Daily Times

Most citizens pay taxes that fund government programs and services. Most of the taxpayers’ money is spent on administration. They spend money on the executive departments, judiciary, and legislature. In addition to paying for these branches, they spend money on social services, education, infrastructure, and other development projects. Unfortunately, no one knows whether these branches or projects are run effectively and efficiently. That is, are the people getting their money’s worth?

No one knows where the taxpayer’s money is going; how does one know if one is getting something that will benefit the nation or not? The only way to decide the benefit of any money spent is transparency. That is, people have a right to know what their government is doing, and the government has an obligation to provide that information.

The failure to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of any government activity is due to the lack of information on the performance of those activities as well as a lack of objectivity for any spending by government branches and projects. Therefore, no one can evaluate anything without having a clearly defined goal and relevant information. In well-run businesses, every activity has a clearly defined goal, plan on how to achieve it, and the resources needed to implement it. Sadly, most government activities are conducted by a seat-of-the-pants approach. That is, someone decides to initiate a project, and without any plan or thoughtful process, they start it without a proper plan and deadline. Even if they have a plan, most of it is not based on objective criteria. As a result, projects always result in cost overruns and missed deadlines. Therefore, project managers or bureaucrats can always get away with an excuse that unforeseen conditions caused these problems. These problems could have been easily predicted if they had taken the time to use a scientific method of project management.

The problem is common in many countries as departments, branches, and projects are managed by bureaucrats who are mostly unqualified, corrupt, and lazy.

One way to overcome some of the problems in government is to have performance measures. Public performance measures and reporting are essential for enhancing transparency and accountability as well as internal management and monitoring. Reporting of performance measures increases trust and confidence in the government. Further, proper reporting justifies the value of the public programs, strengthens public confidence in government, and ensures better use of public resources.

Transparency in government is not new. John Adams, second president of the United States, wrote, “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right and a desire to know.” Likewise, Judith Zaffirini has said, “Open government is critical to an informed public, and an informed public is critical to democracy.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in his 1932 article, “What Publicity Can Do,” that “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”

In other words, a healthy system of government is an open government that allows all who desire to know to find the information they are seeking.

Most people take for granted that transparency is a prerequisite to good government. President Obama (2009) said, “Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their government is doing. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government.”

Most citizens want transparency. In a recent study by the Association of Government Accountants (AGA), approximately 75% of participants surveyed wanted the government financial management information; 71% of respondents said that information would help them make informed choices at the ballot box.

The push for transparency is one of the most impressive political goals of our time. But will the growing hope that transparency alone can improve our societies be enough to rebuild trust in institutions?

Transparency is the new political weapon wanted by a majority of activists and an increasing number of governments. The transparency requirement can be easily met by a combination of new technologies, including publicly accessible data using the Internet. The access will effectively assist people in holding their representatives to account, resulting in the rebuilding of trust in democratic institutions.

Government transparency should mean placing all financial and public information online in an easy-to-use, readily understandable system. Such a system would allow taxpayers to see clearly how civil servants are spending tax money and would enable citizens to hold their elected officials accountable.

Trust in government is related to socioeconomic and demographic factors and citizens’ perceptions of local government (Dehoog, Lowery, & Lyons, 1990), but the citizens’ trust in government performance may be contingent on the nature or type of reporting source.

Ryzin and Lavena (2013) found that citizens in higher socioeconomic classes are more skeptical of government information. That is, compared to lower-income citizens, citizens with higher-income, higher education, and better living conditions consider government-issued performance reports less credible than identical reports issued by non-government sources (including anonymous sources). Higher-income people may likely trust the government less or at least are more willing to express doubts about government information. However, they might be less trusting of their actual local government, whether because of direct experiences or for other reasons. However, if a government wants to be trusted, it must provide information on its activities.

Many methods can help ensure transparency, e.g., freedom of information acts, televised debates, and published government audits; these can be modified to modernize transparency. The Internet is the perfect platform for making information available that can be accessed by millions of citizens.

A government that puts all financial and public information online in real or nearly real-time and in an organized, searchable, and sharable manner is considered transparent. The information does provide a much-needed check and balance against corruption and misuse of government assets while at the same time revealing trends, showing mistakes that have occurred, and offering solutions to problems that the government officials may not have seen.

Transparency allows for accountability that exposes problems, but left unchecked, it is prone to corruption. The Interim Committee of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in its September 1996 Declaration, stated, “it is essential to enhance the transparency of fiscal policy by persevering with efforts to reduce off-budget transactions and quasi-fiscal deficits.”

Even though transparency is a good idea, most governments, specifically those in developing countries, do not have full transparency. The reasons are corruption, incompetence, fear of being exposed, and unwillingness to change. Woodrow Wilson once claimed, “If you want to make enemies, try to change something.” Thus, transparency movements are mostly opposed by the people who have the most to lose: politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists who have something to hide.

However, public officials are politicians who always want to present a positive image of themselves and their departments and projects. Bohte & Meier (2000) and Hood (2006) suggest that government agencies and their employees sometimes cheat or game performance measurement systems to hide their shortcomings and exaggerate their accomplishments. If that happens, they will lose the trust of their citizens.

Stendebach (2010) said, “Unfortunately, such transparency advancements are the kind of good-government reform that is routinely greeted with opposition. You see, wherever there’s government, there’s a politics-as-usual crowd – some call it the Good Ol’ Boy system – which stands in the way of reform. There are bureaucrats, lobbyists, and career politicians who prefer the status quo. They neither seek nor accept change because they get their power from the current system. They view any attempt to reform government as an intrusion onto their turf.”

According to Alford (2001) and Dalton (2005), confidence and trust in government have been declining. Chanley, Rudolph, and Rahn (2000) suggest that a lack of trust in government could be due to various political factors, e.g., political scandals and public perceptions of the economy and crime. The lack of trust because citizens are skeptical about the information and communications coming from the government. Given this general public distrust, it may be difficult to determine whether citizens will fully accept and believe the performance information that governments release publicly, even when it is done openly and honestly.

Transparency movements want transparent and easily-accessible information. They do not want to expose government secrets or sensitive non-public information; they want governments to put public-information, as required by the law, online in a timely manner that can be searched in real-time. Unfortunately, some government data, if any, are available in spreadsheets, which are not easily searchable or timely. That makes it harder to organize the data in a form that can help citizens get useful information about government spending.

With the available information technology, the government has no reason not to provide its fiscal business for public scrutiny. Elected officials and governments are civil servants who work for the public and should report all helpful information online in a timely manner. Since most government agencies are failing to provide timely, easily accessible information to the public, they are failing the transparency test. As a result, they are not trusted.

The push for transparency is one of the most impressive political goals of our time. But will the growing hope that transparency alone can improve our societies be enough to rebuild trust in institutions? It depends on how much information is provided, in what form, how timely, and how reliable. If information fails to meet these criteria, then it will not be transparent and will fail to generate trust. Therefore, it is up to the governments to decide whether they wanted to be trusted or keep on misleading the public and never win their trust. It is an easy question with an easy answer.

The writer is Ph.D. (USA), Professor Emeritus (USA)