State of Open Corporate Data: Wins and Challenges Ahead

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Sunlight Foundation: “For many people working to open data and reduce corruption, the past year could be summed up in two words: “Panama Papers.” The transcontinental investigation by a team from International Center of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) blew open the murky world of offshore company registration. It put corporate transparency high on the agenda of countries all around the world and helped lead to some notable advances in access to official company register data….

While most companies are created and operated for legitimate economic activity,  there is a small percentage that aren’t. Entities involved in corruption, money laundering, fraud and tax evasion frequently use such companies as vehicles for their criminal activity. “The Idiot’s Guide to Money Laundering from Global Witness” shows how easy it is to use layer after layer of shell companies to hide the identity of the person who controls and benefits from the activities of the network. The World Bank’s “Puppet Masters” report found that over 70% of grand corruption cases, in fact, involved the use of offshore vehicles.

For years, OpenCorporates has advocated for company information to be in the public domain as open data, so it is usable and comparable.  It was the public reaction to Panama Papers, however, that made it clear that due diligence requires global data sets and beneficial registries are key for integrity and progress.

The call for accountability and action was clear from the aftermath of the leak. ICIJ, the journalists involved and advocates have called for tougher action on prosecutions and more transparency measures: open corporate registers and beneficial ownership registers. A series of workshops organized by the B20 showed that business also needed public beneficial ownership registers….

Last year the UK became the first country in the world to collect and publish who controls and benefits from companies in a structured format, and as open data. Just a few days later, we were able to add the information in OpenCorporates. The UK data, therefore, is one of a kind, and has been highly anticipated by transparency skeptics and advocates advocates alike. So fa,r things are looking good. 15 other countries have committed to having a public beneficial ownership register including Nigeria, Afghanistan, Germany, Indonesia, New Zealand and Norway. Denmark has announced its first public beneficial ownership data will be published in June 2017. It’s likely to be open data.

This progress isn’t limited to beneficial ownership. It is also being seen in the opening up of corporate registers . These are what OpenCorporates calls “core company data”. In 2016, more countries started releasing company register as open data, including Japan, with over 4.4 million companies, Israel, Virginia, Slovenia, Texas, Singapore and Bulgaria. We’ve also had a great start to 2017 , with France publishing their central company database as open data on January 5th.

As more states have embracing open data, the USA jumped from average score of 19/100 to 30/100. Singapore rose from 0 to 20. The Slovak Republic from 20 to 40. Bulgaria wet from 35 to 90.  Japan rose from 0 to 70 — the biggest increase of the year….(More)”

Making the Case for Open Contracting in Healthcare Procurement

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Transparency International “…new report “Making the Case for Open Contracting in Healthcare Procurement”   examines the utility of open contracting in healthcare procurement. The process relies on governments to disclose procurement information to businesses and civil society improves stakeholders’ understanding of procurement processes increasing the integrity, fairness and efficiency of public contracting.

In several countries, including Honduras, Ukraine and Nigeria, corruption was significantly reduced throughout the healthcare procurement process following the implementation of open contracting, according to the report. Click here to download the report”

Citizens give feedback on city development via Tinder-style app

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Springwise: “CitySwipe is Downtown Santa Monica Inc’s opinion gathering app. The non-profit organization manages the center of the city and is using the app as part of the local government’s consultation on its Downtown Community Plan. The plan provides proposals for the area’s next 20 years of development and includes strategies for increased accessibility and affordable housing and improved public spaces.

The original plan had been to close the consultation period in early 2016 but in order to better reach and interact with as many locals as possible, the review was extended to early 2017. Like Tinder, users of the app swipe left or right depending on their views. Questions are either Yes or No or “Which do you prefer?” and each question is illustrated with a photo. There are 38 questions in total ranging from building design and public art to outdoor concerts and parking. Additional information is gathered by asking users to provide their location and preferred method of transport.

Mexico City recently conducted a city-wide consultation on its new constitution, and Oslo, Norway, is using an app to involve school children in redesigning safe public walkways and cycle paths….(More)”

Popular Democracy: The Paradox of Participation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Gianpaolo Baiocchi and Ernesto Ganuza: “Local participation is the new democratic imperative. In the United States, three-fourths of all cities have developed opportunities for citizen involvement in strategic planning. The World Bank has invested $85 billion over the last decade to support community participation worldwide. But even as these opportunities have become more popular, many contend that they have also become less connected to actual centers of power and the jurisdictions where issues relevant to communities are decided.

With this book, Gianpaolo Baiocchi and Ernesto Ganuza consider the opportunities and challenges of democratic participation. Examining how one mechanism of participation has traveled the world—with its inception in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and spread to Europe and North America—they show how participatory instruments have become more focused on the formation of public opinion and are far less attentive to, or able to influence, actual reform. Though the current impact and benefit of participatory forms of government is far more ambiguous than its advocates would suggest, Popular Democracy concludes with suggestions of how participation could better achieve its political ideals….(More)”

Harnessing the Power of Feedback Loops

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Thomas Kalil and David Wilkinson at the White House: “When it comes to strengthening the public sector, the Federal Government looks for new ways to achieve better results for the people we serve. One promising tool that has gained momentum across numerous sectors in the last few years is the adoption of feedback loops.  Systematically collecting data and learning from client and customer insights can benefit organizations across all sectors.

The collection of these valuable insights—and acting on them—remains an underutilized tool.  The people who receive services are the experts on their effectiveness and usefulness.  While the private sector has used customer feedback to improve products and services, the government and nonprofit sectors have often lagged behind.  User experience is a critically important factor in driving positive outcomes.  Getting honest feedback from service recipients can help nonprofit service providers and agencies at all levels of government ensure their work effectively addresses the needs of the people they serve. It’s equally important to close the loop by letting those who provided feedback know that their input was put to good use.

In September, the White House Office of Social Innovation and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) hosted a workshop at the White House on data-driven feedback loops for the social and public sectors.  The event brought together leaders across the philanthropy, nonprofit, and business sectors who discussed ways to collect and utilize feedback.

The program featured organizations in the nonprofit sector that use feedback to learn what works, what might not be working as well, and how to fix it. One organization, which offers comprehensive employment services to men and women with recent criminal convictions, explained that it has sought feedback from clients on its training program and learned that many people were struggling to find their work site locations and get to the sessions on time. The organization acted on this feedback, shifting their start times and providing maps and clearer directions to their participants.  These two simple changes increased both participation in and satisfaction with their program.

Another organization collected feedback to learn whether factory workers attend and understand trainings on fire evacuation procedures. By collecting and acting on this feedback in Brazil, the organization was able to help a factory reduce fire-drill evacuation time from twelve minutes to two minutes—a life-saving result of seeking feedback.

With results such as these in mind, the White House has emphasized the importance of evidence and data-driven solutions across the Federal Government.  …

USAID works to end extreme poverty in over 100 countries around the world. The Agency has recently changed its operational policy to enable programs to adapt to feedback from the communities in which they work. They did this by removing bureaucratic obstacles and encouraging more flexibility in their program design. For example, if a USAID-funded project designed to increase agricultural productivity is unexpectedly impacted by drought, the original plan may no longer be relevant or effective; the community may want drought-resistant crops instead.  The new, more flexible policy is intended to ensure that such programs can pivot if a community provides feedback that its needs have changed or projects are not succeeding…(More)”

Open Data Inventory 2016

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

“Open Data Watch is pleased to announce the release of the 2016 Open Data Inventory (ODIN). The new ODIN results provide a comprehensive review of the coverage and openness of official statistics in 173 countries around the world, including most OECD countries.  Featuring a methodology updated to reflect the latest international open data standards, ODIN 2016 results are fully available online at odin.opendatawatch.com, including interactive functions to compare year-to-year results from 122 countries.

ODIN assesses the coverage and openness of data provided on the websites maintained by national statistical offices (NSOs). The overall ODIN score is an indicator of how complete and open an NSO’s data offerings are. In addition to ratings of coverage and openness in twenty statistical categories, ODIN assessments provide the online location of key indicators in each data category, permitting quick access to hundreds of indicators.

ODIN 2016 Top Scores Reveal Gaps Between Openness and Coverage

In the 2016 round, the top scores went to high-income and OECD countries. Sweden was ranked first overall with a score of 81. Sweden was also the most open site, with an openness score of 91. Among non-OECD countries, the highest rank was Lithuania with an overall score of 77. Among non-high-income countries, Mexico again earned the highest ranking with a score of 67, followed by the lower-middle-income economies of Mongolia (61), and Moldova (59). Among low-income countries, Rwanda received the highest score of 55. ODIN overall scores are scaled from 0 to 100 and provide equal weighting for social, economic, and environmental statistics….

The new ODIN website allows users to compare and download scores for 2015 and 2016….(More)”

Results of early Open Government Partnership initiatives

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

The Open Government Partnership: “The search for these stories ended with finding seven very different reform initiatives in different regions and covering a broad range of open government topics.

In Costa Rica, we learn about how the government is using its participation in OGP to restart a process halted for 23 years to create a consultation mechanism that will allow indigenous groups to participate in all policy making decisions that affect them, and the results of the dialogue leading to an improvement in the delivery of public services.

The Chilean story documents how a 10-year campaign to regulate influence peddling was given a boost by an explicit commitment included in the first Chilean action plan to introduce legislation to regulate lobbying – a commitment since fulfilled. The resulting Lobbying Act sheds new light on the relationship between officials and influence groups and is beginning to democratize access to authorities.

Italy’s OpenCoesione and its spin-off initiatives show how top-down open data initiatives on public spending can be combined with bottom-up, data-driven monitoring to promote accountability and public participation in the policy-making process, including promoting civic engagement amongst school students.

The Tanzanian case study tells the story of how the “How Do I?” – or “Nifanyeje?” – website is making information on basic public services available to citizens and cutting down transaction times and costs, but it also highlights the need to still reach the last mile in a country where Internet penetration remains low.

Indonesia’s initiative to create a One Map portal with official base maps for the country, part of a much larger initiative of synchronizing various maps for the country that when completed could help resolve land-related conflicts and address illegal deforestation, shows technical progress and some improvements in inter-agency cooperation.

In Macedonia, we learn how opening up data on air quality has acted as an engine for civic activism and about short and medium-term policy options being implemented and explored by the relevant authorities as a result.

Finally, the case from Israel shows how collaboration between civil society and champions within the Parliament is helping make data on the state budget accessible to citizens, journalists, and the parliamentarians themselves.

Each story demonstrates measurable progress and the added value of the collaboration between government and civil society that is at the very heart of OGP. The stories also show the immense importance of political will, bureaucratic buy-in, adequate resourcing, and demand-side calls for accountability in ensuring that the reforms take root and continue into the future, so that their impact can be felt by a broader range of citizens. In that sense, the last chapter for each story is still to be written. In a majority of the cases, these commitments’ inclusion in the OGP National Action Plans gave prominence and momentum to the envisioned reforms, helping them along. We hope to be able to continue to track these reforms in the years to come….(More)”.

Developing transparency through digital means? Examining institutional responses to civic technology in Latin America

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Rebecca Rumbul at Journal of eDemocracy and Open Government: “A number of NGOs across the world currently develop digital tools to increase citizen interaction with official information. The successful operation of such tools depends on the expertise and efficiency of the NGO, and the willingness of institutions to disclose suitable information and data. It is this institutional interaction with civic technology that this study  examines. The research explores empirical interview data gathered from government officials, public servants, campaigners and NGO’s involved in the development and implementation of civic technologies in Chile, Argentina and Mexico. The findings identify the impact these technologies have had upon government bureaucracy, and the existing barriers to openness created by institutionalised behaviours and norms. Institutionalised attitudes to information rights and conventions are shown to inform the approach that government bureaucracy takes in the provision of information, and institutionalised procedural behaviour is shown to be a factor in frustrating NGOs attempting to implement civic technology….(More)”.

Global Standards in National Contexts: The Role of Transnational Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives in Public Sector Governance Reform

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Brandon Brockmyer: “Multi-stakeholder initiatives (i.e., partnerships between governments, civil society, and the private sector) are an increasingly prevalent strategy promoted by multilateral, bilateral, and nongovernmental development organizations for addressing weaknesses in public sector governance. Global public sector governance MSIs seek to make national governments more transparent and accountable by setting shared standards for information disclosure and multi- stakeholder collaboration. However, research on similar interventions implemented at the national or subnational level suggests that the effectiveness of these initiatives is likely to be mediated by a variety of socio-political factors.

This dissertation examines the transnational evidence base for three global public sector governance MSIs — the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative, and the Open Government Partnership — and investigates their implementation within and across three shared national contexts — Guatemala, the Philippines, and Tanzania — in order to determine whether and how these initiatives lead to improvements in proactive transparency (i.e., discretionary release of government data), demand-driven transparency (i.e., reforms that increase access to government information upon request), and accountability (i.e., the extent to which government officials are compelled to publicly explain their actions and/or face penalties or sanction for them), as well as the extent to which they provide participating governments with an opportunity to project a public image of transparency and accountability, while maintaining questionable practices in these areas (i.e., openwashing).

The evidence suggests that global public sector governance MSIs often facilitate gains in proactive transparency by national governments, but that improvements in demand-driven transparency and accountability remain relatively rare. Qualitative comparative analysis reveals that a combination of multi-stakeholder power sharing and civil society capacity is sufficient to drive improvements in proactive transparency, while the absence of visible, high-level political support is sufficient to impede such reforms. The lack of demand-driven transparency or accountability gains suggests that national-level coalitions forged by global MSIs are often too narrow to successfully advocate for broader improvements to public sector governance. Moreover, evidence for openwashing was found in one-third of cases, suggesting that national governments sometimes use global MSIs to deliberately mislead international observers and domestic stakeholders about their commitment to reform….(More)”

Power To The People! (And Settings for Using It Wisely?)

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Public Agenda: “From its inception in Brazil in 1989, participatory budgeting (PB) has incorporated, to varying degrees, both direct and deliberative democracy.

In deliberative democracy, citizens become informed about an issue, talk about their concerns and goals, weigh different policy options and find common ground. They may give policy input to public officials, develop action ideas for implementation by other people and organizations or work to implement ideas themselves, or they may engage in some combination of the three. Advocates of deliberative democracy believe in the potential of citizens to be effective learners, advisors and volunteers.

In direct democracy, people have the opportunity to vote on policy questions through initiatives and referenda. Advocates of direct democracy believe in the potential of citizens to be effective public decision makers.

This white paper examines the extent to which North American PB processes are applying deliberative principles and practices, explore the tensions and challenges in making PB more deliberative, suggest questions for further research and offer recommendations for public officials and practitioners for improving their PB processes.

Boosting deliberative engagement in PB processes could have a variety of benefits for communities. First, higher levels of deliberation might produce greater empathy among citizens who hold different opinions or value different things about their communities—and greater understanding between residents and city staff. Second, more deliberative discussions would be more likely to bring to the surface issues of race, religion, class, immigration status and other differences that are always influential but seldom addressed in public life. Finally, the budget ideas produced might be more likely to represent compromises between different groups or opinions, and they might inspire greater efforts by participants to help implement them, beyond the decision to allocate public money.

PB organizers might improve the level and quality of deliberation in their processes in a number of ways:

1. Be more explicit about the importance of deliberation in the process…

2. Ensure participants have the chance to share their stories…

3. Connect the PB process to a broader discussion of city and/or district goals and priorities…

This report is the companion to “Brazil Has Reduced Inequality, Incrementally—Can We Do the Same?,” which focuses on the intersection of PB and economic inequality. Both draw on the data gathered by local PB researchers and by Public Agenda; on local evaluations of PB processes; and on interviews with public officials, also conducted by Public Agenda…(More)”.