Disseminating Public Data as Public Use Files: What Makes a Successful Initiative?

References

• Anderson, M., & Seltzer, W. (2009). Federal statistical confidentiality and business data: Twentieth century challenges and continuing issues. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality, 1(1), 7–52.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, T. B. (2009). E-government as an anti-corruption strategy. Information Economics and Policy, 21, 201−210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, F., & Kaltenböck, M. (2011). Linked open data: The essentials. Vienna, Austria: Edition mono/monochrom.
   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
• Dalenius, T. (1977). Toward a methodology for statistical disclosure control. Statistik Tidskrift, 15, 429–444.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, T. (2010). Open data, democracy and public sector reform. A look at open government data use from data. MSc Dissertation submitted for examination in Social Science of the Internet, at the University of Oxford, Summer. Retrieved from http://www.opendataimpacts.net/report/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/How-is-open-government-data-being-used-in-practice.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Domingo-Ferrer, J. (2001). Privacy in statistical databases. LNCS 2316. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Domingo-Ferrer, J., & Franconi, L. (2006). Privacy in statistical databases. LNCS 4302. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Domingo-Ferrer, J., & Magkos, E. (2010). Privacy in statistical databases. LNCS 6344. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Domingo-Ferrer, J., & Saygin, Y. (2008). Privacy in statistical databases. LNCS 5262. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Domingo-Ferrer, J., & Torra, V. (2004). Privacy in statistical databases. LNCS 3050. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Drechsler, J., & Reiter, J. (2009). Disclosure risk and data utility for partially synthetic data: An empirical study using the German IAB establishment survey. Journal of Official Statistics, 25(4), 589–603.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Communities. (1998). Statistical data protection ’98. Proceeding by Office of Official Publications, Statistical Office of the European Communities Lisbon.
   Google Scholar
• Felso, F., Theeuwes, J., & Wagner, G. (2001). Disclosure limitation methods in use: Results of a survey. In P. Doyle, J. Lane, J. Theeuwes, & L. Zayats (Eds.), Confidentiality, disclosure, and data access: Theory and practical application for statistical agencies. Chapter 2. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Gore, A. (1993). From red tape to results: Creating a government that works better & costs less. Report of the National Performance Review. U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Washington, DC, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Harper, J. (2012). Grading the government’s data publication practices. Cato Institute Policy Analysis, 711, 2.
   Google Scholar
• Hogge, B. (2010). Open data study. A report commissioned by the Transparency and Accountability Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.soros.org/initiatives/information/focus/communication/articles_publications/publications/open-data-study-20100519
   Google Scholar
• Howard, A. (2012). What is smart disclosure? Radar O´reilly. Retrieved January, 2016. http://radar.oreilly.com/2012/04/what-is-smart-disclosure.html
   Google Scholar
• Huijboom, N., & Van den Broek, T. (2011). Open data: An international comparison of strategies. European Journal of Epractice, 12(1), 4–16.
   Google Scholar
• Hundepool, A. et al. (2010). Handbook on statistical disclosure control. ESSNet S D C. Retrieved from http://neon.vb.cbs.nl/casc/.%5Ccasc%5Chandbook.htm
   Google Scholar
• Janssen, K. (2011). The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: An overview of recent developments. Government Information Quarterly, 28(4), 446–456. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268. doi:10.1080/10580530.2012.716740
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longhurst, J., et al. (2007, December 17–19). The review of the dissemination of health statistics in England. In Work session on statistical data confidentiality. Manchester, UK: Eurostat, Methodologies and Working Papers.
   Google Scholar
• Mas, M., & Prado, C. (2007, December 17–19). Dealing with Confidentiality in Dissemination: The experience of the Basque Statistics Office. In Work Session on statistical data confidentiality. Manchester, UK: Eurostat, Methodologies and Working Papers.
   Google Scholar
• McDermott, P. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401–413. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Rourke, J. M., Roehrig, S., Heeringa, S. G., Reed, B. G., Birdsall, W. C., Overcashier, M., & Zidar, K. (2006). Solving problems of disclosure risk while retaining key analytic uses of publicly released microdata. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: JERHRE, 1(3), 63–84. doi:10.1525/jer.2006.1.3.63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orszag, P. (2009, December 8). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/documents/open-government-directive
   Google Scholar
• Peled, A. (2011). When transparency and collaboration collide: The USA open data program. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2085–2094. doi:10.1002/asi.v62.11
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinto, A. (2005, November 9–11). Statistics and Confidentiality in the Portuguese Case. In Work Session on statistical data confidentiality. Geneva, Switzerland: Eurostat, Methodologies and Working Papers.
   Google Scholar
• Prada, S., Gonzalez-Martinez, C., Borton, J., Fernandes-Huessy, J., Holden, C., Hair, E., & Mulcahy, A. T. (2011). Avoiding disclosure of individually identifiable health information in public use files: A literature review. SAGE Open, 1(3). doi:10.1177/2158244011431279
   Google Scholar
• Shim, D. C., & Eom, T. H. (2009). Anticorruption effects of information and communication technology (ICT) and social capital. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75, 99−116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. J., & Elliot, M. J. (2002). A measure of disclosure risk for microdata. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 64, 855–867. doi:10.1111/rssb.2002.64.issue-4
   Google Scholar
• Tat‐Kei, H. A. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e‐government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 434–444. doi:10.1111/puar.2002.62.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thaler, R. H., & Tucker, W. (2013). Smarter information, smarter consumers. Harvard Business Review, 91(1), 44–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubaldi, B. (2013). Open government data: Towards empirical analysis of open government data initiatives. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 22. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k46bj4f03s7-en
   Google Scholar
• Virnig, B., & McBean, M. (2001). Administrative data for public health surveillance and planning. Annual Review of Public Health, 22(1), 213–230. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.22.1.213
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, D. M. (2004). E‐government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27. doi:10.1111/puar.2004.64.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar