Una medida global de gobierno abierto para la OCDE. Recomendaciones para España

  1. Gonzálvez-Gallego, Nicolás 1
  2. Nieto-Torrejón, Laura 1
  3. Pérez-Cárceles, María Concepción 2
  1. 1 Universidad Católica San Antonio
    info

    Universidad Católica San Antonio

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05b1rsv17

  2. 2 Centro Universitario de la Defensa San Javier
Journal:
El trimestre económico

ISSN: 0041-3011,  2448-718X

Year of publication: 2021

Issue: 349

Pages: 219-245

Type: Article

DOI: 10.20430/ETE.V88I349.907 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: El trimestre económico

Abstract

Different international organizations and national governments are promoting the adoption of open government strategies. There are rankings to measure the evolution of some of its dimensions, but there is a gap of indicators comprising open data, transparency, participation and collaboration simultaneously. In this paper we propose the Open Government and Participation Index (OGPI), based on previous academic works, to compare open government strategies over time and among different countries. The index, which weighs different open government dimensions, is built for a sample of 33 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) from open and consistent sources. The results show that the areas of transparency and open data have a wide room for improvement and that participation and collaboration strategies require an autonomous approach. By region, open government is more developed in the Commonwealth countries, while those in Eastern Europe present the lowest level of implementation.

Bibliographic References

  • Andersen, K. N., Henriksen, H. Z., Danziger, R. M. J. N., Sannarnes, M. K., y Enemærke, M. (2010). Fads and facts of e-government: A review of impacts of e-government (2003-2009). International Journal of Public Administration, 33(11), 564-579. doi: b10.1080/01900692.2010.517724
  • Attard, J., Orlandi, F., Scerri, S., y Auer, S. (2015). A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 399-418. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.006
  • Ball, C. (2009). What is transparency? Public Integrity, 11(4), 293-307.
  • Beltrán-Orenes, P., y Martínez-Pastor, E. (2016). Grado de cumplimiento de las leyes de transparencia, acceso y buen gobierno y de reutilización de los datos de contratación de la administración central española. El Profesional de la Información, 25(4), 557-567. doi: 10.3145/epi.2016.jul.05
  • Bogdanović-Dinić, S., Veljković, N., y Stoimenov, L. (2014). How open are public government data? An assessment of seven open data portals. En M. Rodríguez-Bolívar (ed.), Measuring E-government Efficiency. Public Administration and Information Technology (vol. 5, pp. 25-44). Nueva York: Springer.
  • Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., y Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445-456. Recuperado de: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/puar.12238
  • Chabova, K. (2017). Measuring corruption in Europe: Public opinion surveys and composite indices. Quality & Quantity, 51(4), 1877-1900. Recuperado de: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11135-016-0372-8
  • Chen, C. L. P., y Zang, C. Y. (2014). Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies: A survey on Big Data. Information Sciences, 275(10), 314-347. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2014.01.015
  • Chun, S., Shulman, S. W., Almazan, R. S., y Hovy, E. (2010). Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity, 15(1-2), 1-9.
  • Denhardt, J. V., y Denhardt, R. B. (2011). The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. Armonk, Estados Unidos: M. E. Sharpe.
  • European Data Portal (2017). Open Data Maturity in Europe 2017. Recuperado de: https://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp_landscaping_insight_report_n3_2017.pdf
  • Evans, A. M., y Campos, A. (2013). Open government initiatives: Challenges of citizen participation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(1), 172-185. doi: 10.1002/pam.21651
  • Ganapati, S., y Reddick, C. G. (2012). Open e-government in US state governments: Survey evidence from Chief Information Officers. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 115-122. doi: 10.1016/j. giq.2011.09.006
  • Geiger, C. P., y Von Lucke, J. (2012). Open government and linked open government data. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 4(2), 265-278. doi: 10.29379/jedem.v4i2.143
  • Gobierno de España (2017). III Plan de Acción de España 2017-2019 de la Alianza para el Gobierno Abierto. Recuperado de: https://transparencia.gob.es/transparencia/dam/jcr:74d66aee-760c-4962-983e-0b250fb583b8/2017_Junio_Spain_III_Plan_GA_OGP_vf.pdf
  • Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Porumbescu, G., Hong, B., e Im, T. (2013). The effect of transparency on trust in government: A cross‐national comparative experiment. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 575-586. doi: 10.1111/puar.12047
  • Grimmelikhuijsen, S., y Welch, E. W. (2012). Developing and testing a theoretical framework for computer‐mediated transparency of local governments. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 562-571. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02532.x
  • Harder, C. T., y Jordan, M. M. (2013). The transparency of county websites: A content analysis. Public Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 103-128. Recuperado de: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24371990
  • Harrison, T. M., Guerrero, S., Burke, G. B., Cook, M., Cresswell, A., Helbig, N., Hrdinova, J., y Pardo, T. (2012). Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity, 17(2), 83-97. doi: 10.3233/IP-2012-0269
  • Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., y Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258-268. doi: 10.1080/10580530.2012.716740
  • Jetzek, T., Avital, M., y Bjorn-Andersen, N. (2013). Generating value from open government data. Journal of Development Research, 16, 417-432.
  • Joint Research Centre-European Commission (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. París: OECD Publishing. Recuperado de: https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/handbookonconstructingcompositeindicatorsmethodologyanduserguide.htm
  • Kuhn, K. (2011). Open government data and public transportation. Journal of Public Transportation, 14(1), 5. doi: 10.5038/2375-0901.14.1.5
  • Lawson-Body, A., Illia, A., Willoughby, L., y Lee, S. (2014). Innovation characteristics influencing veterans’ adoption of e-government services. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(3), 34-44. doi: 10.1080/08874417.2014.11645702
  • Lee, G., y Kwak, Y. H. (2011). Open government implementation model: A stage model for achieving increased public engagement. Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times (pp. 254-261). Nueva York: Association for Computing Machinery.
  • Lee, G., y Kwak, Y. H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492-503. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.001
  • López, S. (2017). Is transparency an effective way of reducing corruption? Evidence around the world. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(2).
  • Lourenço, P., Moura, P., Jorge, S. M., y Pattaro, A. F. (2013). Online transparency for accountability: One assessing model and two applications. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 11(2), 280-292.
  • Luna-Reyes, L., y Sun, A. E. (2012). Open government and public participation: Issues and challenges in creating public value. Information Polity, 17(2), 77-81.
  • Meijer, A. (2015). Government transparency in historical perspective: From the ancient regime to open data in the Netherlands. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(3), 189-199. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2014.934837
  • Moore, M. H. (1994). Public value as the focus of strategy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 53(3), 296-303. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8500.1994.tb01467.x
  • Moynihan, D., Pandley, S. K., y Wright, B. E. (2011). Setting the table: How transformational leadership fosters performance information use. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 143-164. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mur024
  • OCDE (2016). Open Government Data survey 3.0. Recuperado de: https://qdd.oecd.org/subject.aspx?Subject=589A16C1-EADA-42A2-A6EF-C76B0CCF9519
  • OCDE (2017). Recommendation of the OECD Council on Open Government. OCDE. Recuperado de: http://www.acts.oecd.org/
  • OKF (2018). El manual de open data. Open Data Handbook. Recuperado de: http://opendatahandbook.org/guide/es/
  • Rohwer, A. (2009). Measuring corruption: A comparison between the Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index and the World Bank’s worldwide governance indicators. CESifo DICE Report, 7(3), 42-52. Recuperado de: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/166975/1/ifo-dice-report-v07-y2009-i3-p42-52.pdf
  • Rorissa, A., Demissie, D., y Pardo, T. (2011). Benchmarking e-government: A comparison of frameworks for computing e-government index and ranking. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 354-362. Recuperado de: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X11000359
  • Saisana, M., y Tarantola, S. (2002). State-of-the-Art Report on Current Methodologies and Practices for Composite Indicator Development. Italia: European Commission/JRC.
  • Sánchez de Diego, M. (2014). El “día después” de la Ley de Transparencia. Revista Jurídica de Castilla y León, (33), 12-20. Recuperado de: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4701088&orden=1&info=link
  • Sandoval-Almazán, R., y Gil-García, J. R. (2014). Towards an evaluation model for open government: A preliminary proposal. En International Conference on Electronic Government (pp. 47-58). Springer.
  • Schellong, A. (2009). EU eGovernment benchmarking 2010+. General remarks on the future of benchmarking Digital Government in the EU. Recuperado de: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.510.7968&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  • Scott, M., DeLone, W., y Golden, W. (2016). Measuring eGovernment success: A public value approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(3), 187-208. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2015.11
  • Shkabaturm, J. (2013). Transparency with (out) accountability: Open government in the United States. Yale Law & Policy Review, 31(1), 1-66.
  • Veljković, N., Dinic, S. B., y Stoimenov, L. V. (2014). Benchmarking open government: An open data perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 278-290. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.10.011
  • Wang, H. J., y Lo, J. (2016). Adoption of open government data among government agencies. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 80-88. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.11.004
  • Welch, M. R., Rivera, R. E. N., Conway, B. P., Yonkoski, J., Lupton, P. M., y Giancola, R. (2005). Determinants and consequences of social trust. Sociological Inquiry, 75(4), 453-473. doi: 10.1111/j.1475- 682X.2005.00132.x
  • Wirtz, B., y Birkemeyer, S. (2015). Open government: Origin, development, and conceptual perspectives. International Journal of Public Adminis tration, 38(5), 381-396. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2014.942735
Data source: Dialnet