Policy & Internet, Vol. 9999, No.

9999, 2018

Public Values in the Age of Big Data: A Public

Information Perspective
Alex Ingrams

Public administration scholars have so far largely viewed big data as a kind of technocratic
transformation. However, through citizens’ digital records, use of service apps, social media, digital
sensors, and other digital footprints, big data also gives policymakers insights into citizen choices
and is therefore potentially supportive of public values such as participation and openness. Focusing
on two underexplored countries, Germany and the Netherlands, this article develops a public values
framework for big data that considers citizen values alongside technocratic ones. It takes the
particular case of public information agencies such as ombudsmen and courts of audit, examining
the functions they play and whether they have the capacity to address tensions arising between
technocratic and citizen values. The study finds that, while capacity does exist, it is heavily tilted
toward technocratic values, with no capacity to address participative values. Finally, five
propositions are advanced, which describe where the tensions lie and therefore where the attention of
public information agencies should best be focused.
KEY WORDS: big data, democracy, public information, public values, public policy, technocracy

公 共行政学者至今已在很大程度上将大数据视为一种技术官僚转变(technocratic transfor-
mation)。然而, 通过获取公民的数据记录、服务性应用程序的使用、社交媒体、数字传感
器、以及其他数据足迹, 大数据同时还能给政策制定者提供关于公民选择的见解, 并因此以一
种潜在的方式支持公共价值观, 例如参与和开放。通过聚焦于德国和荷兰这两个尚未被充分探
究的国家, 本文就大数据提出了一项公共价值观框架, 该框架考量了公民价值观和技术官僚价
值观。框架将例如政府巡查机关和审计院这类公共信息机构作为特别案例, 检验其充当的作
用, 和其是否有能力解决技术官僚价值观和公民价值观之间的紧张关系。研究发现, 尽管此类
机构存在相关能力, 但这种能力严重倾向技术官僚价值观, 无法应对(公民)参与价值观。最
后, 本文提出了五项提议, 用于描述紧张关系的源头, 公共信息机构因此能将关注点有效聚焦
于这一紧张关系。
关键词: 大数据, 民主, 公共信息, 公共价值观, 公共政策, 技术官僚

Los acad
emicos de la administraci
on pu
blica han hasta ahora percibido al Big Data como un tipo de
transformaci
on tecnocr
atica. Sin embargo, a trav
es de los registros digitales de los ciudadanos, el
uso de aplicaciones de servicios, redes sociales, sensores digitales y otras huellas digitales, Big Data
tambi
en les brinda a los polı´ticos ideas sobre las elecciones de los ciudadanos y, por lo tanto, puede

doi: 10.1002/poi3.193
# 2018 The Authors. Policy & Internet Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
2 Policy & Internet, 9999:9999

apoyar valores pu
blicos como la participaci
on y la apertura. Al enfocarse en dos paı´ses inexplorados,
Alemania y Paı´ses Bajos, este artı´culo desarrolla un marco te
orico de valores pu
blicos para Big Data
que considera los valores de los ciudadanos junto con los tecnocr
aticos. Toma el caso particular de
las agencias de informaci
on pu
blica, como los ombudsmen y los tribunales de auditorı´a, que
examinan las funciones que desempen~an y si tienen la capacidad de abordar las tensiones que surgen
entre los valores tecnocr
aticos y los de los ciudadanos. La investigaci
on encuentra que, si bien la
capacidad existe, est

a muy inclinada hacia los valores tecnocr
aticos, sin capacidad para abordar los
valores participativos. Finalmente se hacen 5 propuestas que describen d
onde est

an las tensiones, y
por ende d
onde deberı´a estar la atenci

on de las agencias de informaci
on pu
blica.
PALABRAS CLAVES: Big Data, democracia, informaci

on p

ublica, valores p

ublicos, polı́ticas
p

ublicas, tecnocracia

Introduction

Since the 1980s and 1990s when governments started adopting digital
information tools for policymaking and service provision, scholars have noticed
systems-level shifts in governance and policymaking practices (Bovens &
Zouridis, 2002; Dunleavy, Margetts, Bastow, & Tinkler, 2006; Fountain, 2004).
These shifts are toward integration of computer systems and greater responsive-
ness to citizens. One of the most recent technological developments to play a part
in this technology transformation story is “big data,” which refers to “large
amounts of different types of data produced at high speed from multiple sources,
whose handling and analysis require new and more powerful processors and
algorithms” (van der Sloot & van Schendel, 2016, p. 113). Digitization has
certainly increased the size and availability of information, but according to
Clarke and Margetts (2014) big data is not merely “large” or “open,” given that in
practice some big data can be closed away, or private and inaccessible. Rather,
big data heralds a decisive shift in the technologies and skills needed to collect
and harness streams of massive, unstructured data. Clarke and Margetts (2014, p.
393) have described big data as having the “potential to support unprecedented
levels of mutual government–citizen understanding, and in turn, vast improve-
ments to public policies and services.”
As a result of this highly influential potential, big data also presents new
dilemmas to democratic governance centered on types of public value trade-offs.
According to Bannister and Connolly (2014, p. 120) a value is “a mode of
behavior, either a way of doing things or an attribute of a way of doing things,
that is held to be right.” Bannister and Connolly (2014) also note that the
introduction of new technologies can alter the balance of values leading to these
governance dilemmas. For example, policymakers hope that algorithmic formulas
in areas such as detecting tax fraud or allocating carbon emission credits will
deliver a higher level of standardized, machine-based decision making, and
therefore align with the value of equal treatment to all citizens (Giest, 2017).
However, ambiguously, big data is also supposed to deliver personalized public
services that must distinguish between types of citizens and organizations
Ingrams: Public Values in the Age of Big Data 3

(Janssen & Kuk, 2016). Other possible conflicts of public values regularly studied
are those between the values of privacy and transparency of information (e.g.,
Janssen & van den Hoven, 2015; Roberts, 1999), and between expert- and citizen-
informed policymaking (Dahl, 1994). For example, to take again the cases of tax
fraud and carbon emissions, tax data may be personal in nature (private) and yet
also necessary for public debate (transparent), while decisions about who can
emit carbon may be controlled by closed decision-making processes (expert
informed) or via an open form of public input (citizen informed). Janssen and van
den Hoven (2015) have argued that these different values cannot be reduced to
simple dichotomous rivalries, because in the complex information systems of
institutions these values both conflict and harmonize with each other.
New systems of laws, organization, and technology are required to turn the
technological processes of big data into public value (Janssen & van den Hoven,
2015; Janssen & Kuk, 2016; Malomo & Sena, 2017). But how public information
systems manage emerging values tensions has not yet been explained by public
administration scholars, despite the immediate relevance of such value choices
from a policy perspective. This topic should be addressed because, according to
Lavertu (2016), big data may potentially increase the danger of goal displacement,
make the role of policy influence from external political actors difficult, and
increase the disproportionate focus on experts in policymaking. It is important to
identify value conflicts in the management of public programs because goal
ambiguity can lead to political manipulation and poor government performance
(Pandey, 2010; Pandey & Wright, 2006; Rainey, 1993). The consequences of these
challenges for governance have not yet been comprehensively set out and
analyzed. A major challenge for scholars in this endeavor is that too few public
sector big data programs currently exist for empirical study. However, much of
the potential opportunities and challenges of big data can be inferred from their
current goals and ambitions as stated in academic research and policy formula-
tions.
This article takes a step back to build the conceptual foundations of big data
from a public values perspective. The article first analyzes the goals of big data
and identifies the main public values tensions inherent in these goals. The key
public information institutions are then described along with their role in
information governance; how they regulate big data or use it for their own
programs (Kooper, Maes, & Lindgreen, 2011; Shepherd, Stevenson, & Flinn,
2010). Finally, the article maps how these institutions function in two countries—
Germany and the Netherlands—and considers how their capacity for information
governance influences decisions between public values of big data programs.
There are therefore two main research questions addressed: (1) What technocratic
and citizen public values are evident in the goals of big data?, and (2) What role
do public information agencies play in addressing public values conflicts of big
data? A conceptual framework is developed to analyze big data public values,
and the country cases are discussed. Finally, several theoretical propositions are
advanced to suggest likely areas of public values tensions in big data governance,
and to identify next steps forward as well as the challenges that lie ahead.
4 Policy & Internet, 9999:9999

Theoretical Background

The Goals of Big Data in the Public Sector

In order to understand what kinds of public values pertain to big data, the
goals of big data in their existing policy formations need to be defined. According
to De Graaf, Huberts, and Smulders (2016) the goals set forward in big data
programs are publicly discussed and shaped by institutional structures, rules,
and norms, and these processes reveal, and enact, underlying public values. By
studying public policies through the lens of the policy’s different goals, the
underlying public values become more easily navigable, and this understanding
can contribute to better management of public values (Thacher & Rein, 2004).
Most big data goals in the public sector focus on the technical prediction and
policy creation capacities of big data that help the public sector to perform better.
For example, McNeely and Hahm (2014) take a problem-solving perspective with
nine big data goals that each address a different organizational demand in the
technical process of big data analysis: (1) dealing with highly distributed data
sources; (2) tracking and validating data; (3) coping with sampling biases and
heterogeneity; (4) working with variably formatted and structured data; (5) ensuring
data integrity and security; (6) enabling data discovery and integration; (7) enabling
data sharing; (8) developing specialized analytical tools; and (9) developing
appropriately scalable and incremental algorithms. The technical goals of McNeely
and Hahm (2014) are important, but the instrumental potential of big data for public
services and policies is normally related to opportunities to understand, respond,
and control the social or political environment (Clarke & Margetts, 2014). Mergel,
Rethemeyer, and Isett (2016) thus extend the technical goals of policy analysis and
prediction to include 10 goals, which they call the “opportunities” of big data. These
opportunities have a broader scope because they build on the predictive capacities
of big data discussed by McNeely and Hahm (2014) by connecting analytical
procedures to the human environment and developing knowledge of citizen
interests: (1) signaling functions to understand emerging vulnerabilities; (2) predict-
ing outcomes with greater precision; (3) changing types of public data; (4) providing
real-time availability of data; (5) connecting biology, psychology, and public policy
to study risky behavior; (6) creating geospatial data through geocodes in large social
surveys; (7) improving description and measurement of phenomena; (8) providing
access to “unfiltered” opinions; (9) creating public value by combining and
analyzing large-scale data sets; and (10) building insights on society as a whole from
individual-level data (micro to macro insights). Opportunities 5–10 get closer to
incorporating a citizen perspective on big data because the opportunities involve the
connection of technical properties of big data analysis (opportunities 1–4) to human
processes and society.
Mergel et al.’s (2016) 10 opportunities take a step forward in defining big data
goals in the public sector by connecting the technical and the social. However,
Gamage (2016) narrows these public sector goals of big data into a simpler
formula that can capture both the technical and social dimensions of governance
Ingrams: Public Values in the Age of Big Data 5

using big data, but in four main categories of objectives: (1) data management; (2)
personalization of services; (3) problem-solving and predictive analytics; and (4)
productivity and efficiency. Research on big data has been undertaken in each of
these categories, so the evidence of what characterizes these goals is beginning to
become clearer. The relationship between values and goals in an institutional
process is shown in Figure 1, and the goals are further expanded into their key
organizational characteristics.
Data management involves technical characteristics of data coding, description,
and measurement (Clark & Golder, 2015). According to Malomo and Sena (2017),
managing big data for public policy purposes requires linking data and achieving
interoperability of data and data ecosystems through large scale intergovernmental
efforts. The goal of personalization of services involves integration of service provision
with user profiling by applying the technical skills of algorithmic formulas creation
to interpret citizen participation and to apprehend individual and societal prefer-
ences at the point of service access (Desouza, 2014). Problem-solving involves working
with real-time information and unfiltered opinions (Blume, Scott, & Pirog, 2014;
Clark & Golder, 2015) to deliver scientific insights on behavior (Mergel et al., 2016),
and macro insights about society as a whole (Lazer, Kennedy, King, & Vespignani,
2014). Finally, the goal of productivity and efficiency involves goal characteristics
regarding the quality and cost-effectiveness of services by delivering faster and more
accurate insights that are more responsive to society (Manyika et al., 2011).

Big Data Goals and Public Values

The previous section explained big data goals in the public sector and linked
goals to underlying public values, but the next problem to address is which goals
reflect which public values. This is a deductive exercise with goal-value matching

Figure 1. Institutional Process of Public Values, Big Data Goals, and Goal Characteristics.
6 Policy & Internet, 9999:9999

based on a theoretical discussion. The starting point is a discussion of what public

values are and what definitions and schemas have been set out in the literature. It
follows a fundamental division applied throughout the literature between
technocratic and citizen categories of public values (Bannister & Connolly, 2014;
De Graaf et al., 2016; Poulsen, 2009).
Several different public values have been conceptualized by public administra-
tion scholars, but these tend to converge along a dualism of technocratic and citizen
values. For example, Poulsen (2009), De Graaf and Paanakker (2015), and De Graaf
et al. (2016) argue that public values are basically of two kinds: performance values
and procedural or process values. Performance values focus on the quality of what is
achieved in meeting internal organizational targets. They list among this type
effectiveness and efficiency. Procedural public values, on the other hand, focus on
how procedures are conducted in the pursuit of targets. They list among this type
honesty, integrity, equality, transparency, and lawfulness. For Rossmann and
Shanahan (2012), Sullivan (2001), and McAteer and Orr (2006) there is a corollary of
this values distinction in how service users are valued: either as consumers or
citizens. Governance preferences flow from these values either as “improved strategic
and corporate management” or “participative forms of governance” (McAteer & Orr,
2006, p. 131). Using a framework that more closely resembles a technocratic/citizen
distinction, Bekkers (2007) says that the former focuses on hierarchy, centralization,
and technical coordination, while the latter focuses on network interdependencies
with other stakeholders such as citizens and the evolution of vision and goals.
The information presented in Table 1 is a matrix of technocratic and citizen
values according to the four goals of big data governance which relies on the list
of public values developed by De Graaf et al. (2016). Two values—consumer
focus and participation—have been added from the McAteer and Orr (2006)
framework. A description of the organizational and technical dimensions of the
values is also detailed in the table.
Technocratic and citizen values take on distinct forms as a result of digital
transformation (Bannister & Connolly, 2014; Jho, 2005; Nalbandian, 2005).
Technocratic and citizen values are analogous to what Bannister and Connolly
(2014) call service- and socially oriented public values of digital technologies.
They argue that the former type of values are shown in digital technology
programs in managing administrative processes and strategic goals, integrating
personnel and financial systems, customizing departmental responses, privatiza-
tion, performance measurement and benchmarking, and greater flexibility in
organizing work and personnel. In Table 1 the data management goal of big data
is focused on achieving better efficiencies and effectiveness by managing the
application of tools to targets. For personalization, departmental responses are
increasingly tailored to citizen preferences, and treatment of citizens focuses on
their status as customers whose choices and demands are latent in big data.
Problem-solving in big data is characterized by performance measurement and
enabling departmental flexibility to solve specific problems. The goal of
productivity is exclusively concerned with value for money and so is matched
only with the value of efficiency.
Ingrams: Public Values in the Age of Big Data 7

Table 1. Technocratic and Citizen Values in the Four Goals of Big Data Governance

Data Management Personalization Problem-Solving Productivity

Technocratic • Effectiveness • Effectiveness • Effectiveness • Efficiency

values • Efficiency • Efficiency • Efficiency
• Consumer focus

Description Description Description Description

• Technical • Deliver policy goals • Positive results • Sound
coordination to and save resources in reaching policy budgeting
increase effectiveness with more attention to solutions • Integration of
of data management individual preferences • Performance personnel and
tools and skills • Definition and measurement and financial systems
• Strategic operationalization of bench marking of to incentivize
management to users as consumers policy and service production
match tools to goals • Targeted goals • Privatization to
• Adaptation to customization of • Greater save costs and
political goals departmental flexibility to aid improve
responses to agency level efficiency
individuals, groups, innovation
and communities
Citizen Openness • Participation • Equality • Accountability
values • Integrity • Equality • Openness • Legitimacy
• Lawfulness • Lawfulness

Description Description Description Description

• Decentralized • Reliance on • Co-evolution of • Outcomes used
decision knowledge and citizen and to deliver
responsibility to awareness of government vision accountability for
create network community needs and goals performance
dependencies • Definition and • Citizen co- • Good outcomes
• Data sharing operationalization of production of improve
partnerships with users as citizens administrative legitimacy in the
other • Grass roots methods processes eyes of citizens
nongovernmental to connect policy and • Collaborative
sectors service decisions to tools used with
• Use democratic, community needs stakeholders in
open source methods • Protection of participative
• Operate with more personal information governance
accountability and
transparency

According to Bannister and Connolly (2014), citizen, socially oriented

technology values have organizational and technological dimensions which
include developing knowledge and awareness of the community, engaging
citizens in administrative processes, opening to forms of direct democracy,
increasing accountability and transparency, and building partnerships with other
nongovernmental sectors to develop the social fabric of government-to-non-
government relations. Data management goals rely on shared interagency
databases, open source methods for software or algorithm development, and
greater transparency and trustworthiness in protecting data, suggesting values of
openness, integrity, and lawfulness. Personalization goals involve developing and
delivering services with greater knowledge of different citizens, not as customers
8 Policy & Internet, 9999:9999

but as free agents whose capacity for individual expression is vital for collective
representation at the political level. Public participation and equality (in treatment
of citizens) are relevant values as is lawfulness in protecting personal information.
Problem-solving involves co-producing data science solutions with citizen-
informed decision support systems and thus also suggests values of participation
and openness. Productivity, the economic value of the output of government
organizations, is a strongly technocratic goal, but productivity can still be
assessed to see if it meets expected standards and thus suggests values of public
accountability and legitimacy in the eyes of citizens.

The Case of Public Information Agencies

Big Data Governance, Public Values, and Public Information Agencies

Public information agencies have been foundational to the theory of govern-

ment since at least John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, published in 1859. Mill espoused
the need for institutions to ensure that law-abiding, democratically engaged
citizens are well-informed. According to Richter and Wilson (2013), such
institutions are part of the “information commons” that underpins democratic
governance, and Kooper et al. (2011, p. 195) ascribe them the role of “establishing
an environment and opportunities, rules and decision making rights for the
valuation, creation, collection, analysis, distribution, storage, use, and control of
information,” which they call information governance. Public information agencies
make decisions about the control of public information and usually play a core
departmental function (Peters & Bouckaert, 2004). In Wilson’s (1989) schema of
output/outcome functions, public information agencies could be classified as
procedural because they have observable outputs such as individual audits or
assignments to review information management, but the outcomes are not readily
observable in terms of distinct products for citizens in the way that a public
health or education institution is. On the other hand, as the outcomes of the work
of public information agencies becomes more observable with the greater
emphasis on information services, public information agencies may increasingly
have observable outcomes and then may also be classified as production agencies.
In this respect, the function of public information agencies aptly expresses the
fundamental trade-off of public values between performance and procedure.
However, it still remains to be shown what the scope is of such organizations
in big data governance. Which public information institutions are concerned, and
what role do they play? To develop knowledge of the roles of the public
information agencies in big data governance and to better understand their
capacity for addressing public value conflicts, two countries—the Netherlands
and Germany—were explored in the research. The comparison of these two
countries is helpful for our understanding of big data and governance challenges
because the countries have markedly different legal and political perspectives on
public information ownership (Bennett, 1992; Bignami, 2011), and have divergent
approaches to the use of big data in the public sector (van der Sloot, Broeders, &
Ingrams: Public Values in the Age of Big Data 9

Schrijvers, 2016). The technology sectors in the Netherlands and Germany are at a
similar capacity for advanced data analytics and they are both of similar
economic wealth. However, both have different public administration traditions
as regards the room for the public sector to use data. Germany’s public sector is a
strong traditional administrative law country, while the Netherlands has more of
a tradition of participatory democracy. Under Dutch law, all government
information is, in principle, public information. In contrast, in Germany,
information of a personal nature can only be shared by express consent of the
owner or if there is a greater public interest. While the Netherlands gives public
organizations broad authority to collect and share data, Germany takes a
protectionist stance that puts individual self-determination at the center of data
laws (van der Sloot et al., 2016). These differences are likely to reveal varying
pictures of the public information agencies in two advanced democratic countries
that have an advanced capacity for developing big data programs in the public
sector. An additional argument for assessing these countries is that much
attention in the literature has been devoted to English speaking countries. In the
United States, where most research is focused, big data initiatives in the public
sector mostly rely on help from the private sector (Mergel et al., 2016), strong
presumption of responsible data use is left to private sector discretion (Bennett &
Raab, 2017), and there is confusion about how to connect big data policies such as
those concerning algorithms to the public information commons (Fink, 2018). Like
the Anglo-Saxon countries, technological development in Germany and the
Netherlands is high, but we would expect the different institutional and legal
traditions to create a different set of opportunities and challenges. This approach
thus aims to enrich the debate through an analysis and insights from countries
that are usually not well accounted for in the international debate.
The data collected in the course of the research reported here relied primarily
on document analysis in the form of government policy reports and laws,
supplemented by 10 interviews with big data experts in government, think tanks,
civil society organizations, and research institutions (six in the Netherlands and
four in Germany). Reports were initially sourced from Internet searches and
expanded through recommendations from interviews.1 The interviews served two
purposes: first, to source new documents and to supplement documentary
information with expert interpretation; and, second, to bring institutional experi-
ence to the mapping process, allowing identification of gaps and drawing of
connections between different institutions as well as their historical evolution.
Four public information laws with details about institutional structures were also
included: the Dutch Public Access to Government Information Act (GIA; Wet
openbaarheid van bestuur) and Data Protection Act (Wet bescherming persoonsgeg-
evens), and the German Freedom of Information Act (Informationsfreiheitsgesetz)
and Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz).
Table 2 summarizes the role that five agencies play in information governance
of big data in Germany and the Netherlands. The functions of the agencies and
the specific public values conflicts are detailed in the table and expanded and
explained in the analysis below.
10 Policy & Internet, 9999:9999

Traditional Public Information Agencies

New transparency and data protection institutions were founded in many

countries following the global wave of freedom of information laws in the 1970s
(Bennett, 1997; Hazell, 1995). There are some differences in views in the academic
literature, but perspectives on these institutions are grouped around a common
core. According to Bennett (1997), taking a bureaucratic accountability perspec-
tive, the office of the ombudsman, freedom of information offices, and data
protection agencies are the key institutions that government has established to
support public information rights and democratic accountability. According to
Lee (1991), the three important public information institutions are independent
regulatory commissions, courts, and public information ombudsmen. Again,
Flinders (2011) identified five institutions that play a monitoring role in
democracy: watchdogs, ethical guardians, investigatory agencies, regulatory
boards, and quasi-judicial commissions, while Head (2012) identified four:
auditors-general, the office of the ombudsman, anticorruption agencies, and
policy integrity agencies. Several of these institutions also involve general
monitoring agencies rather than those solely involved in public information
governance per se. Scholars generally agree on a core of at least four types of
traditional public information agencies: public information watchdogs, the office
of the ombudsman, public information offices, and auditors-general (i.e., investi-
gative agencies sometimes referred to as comptrollers).
Public information watchdogs are historically important institutions in
Germany and the Netherlands. The world’s first data protection act was passed
in the German state of Hessen in 1970, followed in 1977 by the Federal Data
Protection Act (Freude & Freude, 2016). Similarly to the Netherlands, a Data
Protection Commissioner has responsibilities laid out in the Data Protection
Act. Privacy regulations are extensively set out in other regulations including
the Criminal Code, the Civil Code, the Telecommunications Act, and the
Telemedia Act. The Commissioner oversees the use of data but is also tasked
with a special advisory role toward the telecommunications and postal services.
All other private sectors are dealt with at the state level by data commissioners.
The Data Protection Commissioner is tasked with a strict focus on protecting
information privacy and is Germany’s main information watchdog. Reflective
of the strong privacy focus, the Commissioner’s authority extends to tele-
communications and postal service compliance. Privacy regulations in the
Federal Data Protection Act require different types of databases to be stored
separately, and personal data cannot be stored at all unless the owner of the
data has given express permission. This principle was set out in the “census
ruling” of Germany’s highest court in 1983, although it does not have a
constitutional basis. Sharing of personal data is allowed under the Act for
fulfilling the obligations of a contract, including for big data analytics like
carrying out financial transactions or preventing fraudulent transactions. But
lawful interpretation of the Act can in cases conflict with the efforts of public
organizations to achieve better policy effectiveness with big data.
 Table 2. The Role of Public Information Agencies in Governance of Big Data

Public
Information
Public Information Watchdogs Officers Data Analysis Agencies Ombudsman Offices Comptroller Offices

Function Keeping a watchful eye on data Providing Detecting waste and creating Responding to complaints Assessing compliance
sharing between agencies and information on efficiency gains in interagency from public officials, with public information
external organizations. Keeping a government transactions using big data analysis. citizens, and other laws and best practices
Ingrams: Public Values in the Age of Big Data

watchful eye on civil liberties and transactions and Providing choices to citizens and information users for data-sharing and
political freedoms, and reporting big data policies transparently making policies to regarding official transparency
violations inform and guide citizens procedures

Key Effectiveness vs. lawfulness Privacy vs. Effectiveness vs. participation Effectiveness vs. Effectiveness vs.
public openness Efficiency vs. legitimacy accountability lawfulness
values Efficiency vs.
tensions openness
11
12 Policy & Internet, 9999:9999

In the Netherlands, the legal foundations of public information institutions

are based on a more limited set of statutes. Existing regulation of the big data
sector is largely contained in the Data Protection Act, which was initially passed
in 2000, and updated in 2016. The role of the Data Protection Authority (DPA)
remains focused on the protection of privacy, though there are signs that it
envisages itself in a broader role: “The Dutch DPA is transparent about its results
and choices, it creates support for its work and welcomes dialogue. The Dutch
DPA is open, honest, and visible. Internally, we promote a positive and open
atmosphere. The Dutch DPA works for the protection of a fundamental right.
This is its pride. The Dutch DPA is engaged with its work and its people and
stands with both feet in society.”2 In addition to monitoring compliance with the
Data Protection Act, the Authority is an independent watchdog with considerable
discretionary power. Its goals are to supervise the actions of government
departments and provide advice and accountability either through legislative
advice or by enforcing data protection laws (Prins, Broeders, Griffioen, Keizer, &
Keymolen, 2011). It can bring cases against the government for legal infractions. It
also successfully halted the government’s plans to retain phone and Internet data
under criminal warrants in 2014, and it delayed Facebook’s adoption of a new
privacy policy in 2014 until the company clarified gray areas. A similar citizen
value is demonstrated in the GIA, which specifies the right of public access to
information, and the rules on what information a public agency may refuse to
release for reasons of security, privacy, on ongoing court proceedings. A
companion law, The Reuse of Public Information Act, also has an efficiency value
because it permits reuse of requested government information for commercial
purposes. Thus openness, enshrined in the GIA and interpreted by public
information officers may at times conflict with the value of efficiency.
Several other public information agencies support citizen values in the
Netherlands. Citizen values are considered alongside technocratic values such as
policy effectiveness and economic efficiency in data management by the national
comptroller, the Court of Audit. The Court of Audit, the National Ombudsman,
the Council of State, and the two legislatures of the national parliament are the
five high councils of the Netherlands and their independence is guaranteed in the
Constitution. The Court reviews how well the government meets data standards
according to integrity, lawfulness, and efficiency. It checks whether public
finances are being managed properly. It issues opinions and recommendations on
matters of management and policy. In Germany the counterpart agency is guided
by a stricter approach to privacy. The Federal Constitutional Court extends
principles of personal freedoms to support the idea of the right to personal data
protection and gives a strong right to citizens to prevent the collection of personal
information. While public organizations can use big data to become more
effective, comptrollers can hold organizations responsible for unlawful use of
data. Germany also has a comptroller in the Federal Court of Auditors that
oversees the conduct of fiscal affairs in the country by, for instance, encouraging
more transparent publication of federal government reporting on programs and
spending. It is independent and exists outside of the traditional three branches of
Ingrams: Public Values in the Age of Big Data 13

government set out in the Constitution, which gives it an ambiguous status in the
system of democratic governance—though it is mainly concerned with values of
lawfulness, accountability, and openness. While the Court of Auditors has
responsibility for recommendations in a range of policy areas that are pertinent to
big data such as transport, defense, social security, and taxation, there is no
evidence so far that it has itself employed big data analysis to support
recommendations or advocated better reporting of the activities of public agencies
using big data.

New Digital Governance and Data Science Agencies

According to Perri 6, Raab, and Bellamy (2005), new data institutions include
e-governance advisors or central executive units that strategize government-wide
approaches to innovation policy and have a role of establishing data standards
through laws, norms, and codes of policies, and creating interagency and national
level guidelines. According to Washington (2014), policymaking by public informa-
tion institutions in the big data age revolves around several types of information
production, primarily handled by central statistics authorities and data analysis
agencies tasked with public knowledge in critical policy areas such as public
health. The types of information used for (big and small) data analytics include:
original reports written by government employees or contractors; service user
digital click streams including geolocated data; categories and other metadata; data
concerning government activity and operations; statistics and original research;
mandated disclosures; and regulatory submissions. Public information institutions
must not only collect these rapidly growing and diverse types of information but
also make sense of it. Honavar (2014) calls this the “informatics of discovery,” and
Williamson (2014) describes it as a new model of public management called
“knowing public services” where interorganizational efforts co-produce and
personalize services through creation of database software and algorithmic
machine learning. While Honavar (2014) does not offer insights on the specific
institutional functions involved in the informatics of discovery, Williamson (2014)
focuses on big data public information governance in hybrid institutions that work
at the intersection of government and the technology sector. The data science
organizations may work primarily at the executive level of government, as hybrid
organizations, or as private organizations that play a role as information brokers or
mediators as well as skilled data analysts and data policymakers.
In Germany, there are five key federal ministries that are responsible for
digital strategy: the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy, the Ministry of the
Interior, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastruc-
ture, and the Ministry of Education and Research. Germany passed its first open
data law in July 2017, and the Federal Statistics Bureau is the primary statistics
agency tasked with analyzing public data. However, many data analytics services
are spread across numerous agencies. For example, the German Federal Labor
Agency (Bundesagentur f€ ur Arbeit) analyzed historical data on unemployment
programs in order to segment its existing programs into different types of
14 Policy & Internet, 9999:9999

individual work seekers. The savings resulting from this new type of intervention
were estimated to be s10bn in 1 year, and the program halved the amount of
time that individuals spent seeking work (Manyika et al., 2011). In the health care
sector in Germany, big data is also being used to model effects of clinical trials in
comparative effectiveness research or to predict public health trends or events,
but, again, these changes are largely described in terms of effectiveness or
efficiency savings. However, there are potential values for equality as well as
efficiency, and these values can harmonize as well as conflict. For example, the
2016 Act on the Digitization of Energy Transition aims to make savings for home
owners through smart energy meters, by more fairly matching energy costs to
levels of use. Data analysis agencies thus have the capacity to influence the
effectiveness and equality of such initiatives.
In the Netherlands, two central data collection and analysis agencies, Statistics
Netherlands and the Open State Foundation, have primary responsibility for
compiling and analyzing public data. Both of these agencies make all financial
data at the national and local levels publicly available and are responsible for
promoting the value of openness, but also effectiveness by providing useful data
for government or independent analysis. Similarly, the Netherlands also has a
central open data portal where data sets are released. Personal data storage is
also centralized in this way. All data on citizens are stored in one central
database, the Personal Records Database (BRP), which is managed by the
Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom, and the use of this data is governed by
values of lawfulness enshrined in the Personal Records Database Act. Statistics
Netherlands created a center for big data analysis in 2016, but it is still quite
limited by internal capacity. There are increasingly ambitious programs,
frequently with international collaboration, such as prediction of freight traffic in
shipping routes.
The Dutch approach to public information and collaborative networks with
the private sector may explain why big data companies are being widely used to
support the effectiveness and efficiency of big data analysis in public organiza-
tions where internal capacity does not exist. For example, the FinPro program
commissioned in 2016 analyzed large volumes of historical data to identify
welfare fraud. The FinPro program is credited with saving the government
millions of euros. The development of big data initiatives has been driven by a
collaborative public–private network of academic programs and tech start-up
hubs in various cities that develop education and training programs. While this
approach to innovation aims to make data science initiatives as responsive as
possible to the local level, and therefore potentially a tool for local accountability
and participation, it is unclear what public values motivate the approach. The
types of initiatives taking place suggest that efficiency concerns are important but
that several policy issues addressed in the initiatives also intend to be responsive
to citizen policy interests. For example, among several pilot projects, one is being
run together with the Institute for Municipal Quality and several municipalities
to improve services, and another is aimed at improving environmental sustain-
ability in Amsterdam (Taylor, Leenes, & van Schendel, 2017). It is difficult to
Ingrams: Public Values in the Age of Big Data 15

distinguish between technocratic and citizen values in these initiatives and these
two categories are likely to be a strong point of tension revolving around equality
and openness on the one hand and effectiveness and efficiency on the other.
Despite the growth of the big data sector and some promising examples of cost-
saving successes and democratic policy initiatives using large, historical data sets,
oversight of big data programs in the Netherlands is mostly driven by a short-
term perspective of legal compliance and economic efficiency that does not
consider well the democratic implication of big data in terms of citizen values
(Taylor et al., 2017).

Discussion

The above analysis provides evidence of institutional functions, public values

focuses, and public values conflicts in five types of public information agencies
involved in big data governance. As in most countries, even economically
developed ones such as Germany and the Netherlands, advanced data analysis in
public policy is still at an early stage. Despite this, the information governance
capacity for big data in Germany and the Netherlands is quite sophisticated in
terms of legal definition and the statutory responsibility of information agencies.
These legal and statutory functions potentially provide support for many
technocratic and citizen values. However, there are some notable gaps. Citizen
participation does not appear among the citizen values that are protected or
promoted by public information agencies. Instead, citizen values are largely
reactive, relying on traditional legal ideas of openness, equality, and lawfulness.
If participation, signifying the ability of individual or community to be
represented, is to be supported, more is needed to strategically connect the
technical to the human dimensions in big data initiatives. The institutional
capacity to advance participation such as through co-production of data manage-
ment or problem-solving is largely missing both in terms of the stated goals and
statutory laws of the agencies and in the current efforts being made to govern
information use in big data programs. One type of technocratic value, consumer
orientation, did not appear to be at play either, in the case of the Dutch and
German public information agencies. From a technocratic perspective, this
absence may reflect a focus of big data innovations on back office tasks such as
detecting tax fraud and lagging innovations in service delivery. Among
technocratic values, it is primarily values of efficiency and effectiveness that are
embedded in the functions of the public information agencies.
Each of the agencies examined focuses on a different combination of citizen
values that are in tension with the two main technocratic values of efficiency and
effectiveness. This state of affairs is a problem for big data governance for two
reasons. First, the citizen values are spread more thinly than the technocratic
values, and in the case of privacy and openness, they can even be in tension with
each other in public information offices. This means that citizen values are
vulnerable to being eclipsed or eroded. Second, only data analysis agencies
actively use big data in their processes, and, as mentioned, they focus on back
16 Policy & Internet, 9999:9999

office delivery of more effective policy insights and cost savings. There is very
little evidence of traditional public information agencies using big data analysis
themselves per se, though they do address public values tensions actively in
resolving citizen complaints (ombudsmen), requests for information (public
information offices), or monitoring compliance with laws and integrity (watch-
dogs). Rather than public values being treated equally, they play different roles,
with some values such as efficiency and effectiveness being driving principles in
contrast to process principles such as accountability and openness, which play
more of an auxiliary or guiding role for the drivers (Prins et al., 2011).
The two countries also reveal some marked differences in their public information
agencies and institutional environments. These differences shape the types of values
that underlie big data governance, and are therefore likely to affect the way that public
values tensions between technocratic and citizen values will play out. Germany’s Data
Protection Act is strongly focused on protecting an expansive concept of privacy. The
Dutch legal equivalent also protects privacy, but not to the same degree, and this fact
means that German information governance must put values of lawfulness above
openness and efficiency in some cases. The role of public information officers is
therefore quite muted in both countries. While the Netherlands is more proactive in
releasing information either in response to freedom of information requests or as open
data, this feature of their pubic information agencies often favors lawfulness and
privacy above possible values such as openness and participation.
The tensions of public values are also a function of the type of public
information agency in question. Public value tensions then are largely trade-offs
between technocratic and citizen values, but not always, as revealed by the case
of openness and privacy. Lawfulness can also be in tension with the attempts to
make policy and public services more effective in data analysis agencies. Overall,
the major tensions revolve around the technocratic value of effectiveness, which,
depending on the role of the public agency in question, is in tension with
lawfulness, openness, accountability, or equality. The attempts to resolve public
values tensions will, therefore, face challenges at the intersection of the various
public information agencies. However, it is important to be clear that these
tensions do not represent institutional conflicts as such. Institutional conflicts
involve disagreements on specific courses of action or policies (Jones, Baumgart-
ner, & Talbert, 1993; Matland, 1995). Rather, public values tensions can lead to
institutional conflicts, but they are firstly differences in perspective or underlying
beliefs and purposes at an abstract level, rather than direct types of organizational
action in terms of conflict or cooperation.
Following the framework in Table 2 a proposition can be put forward for
each public information agency, highlighting the main areas of tensions and the
institutional locations where efforts to resolve tensions will need to be focused.

Proposition 1. Public information watchdogs face a tension between compliance with

privacy laws and the use of information for more effective policymaking. The basic
mandate of a public information watchdog is to protect unlawful uses of information.
However, big data, which frequently uses personal data and relies on generation of
Ingrams: Public Values in the Age of Big Data 17

personal data streams in real time to improve prediction for public services, blurs the
distinction between lawfulness and transparency for better effectiveness.

Proposition 2. Public information officers face a tension between reactive release of

information for transparency and proactive release of information for data-driven
policymaking. Freedom of information laws permit access but also protect personal
privacy. However, big data relies on analysis of diverse types of public data that
frequently includes personal information. The challenge, then, is to balance reactive
transparency—giving attention to personal privacy—with proactive publication of data
that can be used for big data analysis.

Proposition 3. Data analysis agencies face several different tensions in the values of
effectiveness and efficiency. For internal audit and reporting functions the tension is
with openness. For policymaking the tension is with equality. Big data analysis by
specialist public organizations is geared toward better policy analysis. However, this goal
potentially runs into other responsibilities for handling information in an ethical way and
fairly involving citizens with how their data are being used.

Proposition 4. Ombudsman agencies face a tension between, on the one hand, citizen
values of accountability, and effectiveness of policymaking on the other. Ombudsmen are
tasked with responding to citizen complaints, and such complaints normally surround
issues of transparency. However, big data analysis brings in the competing value of
improving the effectiveness of policies for citizen outcomes that ombudsmen must consider
when they are weighing their response to citizen complaints.

Proposition 5. Comptroller offices face a tension between lawfulness and effectiveness.

Comptrollers audit public agencies such as data analysis agencies to ensure proper
practices. However, the meaning of “proper practices” may be shifting in a big data world
where data analysis agencies have a legitimate public goal in advancing policy and public
service effectiveness.

Conclusion

This article has traced the scholarly arguments in two spheres of literature:
public values theory and technology-based reform in information governance,
with a particular focus on big data. The public values literature has conceived of
a unique challenge in governance in balancing a diverse range of public values
that public organizations are tasked to fulfill. This article posits that trade-offs for
such values in big data use in the public sector are important and, hitherto,
unexplored. According to public information theory, in a democratic system,
addressing and resolving tensions in these values is the responsibility of public
information agencies, and these agencies need dedicated resources to function
effectively. Exploration of big data initiatives in two countries (the Netherlands
and Germany) has found evidence of a specific set of such public information
agencies—including watchdogs, public information offices, data analysis agencies,
18 Policy & Internet, 9999:9999

ombudsman offices, and comptrollers—and identified differences in the way that

public values tensions are addressed. The exploration has resulted in a conceptual
framework for understanding five major public information agencies and the
main public values tensions that they deal with.
The public values of public information agencies in big data initiatives are
notably tilted toward technocratic values, and there is a notable absence of efforts
aimed at supporting the value of public participation, despite the fact that this is
supposed to be a key citizen value in digital government reforms. The data
analysis agencies that have the technical capacity internally to undertake big data
programs or to outsource to the private sector are focused on improving
policymaking with a view to greater efficiency and effectiveness. Traditional
public information agencies can address public values in their monitoring,
accountability, or citizen complaint mechanisms, but they do not currently
employ big data in an active way. This state of affairs could change in the future
if, for example, public information agencies could proactively release information
using predictions of what information is likely to be needed by the public or by
being more transparent about the algorithms being used. These changes in future
might bring citizen values more strongly into tension with technocratic values,
possibly requiring organizational or policy interventions to realign agency
priorities and give public information agencies the capacity to deliver both types
of values. The propositions summarized in this article indicate where these main
tensions in public information agencies are likely to be focused.
From a scholarly perspective, the public values framework of big data
governance offers a conceptual means to address the potential of big data from both
the citizen perspective and the technocratic one. From a policy perspective, to the
extent that policymakers view both perspectives equally, knowledge of the conflict
areas serve as a map for identifying areas to build and invest in as we work to
increase the information governance capacity of our public information agencies.

Alex Ingrams, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Politics and Public

Administration, Tilburg University, Institute of Governance, Tilburg LE, the
Netherlands [a.ingrams@uvt.nl].

Notes

The author would like to thank professors Corien Prins and Frank Hendricks for their guidance and
advice during the research. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers at Policy & Internet
who reviewed the article and offered suggestions for improving it. Finally, I thank Tilburg Law School
for awarding a grant towards the research.

1. The reports consulted were Oostrom et al. (2016), Baller, Dutta, and Lanvin (2016), Bitcom (2016),
Freude and Freude (2016), European Commission (2015), Ministry of Economic Affairs (2016),
Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (2017), van der Sloot et al. (2016), Roland
Berger Strategy Consultants (2015), Vodafone (2016), and Taylor et al. (2017).
2. From the webpage of the Dutch Data Protection Authority: “Mission, vision, and core values.”
https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/en/node/1930.
Ingrams: Public Values in the Age of Big Data 19

References

Baller, S., S. Dutta, and B. Lanvin. 2016. “The Global Information Technology Report 2016: Innovating
in the Digital Economy.” Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Bannister, F., and R. Connolly. 2014. “ICT, Public Values and Transformative Government: A
Framework and Programme for Research.” Government Information Quarterly 31 (1): 119–28.
Bekkers, V. 2007. “The Governance of Back-Office Integration: Organizing Co-Operation Between
Information Domains.” Public Management Review 9 (3): 377–400.
Bennett, C.J. 1992. Regulating Privacy: Data Protection and Public Policy in Europe and the United States.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bennett, C.J. 1997. “Understanding Ripple Effects: The Cross-National Adoption of Policy Instruments
for Bureaucratic Accountability.” Governance 10 (3): 213–33.
Bennett, C.J., and C.D. Raab. 2017. The Governance of Privacy: Policy Instruments in Global Perspective.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Bignami, F. 2011. “Cooperative Legalism and the Non-Americanization of European Regulatory Styles:
The Case of Data Privacy.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 59 (2): 411–61.
Bitcom. 2016. “Germany—Excellence in Big Data.” Berlin: Bitcom.
Blume, G., T. Scott, and M. Pirog. 2014. “Empirical Innovations in Policy Analysis.” Policy Studies
Journal 42 (S1): S33–50.
Bovens, M., and S. Zouridis. 2002. “From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information
and Communication Technology Is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional
Control.” Public Administration Review 62 (2): 174–84.
Clark, W.R., and M. Golder. 2015. “Big Data, Causal Inference, and Formal Theory: Contradictory
Trends in Political Science?” PS, Political Science & Politics 48 (1): 65–70.
Clarke, A., and H. Margetts. 2014. “Governments and Citizens Getting to Know Each Other? Open,
Closed, and Big Data in Public Management Reform.” Policy & Internet 6 (4): 393–417.
Dahl, R.A. 1994. “A Democratic Dilemma: System Effectiveness Versus Citizen Participation.” Political
Science Quarterly 109 (1): 23–34.
De Graaf, G., L. Huberts, and R. Smulders. 2016. “Coping With Public Value Conflicts.” Administration
& Society 48 (9): 1101–27.
De Graaf, G., and H. Paanakker. 2015. “Good Governance: Performance Values and Procedural Values
in Conflict.” The American Review of Public Administration 45 (6): 635–52.
Desouza, K. 2014. “Realizing the Promise of Big Data.” Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business
of Government.
Dunleavy, P., H. Margetts, S. Bastow, and J. Tinkler. 2006. “New Public Management Is Dead—Long
Live Digital-Era Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (3): 467–94.
European Commission. 2015. “eGovernment in the Netherlands.” Brussels: The European Commis-
sion.
Fink, K. 2018. “Opening the Government’s Black Boxes: Freedom of Information and Algorithmic
Accountability.” Information, Communication & Society 21 (10): 1453–71.
Flinders, M. 2011. “Daring to Be a Daniel: The Pathology of Politicized Accountability in a Monitory
Democracy.” Administration & Society 43 (5): 595–619.
Fountain, J.E. 2004. Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Freude, A., and T. Freude. 2016. “Echoes of History: Understanding German Data Protection.” Berlin:
Bertelsmann Foundation.
Gamage, P. 2016. “New Development: Leveraging ‘Big Data’ Analytics in the Public Sector.” Public
Money & Management 36 (5): 385–90.
Giest, S. 2017. “Big Data for Policymaking: Fad or Fasttrack?” Policy Sciences 50 (3): 367–82.
20 Policy & Internet, 9999:9999

Hazell, R. 1995. “Freedom of Information: The Implications for the Ombudsman. Public Administration
73 (2): 263–70.
Head, B.W. 2012. “The Contribution of Integrity Agencies to Good Governance.” Policy Studies 33 (1):
7–20.
Honavar, V.G. 2014. “The Promise and Potential of Big Data: A Case for Discovery Informatics.”
Review of Policy Research 31 (4): 326–30.
Janssen, M., and J. van den Hoven. 2015. “Big and Open Linked Data (BOLD) in Government: A
Challenge to Transparency and Privacy?” Government Information Quarterly 32 (4): 363–68.
Janssen, M., and G. Kuk. 2016. “The Challenges and Limits of Big Data Algorithms in Technocratic
Governance.” Government Information Quarterly 33 (3): 371–77.
Jho, W. 2005. “Challenges for E-Governance: Protests From Civil Society on the Protection of Privacy
in E-Government in Korea.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 71 (1): 151–66.
Jones, B.D., F.R. Baumgartner, and J.C. Talbert. 1993. “The Destruction of Issue Monopolies in
Congress.” American Political Science Review 87 (3): 657–71.
Kooper, M.N., R. Maes, and E.R. Lindgreen. 2011. “On the Governance of Information: Introducing a
New Concept of Governance to Support the Management of Information.” International Journal of
Information Management 31 (3): 195–200.
Lavertu, S. 2016. “We All Need Help: ‘Big Data’ and the Mismeasure of Public Administration.” Public
Administration Review 76 (6): 864–72.
Lazer, D., R. Kennedy, G. King, and A. Vespignani. 2014. “The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big
Data Analysis.” Science 343 (6176): 1203–205.
Lee, R.D., Jr. 1991. “Legal Parameters of Administration in a Democratic Society: The Case of
Australia.” Administration & Society 23 (2): 201–26.
Malomo, F., and V. Sena. 2017. “Data Intelligence for Local Government? Assessing the Benefits and
Barriers to Use of Big Data in the Public Sector.” Policy & Internet 9 (1): 7–27.
Manyika, J., M. Chui, B. Brown, J. Bughin, R. Dobbs, C. Roxburgh, and A.H. Byers. 2011. Big Data: The
Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition, and Productivity. New York, NY: McKinsey Global
Institute.
Matland, R.E. 1995. “Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of
Policy Implementation.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 5 (2): 145–74.
McAteer, M., and K. Orr. 2006. “Public Participation in Scottish Local Government: Strategic and
Corporate Confusions.” Public Money and Management 26 (2): 131–38.
McNeely, C.L., and J.O. Hahm. 2014. “The Big (Data) Bang: Policy, Prospects, and Challenges.” Review
of Policy Research 31 (4): 304–10.
Mergel, I., R.K. Rethemeyer, and K. Isett. 2016. “Big Data in Public Affairs.” Public Administration
Review 76 (6): 928–37.
Ministry of Economic Affairs. 2016. “Digital Agenda for the Netherlands.” The Hague: The Ministry of
Economic Affairs.
Nalbandian, J. 2005. “Professionals and the Conflicting Forces of Administrative Modernization and
Civic Engagement.” The American Review of Public Administration 35 (4): 311–26.
Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy. 2017. “Big Data and Security Policies: Serving
Security, Protecting Freedom.” The Hague: The Netherlands Scientific Council for Government
Policy.
Oostrom, L., A. Walker, B. Staats, M. Slootbeek-Van Laar, S. Ortega Azurduy, and B. Rooijakkers. 2016.
“Measuring the Internet Economy in the Netherlands: A Big Data Analysis.” The Hague: Statistics
Netherlands.
Pandey, S.K. 2010. “Cutback Management and the Paradox of Publicness.” Public Administration Review
70 (4): 564–71.
Pandey, S.K., and B.E. Wright. 2006. “Connecting the Dots in Public Management: Political
Environment, Organizational Goal Ambiguity, and the Public Manager’s Role Ambiguity.” Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (4): 511–32.
Ingrams: Public Values in the Age of Big Data 21

Perri 6, C. Raab, and C. Bellamy. 2005. “Joined-Up Government and Privacy in the United Kingdom:
Managing Tensions Between Data Protection and Social Policy. Part I.” Public Administration 83
(1): 111–33.
Peters, G.B., and G. Bouckaert. 2004. What Is Available and What Is Missing in the Study of Quangos?
In Unbundled Government, eds. C. Pollitt and C. Talbot. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 38–66.
Poulsen, B. 2009. “Competing Traditions of Governance and Dilemmas of Administrative Accountabil-
ity: The Case of Denmark.” Public Administration 87 (1): 117–31.
Prins, J.E.J., D. Broeders, H.M. Griffioen, A.G. Keizer, and E. Keymolen. 2011. iGovernment.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Rainey, H.G. 1993. “Toward a Theory of Goal Ambiguity in Public Organizations.” Research in Public
Administration 2 (1): 121–66.
Richter, P., and R. Wilson. 2013. “‘It’s the Tip of the Iceberg:’ The Hidden Tensions Between Theory,
Policy and Practice in the Management of Freedom of Information in English Local Government
Bodies—Evidence From a Regional Study.” Public Money & Management 33 (3): 177–84.
Roberts, A. 1999. “Retrenchment and Freedom of Information: Recent Experience Under Federal,
Ontario and British Columbia Law.” Canadian Public Administration 42 (4): 422–51.
Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. 2015. “The Digital Transformation of Industry.” Berlin: Roland
Berger Strategy Consultants.
Rossmann, D., and E.A. Shanahan. 2012. “Defining and Achieving Normative Democratic Values in
Participatory Budgeting Processes.” Public Administration Review 72 (1): 56–66.
Shepherd, E., A. Stevenson, and A. Flinn. 2010. “Information Governance, Records Management, and
Freedom of Information: A Study of Local Government Authorities in England.” Government
Information Quarterly 27 (4): 337–45.
Sullivan, H. 2001. “Modernisation, Democratisation and Community Governance.” Local Government
Studies 27 (3): 1–24.
Taylor, L., R.E. Leenes, and S. van Schendel. 2017. “Public Sector Data Ethics: From Principles to
Practice.” Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University.
Thacher, D., and M. Rein. 2004. “Managing Value Conflict in Public Policy.” Governance 17 (4): 457–86.
van der Sloot, B., D. Broeders, and E. Schrijvers, eds. 2016. Exploring the Boundaries of Big Data.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
van der Sloot, B., and S. van Schendel. 2016. “Ten Questions for Future Regulation of Big Data: A
Comparative and Empirical Legal Study.” Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology
and E-Commerce Law 7: 110–45.
Vodafone. 2016. “Big Data and Privacy.” Berlin: Vodafone Institute for Society and Communications.
Washington, A.L. 2014. “Government Information Policy in the Era of Big Data.” Review of Policy
Research 31 (4): 319–25.
Williamson, B. 2014. “Knowing Public Services: Cross-Sector Intermediaries and Algorithmic Gover-
nance in Public Sector Reform.” Public Policy and Administration 29 (4): 292–312.
Wilson, J.Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York, NY: Basic
Books.