A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2015). Transparency in public–private partnerships: Not so bad after all? Public Administration, 93(3), 609–626. doi:10.1111/padm.12142

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chun, S., & Cho, J.-S. (2012). E-participation and transparent policy decision making. Information Polity, 17(2), 129–145. doi:10.3233/IP-2012-0273

 Google Scholar

Munson, S. A., Avrahami, D., Consolvo, S., Fogarty, J., Friedman, B., & Smith, I. (2012). Sunlight or sunburn: A survey of attitudes toward online availability of US public records. Information Polity, 17(2), 99–114. doi:10.3233/IP-2012-0267

 Google Scholar

Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Klijn, A. (2015). The effects of judicial transparency on public trust: Evidence from a field experiment. Public Administration, 93(4), 995–1011. doi:10.1111/padm.12149

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Van Ryzin, G. G., & Lavena, C. F. (2013). The credibility of government performance reporting: An experimental test. Public Performance and Management Review, 37(1), 87–103. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576370104

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., Chan, F. K., & Hu, P. J. (2016). Managing citizens’ uncertainty in e-government services: The mediating and moderating roles of transparency and trust. Information Systems Research, 27(1), 87–111. doi:10.1287/isre.2015.0612

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shaikh, M., & Vaast, E. (2016). Folding and unfolding: Balancing openness and transparency in open source communities. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 813–833. doi:10.1287/isre.2016.0646

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, Z.-J., Vogel, D., & Wang, Z.-H. (2016). How to satisfy citizens? Using mobile government to reengineer fair government processes. Decision Support Systems, 82, 47–57. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2015.11.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., Alcaide Muñoz, L., & López Hernández, A. M. (2013). Determinants of financial transparency in government. International Public Management Journal, 16(4), 557–602. doi:10.1080/10967494.2013.849169

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Navarro-Galera, A., Alcaraz-Quiles, F. J., & Ortiz-Rodríguez, D. (2016). Online dissemination of information on sustainability in regional governments. Effects of technological factors. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 53–66.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Deng, S., Peng, J., & Wang, C. (2013). Fiscal transparency at the Chinese provincial level. Public Administration, 91(4), 947–963. doi:10.1111/padm.12031

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gandía, J. L., Marrahí, L., & Huguet, D. (2016). Digital transparency and Web 2.0 in Spanish city councils. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 28–39. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2015.12.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Michener, G., & Bersch, K. (2013). Identifying transparency. Information Polity, 18(3), 233–242. doi:10.3233/IP-130299

 Google Scholar

Muñoz-Soro, J. F., Esteban, G., Corcho, O., & Serón, F. (2016). PPROC, an ontology for transparency in public procurement. Semantic Web, 7(3), 295–309. doi:10.3233/SW-150195

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Owen, B. B., Cooke, L., & Matthews, G. (2013). The development of UK government policy on citizens' access to public sector information. Information Polity, 18(1), 5–19. doi:10.3233/IP-2012-00286

 Google Scholar

Guillamón, M.-D., Ríos, A.-M., Gesuele, B., & Metallo, C. (2016). Factors influencing social media use in local governments: The case of Italy and Spain. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 460–471.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Halachmi, A., & Greiling, D. (2013). Transparency, e-government, and accountability: Some issues and considerations. Public Performance and Management Review, 36(4), 562–584. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576360404

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Feeney, M. K. (2016). Developing and testing an integrative framework for open government adoption in local governments. Public Administration Review, doi:10.1111/puar.12689

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Harrison, T. M., & Sayogo, D. S. (2014). Transparency, participation, and accountability practices in open government: A comparative study. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 513–525. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2014.08.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

David‐Barrett, E., & Okamura, K. (2016). Norm diffusion and reputation: The rise of the extractive industries transparency initiative. Governance, 29(2), 227–246. doi:10.1111/gove.12163

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Peiffer, C., & Alvarez, L. (2016). Who Will Be the “Principled‐Principals”? Perceptions of Corruption and Willingness to Engage in Anticorruption Activism. Governance, 29(3), 351–369. doi:10.1111/gove.12172

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Angst, C., Agarwal, R., Gao, G. G., Khuntia, J., & McCullough, J. S. (2014). Information technology and voluntary quality disclosure by hospitals. Decision Support Systems, 57, 367–375. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.10.042

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Graham, F. S., Gooden, S. T., & Martin, K. J. (2016). Navigating the Transparency–Privacy Paradox in Public Sector Data Sharing. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(5), 569–591. doi:10.1177/0275074014561116

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ríos, A.-M., Bastida, F., & Benito, B. (2016). Budget transparency and legislative budgetary oversight: An international approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(5), 546–568. doi:10.1177/0275074014565020

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martin, M., Stadler, C., Frischmuth, P., & Lehmann, J. (2014). Increasing the financial transparency of european commission project funding. Semantic Web, 5(2), 157–164.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reddick, C. G., Chatfield, A. T., & Brajawidagda, U. (2016). Open government process and government transparency in crisis communication: The case of AirAsia QZ8501 crash. Information Polity, 21(3), 255–271. doi:10.3233/IP-160392

 Google Scholar

Song, C., & Lee, J. (2016). Citizens’ use of social media in government, perceived transparency, and trust in government. Public Performance and Management Review, 39(2), 430–453. doi:10.1080/15309576.2015.1108798

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yavuz, N., & Welch, E. W. (2014). Factors affecting openness of local government websites: Examining the differences across planning, finance and police departments. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 574–583. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar