Transparency in Governments: A Meta-Analytic Review of Incentives for Digital Versus Hard-Copy Public Financial Disclosures

• Author: Antonio Manuel López Hernández,Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar,Laura Alcaide Muñoz
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074016629008
• Date: 01 July 2017
• Published date: 01 July 2017
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/

American Review of Public Administration

2017, Vol. 47(5) 550 –573

© The Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0275074016629008

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

Article

Introduction

E-government facilitates interaction between the govern-

ments and the public, providing information and equipping

citizens to take an active role in public affairs (Flyverbom,

2015). Strategic plans for the implementation of e-govern-

ment are intended to generalize the use of new technologies

in the field of public administration and to create an environ-

ment enabling citizens to communicate their views or com-

plaints regarding public issues to influence the development

or implementation of public policy (Birchall, 2015).

The importance attributed to e-government regarding

improved accountability and information transparency in the

framework of New Public Management (NPM) reforms has

motivated various studies seeking to identify factors that

determine a greater level of disclosure of public financial

information, using two communication channels, hard copy

(paper-based documents; Evans & Patton, 1987) and through

the use of information and communication technologies

(ICT), fundamentally the Internet (Caba, Rodríguez, &

López, 2008).

Nevertheless, despite the best endeavors of previous

research, there exists considerable heterogeneity in the

results, and conclusive evidence has yet to be obtained

regarding the influence of the above-mentioned factors.

Possibly, inconsistency in study design could account for the

uneven results (Pomeroy & Thornton, 2008). Whatever the

reason, there is as yet insufficient empirical evidence of the

validity and generality of these results to clearly establish the

influence of the above-mentioned factors, in quantitative

terms, on the disclosure of public financial information in

both modes of information disclosure.

This article addresses this issue by means of an objective

analysis of two aspects: (a) the communication channel used

to disclose public financial information and (b) the influence

that studies’ characteristics could have had on the conclu-

sions obtained (i.e., the moderating effects) when the public

financial disclosure was analyzed in those studies. This anal-

ysis was conducted by testing the statistical validity of the

empirical results of 51 articles (see Table 1) in a meta-

analysis to determine the underlying causes of the variations

and contradictions identified.

1University of Granada, Granada, Spain

Corresponding Author:

Laura Alcaide Muñoz, Faculty of Business and Administration, University

of Granada, Campus La Cartuja s/n, Granada 18071, Spain.

Email: lauraam@ugr.es

Transparency in Governments: A Meta-Analytic

Review of Incentives for Digital Versus

Hard-Copy Public Financial Disclosures

Laura Alcaide Muñoz1, Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar1,

and Antonio Manuel López Hernández1

Abstract

Prior research has indicated that information transparency in governments depends on institutional and environmental factors.

Nonetheless, previous studies show heterogeneity in the results, and the academic researchers cannot make consistent

conclusions. It makes it difficult to know the behavior of governments regarding their information policies. Therefore,

making use of meta-analysis techniques, we integrate the empirical results reported by studies to determine the factors

favoring the disclosure of public financial information via two modes of information disclosure—online versus hard-copy format.

Several moderating effects—administrative culture, accounting regime, impact of measure used on determining variables, and level of

government—have been considered and analyzed for their influence on the degree of correlation between the determinants

and the disclosure of public financial information in both modes of information disclosure. Our study does not only show

that the variables analyzed are positively associated with the disclosure of public financial information, but also that this

depends on the context in which the research is conducted. The administrative style and the level of government are the

main moderating effects that influence the results of analyzed studies.

Keywords

public administration (generally), budgeting/financial management, e-government, information and communication technology

551

Table 1. Main Characteristics of the Studies Analyzed.

Authors/studies Countries

Online vs. hard

copy

Level of

government

Financial condition

(sign; significance)

Intergovernmental

transfers

(sign; significance)

Political

competition

(sign; significance)

Size

(sign; significance)

Municipal wealth

(sign; significance)

Baber (1983) United States Hard copy State +; Nonsignificant — +; Nonsign./sign. +; Significant —

Evans and Patton (1983) United States Hard copy Local Mixed results — — +; Nonsign./sign. —

Ingram (1984) United States Hard copy State +; Nonsignificant +; Nonsignificant +; Nonsignificant +; Nonsignificant +; Significant

Baber and Sen (1984) United States Hard copy State −; Nonsignificant — +; Nonsign./sign. — —

Robbins and Austin (1986) United States Hard copy Local +; Significant −; Nonsignificant — +; Significant −; Nonsignificant

Ingram and DeJong (1987) United States Hard copy State +; Significant +; Significant — +; Significant —

Evans and Patton (1987) United States Hard copy Local +; Significant — Mixed results Mixed results —

Giroux (1989) United States Hard copy Local — — −; Nonsignificant — Mixed results

Dwyer and Wilson (1989) United States Hard copy Local −; Nonsign./sign. — — +; Nonsignificant —

Banker, Bunch, and Strauss (1989) United States Hard copy Local +; Significant +; Nonsignificant — — Mixed results

Copley (1991) United States Hard copy Local +; Significant −; Significant — +; Significant —

Carpenter (1991) United States Hard copy State +; Significant — −; Nonsignificant +; Significant —

Feroz and Wilson (1992) United States Hard copy Local — — — +; Nonsignificant —

Cheng (1992) United States Hard copy State −; Nonsignificant −; Nonsignificant Mixed results +; Significant +; Nonsignificant

Giroux and Deis (1993) United States Hard copy Local Mixed results −; Nonsign./Sign. — — —

Lim and McKinnon (1993) United States Hard copy Local — — — +; Significant —

Allen and Sander (1994) United States Hard copy Local — — — +; Nonsignificant —

Christiaens (1999) Netherlands Hard copy Local +; Nonsignificant — — +; Significant +; Nonsignificant

McLelland and Giroux (2000) United States Online Local — +; Significant — +; Significant —

Taylor and Rosair (2000) Australia Hard copy State — — — Mixed results

Ryan, Stanley, and Nelson (2002) United States Hard copy Local — — — +; Nonsign./sign. —

Giroux and McLelland (2003) United States Hard copy Local +; Nonsign./sign. Mixed results — Mixed results +; Nonsignificant

Gore (2004) United States Hard copy Local +; Significant — — +; Significant —

Gore, Sachs, and Trzcinka (2004) United States Hard copy Local +; Significant — — +; Significant —

Smith (2004) United States Hard copy Local Mixed results — Mixed results +; Nonsignificant Mixed results

Laswad, Fisher, and Oyelere (2005) New Zealand Hard copy/online Local +; Nonsignificant — −; Nonsignificant +; Nonsignificant +; Nonsignificant

Malone (2006) United States Hard copy Local Mixed results — — +; Significant +; Significant

Justice, Melitski, and Smith (2006) United States Online State/Local — — — +; Significant —

Styles and Tennyson (2007) United States Online Local +; Significant — — +; Significant +; Significant

Mills, Carslaw, and Mason (2007) United States Hard copy Local — +; Significant — — —

da Costa Carvalho, Jorge, and Fernandez (2007) Portugal Hard copy Local Mixed results +; Significant — Mixed results —

Pina, Torres, and Royo (2007) EU Online Local — — — +; Significant —

Steccolini, Anessi-Pessina, and Nasi (2008) Italy Hard copy Local — — — +; Nonsignificant —

Gandía and Archidona (2008) Spain Online Local — — +; Significant +; Significant +; Significant

Caba, Rodríguez, and López (2008) Spain Online Local +; Significant −; Nonsignificant +; Nonsignificant −; Nonsignificant —

Cárcaba and García (2008) Spain Online Local Mixed results — +; Significant +; Significant —

Serrano, Rueda, and Portillo (2009) Spain Online Local +; Nonsignificant — +; Significant +; Significant +; Significant

Pina, Torres, and Royo (2009) EU Online Local — — — +; Significant —

Pina, Torres, and Royo (2010) EU Online Local — — — +; Significant —

Cárcaba and García (2010) Spain Online Local Mixed results — +; Significant +; Significant —

Guillamón, Bastida, and Benito (2011) Spain Online Local +; Nonsignificant +; Significant — +; Significant Mixed results

Martani and Lestiani (2012) Indonesia Online Local — +; Nonsignificant — +; Significant +; Significant

Albalate (2013) Spain Online Local +; Nonsignificant — — +:Significant —

Caamaño-Alegre, Lago-Peñas, Reyes-Santias, and Santiago-

Boubeta (2013)

Spain Online Local +; Nonsignificant — +; Significant +; Nonsignificant —

(continued)