The relationship between transparent and participative government: A study of local governments in the United States

Published date01 March 2012
Date01 March 2012
DOI10.1177/0020852312437982
Subject MatterArticles
untitled
International
Review of
Administrative
Article
Sciences
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
78(1) 93–115
! The Author(s) 2012
The relationship between
Reprints and permissions:
transparent and participative
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020852312437982
government: A study of local
ras.sagepub.com
governments in the United States
Eric W. Welch
University of Illinois at Chicago
Abstract
The relationship between transparency and participation of government is not well
articulated in the literature. Transparency provides stakeholders with knowledge
about the processes, structures and products of government. Participation refers to
the quantity, quality and diversity of input of stakeholders into government decision-
making. Greater transparency and participation are often considered to operate side
by side. However, in the Internet age the change in the magnitude of information
disclosure may outweigh the change in the level of participative government. This article
uses data from a 2010 national survey of five US local government agencies to test
hypotheses about the relationship between transparency and participation and the
factors that affect them. Findings show that participation is positively associated
with transparency, but transparency does not lead to participation. In addition, organi-
zations that are under stronger influence from external stakeholders report higher
levels of participation but in some cases higher levels of external influence dampen
transparency.
Points for practitioners
For practitioners, the article provides a framework for understanding the relationship
between transparency and participation as two dimensions of open government. While in
some departments these two dimensions are present at similar levels, in others they are
not. For example, among five departments, police report the lowest overall participation
and transparency levels, while parks and recreation and the mayor’s office report
the highest transparency and participation levels, respectively. In addition, police
departments report significantly higher transparency than participation, while the
reverse is true for community development departments. The article provides public
Corresponding author:
Eric W. Welch, Associate Professor, Public Administration and Director, Science, Technology and
Environment Policy Lab, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1138 Wenonah Ave, Oak Park, IL 60304, USA
Email: ewwelch@uic.edu

94
International Review of Administrative Sciences 78(1)
administrators with greater insight into causes of and relationships between transparency
and participation.
Keywords
local government, openness, participation, transparency
Introduction
It is often expected that transparency of and participation in government are
linked. Typically, it is expected that these two constructs are positively correlated
such that governments high in transparency also exhibit high participation, as it is
thought that transparency is necessary for participation. Yet little research has
actually investigated whether this true, and in fact, at the outset of this article
the opposite should be considered. It is entirely possible that greater levels of
transparency are associated with lower levels of participation, or that the relation-
ship between transparency and participation depends upon dif‌ferent organizational
and environmental factors.
Moreover, transparency and participation are not monolithic – there are mul-
tiple def‌initions and perspectives about their boundaries, or rather their distinct-
ness. In the transparency literature, several authors recognize that transparency
concerns the extent to which an organization provides information about its own
internal processes, decision and performance (Curtin and Meijer, 2006; Gerring
and Thacker, 2004; Welch and Wong, 2001). Heald identif‌ies three dif‌ferent dimen-
sions of transparency: decision-making, policy content and policy outcomes (2006).
The participation literature considers the ways in which stakeholders’ ideas, con-
cerns, and interests are integrated into organization decisions and actions. Some
research examines how participation processes are af‌fected by such factors as prob-
lem salience and power distribution among actors (Downes and McMillan, 2000;
Heeter, 1989; McMillan, 2002). Other research examines how stakeholder input is
integrated into decision outcomes (Alter et al., 2008; Macintosh, 2004; Masters
et al., 2004).
This article distinguishes between the two constructs based on the level of inter-
action the decision-maker has or intends to have with a stakeholder. Transparency
is def‌ined as the active disclosure of information by an organization that enables
external actors to monitor and assess its internal workings, decisions and perfor-
mance (Grimmelikhuijsen and Welch, forthcoming). This is generally a one-way
communication process in which the organization provides information to other
stakeholders. Participation is def‌ined as the involvement of one or more stake-
holders in decision-making or policy in such a way that the stakeholder input is
considered during the decision-making process and inf‌luences the decision outcome
(Bickerstaf‌f and Walker, 2001; Roberts, 1997, 2004; Rowe and Frewer, 2000). This
is generally a two-way communication process in which the stakeholder is consid-
ered a participant in the decision-making process (Welch and Fulla, 2005).1

Welch
95
Transparency and participation have strong normative foundations: in general
people often believe that more is better. More information is important for citizens
and other stakeholders to understand how their taxes are spent and help them
make decisions about who to support in the next elections (Etzioni, 2010). In
public administration, transparency is often linked to more trustworthy, account-
able and open government (Hood, 2006; Meijer, 2009). Similarly, government
decisions are expected to ref‌lect the interests and needs of stakeholders, and par-
ticipation is an important component of that process (O’Connor et al., 2000). In
newer governance models, citizens and other stakeholders are participants in the
governing process (Henderson, 2007).
Nevertheless, public organizations are likely to be strategic about transparency
and participation. In a turbulent environment in which stakeholders are always
presented with the results of media inquiries, budget cuts, and whistleblowers,
public organizations manage their exposure. Hence, this article seeks to understand
whether organizations vary in terms of transparency and participation, how the
two dimensions are related, and what factors predict them. It asks three questions:
How does transparency af‌fect participation and vice versa? How is the use of
technology associated with transparency and participation? How does external
stakeholder inf‌luence af‌fect the levels of transparency and participation in public
organizations? The answers to these questions will also provide insight into current
government policies. For example, many of the Obama administration open gov-
ernment initiatives discuss transparency and participation without recognizing
their dif‌ferences or potential relationship.
This article takes advantage of a recent study of local governments in the United
States in which survey data were collected from f‌ive dif‌ferent government depart-
ments: the mayor’s of‌f‌ice, community development, parks and recreation, f‌inance,
and police. The survey sought to understand both basic levels of transparency and
participation, but also how technology is used by the organization for both infor-
mation dissemination and participation with stakeholders. This article f‌irst devel-
ops a set of hypotheses and then tests the hypotheses using two-stage least squares
regression. Findings show that participation in local governments is positively
associated with transparency, but that the reverse does not hold; transparency
does not always lead to participation. In addition, organizations that are under
stronger inf‌luence by external stakeholders report higher levels of participation, but
in some cases higher levels of external inf‌luence dampen transparency. The use of
information and communication technologies in local government agencies is
positively associated with transparency but not associated with participation.
Conclusions discuss the implications of these f‌indings for theory and for current
policy and management.
Separating transparency and participation
It is possible to consider transparency and participation as separate constructs,
located on two dif‌ferent axes that range from low to high. The resulting diagram,

96
International Review of Administrative Sciences 78(1)
presented in Figure 1, shows that the two dimensions give rise to four quadrants.
Quadrants two and four are the easiest to explain and conform to general
expectations regarding the relationship between transparency and participation.
In quadrant two, both constructs are on the higher end, indicating that organiza-
tions found in this quadrant are both highly transparent and highly participative.
To some extent, an example of such a situation may be found at multilateral
international negotiations where decisions are based on consensus, participation
in deliberations is open to all member nations, and desired insertions and deletions
in the negotiated text are clearly visible.2 Organizations in quadrant four are less
transparent and less participative. There are probably many examples of these
agencies, but it is safe to identify...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT