The Contribution of Open Government to Prosperity of Society

References

• Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banerjee, P., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2004). An evaluative framework for analysing e-government convergence capability in developing countries. Electronic Government, 1, 29–49.
   Google Scholar
• Bellver, A., & Kaufmann, D. (2005). Transparenting transparency: Initial empirics and policy applications. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Bertot, J., Jaeger, P., & Grimes, J. (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, 264–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American democracy: Technology in the evolution of political power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bittencourt, M. (2011). Financial development and economic growth in Latin America: Is schumpeter right. Journal of Policy Modeling, 34, 341–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calland, R., & Bentley, K. (2013). The impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives: Freedom of information. Development Policy Review, 31(1), s69–s87.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, A. J., Pan, S. L., Zhang, J., Huang, W. W., & Zhu, S. (2009). Managing e-government implementation in China: A process perspective. Information & Management, 46, 203–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modelling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, H. J., Choi, S., Lee, W. J., & Yang, S. Y. (2016). Regional Crime Rates and Reporting Quality: Evidence from Private Firms in London. Working paper. Retrieved June 25, 2017, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2791512
   Google Scholar
• Cho, Y. H., & Choi, B. (2004). E-government to combat corruption: The case of Seoul metropolitan government. International Journal of Public Administration, 27, 719–735.
   Google Scholar
• Cottarelli, C. (2012). Fiscal transparency, accountability and risk. International Monetary Fund Policy Paper. International Monetary Fund. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Di Gennaro, C., & Dutton, W. (2006). The Internet and the public: Online and offline political participation in the United Kingdom. Parliamentary Affairs, 59, 299–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elbahnasawy, N. G. (2014). E-government, Internet adoption, and corruption: An empirical investigation. World Development, 57, 114–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eschenfelder, K. R. (2004). Behind the Web site: An inside look at the production of Web-based textual government information. Government Information Quarterly, 21, 337−358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Florini, A. (2007). The right to know: Transparency for an open world. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2004). The role of social capital in financial development. The American Economic Review, 94, 526–556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haefliger, S., Monteiro, E., Foray, D., & Von Krogh, G. (2011). Introduction to social software and strategy. Long Range Planning, 44, 297–316.
   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, 513–525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckmann, D. (2011). Open government—Retooling democracy for the 21st century. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
   Google Scholar
• Helliwell, J. F. (2006). Well‐being, social capital and public policy: What’s new? The Economic Journal, 116, 510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilgers, D. (2012). Open government: Theoretische Bezüge und konzeptionelle Grundlagen einer neuen Entwicklung in Staat und öffentlichen Verwaltungen. Zeitschrift Für Betriebswirtschaft, 82, 631–660.
   Google Scholar
• Islam, R. (2006). Does more transparency go along with better governance? Economics and Politics, 18, 954–1985.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3, 220–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiecolt, K. J., & Nathan, L. E. (1985). Secondary analysis of survey data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kolstad, I., & Wiig, A. (2009). Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resource-rich countries? World Development, 37, 521–532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopits, G., & Craig, J. D. (1998). Transparency in government operations. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.
   Google Scholar
• Krishna, A. (2001). Moving from the stock of social capital to the flow of benefits: The role of agency. World Development, 29(6), 925–943.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishnan, S., & Teo, T. S. (2012). Moderating effects of governance on information infrastructure and e‐government development. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 63, 1929–1946.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishnan, S., Teo, T. S., & Lim, V. K. (2013). Examining the relationships among e-government maturity, corruption, economic prosperity and environmental degradation: A cross-country analysis. Information & Management, 50, 638–649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (2010). Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. California: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• The Legatum Prosperity Index. (2016). Methodology report. Legatum Institute. Retrieved July 5, 2017, from http://www.prosperity.com/application/files/1914/7819/5146/Legatum_Prosperity_Index_Methodology_Report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lindstedt, C., & Naurin, D. (2010). Transparency is not enough: Making transparency effective in reducing corruption. International Political Science Review, 3, 301–322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macintosh, A. (2008). E-democracy and e-participation research in Europe. In H. Chen, L. Brandt, & V. Gregg (Eds.), Digital government: E-government research, case studies, and implementation. London: Springer
   Google Scholar
• McDermott, P. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 401–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDevitt, A., & Marin, J. (2016). Anti-corruption commitments in the open government partnership. Berlin: Transparency International. Retrieved June 25, 2017, from, http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Anticorruption_OGP.pdf
   Google Scholar
• McGee, R., & Gaventa, J. (2011). Shifting power? Assessing the impact of transparency and accountability initiatives. IDS Working Papers, 383, 1–39.
   Google Scholar
• Meijer, A. J., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: Connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78, 10–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michener, G., & Bersch, K. (2013). Identifying transparency. Information Polity, 18, 233–242.
   Google Scholar
• Murillo, M. J. (2015). Evaluating the role of online data availability: The case of economic and institutional transparency in sixteen Latin American nations. International Political Science Review, 36, 42–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noveck, B. S. (2012, June). Beth Noveck: Demand for a more open source government. Retrieved June 25, 2017, from https://www.ted.com/talks/beth_noveck_demand_a_more_open_source_government
   Google Scholar
• Noveck, B. S. (2015). Smart citizens, smarter state: The technologies of expertise and the future of governing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Obama, B. (2009). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies—SUBJECT: Transparency and open government. Retrieved July 5, 2017, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment
   Google Scholar
• The Open Government Index. (2015). Methodology report. World Justice Project. Retrieved July 5, 2017, from https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/ogi_2015.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Paxton, P. (2002). Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship. American Sociological Review, 67, 254–277.
   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, 148–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosendorff, B. P., & Vreeland, J. R. (2006). Democracy and data dissemination: The effect of political regime on transparency. Unpublished manuscript. New York, NY: New York University.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, D., & Frankenberg, E. (2002). Health, nutrition and prosperity: A microeconomic perspective. Commission on macroeconomics and health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 80, 106–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The United Nations E-Government survey. (2016). E-government in support of sustainable development. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Von Haldenwang, C. (2004). Electronic government (e-government) and development. The European Journal of Development Research, 16, 417–432.
   Google Scholar
• Whitham, M. M. (2012). Community connections: Social capital and community success. Sociological forum 23 27(2), 441–457).
   Google Scholar
• Wijnhoven, F., Ehrenhard, M., & Kuhn, J. (2015). Open government objectives and participation motivations. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 30–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, W., & Welch, E. (2004). Does e-government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of website openness and government accountability. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 17, 275–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar