Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:00:58.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ambiguous Definition of Open Government: Parliamentarians, Journalists and Bloggers Define Open Government In Accordance With Their Interests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2018

George W. Wootten  and
Simon J. Kiss
George W. Wootten
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, 3359 Mississauga Road, New North Building, 5th Floor, Mississauga, ON L5L 1C6
Simon J. Kiss*
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University, 20 Charlotte Street, Brantford, ON, N3T 2W2
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present the results of a 2014 survey of Canadian parliamentarians, journalists and bloggers in which respondents were asked to rank competing definitions of open government. Overall, respondents preferred to define open government in terms of access to information and sources. However, controlling for age, ideology and language, we also found that respondents in the different positions ranked definitions of open government differently. Journalists are more likely than any other group to define open government in terms of access to information and sources. In contrast, parliamentarians who were members of a governing party were as likely to choose definitions of open government that emphasized public participation as they were to choose definitions that emphasized access to information. Opposition parliamentarians share more similarities with government parliamentarians than with journalists. These results suggest that key actors in the Canadian policy landscape define open government in ways that are consistent with their institutional interests. We suggest that these results reflect ways in which open government operates more like a buzzword, which helps explain the common pattern whereby opposition parties make promises to be more open and, after taking power, operate in less open ways. Moreover, these results raise questions about the extent to which open government can actually operate as an organizing principle.

Résumé

Nous présentons les résultats d'un sondage mené en 2014 auprès de parlementaires, de journalistes et de blogueurs canadiens dans lequel on a demandé aux répondants de classer les définitions concurrentes d’un gouvernement ouvert. Dans l'ensemble, les répondants ont préféré définir le gouvernement ouvert en termes d'accès à l'information et aux sources. Cependant, nous constatons également que dans leurs prises de position les répondants classent différemment les définitions en fonction de l'âge, de l'idéologie et de la langue. Les journalistes sont plus susceptibles que tout autre groupe de définir un gouvernement ouvert en termes d'accès à l'information et aux sources. Les parlementaires du parti au pouvoir sont susceptibles de définir un gouvernement ouvert tout autant en termes d'influence du public sur le processus politique que d'accès à l'information. Les parlementaires de l'opposition partagent plus de similitudes avec les parlementaires du gouvernement qu'avec les journalistes. Ces résultats suggèrent que les principaux acteurs du paysage politique canadien définissent le gouvernement ouvert d'une manière cohérente avec leurs intérêts institutionnels. Nous suggérons que cela reflète la façon dont le gouvernement ouvert fonctionne davantage comme un mot à la mode. Cela contribue à expliquer la tendance trop courante selon laquelle les partis d'opposition promettent d'être plus ouverts et, après avoir pris le pouvoir, agissent de façon moins ouverte. De plus, ces résultats soulèvent des questions quant à la mesure dans laquelle un gouvernement ouvert peut réellement fonctionner comme principe d'organisation.

Keywords

Open governmentpolitical communicationpolitical institutionspolitical symbols
Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 479 - 499
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The data sets and R scripts to replicate these results are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.5683/SP/R1ETCO.

References

Aitken, Kent. 2017. “Open(Ing) Government.” Policy Options. http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/august-2017/opening-government/ (September 25, 2017).Google Scholar
Allison, Paul D. and Christakis, Nicholas A.. 1994. “Logit Models for Sets of Ranked Items.” Sociological Methodology 24: 199–228.Google Scholar
Alwin, Duane F. and Krosnick, Jon A.. 1985. “The Measurement of Values in Surveys: A Comparison of Ratings and Rankings.” Public Opinion Quarterly 49 (4): 535–52.Google Scholar
Belgrave, Roger. 2013. “Open Government Consultations Departure from Old Town Halls: Milloy.” BramptonGuardian.Com. https://www.bramptonguardian.com/news-story/4270886-open-government-consultations-departure-from-old-town-halls-milloy/ (September 25, 2017).Google Scholar
Bennett, W. Lance. 1990. “Toward a Theory of Press-State Relations in the United States.” Journal of Communication 40 (2): 103–25.Google Scholar
Benzie, Robert. 2013. “Kathleen Wynne to Launch ‘Open Government’ Push to Boost Transparency | Toronto Star.” Toronto Star, October 21. https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/10/21/kathleen_wynne_to_launch_open_government_push_to_boost_transparency.html (September 25, 2017).Google Scholar
Breton, Charles, Cutler, Fred, Lachance, Sarah, Mierke-Zatwarnicki, Alex et al. 2017. “Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote Choice in the 2015Google Scholar
Brieva, Antonio and Martin, Verity. 2014. “Trudeaumania Floods SLC.” Imprint, September 12. http://s3.amazonaws.com/UWPublications/Imprint/2014-15_v37/Imprint_2014-09-12_v37_i09.pdf.Google Scholar
Canada. 2017. “Canada's Action Plan on Open Government 2012–2014.” Government of Canada. http://open.canada.ca/en/canadas-action-plan-open-government (December 8, 2017).Google Scholar
Canadian Association of Journalists. 2012. “Harper Government Wins Code of Silence Award, Again.” Canada Association of Journalists. http://www.caj.ca/harper-government-wins-code-of-silence-award-again/.Google Scholar
Chapman, Randall G. and Staelin, Richard. 1982. “Exploiting Rank Ordered Choice Set Data within the Stochastic Utility Model.” Journal of Marketing Research 19 (3): 288.Google Scholar
Chase, Steven. 2016. “Transparency a Casualty in Arms Deals with Saudis.” The Globe and Mail, March 13. http://www.theglobeandmail.com.libproxy.wlu.ca/news/politics/transparency-the-first-casualty-in-arms-deal-with-saudis/article29203772/ (September 1, 2017).Google Scholar
Clarke, Amanda and Francoli, Mary. 2014. “What's in a Name? A Comparison of Open Government Definitions Across Seven Open Government Partnership Members.” JeDem: eJournal of eDemocracy 6 (1): 248–66.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 2006. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics (1964).” Critical Review 18 (1–3): 1–74.Google Scholar
Cox, David R. and Oakes, David. 1984. Analysis of Survival Data. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Epps, Daniel. 2008. “Mechanisms of Secrecy.” Harvard Law Review 121 (6): 1556.Google Scholar
Esser, Frank and Pfetsch, Barbara. 2004. Comparing Political Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fengler, Susanne and Stephan, Ruß-Mohl. 2008. “Journalists and the Information-Attention Markets: Towards an Economic Theory of Journalism.” Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism 9 (6): 667–90.Google Scholar
Francoli, Mary. 2016. “Canada Progress Report, 2014–2015.” Open Government Partnership. http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/1.Canada14-5_English_Final_0.pdf.Google Scholar
Franks, C. E. S. 1987. The Parliament of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Galtung, Johan and Ruge, Mari H.. 1965. “The Structure of Foreign News The Presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in Four Norwegian Newspapers.” Journal of Peace Research 2 (1): 64–90.Google Scholar
Gandy, Oscar. 1982. Beyond Agenda-Setting: Information Subsidies and Public Policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Gans, Herbert J. 1979. Deciding What's News. Chicago: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Giasson, Thierry, Jansen, Harold, and Koop, Royce. “Blogging, partisanship, and political participation in Canada.” Political communication in Canada: Meet the press and tweet the rest (2014): 194–211.Google Scholar
Hall, Chris. 2016a. “A Tale of Two Conventions.” CBC Radio Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/a-tale-of-two-conventions-1.3601813.Google Scholar
Hall, Chris. 2016b. “Liberal Fiscal Plans Less Transparent than under Harper, Kevin Page Says.” CBC Radio Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/preston-manning-s-prescription-to-recharge-the-right-1.3463742/liberal-fiscal-plans-less-transparent-than-under-harper-kevin-page-says-1.3464078.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A. and Taylor, Rosemary C. R.. 1996. “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms*.” Political Studies 44 (5): 936–57.Google Scholar
Hausman, Jerry A. and Ruud, Paul A.. 1987. “Specifying and Testing Econometric Models for Rank-Ordered Data.” Journal of Econometrics 34 (1–2): 83–104.Google Scholar
Holbrook, A. et al. 2007. “The Causes and Consequences of Response Rates in Surveys by the News Media and Government Contractor Survey Research Firms.” In Advances in Telephone Survey Methodology, eds. Lepkowski, James M. et al. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald and Abramson, Paul R.. 1995. Value Change Across Three Generations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Jay, Anthony and Lynn, Jonathan. 1980. “Yes, Minister.” British Broadcasting Corporation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYL3QHkVuck.Google Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent. 1992. “Ideological Thinking among Mass Publics and Political Elites.” Public Opinion Quarterly 56 (4): 419–41.Google Scholar
Kaufer, David S. and Carley, Kathleen M.. 1993. “Condensation Symbols: Their Variety and Rhetorical Function in Political Discourse.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 26 (3): 201–26.Google Scholar
Kiss, Simon. 2014. “Responding to the ‘New Public’: The Arrival of Strategic Communications and Managed Participation in Alberta.” Canadian Public Administration 57 (1): 26–48.Google Scholar
Kozolanka, Kirsten. 2006. “The Sponsorship Scandal as Communication: The Rise of Politicized and Strategic Communications in the Federal Government.” Canadian Journal of Communication 31 (2). https://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1745/1858.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1991. “Response Strategies for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 5 (3): 213–36.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. et al. 1996. “Satisficing in Surveys: Initial Evidence.” New Directions for Evaluation 1996 (70): 29–44.Google Scholar
Lambert, R. D. and Curtis, J. E.. 1993. “Perceived Party Choice and Class Voting.” Canadian Journal of Political Science-Revue Canadienne De Science Politique 26 (2): 273–86.Google Scholar
Lee, Gwanhoo and Kwak, Young H.. 2012. “An Open Government Maturity Model for Social Media Based Public Engagement.” Government Information Quarterly 29 (4): 492–503.Google Scholar
Liberal Party of Canada. 2015. “Real Change.” Liberal Party of Canada. https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/ (September 25, 2017).Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1986. “Historical Traditions and National Characteristics: A Comparative Analysis of Canada and the United States.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie 11 (2): 113–55.Google Scholar
Mulgan, Richard. 2014. Making Open Government Work. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Nevitte, Neil. 1996. The Decline of Deference: Canadian Value Change in Cross-National Perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Obama, Barack. 2009. “Transparency and Open Government: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies” https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/transparency-and-open-government (September 5, 2018).Google Scholar
Open Government Partnership. 2011. “What is the Open Government Partnership.” https://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/about-ogp (September 5, 2018)Google Scholar
O'Neill, Brenda. 2007. Indifferent or Just Different. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.Google Scholar
Pritchard, David, Brewer, Paul, Sauvageau, Florian. 2005. “Changes in Canadian Journalists’ Views about the Social and Political Roles of the News Media: A Panel Study, 1996–2003.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 38(2):287–306.Google Scholar
Punj, Girish N. and Staelin, Richard. 1978. “The Choice Process for Graduate Business Schools.” Journal of Marketing Research 15 (4): 588.Google Scholar
Quinn, Thomas. 2012. “Spin Doctors and Political News Management: A Rational-Choice ‘Exchange' Analysis.” British Politics 7 (3): 272–300.Google Scholar
Reese, Stephen D. 2001. “Understanding the Global Journalist.” Journalism Studies 2 (2): 173–87.Google Scholar
Roberts, Alasdair S. 2000. “Less Government, More Secrecy: Reinvention and the Weakening of Freedom of Information Law.” Public Administration Review 60 (4): 308–20.Google Scholar
Roberts, Alasdair S. 2005. “Spin Control and Freedom of Information: Lessons for the United Kingdom from Canada.” Public Administration 83 (1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Roy, Jeffrey. 2017. “Open Government—Progress and Impediments in the Digital Era.” Canadian Public Administration 60 (3): 438–42.Google Scholar
Russell, P. A. and Gray, C. D.. 1994. “Ranking or Rating? Some Data and Their Implications for the Measurement of Evaluative Response.” British Journal of Psychology 85: 79–91.Google Scholar
Serrin, W. and Bennett, W. L.. 2000. “The Watchdog Role of the Press.” In Media Power in Politics, eds Graber, D. A. and Graber, . Washington: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Small, Tamara. 2014. “The Not-So Social Network: The Use of Twitter by Canada's Party Leaders.” In Political Communication in Canada: Meet the Press and Tweet the Rest, eds. Marland, Alex, Giasson, Thierry and Small, Tamara. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Taras, David. 1990. Newsmakers: The Media's Influence on Canadian Politics. Toronto: Nelson Canada.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1993. Reconciling the Solitudes: Essays on Canadian Federalism and Nationalism. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP.Google Scholar
Tuchman, G. 1972. “Objectivity as Strategic Ritual: An Examination of Newsmen's Notions of Objectivity.” American Journal of Sociology 77 (4): 660–79.Google Scholar
Wu, Zheng and Baer, Douglas E.. 1996. “Attitudes Toward Family Life and Gender Roles: A Comparison of English and French Canadian Women.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies; Calgary, Alta. 27(3):437–452.Google Scholar
Yu, Harlan and Robinson, David G.. 2012. “The New Ambiguity of ‘Open Government.’” UCLA Law Review 59 (178). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2012489.Google Scholar