Transparency in the digital age: The role of technology in facilitating the building of trust in public institutions

Autorët

  • Dritan Taulla Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tirana.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55312/op.v17i1.7277

Abstract

The use of technology can play a key role in improving transparency and accountability in the digital age, as well as facilitating the strengthening of citizens’ trust in public institutions, providing easy access to information and data for citizens, media and civil society organizations. This study examines the relationship between data availability on three key dimensions of the Global Data Barometer 2022 (GDB) - political integrity, public finances, and public procurement - and Transparency International’s 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). The data was from 106 countries. Consistent with expectations, political integrity exhibited a moderate correlation with the perception of corruption; the higher the political integrity, the less corrupt the country was perceived to be. In contrast, the correlations between CPI and data availability on public finance and public procurement were weak, although these areas are traditionally considered more exposed to corruption. Although the study does not enable the identification of a cause-and-effect relationship, the results suggest that the integrity of political and institutional actors may have more weight in building trust in institutions than transparency on the administration of public revenues. In this context, the use of technology to provide open data, to build interactive platforms for public consultation, or to automate asset declaration systems, is presented as an important instrument for the democratization of information. However, while technology can contribute to creating a more favorable climate for accountability and increasing public trust, it must be accompanied by political will and clear institutional commitment to share complete, accessible in real time and, preferably, machine-readable data.

Keywords:

Digital technology, institutional transparency, open data, political integrity, public finance, public procurement, corruption, accountability, open governance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. 1. Adam, I., Fazekas, M., & Tóth, B. (2020). Measuring the benefits of open contracting: Case studies on Mexico, Paraguay, and Slovakia. GTI-WP/2020:01, Government Transparency Insti-tute. Retrieved from: https://www.govtransparency.eu/measuring-the-benefits-of-open-contract-ing-case-studies-on-mexico-paraguay-and-slovakia/, 4 January 2025.

  2. 2. Andersson, S., & Heywood, P. M. (2009). The politics of perception: Use and abuse of Transparen-cy International’s approach to measuring corruption. Political Studies, 57(4), 746-767. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00758.x.

  3. 3. Bauhr, M., & Grimes, M. (2014). Indignation or resignation: The implications of transparency for

  4. societal accountability. Governance, 27(2), 291-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gove.12033.

  5. 4. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001.

  6. 5. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x.

  7. 6. Donchev, D., & Ujhelyi, G. (2014). What do corruption indices measure? Economics & Politics,

  8. 26(2), 309-331. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.12037.

  9. 7. Fazekas, M., Tóth, I. J., & King, L. P. (2013). Corruption manual for beginners: Corruption tech-niques in public procurement with examples from Hungary. Corruption Research Center Budapest Working Papers, CRCB-WP/2013:01. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2333354.

  10. 8. Fox, J. (2007). The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability. Development

  11. in Practice, 17(4-5), 663-671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614520701469955.

  12. 9. Fung, A., Graham, M., & Weil, D. (2007). Full disclosure: The perils and promise of transparency. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9780521699617.

  13. 10. Global Data Barometer (2022). First Edition Report – Global Data Barometer. ILDA. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6488349.

  14. 11. Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Porumbescu, G., Hong, B., & Im, T. (2013). The effect of transparency on trust in government: A cross-national comparative experiment. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 575-586. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12047.

  15. 12. Gurstein, M. B. (2011). Open data: Empowering the empowered or effective data use for everyone?

  16. First Monday, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i2.3316.

  17. 13. Hameed, F. (2005). Fiscal transparency and economic outcomes. IMF Working Paper, ËP/05/225. Retrieved from: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/ëp/2005/ëp05225.pshl, 6 Mars 2024.

  18. 14. Heald, D. (2006). Varieties of transparency. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency: The key

  19. to better governance? (pp. 25-43). Oxford University Press.

  20. 15. 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. https://doi.or g/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740.

  21. 16. Kenny, C., & Karver, J. (2012). Publish what you buy: The case for routine publication of gov-ernment contracts. CGD Policy Paper, 011. Retrieved from: https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/ files/1426431_file_Kenny_Publish_Ëhat_You_Buy_FINAL_0.pshl, 30 September 2024.

  22. 17. Knack, S. (2006). Measuring corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: A critique of the cross-country indicators. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3968.

  23. 18. Kosack, S., & Fung, A. (2014). Does transparency improve governance? Annual Review of Politi-cal Science, 17, 65-87. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-032210-144356.

  24. 19. Lambsdorff, J. G. (2007). The institutional economics of corruption and reform: Theory, evidence

  25. and policy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511492617.

  26. 20. Marijn, J., Zuiderwijk, A., & Gascó, M. (2018). Open data for innovation: Shifting from the reac-tive use of open data to the proactive use. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 10(1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v13i2.666.

  27. 21. Meijer, A. J., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: Connecting vi-

  28. sion and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10-29. https://doi. org/10.1177/0020852311429533.

  29. 22. Norris, P., & van Es, A. A. (Eds.). (2016). Checkbook elections? Political finance in comparative

  30. perspective. Oxford University Press.

  31. 23. Noveck, B. S. (2015). Smart citizens, smarter state: The technologies of expertise and the future of

  32. governing. Harvard University Press.

  33. 24. Park, H., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2011). The roles of transparency and trust in the relationship between

  34. corruption and citizen satisfaction. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 254-

  35. 274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311399230.

  36. 25. Porumbescu, G. A. (2017). Linking transparency to trust in government and voice. The American

  37. Review of Public Administration, 47(5), 520-537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015607301.

  38. 26. Rothstein, B. (2011). The quality of government: Corruption, social trust, and inequality in inter-national perspective. University of Chicago Press.

  39. 27. Svensson, J. (2005). Eight questions about corruption. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3),

  40. 19-42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005774357860.

  41. 28. Transparency International. (2022). Corruption Perception Index 2022. Transparency International.

  42. 29. Valgarðsson, V., Jennings, W., Stoker, G., Bunting, H., Devine, D., McKay, L., & Klassen, A. (2025). A Crisis of Political Trust? Global Trends in Institutional Trust from 1958 to 2019. British Journal of Political Science, 55, e15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123424000498

  43. 30. Vargas, G. A., & Schlutz, D. (2016). Opening public officials’ coffers: A quantitative analysis of the impact of financial disclosure regulation on national corruption levels. European Journal on Crimi-nal Policy and Research, 22(3), 439-475. https:/doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9320-3.

  44. 31. Vetrò, A., Canova, L., Torchiano, M., Minotas, C. O., Iemma, R., & Morando, F. (2016). Open data quality measurement framework: Definition and application to Open Government Data. Govern-ment Information Quarterly, 33(2), 325-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.02.001.

  45. 32. Wehner, J., & de Renzio, P. (2013). Citizens, legislators, and executive disclosure: The political de-terminants of fiscal transparency. World Development, 41, 96-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.world-dev.2012.06.005.

  46. 33. Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2014). Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A frame-work for comparison. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 17-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. giq.2013.04.003.

  47. 34. Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., Choenni, S., Meijer, R., & Alibaks, R. S. (2012). Socio-technical impediments of open data. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 10(2), 156-172. Retrieved from: https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejeg/article/vieë/571, 5 March 2025.

Downloads

Published

2025-06-01

How to Cite

Taulla, D. (2025). Transparency in the digital age: The role of technology in facilitating the building of trust in public institutions. Optime, 17(1), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.55312/op.v17i1.7277

Numër

No. 1 (2025): Optime

Section

Social Sciences