Do transparency mechanisms reduce government corruption? A meta-analysis
| Author | Can Chen,Sukumar Ganapati |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211033236 |
| Published date | 01 March 2023 |
| Date | 01 March 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Do transparency
mechanisms reduce
government corruption? A
meta-analysis
Can Chen
Georgia State University, USA
Sukumar Ganapati
Florida International University, USA
Abstract
This article presents a meta-analysis of empirical studies to examine the role of trans-
parency mechanisms for curbing corruption. The analysis reveals that transparency
has an overall significant, though small, effect size in reducing corruption.
Transparency is more effective for reducing subjective than objective corruption mea-
sures. While legal transparency mechanisms with freedom of information laws are
important, fiscal transparency and e-transparency play a stronger role in fighting govern-
ment corruption. Accountability and publicity add to transparency mechanisms for redu-
cing corruption.
Points for practitioners
This meta-analysis study confirms a significantly negative association between transpar-
ency and corruption. Transparency advocates can champion transparency mechanisms
as significant tools for reducing corruption. Different transparency mechanisms and
good governance mechanisms are needed to reinforce transparency for reducing
corruption.
Keywords
Accountability, corruption, meta-analysis, transparency
Corresponding author:
Can Chen, Andrew YoungSchool of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, 14 Marietta St NW, Atlanta, GA
30303, USA.
Email: cchen64@gsu.edu
Article
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
International Review of Administrative
Sciences
2023, Vol. 89(1) 257–272
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00208523211033236
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
Introduction
1
Transparency refers to the availability of government information (data, decisions, and
procedures) to the public. Public administration scholars and practitioners consider it
as a fundamental ingredient of good governance. A principal motivation for promoting
transparency is to reduce corruption. The argument is that when information is available
to citizens, government actions are held in open limelight. The public has access to the
information through avenues such as access to government records, open meetings,
and whistleblower protections (Chen and Han, 2019; Chen and Neshkova, 2020).
People can examine the actions, know how decisions were taken and make the decision-
makers accountable.
The movement for greater transparency has gained much traction in democratic
countries. International agencies such as the Asian Development Bank, Inter-American
Development Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank have undertaken
transparency initiatives across the world over the past three decades. Many non-
governmental organizations have also emerged to monitor government transparency
across countries. While Transparency International was established in 1993, the
Open Government Partnership (OGP) and Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency
(GIFT), which were created in 2011, are among the more recent global efforts for
opening government records to public scrutiny. Some countries have transparency
watchdogs within the public or nonprofit sectors (e.g. the Sunlight Foundation in
the US).
Scholars have begun to question the efficacy of transparency mechanisms to
achieve various objectives. The critiques range from the very conceptualization and
operationalization of transparency (Bauhr and Grimes, 2017), to its usefulness in
gaining public trust and improving government performance (Michener, 2019).
Empirical studies on the influence of transparency mechanisms in reducing corruption
also differ in their assessments of the impact. Critiques argue that transparency may
not, by itself, reduce corruption; the effect depends on contextual factors such as
citizen characteristics, fiscal and safety concerns, monitoring and enforcement, and
the culture of openness (Hanna et al., 2011; Molina et al., 2016; Vadlamannati and
Cooray, 2017).
Given the high attention paid to transparency policies and the mixed empirical find-
ings, this article aims to synthesize the relationship between transparency and corrup-
tion. The synthesis is important to delineate the prospects and limitations of
transparency mechanisms in reducing corruption. Methodologically, the article uses
meta-analysis, a quantitative method for aggregating impacts from empirical studies.
The method is used in public administration and policy to obtain summary assessments
(e.g. Gerrish, 2016). Although transparency and corruption are well-researched topics
in several disciplines, there is no meta-analysis that synthesizes their relationship.
Extant meta-analyses on corruption have focused on its antecedents and its relation-
ship with voting or economic growth (Incerti, 2020; Judge et al., 2011; Ugur,
2014). The present article fills an important gap by parsing the effects of different
transparency mechanisms on corruption.
258 International Review of Administrative Sciences 89(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial