1

A r g dV ro bi e es n d i

BnS rnGge ia e ir o en n eS e iltIn v t nPa t eWol B n . jr-e ilrs S no G v ra c p c i ,n o ai rci , r a k as o c d T ea to cnb rah da: gge@ olb n .r h uh r a e e c e tb ilr w r a k g d o

Abstract Actively promoted by a broad spectrum of stakeholders, the Open Government Data movement is gaining considerable traction, illustrated by the rapid proliferation of initiatives worldwide. While the preponderance of early experiments emerged in advanced economies, developing countries are increasingly optimistic about proactively releasing public sector information to achieve a multitude of policy goals. However, to what extent is Open Government Data replicable in developing countries, and what factors must be addressed if it is to be a catalytic change agent rather than mere development fad? Structured in four sections, this paper provides a literature review of the Open Government Data movement to date, critically assessing its transferability to developing countries and identifying challenges and limitations that will determine its relative social impact. The first section examines the philosophy, drivers and history of Open Government Data. The second section analyzes the modes of public sector information release featured in developed countries, assessing the validity of underlying assumptions regarding supply and demand when applied to developing countries. The third and fourth sections illuminate factors contributing to the success or failure of public sector information initiatives, drawing upon the cumulative experience of e-government, ICT penetration, institutional reform as well as Open Government Data initiatives to inform future efforts.

Introduction The Open Government Data (OGD) movement rose to prominence in 2008 with the codification of eight principles calling for the release of government data that is: complete, primary, timely, accessible, machineprocessable, non-discriminatory, non-proprietary and license free.1 The movement gained momentum quickly, attracting high-level champions in the US and UK, as well as grassroots support from civil society groups. Subsequent to the US and UK launches, more than 100 OGD initiatives have proliferated around the globe at city, state and national levels.2 Developing country leaders, international donors and civil society are increasingly promoting OGD to achieve numerous policy goals. Despite its appeal, the extent of OGDs impact and transferability to developing countries must be assessed on the validity of its assumptions. Implicit in the OGD concept, are potentially flawed predictions regarding the demand and supply of public sector information. Default models of OGD release featured in developed countries are assumed to seamlessly translate into the developing world, irrespective of differences in environmental conditions and relative capacities of societal actors. This paper exposes these tenuous assumptions, identifying underlying challenges and limitations of OGD that must be intentionally remedied if the OGD movement is to achieve its aspirations. 1. Philosophy, Drivers and History of Open Government Data The Open Knowledge Foundation captures the Open Government Data ethos as the ability for anyone to use, reuse and redistribute [data] subject only to the requirement to attribute and share-alike.3 OGD promotes the social value of public sector information to promote efficiency and effectiveness of government, as well as its commercial value for innovators developing new products and services.4 Asserting that citizens can make productive use of government information for the benefit of themselves and society, OGD calls for it to be accessible and usable by everyone.5 Recognizing that citizens can use government information in its finished form, as well as repurposing underlying or raw data in new forms, OGD emphasizes proactive disclosure of both final information products and supporting datasets.6 OGD realigns power dynamics as the public sector relinquishes its role as information gatekeeper in lieu of a role as information publisher,7 effectively reconceptualizing a governments obligations to its citizens.8 Although the preponderance of government data catalogues launched to date are from OECD countries, the emergence of Open Government Data initiatives in countries such as Moldova and Kenya demonstrate widespread interest in its potential, irrespective of income group or region.9 Four notable motivational drivers encourage the propagation of OGD. First, advocates emphasize OGDs spotlight effect, facilitating greater scrutiny through reduced monopoly of information10and achieving a stronger feedback loop of accountability11 as citizens become active consumers of data to advocate for improved service delivery.12 Second, proponents are motivated by the potential of entrepreneurial individuals, private sector and civil society organizations to innovate off of OGD as a platform13 to fuel economic growth and remedy persistent social problems with new services and public goods.14 Third, advocates emphasize OGDs democratizing effect in

Open Government Data Working Group, 8 Principles of Open Government Data, last modified December 8, 2007. http://www.opengovdata.org/home/8principles. Fundacion CTIC, Public Dataset Catalogs Faceted Browser, (Open Data @ CTIC Sandbox to CTIC, 2011), http://datos.fundacionctic.org/sandbox/catalog/faceted/. 3 Open Knowledge Definition, accessed July 8, 2011, http://www.opendefinition.org/. 4 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access: Open Government Data and the Right to (Re)use Public Information (2011), 7, http://www.access-info.org/documents/Access_Docs/Advancing/Beyond_Access_7_January_2011_web.pdf. 5 Ibid. 6 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 5. 7 Tim Davies, Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform, (MSc diss, University of Oxford, 2010), 16, http://practicalparticipation.co.uk/odi/report/wpcontent/uploads/2010/08/How-is-open-government-data-being-used-in-practice.pdf. 8 Tim Davies, Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform, 5. 9 Data.gov. Open Data Sites. Accessed July 12, 2011. http://www.data.gov/opendatasites#mapanchor. 10 Davies, Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform, 5 and 36. 11 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 80. 12 Glover Wright et al., Open Government Data Study: India, (Open Society Foundation, 2011), 14, http://www.transparency-initiative.org/reports/open-governmentdata-study-india. 13 Vadym Pyrozhenko, Implementing Open Government: Exploring the Ideological Links between Open Government and the Free and Open Source Software Movement (paper presented at the 11th Annual Public Management Research Conference at Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, 2011), 14, http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/conferences/pmrc/Files/Pyrozhenko_Implementing_Open_Government.pdf. 14 Noor Hujiboom and Tijs Van den Broek. Open Data: An International Comparison of Strategies, European Journal of e-Practice 12 (2011), 4, http://www.epractice.eu/files/European%20Journal%20epractice%20Volume%2012_1.pdf.
2

redressing information asymmetries between government and the public,15 facilitating a more civically literate public better able to contribute to national dialogue on government priorities and policies, circumventing previously exclusive influence loops of patronage networks and lobbying by elites.16 Fourth, government efficiency has been a motivation as OGD is seen as breaking down information silos17 to modernize government18 and improve service delivery.19 The earliest forays in releasing public sector information via online portals occurred as early as October 2008, with the District of Columbia (DC) championing Apps for Democracy, a civic hacker20 competition; to develop applications featuring newly released government datasets.21 This and other pilot projects provided a valuable demonstration effect for subsequent national initiatives.22 The US launched a curated web portal 23, data.gov, in May 2009 making datasets from US government agencies publicly available.24 In April 2010, the UK released 3,000 raw datasets to the public with the launch of data.gov.uk.25 While OGDs emphases on datasets, electronic interfaces and proactive disclosure are relatively new; three other movements have influenced its genesis. Access to information (ATI) advocates legal recognition of citizens right to government information and is exhibiting growing ideological convergence with OGD in its emphasis on proactive transparency.26 Good governance is a second influential movement, both in its traditional foci of transparency, citizen participation, and feedback loops;27 as well as recent manifestations of e-democracy and e-government.28 Finally, the Free and Open-Source Software Movement29 has informed OGD with its premise of a hack as an innovative technical solution,30 the belief in free information, the civic-mindedness of the hacker community31 and the emphasis on citizen collaboration.32 The disruptive potential of ICTs and technological leap-frogging has also informed OGD,33 facilitating inexpensive release and application of data at scale.34 Open Government Data contends that the proactive release of public sector information will lead to improved governance and social accountability, particularly in reducing information asymmetries which strengthens the ability of citizens and civic groups to monitor public sector performance, contest policies or demand action. However, while OGD is a helpful input35 to social accountability enabling evidence-based advocacy,36 transparency does not automatically produce scrutiny.37 Four ingredients have been identified as essential for social accountability to flourish: organized and capable citizens groups; responsive government; access to and effective use of information; and sensitivity to culture and context.38 If OGD is to realize its claims, policy makers must address the capacity of citizens and civic groups to navigate the data and its underlying systems;

Davies, Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform, 36. Hujiboom and Van den Broek, Open Data: An International Comparison, 5. 17 Francis Fukuyama, State Building, State Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century, New York: Cornell University Press (2004), 53-54. 18 World Bank. Moldovas Governance e-Transformation Project Aims to Improve Public Services and Transparency by Opening Data and Leveraging Innovative Technologies. June 9, 2011, http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:22936610~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html?cid=3001_4. 19 Wright et al., Open Government Data Study: India, 18. 20 Becky Hogge, Open Data Study (Open Society Foundation: 2011), 8, http://www.soros.org/initiatives/information/focus/communication/articles_publications/publications/open-data-study-20100519.Hogge. 21 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 17 and 87. 22 Hogge, Open Data Study, 5. 23 Pyrozhenko, Implementing Open Government, 2. 24 Hogge, Open Data Study, 5. 25 Hogge, Open Data Study, 4. 26 Freedominfo.org. Info Commissioners Approve Resolution on Transparency, October 5, 2011, http://www.freedominfo.org/2011/10/info-commissioners-approveresolution-on-transparency/ 27 Hujiboom and Van den Broek, Open Data: An International Comparison, 2. 28 Teresa M. Harrison, Santiago Guerrero, Brian G. Burke, Meghan Cook, Anthony Cresswell, Natalie Helbig, Jana Hrdinova and Theresa Pardo. Open Government and E-Government: Democratic Challenges from a Public Value Perspective, 2. Center for Technology in Government U/Albany. Paper prepared for the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference, June 12-15, 2011, College Park, MD, USA, 2011. 29 Pyrozhenko, Implementing Open Government, 23. 30 Pyrozhenko, Implementing Open Government, 17. 31 Pyrozhenko, Implementing Open Government, 18. 32 Pyrozhenko, Implementing Open Government, 24. 33 Wright et al., Open Government Data Study: India, 39. 34 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 11. 35 Bovens, Analysing and Assessing Accountability, 453. 36 Department for Communities and Local Government, Decentralisation and the Localism Bill: an essential guide (London: Crown Copyright), 17. 37 Bovens, Analysing and Assessing Accountability, 453. 38 Ibid.
16

15

and meaningfully engage with their governments to plan and negotiate change.39 The presence of these ingredients cannot be taken for granted and yet are only minimally addressed in the OGD rhetoric. 2. Transferability of Open Government Data to Developing Countries While the first wave of Open Government Data initiatives were predominately from higher-income OECD countries, the next wave is likely to include a far greater number of developing countries.40 This raises questions regarding the transferability of concepts and modalities indicative of OGDs first wave into developing country contexts with drastically different capacities of societal actors and environmental conditions. Most nascent Open Government Data initiatives, regardless of a countrys relative level of development, cite the US and UK as examples to emulate. The US and UK initiatives have become a default model, further reinforced by advocates promoting the transfer and diffusion of this OGD model as universally applicable, regardless of contextual differences in less developed countries.41 However, implicit in this model of OGD release are predictions regarding the demand and supply of public sector information: (1) public will and capacity to use OGD to achieve social and commercial value and (2) government will to mandate release of public sector information and endogenous capacity to implement such an initiative. Becky Hogge identifies three actor groups as instrumental to Open Government Data in the US and UK.42 Political leaders acted as high-level change agents, providing political will to overcome the inertia of bureaucratic silos and secrecy that could inhibit OGD and forging partnerships with technocratic champions to garner credibility and galvanize progress.43 Mid-level bureaucrats were a second supply-side44 OGD driver based on their willingness and capacity to release datasets for public use, being convinced by top-level mandates indicating they would be rewarded for making their information available45 and by examples of productive third party data use.46 Civil society was a critical demand-side47 OGD driver, as civic hackers created applications featuring government data to provide new public services or goods and civil society organizations assumed both interpretative and communicative functions in helping citizens understand the implications of data.48 While not emphasized in Hogges original three actors, private sector organizations, in stressing the economic benefits of OGD were also influential in furthering initiatives in developed countries, advocating for OGDs release to generate commercial value,49 producing applications to repurpose government data and developing advanced features, data-mashups and visualizations.50 Developed country Open Government Data initiatives have operated under assumptions regarding ease of mobilizing endogenous demand, presupposing existence of civil society and private sector groups to help citizens interpret government data and develop new goods and services. The model also assumes adequate civic space, digital inclusion, and information capabilities51 for citizens to benefit from OGD initiatives. In contrast, endogenous OGD demand in developing countries may be weak due to low digital inclusion and information capabilities among citizens, as well as limited organizational capacity and accountability for third parties. Poor countries frequently have less well-developed civil societies compared to developed country counterparts as

Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific, A Manual for Trainers of Social Accountability, 53. These assertions are based on a review of those countries that have announced imminent launches of government data portals or open data policies. 41 Chrisanthi Avgerou. Discourse on ICT and development. Information technologies and international development, 6 (3). 1-18. 2010. SC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. LSE Research Online April 2011. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35564, 4. 42 Hogge, Open Data Study, 7. 43 Hogge, Open Data Study, 4-5. 44 Greg Michener and Katherine Bersch. Conceptualizing the Quality of Transparency. Paper prepared for the 1st Global Conference on Transparency. Rutgers University. Newark: NJ. May 17-20, 2011, 13. 45 Hogge, Open Data Study, 16. 46 Hogge, Open Data Study, 13. 47 Michener and Bersch. Conceptualizing the Quality of Transparency, 13. 48 Oren Perez. (2009). Complexity, Information Overload and Online Deliberation. Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 2009; Bar Ilan Univ. Pub Law Working Paper No. 10-09. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1031510, 18. 49 Pyrozhenko, Implementing Open Government, 34. 50 Robinson, David G., Yu, Harlan, Zeller, William P. and Edward W. Felten, Government Data and the Invisible Hand, Yale Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 11 (2009), 9-10, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1138083. 51 Informational capabilities include the ability: (i) to use ICTs effectively; (ii) to find, process, evaluate, and use information; (iii) to effectively communicate with others; and (iv) to produce and share local content through the network. Bjrn-Sren Gigler. Informational Capabilities The Missing Link for the Impact of ICT on Development. Working Paper Series No. 1. E-Transform Knowledge Platform Working Paper. The World Bank. March 2011, 10.
40

39

well as less developed markets and the absence of linkages among civic hackers52, hampering citizen capacity to mobilize and demand reform. While developing countries are leap-frogging legacy technologies and adopting new ICTs with impressive speed, a digital divide53 exists as only a small fraction of the population has the opportunity to make effective use54 of these technologies. An OGD initiative could create a new data divide, further exacerbating inequities.55 As fewer citizens in developing countries are connected to the digital world,56 the public domain ideal57 of third party groups using OGD to create value for society could unintentionally strengthen rent-seeking groups58 that asymmetrically exploit freely accessible information.59 Open Government Data initiatives in developed countries have operated under assumptions regarding public sector capacity to supply OGD, both in terms of incentives and civil service competence. Government bureaucrats, crucial in moving from well-intentioned policies to action, may view information asymmetries as a source of power and leverage.60 The OGD model presumes the will and capacity of political leaders to use internal checks and balances to align bureaucratic incentives and facilitate momentum for OGD,61 whereas commitment to undertake such reforms depends upon politician responsiveness to election cycles or other public pressure. The OGD model also assumes that if incentives are aligned, bureaucracies have the necessary resources to fulfill their OGD obligations. However, releasing public sector information requires civil servants to process information in electronic form, implying the need for sufficient information capabilities, access to hardware and software, and supporting IT. In reality, the will and capacity of developing country governments to supply OGD may be constrained by enervating influences at all levels. High-level leaders may use public sector jobs to satiate political opponents and mobilize support from interest groups, leading to a bloated civil service that is over-populated, under-qualified and beholden to patronage networks. These conditions create perverse incentives to manipulate information, as civil servants militate against the loss of a lucrative revenue source or to avoid increased public scrutiny.62 Even where will is present, low levels of human capital development among civil servants may constrain capacity to collect, manipulate and interpret information. There has been divergent thought on the role of government versus the private sector in OGD. In developed countries, the prevailing norm has been a circumscribed role of government limited to publishing datasets, rather than directly developing applications for interpreting data.63 Some governments have augmented this, instigating collaboration and co-production of services featuring OGD with the private sector. Implicit in this minimalist role is an assumption that the society has the other ingredients it needs to make meaningful use of OGD, including: viable third parties, high degrees of digital inclusion and information capabilities among society at large, etc. The daunting infrastructure and human capital challenges in developing countries may require different models for OGD to gain sufficient traction to be transformative,64 with the optimal allocation of responsibilities depending on the relative strengths and weaknesses of actor groups in a particular context. The OGD model practiced in developed countries features supply and demand almost exclusively arising from endogenous forces such as reformist politicians, competent bureaucrats, empowered citizens and mobilized civil society. As internal OGD momentum may be severely hampered in developing country contexts from underdeveloped demand or unwillingness to supply, this raises a question whether it is possible to compensate for constrained endogenous supply and demand with external forces. The role of donors as a catalytic actor for
Fukuyama, State Building, 30. Avgerou. Discourse on ICT and development, 3. 54 Gurstein, Michael. Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or Effective Data Use for Everyone? Posted September 2, 2010. Gursteins Community Informatics. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered-or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/. 55 Gurstein, Michael. A Data Divide? Data Haves and Have Nots and Open (Government) Data. Posted July 11, 2011. Gursteins Community Informatics. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/a-data-divide-data-%E2%80%9Chaves%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Chave-nots%E2%80%9D-and-open-governmentdata/. 56 United Nations E-Government Survey 2010. Chapter One: Stimulus Funds, Transparency and Public Trust, 19. 57 Anupam Chander and Madhavi Sunder. The Romance of the Public Domain. California Law Review. Volume 92 (2004): 1332. 58 Fukuyama, State Building, 30. 59 Chander and Sunder. The Romance of the Public Domain. 1368. 60 Hogge, Open Data Study, 15. 61 Fukuyama, State Building, 50. 62 Michener and Bersch. Conceptualizing the Quality of Transparency, 3 63 Hogge, Open Data Study, 14. 64 United Nations E-Government Survey 2010. Chapter One, 18.
53 52

OGD is unique to developing countries. Donors can indirectly influence countries through releasing their own data, such as the World Banks Open Data Initiative,65 or directly tie development assistance to progress on OGD, effectively creating a new form of governance conditionality.66 Regardless of the mixed record of tying aid to particular policies or actions, conditionalities are more successful when used to bolster, rather than replace, fledgling endogenous demand for reform.67 Donor requirements that countries make progress on releasing their public sector information could provide leverage to reform-minded technocrats or nascent civil society. International donors can also document worldwide OGD lessons learned and work with country leaders to identify models of OGD conducive to their contexts. Similarly, small-scale pilots at a state, district or city government level could provide proof of concept for political leaders and advocates to mobilize support. Subsequent countries embarking on OGD initiatives can learn both from early adopters and current OGD efforts in developing countries for South-South learning. Anupam Chander and Madhavi Sunder have rightly exposed the dangerous myth of the commons as the great equalizer and provider of benefits to all without harm.68 Exploitative use of freely accessible information from land titling69 to patenting of indigenous knowledge70 lends credence to the claim that the ability of citizens to benefit from public domain resources is correlated to their relative capabilities to harness livelihood resources to realize their goals,71 leading to divergent results in countries rife with socio-economic inequalities.72 OGD in developing countries could be a benign force, more hype than substance, neither catalyzing significant improvements nor causing undue harm. Alternatively, OGD could be a destructive force, providing a tool for entrenched elites to exploit informational resources at the expense of the less empowered. Or, OGD could live up to its potential and facilitate equitable economic growth, inclusive participation and more accountable and efficient governance. Bolstering endogenous demand and supply for OGD through improving digital inclusion and expanding citizens information capabilities could make a real difference in the derived benefit of OGD.73 3. Limitations and Challenges: Influencing Open Government Data Take-Off and Institutionalization With countries seeking to launch Open Government Data initiatives at an unprecedented rate, identifying factors contributing to their relative success or failure is imperative. However, as most OGD initiatives are still in their infancy, assessing their social impact and progress is difficult. Release of public sector information is arguably an extension, or sub-set, of e-government as a service provided to the public through an electronic medium, creating similar dynamics to OGD. The experience of e-government and the two earliest OGD initiatives in the US and UK are, therefore, the best benchmarks that can be used for analysis. An OGD initiative can be compartmentalized into two stages of initial take-off and sustained institutionalization to facilitate analysis. Take off considers factors pertinent to OGDs initial launch or deployment, while institutionalization implies addressing challenges pertaining to the scope, impact and implementation of OGD influencing its progress in the long-term. Irrespective of a countrys means, policy makers must address obstacles to both take-off and institutionalization of OGD to realize its potential. 3.1. Cultivating an Enabling Environment for Open Government Data Take Off The extent to which governments successfully leverage four factors to cultivate an enabling environment will bolster or retard OGD take off, including: (1) legislative and regulatory frameworks; (2) national information infrastructure and policies; (3) government legitimacy and civic space; and (4) bureaucratic culture and norms. Well-developed legislative and regulatory frameworks in areas including: individual privacy, access to information (ATI), and intellectual property (IP) can reduce transaction costs for private sector or civil society

65 66 67

Hogge, Open Data Study, 35. Hogge, Open Data Study, 37. Fukuyama, State Building, 36. 68 Chander and Sunder. The Romance of the Public Domain. 1331. 69 Chander and Sunder. The Romance of the Public Domain. 1346. 70 Chander and Sunder. The Romance of the Public Domain. 1348. 71 Chander and Sunder. The Romance of the Public Domain. 1331. 72 Chander and Sunder. The Romance of the Public Domain, 1354. 73 Gigler. Informational Capabilities, 19.

actors to reuse Open Government Data.74 Conversely, insufficient clarity and inconsistent enforcement inhibits both OGD demand and supply. Developed countries generally have well-established frameworks and enforcement mechanisms on these issues, facilitating reuse of public sector information, however, many developing countries are still developing such legislation, potentially undercutting an OGD initiatives success. On individual privacy, governments face a challenge in achieving equilibrium in ensuring protection of personal rights, while preventing overly restrictive legislation from impeding release of public sector information.75 Citizens concerns over breaches of confidentiality and anonymity has been identified as a limiting force in the US implementation of open government76 as well as in encouraging citizen use of e-government services.77 ATI legislation seeks to regulate legal obligations of a government [to release public information] through international covenants and domestic laws.78 Governments seeking to lock in OGD initiatives to avoid them being overturned by successive political regimes79 would benefit from pursuing legislation that embodies OGD principles, either as an expansion, or complement, to an existing ATI regime, to remedy a liability stemming from OGDs reliance on voluntary principles and administrative directives. Finally, intellectual property legislation clearly permitting reuse of public sector information can be a boon to OGD, as it has for egovernment initiatives,80whereas lack of transparent standards discourages third party actors from developing applications using OGD as they are concerned about fines, retribution or appropriation of their work. The technological backbone of an OGD initiative is national information infrastructure81 that facilitates data exchange between government agencies and with the public,82 including: telecommunications infrastructure to manage increased Internet and phone traffic,83 connections between front-end web interfaces and back-end information management systems,84 system interoperability between agencies or government levels85 and adequate availability of hardware and software within government bureaucracies. Without a strong national information infrastructure, both supply and demand of OGD suffers, similar to e-government initiatives where relative success has been cited as directly proportional to adequate information technology infrastructure.86 While early OGD initiatives benefited from expansive information infrastructure, this is not the reality in many developing countries.87 Even in developed countries, such as the US, existing information infrastructure within government agencies has been cited as inadequate for OGD.88 Similarly, a national information policy is important to reduce transaction costs for government officials charged with releasing public sector information, articulating a defined mandate and transparent standards ensuring consistent implementation in areas such as provenance, records management and system interoperability. 89 Absence of such a policy perpetuates fragmented OGD efforts and impedes progress.90 In developing countries, information
Access Info Europe, Beyond Access, 38. Subhajit Basu, E-Government and Developing Countries: An Overview, International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, Volume 18, Issue 1 (2004): 123. doi: 10.1080/13600860410001674779. 76 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Challenges to Utilizing Open Government Data. Accessed August 17, 2011. http://portal.hud.gov:80/hudportal/HUD?src=/open/plan/challenges. 77 Valentina (Dardha) Ndou, E-Government for Developing Countries: Opportunities and Challenges. Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, (2004): 20. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.12 7.9483%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=egovernment%20for%20developing%20countries&ei=S0JETtfSNM3pgAeE9_neCQ&usg=AFQjCNEkpvikREuH3-ZUjgvh1en1Zs_y3w. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 80 Basu, E-government and Developing Countries, 129. 81 Y.N. Chen, H.M. Chen, W. Huang and R.K.H. Ching. Research Note on E-Government Strategies in Developed and Developing Countries: An Implementation Framework and Case Study. Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 14, Issue 1 (2006): 26, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan028242.pdf. 82 Zakareya Ebrahim and Zahir Irani. E-government Adoption: Architecture and Barriers, Business Process Management Journal Vol. 11, Issue 5. (2005): 591, doi: 10.1108/14637150510619902. 83 Chen et all, Research Note on E-Government Strategies, 591. 84 Ebrahim and Irani, E-government Adoption, 592 and 594. 85 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 18. 86 Basu, E-government and Developing Countries, 117. 87 Chen et all, Research Note on E-Government Strategies, 26. 88 Gwanhoo Lee and Young Hoon Kwak. An Open Government Implementation Model: Moving to Increased Public Engagement. Using Technology Series. IBM Center for the Business of Government, 2011. 26. 89 Richard Best, Stephen Walker, Trevor Smallwood, Sanjeev Bhagowalia, Sanjeev Bhagowalia, and David L. McClure. International Open Government Data Leaders - Top Ten Issues and Lessons Learned, 9. Plenary Session Presentation to the International Open Government Data Conference, November 17, 2010. http://semanticommunity.info/@api/deki/files/1870/=iogdc2010_day3_plenary_3pm.pdf. 90 Ebrahim and Irani, E-government adoption, 605.
75 74

policies necessarily must deal with a broader scope of issues including strategies for encouraging ICT proliferation and expanding the information capabilities of citizens to make use of OGD.91 Open Government Data is built upon the premise of productive two-way interaction between a government and its citizens, achieved through the publishing of public sector information that is then used by individuals or their intermediaries to contest public policies or otherwise create new social and commercial value. This concept necessitates a degree of trust92 between the parties that the information provided by the government is truthful and accurate and that citizen use of the information will not result in recriminations from the authorities. Public confidence in the veracity of government-published information is critical to take-off, essential to spurring demand and use of public datasets.93 However, the existence of perverse incentives encouraging civil servants or entire regimes to manipulate data94 negatively impacts the acceptance and use of public sector information. Similarly, lack of confidence in the quality of government data stemming from concerns regarding limited data collection capacity or lax standards, inhibits its extensive use.95 The perceived ability of citizens to safely interpret and share public sector information for innovation or contestation of government policies also has a substantial effect on the take-off of an OGD initiative.96 Without adequate social protections in place, use and reuse of OGD will be significantly reduced. Lack of trust is of particular concern in transitional or fragile states where public perceptions of the legitimacy and/or competence of civil servants are low.97. Shirley-Ann Hazlett and Francis Hill, observe that, the real value of e-government lies in its ability to force an agency to rethink, reorganize and streamline.98 Launching an electronic portal as a front-end interface to provide public sector information is relatively innocuous,99 however, what is being asked of government bureaucracies involves radically altering entrenched corporate culture to effectively implement OGD.100 Civil servants must navigate a cultural shift from specialized bureaucracies to networked intelligence,101 necessitating adoption of new norms of openness, external orientation and inter-agency coordination.102 This militates against default norms of secrecy, inward orientation and silos often characteristic of bureaucracies.103 Preoccupation with secrecy arises from concerns of confidentiality or security, as well as from fear of failure or loss of face if performance is seen to be lackluster. This manifests in arguments that OGD may be dangerous if the public misinterprets information or jeopardizes personnel or programs.104 The inward orientation of government bureaucracies arises from the reality that civil servants are often rewarded for pleasing their superiors, rather than the public, especially in contexts where appointments are granted for political loyalty. This misalignment of incentives is inhospitable for an OGD initiative, which requires bureaucracies to not only be responsive to citizens, but also to view citizens as customers and proactively learn their preferences to design systems that encourage OGD use and reuse.105 Proprietary information and operational systems are sources of power and leverage that are frequently compartmentalized in departmental silos,106 which are upset by OGD initiatives advocating for the release of this information and system interoperability. Countries must adjust incentives to make it more costly for civil servants to withhold information and encourage cultural shifts.107

Gohar Feroz Khan, Junghoon Moon, Cheul Rhee and Jae Jeung Rho. E-government Skills Identification and Development: Toward a Stage-Based User-Centric Approach for Developing Countries. Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 20, Issue 1 (2010): 8, http://apjis.or.kr/pdf/MIS020-001-1.pdf. 92 Basu, E-government and Developing Countries, 113. 93 Basu, E-government and Developing Countries, 112. 94 Michener and Bersch. Conceptualizing the Quality of Transparency, 2. 95 Hogge, Open Data Study, 47. 96 Access Info Europe and Open Knowledge Foundation, Beyond Access, 69. 97 Ndou, E-Government for Developing Countries: Opportunities and Challenges. 15. 98 Hazlett and Hill, E-government: The Realities of Using IT to Transform the Public Sector, 448. 99 Hazlett and Hill, E-government: The Realities of Using IT to Transform the Public Sector, 446. 100 Fukuyama, State Building, 29. 101 Ndou, E-Government for Developing Countries, 2. 102 Ndou, E-Government for Developing Countries, 3. 103 Ndou, E-Government for Developing Countries, 15. 104 Sternstein. One year in, resistance to open government memo lingers. 105 Shirley-Ann Hazlett and Frances Hill. E-government: the realities of using IT to transform the public sector. Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13, Issue 6 (2003): 447. doi:10.1108/09604520310506504. 106 Fukuyama, State Building, 54. 107 Fukuyama, State Building, 32.

91

3.2. Challenges of Open Government Data Institutionalization The extent to which governments successfully address and overcome four institutionalization challenges will determine the relative reach and enduring impact of OGD, including: (1) ensuring breadth of participation; (2) addressing depth of use; (3) sustainability of financial and human resources; and (4) overcoming resistance. Countries seeking to achieve take-up of OGD must ensure breadth of participation across all social strata, ameliorating technical, economic and socio-cultural access inequities. Technical access barriers, namely limitations of national telecommunications infrastructure such as insufficient broadband or unconnected rural areas, are highly correlated with socio-economic status and geographic isolation. Well-connected, wealthy and/or geographically situated constituencies in proximity to urban areas may disproportionately benefit from OGD relative to communities not embodying these characteristics based on disparities of access to national infrastructure. Economic access barriers refer to the affordability of requisite technology to access electronic information for various societal groups, both a function of overall ICT penetration in a particular market and the ability of individuals to mobilize assets to access requisite technology to benefit from OGD. Societies able to improve ICT affordability, either through subsidies for low-income groups or market-based mechanisms to improve ICT penetration and lower prices, will realize higher participation by the poor than without this intentional assistance. Socio-cultural issues are an important third category of access barriers. The status of women and girls, persons with disabilities, and ethnic and religious minorities are examples of societal mores that could enhance or constrain their ability to benefit from OGD. Societies with progressive norms regarding the status and representation of these traditionally disadvantaged groups are more likely to achieve more inclusive participation, compared to societies with restrictive social norms. Governments such as India108 and Kenya109 have sought to expand access to ICTs through instituting village technology kiosks110 and training in digital literacy.111 In light of higher penetration rates of mobile phone technology and radio communication, developing countries should consider hybrid delivery platforms emphasizing mobile applications for accessing government data and radio broadcasts for mobilizing citizen awareness. Open Government Data is meaningful112 only insofar as citizens and intermediaries have the capabilities to use that information, through the exertion of their agency, to achieve social and commercial value. Anemic usage levels of online public services113 and existing OGD portals,114 in both developed and developing countries, illuminate a clear usability challenge in the take-up of these services by citizens. Governments seeking to encourage meaningful use of OGD must overcome a paradox that introducing similar technologies in different contexts can lead to highly divergent outcomes. Writing on technology-triggered change,115 Gerardine DeSanctis and Marshall Scott Poole note that technology appropriation is disproportionately influenced by attitudes that people hold, including whether groups are confident and relaxed in their use of technologyperceive the technology to be of valueand their willingness to work hard and excel at using the system.116 At a foundational level, citizens and third party intermediaries must be willing to exert themselves to master ICT generally, as well as the OGD portal itself, to fully benefit from the initiative.117 Their relative willingness to do so is influenced by their readinessto embrace and use new technologies for accomplishing [their] goals",118 and the existence of productive outlets to use and reuse OGD. If citizens and intermediaries are to confidently utilize OGD, they must be able to leverage mature information capabilities, combining technological savvy, awareness of electronic portals to access the information as well as adequate cognitive

108 109

Wright et al., Open Government Data Study: India, 18. Bitange.Ndemo, Freeing Kenyas Data, Presentation at the World Bank Institute, Washington, DC, July 13, 2011. http://www.livestream.com/worldbankafrica/video?clipId=pla_8dc3cbce-cf6e-4345-91bb-ffeda3a2720f&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb. 110 Wright et al., Open Government Data Study: India, 18. 111 Digital literacy involves the ability to use the hardware and software necessary to understand and interpret electronic information. 112 Gigler. Informational Capabilities, 14. 113 Ibid. 114 Tim Davies, Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform, 4. 115 Gerardine DeSanctis, and Marshall Scott Poole. Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science. Vol. 5, Issue 2 (1994): 125. doi: 10.1287/orsc.5.2.121. 116 DeSanctis and Poole. Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use, 130. 117 DeSanctis and Poole. Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use, 130. 118 Ibid.

abilities119 to interpret and make meaning from government data. Governments must seek to expand the information capabilities of their citizens, develop credible practices for data collection and maintenance and make available information that is of greatest interest to their citizens if they are to view it as valuable.120 Aside from the initial launch costs, governments must grapple with how to mobilize sufficient financial and human capital resources to sustain an OGD initiative until it becomes fully institutionalized within the bureaucratic system and standardized as a public service. If governments are unable to secure a stable resource base to support OGD, it risks becoming a passing fad or failed experiment. While the marginal cost of making additional government information available is low, developing information infrastructure requires substantial financial investment and ongoing maintenance costs that the government will need to determine how to finance.121 Governments must weigh efficiency and equity trade-offs122 in considering the benefits of maintaining public sector information that is freely accessible to all, versus the realities of constrained revenues and opportunity costs. This is further complicated by central government funding that is prone to feast or famine cycles,123 and highly vulnerable to changing political leadership and economic fortunes. While certainly true of developing countries with limited revenues, austerity measures have brought discretionary public expenditures, including OGD portals, under scrutiny in both the US124 and UK, as competing policy priorities fight over limited resources. The political necessity of needing to justify ongoing allocation of resources to sustain Open Government Data raises a problematic question of how these initiatives should measure success.125 Quantitative metrics such as the number of published datasets or usage rates and demographics tell part of the story, but these indicators may be insufficient126 to measure the qualitative dimension of social impact that is of primary interest to policy makers and the public. The current lack of uniform standards or best practice in monitoring and evaluating OGD poses a substantial challenge to individual implementing countries as well as to the movement as a whole. Identifying optimal indicators and measurement tools to evaluate effectiveness and make changes based on user feedback are imperative to long-term success. Open Government Data threatens existing power dynamics through reducing information asymmetries, producing winners and losers127 and necessitating careful management of stakeholders with divergent interests.128 Vested interests benefiting from the existing closed system of government information, such as traditional elites threatened by the data democratization disrupting their influence or corrupt civil servants seeking to preserve a culture of impunity, will dissemble and delay progress. Overcoming resistance is essential for OGDs take-off and long-term viability, as regimes and political leaders change over time. Governments will need to determine how to build multi-stakeholder coalitions providing pressure to counteract the inertia of the status quo. As Richard Heeks and Carolyne Stanforth assert, an initiatives long-term trajectory is determined by its ability to mobilize both resource-providers that provide money, time or political space and implementers that provide day-to-day momentum, with a clear communication channel between those networks.129 This will involve enrolling domestic groups most likely to benefit from OGD and effectively controlling groups in opposition.130 Reformist political leaders or technocrats, particularly in developing countries, may also be able to leverage external forces such as regional rivalries or donor conditionalities to induce initial acceptance and long-term institutionalization of OGD. 4. Moving Forward: Managing Expectations and Maximizing Success of Open Government Data
119 120 121

Perez. Complexity, Information Overload and Online Deliberation. 12. DeSanctis and Poole. Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use, 130. Hazlett and Hill, E-government: The Realities of Using IT to Transform the Public Sector, 449. 122 Ibid. 123 Ebrahim and Irani, E-government Adoption, 605. 124 Alex Howard. Congress Weighs Deep Cuts to Funding for Federal Open Government Data Platforms. Gov20.govfresh. April 1, 2011. http://gov20.govfresh.com/congress-weighs-deep-cuts-to-funding-for-federal-open-government-data-platforms/. 125 Hazlett and Hill. E-government: The Realities of Using IT to Transform the Public Sector, 450. 126 Ibid 127 Fukuyama, State Building, 33. 128 Richard Heeks and Carolyne Stanforth. Understanding e-Government Project Trajectories From an Actor-network Perspective. European Journal of Information Systems. Vol. 16, Issue 2 (2007): 165. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000676. 129 Heeks and Stanforth, Understanding e-Government Project Trajectories from an Actor-network Perspective, 167 and 174. 130 Heeks and Stanforth, Understanding e-Government Project Trajectories from an Actor-network Perspective, 172.

In democratizing data, Open Government Data has considerable potential to generate social and commercial value for developed and developing countries alike. However, the OGD movements aspirations rest on tenuous assumptions regarding endogenous supply and demand. In a study of e-government initiatives in forty developing countries, Richard Heeks concludes that only fifteen percent succeeded against their stated policy goals.131 Considering the investment of time, human and financial resources that went into their execution, this necessarily sobers optimistic predictions for OGD,132 particularly as US and UK OGD initiatives have experienced challenges of lackluster usage of public datasets133 and sustaining supply of government data beyond early adopter agencies.134 Collectively, the experiences of e-government and Open Government Data initiatives indicate that OGD is a high risk, high reward strategy. The prospective social benefits of OGD are attractive, but far from certain and not without cost, further complicated by the fact that while the costs of launching a platform are immediate, the benefits from OGD are more likely to be realized over the long-term. Identifying and remedying obstacles likely to hinder OGD initiatives is important to their ultimate success, both to countries launching OGD initiatives as well as for donors investing in them. This paper argues that countries considering an OGD initiative should proactively develop strategies to cultivate an enabling environment for OGD take off and overcome institutionalization challenges. However, while OGD initiatives should plan comprehensively, developing countries and donors should avoid trying to achieve too much too quickly and instead pursue a phased approach with the release of public sector information as a precursor in an intentional progression of increasing breadth and depth of public participation.135 The authors would agree with Gwanhoo Lee and Young Hoon Kwaks assertion that the pace of implementing open government should coincide with the management capacity and bureaucratic will to navigate new government obligations with each successive stage.136 From a perspective of managed change, balancing progress towards realizing desired change with the reality of limited organizational capacity and entrenched culture; a sequenced approach to OGD has appeal, particularly given the constrained circumstances of many developing countries.

Richard Heeks, e-Government as Carrier of Context, Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 25, Issue 1 (2005): 52. http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0143814X05000206. 132 Ibid. 133 Tim Davies, Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform, 4. 134 Aliya Sternstein. One year in, resistance to open government memo lingers. Nextgov: technology and the business of Government. January 21, 2010. http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100121_1046.php. 135 Lee and Kwak, An Open Government Implementation Model, 11. 136 Ibid.

131

Bibliography: Access Info Europe and the Open Knowledge Foundation. Beyond Access: Open Government Data and the Right to (Re)use Public Information, 2011, http://www.accessinfo.org/documents/Access_Docs/Advancing/Beyond_Access_7_January_2011_web.pdf. Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific (ANSA-EAP). A Manual for Trainers of Social Accountability. Manila, Philippines: ANSA-EAP, 2010. Avgerou, Chrisanthi. Discourse on ICT and development. Information Technologies and International development, Vol. 6, Issue 3 (2010): 1-18. USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35564. Basu, Subhajit. E-Government and Developing Countries: An Overview. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology 18 (2004): 109-132, doi: 10.1080/13600860410001674779. Best, Richard., Walker, Stephen., Smallwood, Trevor., Bhagowalia, Sanjeev and David L. McClure. International Open Government Data Leaders - Top Ten Issues and Lessons Learned, Plenary Session Presentation to the International Open Government Data Conference, November 17, 2010. http://semanticommunity.info/@api/deki/files/1870/=iogdc2010_day3_plenary_3pm.pdf. Bovens, M. Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, Vol. 13, Issue 4 (2007): 447468. Chander, Anupam and Madhavi Sunder. The Romance of the Public Domain. California Law Review. Vol. 92 (2004): 13311373. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/telecom/chandlerandsundertheromanceofthepublicdomain.pdf. Chen, Y.N., H.M. Chen, W. Huang and R.K.H. Ching. Research Note on E-Government Strategies in Developed and Developing Countries: An Implementation Framework and Case Study. Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 14, Issue 1 (2006): 23-46. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan028242.pdf. Data.gov. Open Data Sites. Accessed July 12, 2011. http://www.data.gov/opendatasites#mapanchor. Davies, Tim. Open data, democracy and public sector reform: A look at open government data use from data.gov.uk. MSc diss., University of Oxford, 2010. http://practicalparticipation.co.uk/odi/report/wpcontent/uploads/2010/08/How-is-open-government-data-being-used-in-practice.pdf. Department for Communities and Local Government [CLG]. Decentralisation and the Localism Bill: an essential guide. London: Crown Copyright, 2010. DeSanctis, Gerardine and Marshall Scott Poole. Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science. Vol. 5, Issue 2 (1994): 121-147. doi: 10.1287/orsc.5.2.121 Ebrahim, Zakareya and Zahir Irani. E-government Adoption: Architecture and Barriers. Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11, Issue 5, (2005): 589-611. doi: 10.1108/14637150510619902. Freedominfo.org. Info Commissioners Approve Resolution on Transparency. October 5, 2011. http://www.freedominfo.org/2011/10/info-commissioners-approve-resolution-on-transparency/

Fukuyama, Francis. State Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century. New York: Cornell University Press, 2004. Fundacion CTIC, Public Dataset Catalogs Faceted Browser, Open Data @ CTIC - Sandbox to CTIC-CT, 2011, http://datos.fundacionctic.org/sandbox/catalog/faceted/. Gigler, Bjrn-Sren. Informational Capabilities The Missing Link for the Impact of ICT on Development. World Bank E-Transform Knowledge Platform Working Paper 1 (2011). Gurstein, Michael. A Data Divide? Data Haves and Have Nots and Open (Government) Data. Gursteins Community Informatics, July 11, 2011. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/a-data-divide-data%E2%80%9Chaves%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Chave-nots%E2%80%9D-and-open-government-data/. Gurstein, Michael. Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or Effective Data Use for Everyone? Gursteins Community Informatics, September 2, 2010. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-dataempowering-the-empowered-or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/. Hazlett, Shirley-Ann and Frances Hill. E-government: The Realities of Using IT to Transform the Public Sector. Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13, Issue 6 (2003): 445-452. doi: 10.1108/09604520310506504. Harrison, Teresa M., Guerrero, Santiago, Burke, Brian G., Cook, Meghan., Cresswell, Anthony., Helbig, Natalie., Hrdinova, Jana, and Theresa Pardo. Open Government and E-Government: Democratic Challenges from a Public Value Perspective. Center for Technology in Government U/Albany. Paper prepared for the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference, June 12-15, 2011, College Park, MD, USA, 2011. Heeks, Richard. e-Government as a Carrier of Context. Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 25, Issue 1 (2005): 5174. doi: 10.1017/S0143814X05000206. Heeks, Richard and Carolyne Stanforth. Understanding e-Government Project Trajectories from an Actornetwork Perspective. European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 16, Issue 2 (2007): 165-177. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000676. Hogge, Becky. Open Data Study. Open Society Institute, 2011. http://www.soros.org/initiatives/information/focus/communication/articles_publications/publications/opendata-study-20100519. Howard, Alex. Congress Weighs Deep Cuts to Funding for Federal Open Government Data Platforms. Gov20.govfresh. April 1, 2011. http://gov20.govfresh.com/congress-weighs-deep-cuts-to-funding-forfederal-open-government-data-platforms/. Huijboom, Noor and Tijs Van den Broek. Open data: An International Comparison of Strategies. European Journal of e-Practice 12 (2011): 1-13. http://www.epractice.eu/files/European%20Journal%20epractice%20Volume%2012_1.pdf. Khan, Gohar Feroz., Moon, Junghoon., Rhee, Cheul and Jae Jeung Rho. E-government Skills Identification and Development: Toward a Stage-Based User-Centric Approach for Developing Countries. Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 20, Issue 1 (2010): 1-31. http://apjis.or.kr/pdf/MIS020-001-1.pdf. Lee, Gwanhoo, and Young Hoon Kwak. An Open Government Implementation Model: Moving to Increased Public Engagement. Using Technology Series. IBM Center for the Business of Government, 2011.

http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/An%20Open%20Government%20Implementation %20Model.pdf. Mendiburu, Marcos. Interview by Samantha Custer. In-person interview and email dialogue. Washington, DC. August and September, 2011. Michener, Greg. and Katherine Bersch. Conceptualizing the Quality of Transparency. Paper prepared for the 1st Global Conference on Transparency. Rutgers University. Newark: NJ. May 17-20, 2011. http://gregmichener.com/Conceptualizing%20the%20Quality%20of%20Transparency-Michener%20and%20Bersch%20for%20Global%20Conference%20on%20Transparency.pdf. Ndemo, Bitange. Freeing Kenyas Data. Presentation at the World Bank Institute, Washington, DC, July 13, 2011. http://www.livestream.com/worldbankafrica/video?clipId=pla_8dc3cbce-cf6e-4345-91bbffeda3a2720f&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb. Ndou, Valentina (Dardha). E-Government for Developing Countries: Opportunities and Challenges. Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries. (2004): 1-24. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.i st.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.127.9483%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j &q=egovernment%20for%20developing%20countries&ei=S0JETtfSNM3pgAeE9_neCQ&usg=AFQjCNEkpvik REuH3-ZUjgvh1en1Zs_y3w. Open Government Data Working Group, 8 Principles of Open Government Data. Last modified December 8, 2007. http://www.opengovdata.org/home/8principles. Open Knowledge Foundation. Open Knowledge Definition. Accessed July 8, 2011. http://www.opendefinition.org/. Perez, Oren. Complexity, Information Overload and Online Deliberation. Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society (2009), Bar Ilan Univ. Pub Working Paper No. 10-09. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1031510. Peruzzotti, E. The Workings of Social Accountability: Context and Conditions. Paper prepared for the Workshop Generating Genuine Demand with Social Accountability Mechanisms, Paris World Bank Office, November 1-2, 2007. Pyrozhenko, Vadym. Implementing Open Government: Exploring the Ideological Links between Open Government Data and the Free and Open Source Software Movement. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Public Management Research Conference at Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, June 2-4, 2011. http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/conferences/pmrc/Files/Pyrozhenko_Implementing_Open_Gove rnment.pdf. Robinson, David G., Yu, Harlan, Zeller, William P. and Edward W. Felten. Government Data and the Invisible Hand. Yale Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 11 (2009): 160-175. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1138083. Schellong, Alexander and Ekaterina Stepanets, Unchartered Waters: The State of Open Data in Europe, Public Sector Study Series, CSC, 2011. http://assets1.csc.com/de/downloads/CSC_policy_paper_series_01_2011_unchartered_waters_state_of_ope n_data_europe_English_2.pdf.

Sternstein, Aliya. One year in, resistance to open government memo lingers. Nextgov: technology and the business of Government. January 21, 2010. http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100121_1046.php. United Nations. Chapter One: Stimulus Funds, Transparency and Public Trust. E-Government Survey 2010, 9-23. New York: United Nations Press, 2010. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/undpadm/unpan038845.pdf. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Challenges to Utilizing Open Government Data. Accessed August 17, 2011. http://portal.hud.gov:80/hudportal/HUD?src=/open/plan/challenges. World Bank. Moldovas Governance e-Transformation Project Aims to Improve Public Services and Transparency by Opening Data and Leveraging Innovative Technologies. June 9, 2011, http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:22936610~pagePK:64257043~pi PK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html?cid=3001_4. Wright, Glover, Pranesh Prakash, Sunil Abraham and Nishant Shah. Open Government Data Study: India, Open Society Foundation, 2011, http://www.transparency-initiative.org/reports/open-government-datastudy-india.

The following section provides the peer reviewers comments (1 of the 4 reviews) which contributed towards shaping this initial draft research paper. Comments prepared by Randeep Sudan leads the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) sector's practices for e-Government and for Information Technology (IT) industry (October 31, 2011) I have gone through the interesting paper on "Realizing the Vision of Open Government Data: Opportunities, Challenges and Pitfalls". The paper presents a very balanced view of the promise and pitfalls of the open data movement, and is a valuable addition to the literature. I particularly liked how the paper focused on both supply side and demand side constraints including the realities of digital exclusion, low information capabilities, constrained civic space and the capacities of governments. The paper makes mention of data as a "platform" in Section 1.3.2. In fact the concept of "government as a platform" is also very relevant in this context, given its focus on some of the key enablers in terms of applications architecture and infrastructure, that could help scale up the innovative use of data by multiple stakeholders. While mentioning the earliest attempts at the proactive release of public sector information via online portals (2008) in section 1.4, it might be better to recognize the roots of the open data movement to initiatives that predate the examples cited. For example, it might be of interest to make a brief reference to open data in science which established the World Data Center system in the 50s. It may also be useful to update the paper by taking into account the developments that have since taken place with regard to OGP. With reference to Part 3 on the institutionalization and scaling up of open government data, perhaps it would be worth mentioning that open government data should be seen as a major exercise in change management. Some change management frameworks e.g. Kotter's 8 step model could provide a useful frame of reference in this context. There are certain elements that are critical to the success of open data as part of an innovation system. These include for example a robust licensing regime, availability of electronic payment systems, PPP frameworks and institutional mechanisms for partnering with the private sector. Often these elements are missing, thereby significantly emasculating the private sector to innovate using government data. In certain countries one organization is made responsible for obtaining and publishing open data. This model is likely to suffer from problems of sustainability. It would be far more sustainable to systematically develop a sense of ownership and embed the culture of open data in each government agency. This does not detract from the need for centralized coordination of some aspects of open data initiatives. Institutional structures are arguably one of the most important determinants of success in the long run. Countries where the open data initiatives are coordinated by agencies having cross-cutting oversight are likely to witness greater prospects of success. Institutional structures and mechanisms for ensuring adherence to data standards and for adoption of meta data standards, and better coordination across government agencies is likely to ensure that there is proper ownership of data and harmonization of data in government. This would be relevant in the context of Section 3.1 looking at the environmental factors having the ability to bolster or retard the initial takeoff of an open government data initiative. In respect of Section 3.1.1, some additional legal requirements would include whistleblower protection, PPP frameworks enabling the private sector to use government data (e.g. eGovernment Acts) and data licensing regimes. An open data maturity model might be a useful way to look at the various building blocks for open data.

Gartner for instance has come up with an Open Government Maturity Model, which has limitations, but points to a possible approach for identifying gaps and weaknesses. It might be of interest to introduce a brief section on the prioritization of datasets to be opened up. Not all data sets are created equal. Opening of budgetary data for example, especially with regard to government spending at the local level can result in greater transparency and accountability. Feedback loops while being important need to be managed carefully. A government agency can easily be overwhelmed by a large number of complaints. For an example, when I was working in Nellore district in the state of Andhra Pradesh in India, in the late 80s we tried to be responsive to public grievances by inviting members of the public to submit their feedback and complaints to the District Collector's office. Each of these submissions was duly acknowledged and an indicative timeline was given for addressing the feedback/complaints received. However, this resulted in a seven-fold increase in the number of files in the District Collector's Office from the typical number of about 10,000. Given that there was no additional staff provided, the exercise actually resulted in paralyzing the administration's response even to routine matters. It is important therefore that the process of opening up is accompanied by at least some efforts to systematically strengthen the organizational capabilities of government to respond to feedback. I hope these comments are useful. Congratulations once again on an excellent paper!