Abstract
Government transparency has become a widespread value of democratic governance, yet theory suggests that various forces shape transparency differently in consensual and majoritarian regimes. As a result, transparency may achieve different goals in different democratic regimes. Presented here are the results of a study comparing the Netherlands and New Jersey. Results reveal that ideas about information disclosure in the two jurisdictions are distinctly different. They suggest that in a majoritarian democracy transparency is needed to empower interests that are not represented in the decision-making process, whereas in a consensual democracy a wider range of interests is already represented in decision-making, and thus there is less need for transparency as a means to empower citizens. This implies that despite its universal application, there is no “one size fits all” solution for government transparency.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 389-407 |
| Journal | Public Integrity |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2015 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Not so universal after all: Exploring the meaning and use of government transparency in consensual and majoritarian democracies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver