Now that’s what I call transformation: Latin America then and now, and Tony Benn RIP

April 7, 2014

“Parlez-vous politics?” Or why working politically is like learning a language

April 7, 2014

What are the limits of transparency and technology? From three gurus of the openness movement (Eigen, Rajani, McGee)

April 7, 2014
empty image
empty image

transparency 2

After a slightly disappointing ‘wonkwar’ on migration, let’s try a less adversarial format for another big development issue: Transparency and Accountability. I have an instinctive suspicion of anything that sounds like a magic bullet, a cost-free solution, or motherhood and apple pie in general. So the current surge in interest on open data and transparency has me grumbling and sniffing the air. Are politicians just grabbing it as a cheap announcement in austere times? Does it contain some kind of implicit right wing assumptions (an individualist homo economicus maximising market efficiency through open data)? And is there any evidence that transparency actually has much impact on the lives of poor people (after all, the proponents of transparency and results-based agendas are often the same organizations, so I hope they are practicing what they preach….)

I put these fears to three transparency gurus, and here are their fascinating responses, striking in their quality and level of, well, openness. It’s a long read, but I hope you’ll agree, a worthwhile one. Think we’ll just stick with comments on this one – doesn’t feel like a vote would be useful (but let me know if you think otherwise)

What else is needed to make transparency have impact?

Prof. Dr.  Peter Eigen, Transparency international (Founder, Chairman of the Advisory Council)Peter Eigen

Transparency is not a magic bullet but rather part of the arsenal. Transparency, when combined with accountable and responsive institutions as well as the space for civil society to get involved, is a game changer. These other factors are what make transparency meaningful and useful to build trust, fight corruption and achieve development progress. Alone, transparency may be cost-free but it also falls short on realizing all the promises that have been tied up with it.

But what does transparency really encompass or mean? Transparency can generally be defined as the “characteristic of governments, companies, organisations and individuals of being open in the clear disclosure of information, rules, plans, processes and actions”.

Take the case of public spending. Transparency can be used to follow the money to make sure that promised funds are turned into results for the poorest. In Mexico, “social witnesses” are required by law and have overseen more than $50 billion of public spending and tendering procedures. Findings from Transparency International show that in countries where there is greater openness, more checks-and-balances and better rule of law, more pregnant women have healthy births, more children and young people are educated to read, and more families have access to clean water and sanitation.

But in all of these cases, the ‘magic bullet’ of transparency is more part of a broader magic formula. Open government information is combined with governments that are willing to be held to account, official channels that allow for a government’s accountability and the rule of law, and individuals that are able and wanting to hold their government to account.

Adam Zyglis CartoonWhen it comes to companies, improving transparency can be used to see what businesses are paying into government coffers in terms of taxes, royalties, licenses and other payments. But again, simply putting the information out in the public domain does not equate to changes in practice or market efficiencies unless there are shareholders, governments and individuals that have the means to convert transparency into changes in policies and actions.

Transparency International (TI), the organization that I founded over 20 years ago, has seen how much increased openness can lead to real and lasting change when these other pieces of the puzzle are present. TI can be found in more than 100 countries where it has national chapters.

What TI has learned is that it is not just the quantity of information provided but the quality: is it comparable, timely, accessible, understandable and useful? It is also about matching the supply of information with the demand for certain types of information.

Information may be “cost-free”, but there may be no one interested in it unless it meets these characteristics and speaks to people’s needs.

Sorting this out for development is what will make possible a “data revolution” as has been called for by the UN and others, rather than creating a deluge of information.

We walk the fine line between just opening the information faucets in the name of “transparency” and providing what is needed to allow individuals to participate, provide oversight, prevent corruption and make informed choices.

Why transparency and technology won’t drive accountability

Rakesh Rajani, Head of Twaweza East Africa and the co-chair of the Open Government Partnershiprakesh rajani

Ideas that hold the most promise can also be the most deceptive; for their power and allure can mask the inconvenient hard thinking that come in the way of a good story. The use of technology in development, and in particular its potential to close the gap between citizen voice and state responsiveness, is one such idea.

In the past decade, many a development blogpost, newspaper article and YouTube video has gushed about the transformative power of the internet and mobile telephony – in closing information asymmetries, creating pathways for citizen expression and feedback, monitoring service delivery, visualizing data, and creating new possibilities for collective action. At Twaweza, we have claimed that the spread of communication technologies is a ‘game changer’ in East Africa, that the information space has been ‘democratized’ now that the content and methods that used to be the preserve of a few are open to the many, and because facts and ideas can travel in so many directions, so quickly and at little cost. Who cannot be moved by the memes of citizens mapping their neighborhood, or village women reporting the broken water point, or budget visuals that give you simple, color-coded bubbles to follow your money?

That technology can allow us to do interesting things is amply documented. I’ve just reviewed a useful book of several such case studies that the World Bank will launch on April 9. The trouble is that too many of us too much of the time have oversold its promise. Not so long ago grownups would talk as if all one had to do was to sprinkle mobile phones or internet and the persistent, structural imbalances and power asymmetries that had dogged us for decades would melt away. ‘Apps for Africa’ was the new Live Aid and microcredit revolution rolled into one. Thankfully, for the most part, we are past that stage.

With hindsight, it’s tempting to be snide. But it’s not so easy in practice. At Twaweza we’ve supported a number of thoughtful, caring people to roll out seemingly well-designed technology-driven initiatives (see, for example, here, here, and here), ideas that many smart people from local NGOs and media to the World Bank and prestigious universities found compelling, but that did not live up to their original promise in uptake or fostering accountability. I suspect that we have no monopoly on a particularly high rate of failure, but are simply more willing and able to talk openly about it. Even those that ‘work’ often do not last beyond their initial phases (for example on the limits of Ushahidi see here, here, and here) or transform the underlying constraints they were set up to address. Snazzier forms do not a function make; when the authorities choose to ignore the content there isn’t much difference between a wooden suggestion box and a citizen feedback website with analytics.

So how do we think sensibly about these issues?

accountability buck passesFirst, just because technologies can allow us to collect, store, analyze and communicate data and ideas in unprecedented ways should not lull us to think they can address old, entrenched problems in unprecedented ways. The primary constraints for human action are non-technological in nature. Most people who do not speak up in public meetings have perfectly functioning voices, and training them on better enunciation will not help matters much. Many technology projects have been hampered by inadequate theorizing, by political economy and social movement analysis, and by the lack of reference to historical evidence. And while clear and imaginative thinking is universally valuable, by necessity this analysis needs to be contextual. In particular we need to be particularly cautious about transferring successful use of technology from one place and time to another.

Second, we need a deep understanding of human motivation; of why people – on both the ‘citizen demand’ and ‘responsive state’ sides – would choose to pay attention, take action, and persist when setbacks happen, and a more granular (than just ‘citizens’ or ‘authorities’) of who would act. Our assumptions on each of these can be ill informed and poorly thought through, leaving us perplexed on why no one showed up for the thing we built so well. A simple set of questions, such as these (see Fig 3 on page 32) developed by a team evaluating citizen action in our Uwezo initiative, can be instructive.

Third, as Twaweza Advisory Board member Lant Pritchett puts it, however smart we are or well we do our homework, we are bound to not get it right the first (or second or third) time. That being so, what matters is how we test and tweak, and retest and retweak; set up agile feedback loops in a structured manner; and establish internal incentives and external relationships that can foster a culture of iteration and learning. The point here is not to experiment all day in boutique labs with little regard to impact, but rather to integrate experimentation and adaptation at the heart of how we implement at scale.

These lessons arise here in reflecting on the limits of technology to drive accountability, but in fact apply more broadly. And that is the point. Technology and transparency don’t drive anything. People, who organize and at times use technology to do so, do.

Motherhood, apple-pie and openness

Rosemary McGee, Institute of Development Studies (UK), Research and Evidence Component Coordinator of Making All Voices Count, and Technical Advisor toRosemary McGee Open Government Partnership

I’ll start by being a typical academic: whether transparency is necessary and important for development purposes depends on one’s definition of a number of terms.  First, development.  That might mean the extension of market economics to the furthest corners of the globe, the achievement of the MDGs, or the ability of people to imagine the world differently and realise that vision by changing the power relations that disadvantage them.

Second, transparency.  To TI, founded 20 years ago, transparency means clear disclosure of information, rules and actions, as in the definition Peter Eigen sets out above.  Since then, definition-creep has set in.  Lots of terms have come to be connected with it.  Is this a definitional issue that only bothers hair-splitters like me, or a real issue that ought to bother all of us?

There’s ‘openness’, which is anything from laissez-faire capitalism and free trade regimes (the economist’s definition), to inter-operability and the access to use and modify data and computer code in a shared environment (the techie’s definition), to a critical attitude to tradition (the open society advocate’s definition).  And several more – these are just the three most relevant to the present debate.

Then there’s ‘open government’, which according to the Open Government Partnership means greater civic participation in public affairs, and governments which are more transparent, responsive, accountable, and effective.

And then there is the usage of transparency which treats it as the harbinger of accountability.  This puts accountability as the goal, and transparency as one contributing factor, linked to it in an ‘uncertain relationship’, as Jonathan Fox warned several years ago.

‘Openness’ and ‘open government’ may have many effects that are good for people in situations of poverty and marginalization.  They may also have effects which are not, and effects which are bad for them, at least relatively speaking.  They may ease the corporate pillaging of natural resources or the monopolistic buying-up of subsistence farm land. They may demonize ‘tradition’ in ways that undermine informal institutions on which poor people or minorities depend for their livelihoods or their dignity.  Or perhaps they provide a smokescreen behind which governments hone their capacities to spy on suspect citizens.  The scope for the bad effects increases exponentially as technologies lower the costs and shorten the timeframes of ‘opening up’, reducing the pressure for careful appraisal.

accountability-savage-chickens (1)Whether ‘openness’ and ‘open government’ are good for poor people depends on who is promoting them and using them, and for what.  (A recent learning study on assumptions and realities about the users of tech-based transparency and accountability initiatives suggests that, if the ‘who’ and ‘for what’ questions are asked too rarely about the promoters of tech-for-T&A, they are asked even more rarely about the people the promoters claim to be benefitting – which leads straight to the ‘whether’ question, but that’s another story.)

I believe that accountability in public and corporate governance is a universally good thing that is good for poor and marginalized people.  My belief doesn’t extend universally to all the approaches set out above.  Unlike ‘openness’ or ‘open data’, transparency for accountability means a value-based commitment to a particular kind of change, one rooted in principles of human rights and fairness.  The Open Government Partnership’s definition of its purpose is rooted in these too (although that may come as a surprise given some of the governments that have been let into the OGP).  For governance to get more accountable in any country in the world, African, Asian and Latin American countries, transparency would certainly be necessary, and openness, open data, open government might contribute.

There is not enough evidence yet that transparency does have a positive impact on poor people’s lives, because of the non-linear relationships between transparency and accountability, and between accountability and better lives.  The causal chains are long and complex, and include a lot of false starts and dead ends.  Programmes like Making All Voices Count, backed by funders who are both proponents of transparency and strongly results-based in orientation, are investing considerably in building more evidence on whether it’s so and, when so, how it happens.  But in this field marked by frenetic aid, philanthropic, entrepreneurial and surveillance activity, let’s not leapfrog over the questions of what is being pursued under the heading of ‘transparency’, who is promoting it, and why.

10 comments

  1. An interesting range of views and I was really glad that Rakesh Rajani raised structural inequalities and power imbalances. Too often these debates fall down a technocratic black hole where the context in which people live is ignored. The assumption is that if the technological solutions exist, people will be able to use them, just like the assumptions that if the right services are provided, people will be able or want to access them, forgetting that people often choose not to if they feel intimidated, discriminated against, or humiliated. CAFOD recently learnt through participatory research that people want to be able to participate in the decisions that affect their lives, but that this means challenging the barriers of discrimination and oppression, much more than creating app that doesn’t change the structures of power in which they operate.

  2. Given the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, this post resonated strongly with us at Sunlight. This perspective presented by your experts throws into relief how entirely ineffective it is when institutions give lip service to transparency without actually supporting its implementation or enforcement.

    We continued the conversation on this post over at our own blog: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/04/08/continuing-oxfams-conversation-on-the-limits-of-transparency/

  3. People care about justice, they don’t care about the way you use to get it. Technology it’s the automation of a formal process, it’s not a solution by himself but integrate into a system that include the human participation.

    Behind technology and innovation is always human, the problems come from human and the problem have to be solve by human. With the huge amount of money spent during the last election in Kenya and with the great use of technology can we said the elections was fair? In the middle of the counting of votes the automatic system breakdown and they restart counted vote manual by transport all the ballots to Nairobi, and the victory of Kenyatta was a big surprise for a lot of Kenyan.

    Technology is a tool, as a knife you can use to cut a bread or use it to kill someone. We can have a lot of good and bad examples of use of technology but at the end we cannot judge technology but the man behind the technology.

  4. Hey, where’s the debate on this one!??? Four measly responses, OK, 5, with mine :-)

    A key issue that we (the International Budget Partnership) is coming across is “transparency about what”. So we would do well to think more about who defines transparency and for what. Government initiated transparency generally releases highly aggregated information. Citizen-led demands for transparency are often campaign based and ask for more fine grained information not routinely released by government. For example: While South Africa has one of the most transparent budgets in the world, local governments do not release the information needed to monitor, say, contracts with private sanitation service providers. And its exactly that sort of information that citizen led campaigns need to hold governments to account.

    We may have been asking an incomplete question: The question is not only how do we get governments to release info, but also what kind of information do citizens need to hold government to account.

    1. I appreciate this comment about and would take it a step further. Recently we (Partners for Democratic Change) have been testing the hypothesis that not only do citizens need access to more fine grained types of information to hold governments to account but so do government reformers who want to: determine if they are getting the best value for money in their service contracts, to better understand if their reforms are having the intended results, to figure out if they are reaching the citizens they intended to reach with services. With partners in Nigeria and Sierra Leone we are working with 5 government agencies to see if this collaborative approach can improve the flow of high quality and useful information for both groups.

  5. Increased transparency can lead to improved behaviour or practices (for those who know they are watched) or citizens agency (for those using the information to demand accountability). As the experts have rightly concluded, this is not often and not likely happening.
    My worry then is that increased transparency (and information) coupled with impunity leads at best to apathy and at worst to frustrations of citizens. How to channel and capture that could well be a key challenge for development agencies.

  6. Corruption Watch is a two year old South African NGO whose objective is to encourage and enable public participation in combatting corruption. We have taken a fairly heavy bet on online and social media platforms as instruments for affecting communication between ourselves and the public, between the public and those in ‘authority’ and between members of the public themselves. Coming from a background of union organisation through the ’70s and ’80s it would seem to me to be worse than dumb not to use the massive opportunities for public communication, public mobilisation and public education that ‘new media’ offers. And it seems equally foolhardy not to recognise that ‘new media’ represents not only new platforms or technologies but new modes of consuming and imparting information and new languages. All this is particularly true if you aspire to communicate with people who are under the age of say 30 years (a particularly important developing country demographic). And so we are intent on getting our ‘new media’ platforms working, something that is proving more difficult than the geeks assured us would be the case. But that having been said, we are intent on not relying on ‘new media’ platforms. We do an enormous amount of old media work – print, radio and television – and we do as much ‘old’ organisation stuff (eg townhall meetings, school debating competition, collaboration with other NGOs) as our slender resources permit. It seems to me that the trick is to get right the complementarities and interfaces between ‘new’ communications platforms, ‘old’ communications platforms and ‘traditional’ methods of organising, the better to leverage the impact of each.

Leave a comment