Book contents
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- Part I Context
- Part II Methods
- Part III Substantive Contributions
- 8 Work Motivation
- 9 Experimenting with Leadership in Public Organisations
- 10 Prospects for Experimental Approaches to Research on Bureaucratic Red Tape***
- 11 Managerial Use of Performance Data by Bureaucrats and Politicians
- 12 Citizens and Public Performance Measures: Making Sense of Performance Information
- 13 Public Sector Transparency
- 14 Representative Bureaucracy: An Experimental Approach
- 15 Coproduction of Public Services
- 16 Expectations of and Satisfaction with Public Services
- 17 Citizen and Users’ Responses to Public Service Failure: Experimentation about Blame, Exit, and Voice
- 18 Assessing Public Support for Government Policy: Comparing Experimental and Attitudinal Approaches
- 19 Legislative Oversight of the Bureaucracy: Insights from Formal Modelling and Experimental Testing
- 20 Experimental Research for Nonprofit Management: Charitable Giving and Fundraising
- Part IV Issues and Implications
- Appendix Recommended Reporting Guidelines for Experiments in Public Management, a Checklist1
- Index
- References
13 - Public Sector Transparency
from Part III - Substantive Contributions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 July 2017
Book contents
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- Part I Context
- Part II Methods
- Part III Substantive Contributions
- 8 Work Motivation
- 9 Experimenting with Leadership in Public Organisations
- 10 Prospects for Experimental Approaches to Research on Bureaucratic Red Tape***
- 11 Managerial Use of Performance Data by Bureaucrats and Politicians
- 12 Citizens and Public Performance Measures: Making Sense of Performance Information
- 13 Public Sector Transparency
- 14 Representative Bureaucracy: An Experimental Approach
- 15 Coproduction of Public Services
- 16 Expectations of and Satisfaction with Public Services
- 17 Citizen and Users’ Responses to Public Service Failure: Experimentation about Blame, Exit, and Voice
- 18 Assessing Public Support for Government Policy: Comparing Experimental and Attitudinal Approaches
- 19 Legislative Oversight of the Bureaucracy: Insights from Formal Modelling and Experimental Testing
- 20 Experimental Research for Nonprofit Management: Charitable Giving and Fundraising
- Part IV Issues and Implications
- Appendix Recommended Reporting Guidelines for Experiments in Public Management, a Checklist1
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Experiments in Public Management ResearchChallenges and Contributions, pp. 291 - 312Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Bannister, F. and Connolly, R. 2011. ‘The trouble with transparency: a critical review of openness in e-government’, Policy and Internet 3(1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauhr, M. and Grimes, M 2014. ‘Indignation or resignation: the implications of transparency for societal accountability’, Governance 27(2): 291–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. L. 2003. How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coglianese, C. 2009. ‘The transparency president? The Obama administration and open government’, Governance 22(4): 529–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cucciniello, M. and Nasi, G. 2014. ‘Transparency for trust in government: how effective is formal transparency?’ International Journal of Public Administration 37(13): 911–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuillier, D. 2010. ‘Honey v. vinegar: testing compliance-gaining theories in the context of freedom of information laws’, Communication Law and Policy 15(3): 203–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Fine Licht, J. 2011. ‘Do we really want to know? The potentially negative effect of transparency in decision making on perceived legitimacy’, Scandinavian Political Studies 34: 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Fine Licht, J. 2014. ‘Policy area as a potential moderator of transparency effects: an experiment’, Public Administration Review 74(3): 361–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Fine Licht, J., Naurin, D., Esaiasson, P., and Gilljam, M. 2014. ‘When does transparency generate legitimacy? Experimenting on a context‐bound relationship’, Governance, 27(1): 111–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erkkilä, T. 2012. Government Transparency: Impact and Unintended Consequences. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni, A. 2010. ‘Is transparency the best disinfectant?’ The Journal of Political Philosophy 18(4): 389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florini, A. 2007. ‘Introduction: the battle over transparency’, in Florini, A. (ed.), The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World, pp. 1–16. New York: Colombia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G. 2011. ‘Being transparent or spinning the message? An experiment into the effects of varying message content on trust in government’, Information Polity 16(1): 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G. 2012. ‘Linking transparency, knowledge and citizen trust in government: an experiment’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 78(1): 50–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. and Kasymova, J. 2015. ‘Not so universal after all: exploring the meaning and use of government transparency in consensual and majoritarian democracies’, Public Integrity 17(4): 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. and Klijn, A. 2015. ‘The effects of judicial transparency on public trust: evidence from a field experiment’, Public Administration 93(4): 995–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G. and Meijer, A. J. 2014. ‘The effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: evidence from an online experiment’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24(1): 137–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., Porumbescu, G., Hong, B., and Im, T. 2013. ‘The effect of transparency on trust in government: a cross‐national comparative experiment’, Public Administration Review 73(4): 575–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G. and Welch, E. W. 2012. ‘Developing and testing a theoretical framework for computer-mediated transparency of local governments’, Public Administration Review 78(1): 562–71.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences. International Differences in Work-Related Values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hood, C. 1991. ‘A public management for all seasons?’ Public Administration 69(1): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. 2006. ‘Transparency in historical perspective’, in Hood, C. and Heald, D. (eds.), pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
Hood, C, and Heald, D. (eds.) 2006. Transparency: The Key to Better Governance? Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstedt, C. and Naurin, D. 2010. ‘Transparency is not enough: making transparency effective in reducing corruption’, International Political Science Review 31(3): 301–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijer, A. J. 2009. ‘Understanding computer-mediated transparency’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 75(2): 255–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijer, A. J. 2013. ‘Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency’, Public Administration Review 73(3): 429–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijer, A. ’t Hart, P., and Worthy, B. 2015. ‘Assessing government transparency: an interpretive framework’, Administration and Society. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399715598341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, O. 2002. A Question of Trust: The BBC Reith Lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peisakhin, L. 2012. ‘Transparency and corruption: evidence from India’, Journal of Law and Economics 55(1): 129–49.Google Scholar
Peisakhin, L. and Pinto, P. 2010. ‘Is transparency an effective anti-corruption strategy? Evidence from a field experiment in India’, Regulation and Governance 4(3): 261–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pina, V., Torres, L., and Royo, S. 2007. ‘Are ICTs improving transparency and accountability in the EU Regional and local governments? An empirical study’, Public Administration 85(2): 449–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piotrowski, S. J. 2008. Governmental Transparency in the Path of Administrative Reform. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Porumbescu, G. 2015a. ‘Comparing the effects of e-government and social media use on trust in government: evidence from Seoul, South Korea’, Public Management Review. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2015.1100751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porumbescu, G. 2015b. ‘Linking transparency to trust in government and voice’, American Review of Public Administration. DOI: 10.1177/0275074015607301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Relly, J. E. and Sabharwal, M. 2009. ‘Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: a cross-national study’, Government Information Quarterly 26(1): 148–57.Google Scholar
Roberts, A. 2006. Blacked Out: Government Secrecy in the Information Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S., Green, M. C., and Lerner, J. S. 2000. ‘The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78(5): 853–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tolbert, C. J. and Mossberger, K. 2006. ‘The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government’, Public Administration Review 66(3): 354–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., and Moon, M. J. 2005. ‘Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(3): 371–91.Google Scholar
Welch, E. W. and Wong, W. 2001. ‘Global information technology pressure and government accountability: the mediating effect of domestic context on website openness’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11(4): 509–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wirtz, B., Piehler, R., Thomas, M., and Daiser, P. 2015. ‘Resistance of public personnel to open government: a cognitive theory view of implementation barriers towards open government data’, Public Management Review. DOI:10.1080/14719037.2015.1103889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worthy, B. 2010. ‘More open but not more trusted? The effect of the freedom of information act 2000 on the United Kingdom central government’, Governance 23(4): 561–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zyl, A. 2014. ‘How civil society organizations close the gap between transparency and accountability’, Governance 27(2): 347–56.Google Scholar
- 14
- Cited by