Paradoja y elite de transparencia. Un estudio de los compromisos de gobierno abierto de la Argentina

Mariano Mosquera

doi:10.32870/rc.vi8.172

Authors

Mariano Mosquera Catholic University of Cordoba, Argentina https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9037-545X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32870/rc.vi8.172

Keywords:

open government, transparency, elite, Argentina

Abstract

Open government, with its three pillars of transparency, collaboration, and participation, has experienced significant growth over the past fifteen years. Two predominant models of open government have set the course. One focuses on government accountability through specific citizen forums, while the other centers on the availability and accessibility of information that can be used by individuals or companies. The problem arises when these two models are combined imperfectly, creating what is known as the transparency paradox...

Author Biography

Mariano Mosquera, Catholic University of Cordoba, Argentina

Director of the MBA program and the Center for Bioethics at the Catholic University of Córdoba in Argentina. PhD in Political Science and Postdoctoral Fellow at FLACSO Chile. Professor and researcher in ethics, transparency, and anti-corruption at universities in Latin America, Spain, the United States, and China. He was a fellow at the Harvard University Center for Ethics and has worked for international organizations such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). He was a consultant for the National Anti-Corruption Office in Argentina. Author of two books and numerous scholarly articles.

References

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.

Aumann R. & Hart, S. (2003). Long cheap talk. Econometrica, 71(6), 1619–1660.

Austen-Smith, D. (1990). Information transmission in debate. Am J Political Sci, 34(1), 124–152.

Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2011). The trouble with transparency: A critical review of openness in e‐government. Policy & Internet, 3(1), 1–30.

Bazerman, M., & Chugh, D. (2006). Decisions without blinders. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 88–97.

Bovens, M. (2007). Analyzing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.

Bovens, M. (2010). Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2010.486119

Bovens, M. (1998). The quest for responsibility: Accountability and citizenship in complex organizations. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.

Christensen, L. & Cheney, G. (2015). Peering into transparency: Challenging ideals, proxies and organizational practices. Communication Theory, 25, 70–90.

Coulthard, M. (1996). On Analysing and Evaluating Written Text. En Coulthard, M. (Ed.). Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp. 219-228). Routledge.

Dassen, N. y Vieyra, J.C. (2023). Open government and targeted transparency: trends and challenges for Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington DC: IADB.

Dutta B. & Ray, D. (1989) A concept of egalitarianism under participation constraints. Econometrica, 57, 615–635.

Falco, E. & Kleinhans, R. (2018). Digital participatory platforms for co-production in urban development: A systematic review. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 7(3), 1-27.

Flores Kanter, P. & Mosquera, M. (2023). Conducta en investigación desde la ética de la transparencia: una discusión sobre las prácticas cuestionables en investigación. Ethos, 8, 3-16.

Floridi, L. (2004). Open problems in the philosophy of information. Metaphilosophy, 35, 554–582.

Floridi, L. (2006). The ontological interpretation of informational privacy. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(4), 185-200.

Florini, A. (2007). The right to know: Transparency for an open world. Nueva York: Columbia University Press.

Fox, J. (2007). The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability. Development in Practice, 17(4-5), 663–671.

Fountain, J. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Friedman, J. (1990). Game Theory with Applications to Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fung, A., Graham, M. y Weil, D. (2007). Full disclosure. The perils and promise of transparency. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gailmard, S. (2009). Multiple Principals and Oversight of Bureaucratic Policy Making. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 21, 161-186.

Gailmard, S. & Patty, J. (2007). Slackers and Zealots: Civil Service, Bureaucratic Discretion, and Policy Expertise. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 873-889.

Gailmard, S. & Patty, J. (2013). Learning While Governing: Expertise and Accountability in the Executive Branch. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gil García, J.R.; Gasco-Hernández, M. & Pardo, T.A. (2023). Making Sense of Open Government: A Conceptual Framework and Ideas for Future Research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 6, 80-93.

Grice, H. P. (1975). “Logic and conversation”. En Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). Londres: Academic Press.

Grimmelikkhuijsen, S. (2009). Do transparent government agencies strengthen trust? Information polity, 14(3), 173-186.

Harsanyi, J. (1968). Games with Incomplete Information Played by Bayesian Players: III. The Basic Probability Distribution of the Game. Management Science, March 14, 486–502.

Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. Londres: Allen & Unwin.

Janssen, K. (2012). Open government data and the right to information: Opportunities and obstacles. The Journal of Community Informatics, 8(2), 132-154.

Janssen, M.; Charalabidis, Y. & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258-268.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

Kolbe, R. y Burnett, M. (1991). Content Analysis Research: An examination of applications with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (18), 243-250.

Krippendorff, K. (1990). Metodología de Análisis de Contenido. Teoría y Práctica. Paidós Comunicación.

Lombard, M.; Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587-604.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x

Mabillard, V. & Zumofen, R. (2017). The complex relationship between transparency and accountability: A synthesis and contribution to existing frameworks. Public Policy and Administration, 32(2), 110-29. doi:10.1177/0952076716653651

Manski, C. F. (2013). Public Policy in an Uncertain World: Analysis and Decisions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Maxat, K. (2017). Understanding transparency of government from a Nordic perspective: open government and open data movement as a multidimensional collaborative phenomenon in Sweden. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 20(4), 236-275.

DOI: 10.1080/1097198X.2017.1388696

Moe, T. (1985). Control and Feedback in Economic Regulation: The Case of the NLRB. American Political Science Review, 79, 1094-1116.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O´Kelly, C., & Dubnick, M. (2023). Rendición de cuentas y sus metáforas: del foro al ágora y bazar. RC Rendición De Cuentas, (1). https://doi.org/10.32870/rc.v1i1.27

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peters, U. (2022). What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? Erkenn, 87, 1351-1376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00252-1

Ramírez, A. & Cruz-Rubio, C. N. (2025). ¿Se cumplió la promesa del gobierno abierto?: Balance de una década, aprendizajes y desafíos de futuro en Iberoamérica. Madrid: GIGAPP (Grupo de Investigación en Gobierno, Administración y Políticas Públicas, Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública).

Rose-Ackerman, S. (2016). Corruption and Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139962933

Rothstein, B. (2009). Anti-Corruption: A Big-Bang Theory. QoG Working Paper, 2007, 3. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1338614

Schillemans, T. (2013). “Moving beyond the clash of interests: New avenues in accountability research”. En M. Bovens, R.E. Goodin & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schnell, S. (2020). Vision, voice, and technology: Is there a global “open government” trend? Administration and Society, 52(10), 1593-1620.

Schnell, S., & Jo, S. (2019). Which countries have more open governments? Assessing structural determinants of openness. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(8), 944–956.

Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.

Sorensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector. Administration & Society, 43(8), 842–868. doi:10.1177/0095399711418768

Stohl, C.; Stohl, M. & Leonardi P. (2016). Managing Opacity: Information Visibility and the Paradox of Transparency in Digital Age. International Journal of Communication, 10(2016), 123–137.

Toulmin, S. (2003). Los usos de la argumentación. Barcelona: Península.

Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2014). Policy Implementation, Street-level Bureaucracy, and the Importance of Discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841978

Villoria, M. (2021). ¿Qué condiciones favorecen una transparencia pública efectiva? Artículo de revisión. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 194, 213-247. doi: https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rep.194.08

Waardenburg, M.; Groenleer, M.; De Jong, J. & Keijser, B. (2020). Paradoxes of collaborative governance: investigating the real-life dynamics of multi-agency collaborations using a quasi-experimental action-research approach, Public Management Review, 22(3), 386-407. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2019.1599056

Williamson, O. (2000). The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595-613. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.38.3.595

Wilkinson, M. D.; Dumontier, M. & Aalbersberg, I. et al. (2016). The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3(1), 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

Winter, E. (1986). Clause relations as information structure. En Coulthard, M. (Ed.). Talking about text (pp. 88-108). Birmingham: ELR.

Wirtz, B.W.; Weyerer, J.C. & Rösch, M. (2017). Open government and citizen participation: An empirical analysis of citizen expectancy towards open government data. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85.

doi: 10.1177/0020852317719996

Wolfsfeld, G., Yarchi, M., & Samuel-Azran, T. (2015). Political information repertoires and political participation. New Media & Society, 1–20. doi:10.1177/1461444815580413