Maarten Hillebrandt

Open government: connecting vision and voice:

The term open government is often used to describe initiatives of putting government information on the Internet. This conceptualization is too restricted since open government is not only about openness in informational terms (vision) but also about openness in interactive terms (voice). On the basis of an analysis of 103 articles, this article provides insight into the concepts of openness, transparency and participation, their interactions, and the manner in which they have been discussed in the literature. This analysis shows the differences and similarities between economic, political science and legal perspectives on open government and argues that a multidisciplinary approach needs to be taken. The authors conclude that open government is much too important to leave it to the ‘techies’: scientists and practitioners with backgrounds in law, economics, political science and public administration should also get involved to build sound connections between vision and voice that facilitate active citizenship. Points for practitioners This article provides guidelines for the realization of open government: (1) design open government for synergistic or complementary relationships between transparency and participation, (2) design open government for a diverse population, (3) design open government for direct and indirect effects, (4) design open government acknowledging a variety in desirables and (5) design for continuous learning about effects and side-effects. The authors emphasize that a diversified approach to the design of open government will be more fruitful in the long run than merely understanding it in terms of making information publicly available.

‘Integration without transparency’? Reliance on the space to think in the European Council and Council

Abstract To justify the limited publicity of their sessions, members of the European Council and Council regularly argue that they require a ‘space to think’. This article analyses the relative success of the plea for this ‘space to think’ in both legislative (Council) and non-legislative (European Council and Council) modes of decision-making. We consider the concept of the ‘space to think’ as well as the manner in which it is integrated into the theories of new intergovernmentalism and intergovernmental union. We then analyse how the European Council and Council have developed the ‘space to think’ in their daily practices. We find that, while the limited progress of transparency lends partial support to the new intergovernmentalism and intergovernmental union, the drivers underpinning the ‘space to think’ are not limited to non-legislative decision-making but are also increasingly found in the legislative procedure.

Transparency in the EU : constitutional overtones, institutional dynamics, and the escape hatch of secrecy

Transparency is one of those rare few European institutional principles that, upon their introduction, directly stirred an intense and fundamental debate. It has at times been appraised, contested and nuanced. Part of the ‘buzz’ around transparency has exactly been the product of this apparent ambiguity, which has led it to mean different things to different people. Nonetheless, over a period of 20 years, the legal principle of transparency has come a long way, undergoing a considerable process of development and expansion. Hence, while the academic literature has for long approached EU transparency as a new and innovative legal concept, today its relatively institutionalised status no longer supports such a characterisation. From the outset, the central instrument of transparency has been the right of public access to documents. By conceptualising (as opposed to operationalising) this right rather widely, it became quickly associated with mechanisms of public oversight of the legislative process and decision-makers more generally. The idea of the ‘widest possible access’, which underpinned the principle of transparency from the outset, became gradually developed and clarified through various parallel trends. Progressive changes in the Treaties and in secondary law, as well as, importantly, judicial enforcement, have gradually led to a certain degree of constitutionalisation, albeit in combination with a high degree of institutional stalemate and judicial gap-filling.