1 Abr

idgedVer
sion

1
Björ
n-Sör
enGigl
eri
saSeni
orGovernanc
eSpeci
ali
st,Innovat
ionPr
act
ice,
Wor
ldBank.
Theauthorc
anbereac
hedat:bgi
gler
@worl
dbank.
or g
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, machine-
processable, 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 OGD’s 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 re-
conceptualizing a government’s 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 OGD’s ‘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 ‘platform’13 to fuel economic growth and remedy persistent social
problems with new services and public goods.14 Third, advocates emphasize OGD’s ‘democratizing effect’ in

1
Open Government Data Working Group, “8 Principles of Open Government Data”, last modified December 8, 2007. http://www.opengovdata.org/home/8principles.
2
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/wp-
content/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-government-
data-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.
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
government’18 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 OGD’s 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 citizen’s 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;

15
Davies, “Open Data, Democracy and Public Sector Reform,” 36.
16
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. “Moldova’s 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-approve-
resolution-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.
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 OGD’s 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 country’s 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-side’44 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-side’47 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 Hogge’s original three actors, private sector organizations, in
stressing the economic benefits of OGD were also influential in furthering initiatives in developed countries,
advocating for OGD’s 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

39
Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific, A Manual for Trainers of Social Accountability, 53.
40
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.” Björn-Sören 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.
well as less developed markets and the absence of linkages among ‘civic hackers’52, 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 divide”53 exists as only a small fraction of the population has the
opportunity to make ‘effective use’54 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 groups’58 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 under-
developed 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

52
Fukuyama, “State Building”, 30.
53
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. Gurstein’s 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. Gurstein’s 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-government-
data/.
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.
OGD is unique to developing countries. Donors can indirectly influence countries through releasing their own
data, such as the World Bank’s 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 OGD’s 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 country’s 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
Hogge, “Open Data Study”, 35.
66
Hogge, “Open Data Study”, 37.
67
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 initiative’s 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 OGD’s 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 e-
government 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 infrastructure’81 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

74
Access Info Europe, “Beyond Access”, 38.
75
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=e-
government%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.
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

91
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.
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 ‘meaningful’112 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
technology…perceive the technology to be of value…and 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 “readiness…to 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
Wright et al., “Open Government Data Study: India”, 18.
109
Bitange.Ndemo, “Freeing Kenya’s 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 losers’127 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 OGD’s 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 initiative’s 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
Perez. “Complexity, Information Overload and Online Deliberation.” 12.
120
DeSanctis and Poole. “Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use”, 130.
121
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 movement’s 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 Kwak’s 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.

131
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.
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.access-
info.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): 447–468.

Chander, Anupam and Madhavi Sunder. “The Romance of the Public Domain.” California Law Review. Vol.
92 (2004): 1331–1373.
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/wp-
content/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, Björn-Sören. “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.” Gurstein’s
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?” Gurstein’s
Community Informatics, September 2, 2010. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-
empowering-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): 51-
74. doi: 10.1017/S0143814X05000206.

Heeks, Richard and Carolyne Stanforth. “Understanding e-Government Project Trajectories from an Actor-
network 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/open-
data-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-for-
federal-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 Kenya’s 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.

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=e-
government%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/un-
dpadm/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. “Moldova’s 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-data-
study-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!