25 Years of Transparency Research: Evidence and Future Directions

• Author: Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen,Maria Cucciniello,Gregory A. Porumbescu
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12685
• Published date: 01 January 2017
• Date: 01 January 2017

32 Public Administration Review • January | February 2017

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 77, Iss. 1, pp. 32–44. © 2016 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12685.

25 Years of Transparency Research:

Evidence and Future Directions

Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen is

assistant professor in the Utrecht School

of Governance of Utrecht University,

The Netherlands. He is interested in

public sector and court transparency,

citizen attitudes, legitimacy, behavioral

public administration, and experimental

methodology. His work has appeared in

journals such as

Public Administration,

Public Administration Review,

and

Journal of

Public Administration, Research and Theory.

E-mail: s.g.grimmelikhuijsen@uu.nl

Gregory A. Porumbescu is assistant

professor in the Department of Public

Administration at Northern Illinois

University. His research focuses on public

sector transparency, e-government, and

citizen perceptions of government. His work

has appeared in journals such as

Public

Administration Review,

Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory,

and

American Review of Public Administration.

E-mail: gporumbescu@gmail.com

Maria Cucciniello is assistant professor

in the Department of Policy Analysis

and Public Management at Bocconi

University in Milan, Italy. She holds a PhD

in management from the University of

Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Her research

focuses on transparency in government,

innovation in the public and health care

sectors, coproduction of public services, and

the impact of technology on the public and

health care sectors.

E-mail: maria.cucciniello@unibocconi.it

Research

Synthesis

Abstract : This article synthesizes the cross-disciplinary literature on government transparency. It systematically reviews

research addressing the topic of government transparency published between 1990 and 2015. The review uses 187

studies to address three questions: (1) What forms of transparency has the literature identified? (2) What outcomes does

the literature attribute to transparency? and (3) How successful is transparency in achieving those goals? In addressing

these questions, the authors review six interrelated types of transparency and nine governance- and citizen-related

outcomes of transparency. Based on the findings of the analysis, the authors outline an agenda for future research on

government transparency and its effects that calls for more systematically investigating the ways in which contextual

conditions shape transparency outcomes, replicating studies with varying methodologies, investigating transparency in

neglected countries, and paying greater attention to understudied claims of transparency such as improved decision

making and management.

Practitioner Points

• Government transparency is no cure-all and does not always have positive outcomes.

• Transparency is effective at achieving certain outcomes, such as increasing participation, improving financial

management, and reducing corruption.

• Transparency is less effective at engendering trust in and legitimacy of government.

• Our analysis suggests that government transparency “works” under some conditions but not under others.

What these conditions are needs further investigation.

Michael McGuire , Editor

Maria Cucciniello

Bocconi University, Italy

Gregory A. Porumbescu

Northern Illinois University

Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen

Utrecht School of Governance, The Netherlands

O ver the course of the past two decades,

there have been many attempts to bolster

transparency at every level of government.

These attempts have been guided by a long-standing

expectation that enhancing transparency will bring

about improvements to the quality of government

(Kosack and Fung 2014 , 84; Piotrowski 2008 ;

Roberts 2006 ). Accordingly, governments now

view transparency as a means of achieving an array

of objectives, ranging from fostering greater trust

in government to reducing public corruption and

improving financial performance (Benito and Bastida

2009 ; Bertot, Jaeger, and Grimes 2010 ; Welch,

Hinnant, and Moon 2005 ; Worthy 2010 ).

Despite such optimism, scholars have recently

questioned the extent to which transparency is

actually capable of fulfilling the range of objectives

commonly ascribed to it (Etzioni 2010 , 2014 ). In

general, what this expanding line of inquiry illustrates

is that the effects of transparency are much less

pronounced than conventional wisdom suggests.

Indeed, as a number of empirical assessments have

found, transparency ’ s effects are often limited and

differ according to a number of factors such as

area of government, policy domain, and citizen

characteristics (de Fine Licht 2014; de Fine Licht

et al. 2014; Grimmelikhuijsen and Meijer 2014 ;

Porumbescu 2015b ). Others have argued that efforts

to enhance transparency often result in more harm

than good, reasoning that continual efforts to enhance

transparency have fueled polarization, indecision,

and, ultimately, dysfunction in government (Grumet

2014 ).

In response to such challenges, a growing number

of scholars and practitioners are beginning to debate

the role of transparency in the practice of public

administration. While few on either side of this

debate would go so far as to actually support general

reductions in transparency, what is quickly coming

into focus is a need to think more systematically

about how transparency can be used for better

governance. At present, more transparency is often

indiscriminately proffered as a solution to the

gamut of challenges facing governments. Yet, like

any instrument, transparency is not without its

limits—inevitably, transparency is well suited to