M. Pasquier

Organizational barriers to transparency: a typology and analysis of organizational behaviour tending to prevent or restrict access to information

Transparency in the activities of government and public service agencies has become a democratic sine qua non, legislated by access to information laws in many countries. While these laws have increased the amount of information available to the public, it is evident that numerous public organizations still try to conceal information, although no public or private interest of any importance justifies such behaviour. This article will develop a typology of these forms of behaviour which will allow for a better understanding of the origins of such dynamics and pave the way for a better evaluation of the point of equilibrium between administrative privilege and transparency.

What's wrong with this picture? The case of access to information requests in two continental federal states – Germany and Switzerland:

More than 80 access to information (ATI) laws exist worldwide. Their primary objectives are to increase transparency and accountability in government. Given the similarity in the components of ATI laws across countries, one could expect per capita usage of the laws to be roughly similar. However, comparing the number of requests in seven countries, we found that far fewer requests are being made in Switzerland and Germany than in Canada, Ireland, Mexico, India, and the UK and that, in contrast to these five, the number is not increasing. Drawing on 28 semi-structured interviews with experts on the Swiss Law on Transparency (LTrans) and German FOI Law (IFG), we offer three primary explanations for the low use of the laws. The first is that few people are aware of the law in either country as a consequence of little promotion of the laws. The second is that people might have more interest in information held at the state or local level than at the federal level. The third is that other avenues to information in Switzerland reduce interest in using the LTrans and a culture of “amtsgeheimnis”, or official secrecy, in Germany inhibits the administration from willingly disclosing information. We examine these hypotheses against the situation in the UK, where awareness of the FOI law is known to be high and the number of requests is high and has been on the rise for the past four years.

More Power to You? A Case Against Binding Decisions as the Ultimate Access to Information Enforcement Tool

The enforcement of Access to Information laws is crucial to their effectiveness. Information commissioners, who enforce about one quarter of federal policies, are granted powers to help them execute their tasks. Many scholars argue that a commissioner should have the right to issue legally binding orders. However, we found that a commissioner with recommendation power is not necessarily less effective. This article argues that one must consider what binding decision power really means, whether the body uses it, and how the body uses its other powers and fulfills its tasks before declaring that binding decision power is the ultimate enforcement tool.

Transparency and Trust in Government (2007–2014): A Comparative Study

Abstract This article exposes contemporary approaches to transparency and trust. It explores the links between the two concepts in 10 countries between 2007 and 2014, using open-data indexes and access-to-information requests as proxies for transparency. So far, most studies have focused on conceptual models, specific aspects of transparency in particular case studies or have compared legal frameworks from different countries. Here, data about citizens’ requests to get access to administrative documents have been gathered. This dataset, combined with existing indexes on open data and government, has enabled us to establish a national ranking, particularly useful in a comparative perspective. Data about trust have been collected from reports published by international organisations. Key findings prove that there is no sharp decline of trust in government in all countries considered in this article. They also tend to show that transparency and trust in government are not systematically positively associated. Therefore, this article challenges the common assumption, mostly found in the normative literature, about a positive interrelation between the two, where trust in government is conceived as a beneficial effect of administrative transparency. Finally, it suggests that mis(trust) may be considered a key driver of transparency and would as such call for more transparency from public bodies.

Communication and Transparency

Communication has become increasingly important within administrations. Compared to private companies, the communication of public organisations is much more varied: the range of functions is very wide (service delivery, maintenance of social cohesion, dialogue between institutions and citizens, etc.) and the types of communications are more extensive, ranging from communication about citizen’s rights and obligations, communication as instrument of public policy to communication about projects. In addition, public communication will become even more complex with increasing demands for information, increased participation of citizens in the debate and a growing number of media to consider.

Communication of and for Public Services

Communication has become increasingly important within administrations. Compared to private companies, the communication of public organisations is much more varied: the range of functions is very wide (service delivery, maintenance of social cohesion, dialogue between institutions and citizens, etc.) and the types of communications are more extensive, ranging from communication about citizen’s rights and obligations, communication as instrument of public policy to communicate about projects. In addition, public communication will become even more complex with increasing demand for information, increased participation of citizens in the debate and a growing number of media to consider.

Le droit d'accès aux documents administratifs : analyse et premiers enseignements pour la Suisse

Les lois sur la transparence et l’accès à l’information définissent les modalités d’accès à l’information détenue par l’administration. Elles donnent à tout individu le droit de consulter des documents officiels et d’obtenir de l’information de la part des autorités sans devoir justifier le motif de sa demande. En favorisant le partage de l’information entre administration et citoyens, la législation sur la transparence redéfinit l’une des règles de base du fonctionnement traditionnel de l’administration, jusque là habituée à garder ses informations secrètes. En ce sens, elle consacre un véritable changement de culture organisationnelle, du paradigme du secret, où le droit d’accès à l’information était une exception, à celui de transparence, où le secret devient l’exception. La loi sur la transparence (LTrans) est entrée en vigueur en Suisse en juillet 2006. Cet article présente une première analyse de la mise en œuvre de cette loi et esquisse des pistes d’analyse suite au constat fait de la faiblesse du nombre de requêtes basées sur la loi est très faible en comparaison internationale.1