Transparency for Trust in Government: How Effective is Formal Transparency?

REFERENCES

• Armstrong, E. (2005). Integrity, transparency and accountability in public administration: Recent trends, regional and international developments and emerging issues. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan020955.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Beierle, T. C. (1999). Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Review of Policy Research, 16(3–4), 75–103.
   Google Scholar
• Bellver, A., & Kaufmann, D. (2005). Trasparenting transparency - initial empirics and policy applications. World Bank working paper. Retrieved January 2011 from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEAPREGTOPRURDEV/Resources/573691-1175901454225/seminar1_background_reading.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Berntzen, L. (2006). Electronic government: Communication proceedings of the Fifth International EGOV Conference. Trauner Verlag, 18(1), 233–240.
   Google Scholar
• Bhatnagar, S. (2003). Transparency and corruption: Does e-government help? Paper prepared for the compilation of CHRI 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Birkinshaw. P. J. (2006). Freedom of information and openness: Fundamental human rights. Administrative Law Review, 58(1), 177–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cucciniello, M., Nasi, G., & Valotti, G. (2012). Assessing transparency in government: Rhetoric, reality and desire. In M. Cucciniello, G. Nasi, & G. Valotti (Eds.), Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cyberspace Public Research Group. (2001). Web attribute evaluation system (WAES). Retrieved January 2011 from http://www.cyprg.arizona.edu
   Google Scholar
• Davenport, T. D. (1993). Process innovation: Reengineering work through information technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Day, D. (1997). Citizen participation in the planning process: An essentially contested concept? Journal of Planning Literature, 11(3), 421–434.
   Google Scholar
• De Leon, L. (1998). Accountability in a ‘reinvented’ government. Public Administration, 76, 539–558.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gant, D. B., & Gant, J. P. (2002). Enhancing e-service delivery. E-Government series, state web portals: Delivering and financing e-service. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Endowment.
   Google Scholar
• Glassey, O., & Glassey, O. F. (2004). A proximity indicator for e-government: The smallest number of clicks. Journal of e-Government, 1(4), 5–20.
   Google Scholar
• Grönroos, C. (1994). From scientific management to service management: A management perspective for the age of service competition. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(1), 5–20.
   Google Scholar
• Heald, D. (2006). Varieties of transparency. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency. The key to better governance. Oxford, UK: The British Academy by Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heeks, R. (1999). The tyranny of participation in information system: Learning from development projects (Working Paper No. 4). Manchester, England: Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C., & Heald, D. (2006). Transparency. The key to better governance. Proceedings of the British Academy, 135, 25–43.
   Google Scholar
• Huijboom, N., Broek, T., Frissen, V., Kool, L., Kotterink, B., Nielsen, M. M., & Millard, J. (2009). Public services 2.0: Impact of social computing on public services. Luxembourg: European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• ICHRP. (2010). Integrating human rights in the anti-corruption agenda: Challenges, possibilities and opportunities. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Irvin, R. A., & Stransbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Islam, R. (2003). Do more transparent governments govern better?. Policy Research Working Paper 3077. Washington, DC: World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Kalbach, J. (2002, January 14). The myth of “seven, plus or minus 2”. Dr. Dobb’s Web Review. Retrieved from http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=4058/nam1012431804/
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, D. (2005). Special report, transparency matters: The ‘Second Generation’ of Institutional Reform’. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Kickert, W. (1997). Public management in the United States and Europe. In W. Kickert (Ed.), Included in public management and administrative reform in Western Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
   Google Scholar
• Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819–828.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel B. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolstad, I., & Wiig, A. (2009). Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resuorce-rich countries? World Development, 37(3), 521–532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koppell, J. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of multiple accountabilities disorder. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Porte, T. M., Demchak, C. C., & De Jong, M. (2002). Democracy and bureaucracy in the age of the web. Empirical findings and theoretical speculations. Administration & Society, 34(4), 411–446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lega, F. (2005). Strategies for multi-hospital networks: A framework. Health Service Management Research, 18(2), 86–99.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Letourneau, C. (2009). Starling access services. Retrieved October 10, 2010 from http://www.starlingweb.com/webac.htm
   Google Scholar
• Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2002). What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implication of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 53–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LoSchiavo, L., (2000). Quality standards in the public sector: Differences between Italy and the UK in the citizen’s charter initiative. Public Administration, 78(3), 679–698.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madison, J. (1822/1910). Letter to W. T. Barry, August 4, 1822. In I. G. Hunt (Ed.), The writings of James Madison (Vol. 9, pp. 790–793). New York, NY: Putnam.
   Google Scholar
• Margetts, H. (2006). Transparency and digital government. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency. The key to better governance. Oxford, UK: The British Academy by Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meijer, A. (2009). Understanding modern transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(2), 255–269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mele, V., & Forghieri, C. (2002). The Modena e-network for strengthening local governance and citizen participation. In T. Bovaird, E. Löffler, & S. Parrado-Dìez (Eds.), Developing local governance networks in Europe. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Milic-Frayling, N., Jones, R., Rodden, K., Smyth, G., Blackwell, A., & Sommerer, R. (2004). Smartback: Supporting users in back navigation. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, New York, May 17–22, 2004, 63–71. New York, NY: ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moyniham, D. P., & Hawes, D. P. (2010). The organizational environment and performance information use. Paper presented at the European Group of Public Administration meeting in Toulouse, France, Sept 8–11.
   Google Scholar
• Mulgan R. (2000). ‘Accountability’: An ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78(3), 555–573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasi, G. (2008) Innovazione e cambiamento nelle aziende del settore pubblico, Innovation and change in public agencies. Milano, Italy: Egea.
   Google Scholar
• Ndou, V. (2004). E – government for developing countries: Opportunities and challenges. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 18(1), 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norris P. (2004). Deepening democracy via e-governance. Draft chapter for the UN World Public Sector Report. Harvard University, pp. 1–37.
   Google Scholar
• Northrop, A., Kraemer, K. L., Dunkle, D., & King, J. L. (1990). Payoffs from computerization: Lessons over time. Public Administration Review, 50(5), 505–514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. (2005). Modernising government: The Way Forward. Paris, France: Author.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neill, O. (2006). Transparency and the ethics of communication. In Transparency: The Key to Better Governance? (pp. 75–90). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Orren G. (1997). Fall from Grace: The public’s loss of faith in government. In J. S. Nye, Jr., P. D. Zelikow, & D. C. King (Eds.), Why people don’t trust government (pp. 77–107). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, D. (2004). Transparency and accountability reconsidered. Journal of Financial Crime, 11(3), 292–300.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 135–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in government - why and how? JRC Scientific Technical Reports, Seville.
   Google Scholar
• Otenyo, E. E., & Lind, N. S. (2004). Faces and phases of transparency reform in local government. International Journal of Public Administration, 27(5), 287–307.
   Google Scholar
• Pina, V., Torres, L., & Acerete, B. (2007). Are ICTs promoting government accountability? A comparative analysis of e-governance developments in 19 OECD countries. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(5), 583–602.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pina, V., Torres, L., & Royo, S. (2010). Is e-government leading to more accountable and transparent local governments? An overall view. Financial Accountability and Management, 26(1), 3–20.
   Google Scholar
• Piotrowsky, S. J., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2007). Citizen attitudes toward transparency in local government. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(3), 306–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, M. E. (2008). On competition, updated and expanded edition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prins, J. E. J. (2001). Electronic government: Variations on a concept. In J. E. J. Prins (Ed.), Designing e-government: On the crossroads of technological innovation and institutional change (pp. 1–5). The Hague, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Randolph, J., & Bauer, M. J .D. (1999). Improving environmental decision-making through collaborative methods. Review of Policy Research, 16(3–4), 168–191.
   Google Scholar
• Reichard, C. (1998). The impact of performance management on transparency and accountability in the public sector. In A. Hondeghem (Ed.), Ethics and accountability in a context of governance and new public management. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Relly, J. E., & Sabharwal, M. (2009). Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: A cross-national study. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 148–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (Eds.). (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social. Science students and researchers. London, UK: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, A. (2006). Blacked out: Government secrecy in the information age. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Romzek, B., & Dubnick, M. (1994). Issues of accountability in flexible personnel systems. In P. Ingraham & B. Romzek (Eds.), New paradigms for government. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Schellong, A. (2008). Citizen relationship management – a study of CRM in government. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, J. M., & McGowan, R. P. (1985). Information systems and public management. New York, NY: CBS Educational and Professional Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Stiglitz, J. E. (1999). On liberty, the right to know, and public discourse: The role of transparency in public life. Oxford Amnesty Lecture, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Participation and development: Perspectives from the Comprehensive Development Paradigm. Review of Development Economics, 6(2), 163–182.
   Google Scholar
• Stodolsky, D. S. (2002). Scientific publication needs a peer consensus. Psychology, 13(2), 51–58.
   Google Scholar
• Streatfield, D. (2002). Social impact audit August 2002 for South West Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. Sheffield, England: Centre for Public Library and Information Society, Department of Information Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Torres, L. (2004). Trajectories in the modernisation of public administration in European continental countries. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(3), 99–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2005). Global e-government readiness report 2005. From e-government to e-inclusion. New York, NY: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Valadez, J. M. (2001). Deliberative democracy: Political legitimacy and self-determination in multicultural societies. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Verba, S., Lehman Schlozmank, K., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vintar, M. (1999). Effective approaches to reform of the government/citizen relationship. Openness and transparency in governance: Challenges and opportunities. In Proceedings of the second NISPAcee Civil Service Forum held in Maastricht, The Netherlands, October 28–29, 110–118.
   Google Scholar
• Vishwanath, T., & Kaufmann, D. (2003). Towards transparency in finance and governance. Finance, EconWPA.
   Google Scholar
• Webler, T. (1995). “Right” discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Technology, risk and society (Vol. 10, pp. 35–86). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• West, D. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes’. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeldman, J. (2001). Taking your talent to the web: A guide for the transitioning designer. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.
   Google Scholar