Open data and the transparency agenda: New tools to reduce corruption? Elizabeth David-Barrett For many years the global anti-corruption movement has promoted transparency as a key tool for reducing corruption around the world, on the assumption that sunlight is the best disinfectant. This agenda has received a major boost in recent years because of the increasing availability of ‘big data’ and the computer processing capacity to analyse it. Put transparency and big data together, and you get ‘open data’, data that is freely available and may be re-published. Open data derives from many sources and includes scientific data, such as the results of experiments, and corporate data about the activities of companies, as well as data published by governments. Within the subset of government open data there are again many types of data. Some of the data that governments publish is about the public, for example, information on health trends or crime rates in local areas. Another type of data is intended to facilitate economic activity, for example, data about transport connections. Yet another type is about the activities of the government itself, such as information about public spending on goods and services or the salaries of public officials. It is this latter category of data that is associated with efforts to improve the accountability of government, and hence there is much excitement about the potential for this to serve as an important anti-corruption tool. Open governments, open data? One extreme example of open government data is the Wikileaks movement, which has sought to leak sensitive government data in order to increase public scrutiny, particularly in areas prone to secrecy, such as diplomacy and security. Whilst its methods remain controversial, the campaign has arguably prompted governments to be more proactive about publishing data themselves, leading to initiatives such as the Open Government Partnership (OGP). The OGP is a voluntary international standards-setting initiative that sees national governments committing to make available as much data as possible about the public sector. Since its launch in 2011, 65 countries have signed up, which has required such countries to meet a set of eligibility criteria and appoint a lead ministry or agency to draft an action plan. Openness has thus become a way for countries to build an international reputation with their peers. Whilst joining the OGP is relatively straightforward, countries need to follow up on their commitments if they are to really reap the reputational benefits. The Global Open Data Index, produced by the Open Knowledge Foundation, keeps up the pressure by ranking governments on their openness. The UK has taken the top spot in recent years, with other Commonwealth countries such as Australia, New Zealand and India making it into the top ten. Overall, though, Commonwealth governments vary widely in their openness, according to the index. Critics argue that the index is superficial. A country can score well because it has the right legal framework in place for opening up government data, despite its record on implementing the rules – which is harder to monitor – being poor. Romania, for example, keen to demonstrate its anti-corruption credentials to the EU, has made farreaching commitments to government openness. Yet academic researchers report that the reality on the ground is that the authorities are often reluctant to release information in a useable format. The UK also risks losing its top spot if future versions of the index pay greater attention to implementation rather than just policy commitments. Take information about ministerial meetings, for example. Although the government is committed to publishing such information in a timely manner, ministries vary greatly in how promptly they publish the data and how detailed the information is that they provide. Such inconsistencies make it difficult to conduct a rigorous analysis. Another common problem is that governments publish data in PDF format, meaning that researchers must Commonwealth Governance 104 Handbook 2014/15 Figure 1: Transparency rankings Rank Country Transparency rating (Out of 1,000) 1 United Kingdom 970 4 Australia 720 5 New Zealand 720 9 India 675 20 Canada 590 33 Malta 515 38 South Africa 480 41 Pakistan 445 46 Jamaica 425 68 Bangladesh 335 69 Singapore 335 77 Nigeria 285 78 Rwanda 280 80 Zambia 270 86 Barbados 240 88 The Bahamas 240 89 Ghana 235 90 Cameroon 225 91 Kenya 215 93 Lesotho 210 95 Botswana 205 96 Cyprus 205 97 United Republic of Tanzania 205 102 Sierra Leone 150 107 St Kitts and Nevis 105 112 Saint Lucia 45 Source: Open Knowledge Foundation, 2014.
CEP template 2012
To see the actual publication please follow the link above