After five years of working experience in the open government promotion in Ecuador and learning about community-based monitoring at the IOB, this year, it was inevitable for me not to notice the similarities and differences between these two concepts. Moreover, I put forward the idea that the interaction of differences between open government and community-based monitoring could result in benefits and learnings for local governance.
In 2009, Barack Obama, signed the Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, ordering public agencies to act under the principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration to benefit from the collective knowledge and increase the effectiveness of their performance (Obama, 2009). This idea was later presented before the UN General Assembly. The Open Government Partnership (OGP) was then launched two years later by 8 governments (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, the UK, the USA, and South Africa) and 9 Civil Society Organizations (Fraundorfer, 2016; Piotrowski, 2017; Weinstein, 2013). The initiative rapidly increased its state membership, reaching 78 countries, that periodically co-create and implement, along with civil society, bi-annual action plans, indicating specific and measurable commitments that are reviewed by an independent mechanism (Open Government Partnership, n.d). In 2016 OGP’s local program was launched, motivated by the idea that local governments are closer to citizens in the provision of public services. The local program has also grown from 20 to 80 local jurisdictions, but with two variations from the national program: flexibility in the duration of action plans, and the required support of at least one local civil society organization to join the initiative (Open Government Partnership, n.d.).
Parallelly, CBM emerged from the integration into the academia of local and indigenous observations to validate traditional research, better understand the changes in natural resources and the environment (Gofman, 2010), and adopt a more holistic approach to poverty reduction and other development fields (Reyes & Due, 2009). The World Bank played a key role in this shift by publishing its World Development Reports in 1990 and 2000 and incorporating different poverty dimensions, the importance of targeting the poor in policy making, and Amartya Sen’s concept of capabilities (Reyes & Due, 2009).
Open government (OG) and community-based monitoring (CBM) share common motivations namely, capturing the emic view fostering government effectiveness, responding to citizens’ needs, community empowerment, and lowering decision-making process costs. Yet, there are several differences between these two concepts. Moreover, if implemented together, a combination of both concepts could yield multiple benefits and provide insightful and lessons for local governance. This blog therefore proposes recommendations for researchers and practitioners in both arenas, as well as state and civic duty bearers, based on a comparative analysis.
On the concept of Community-based Monitoring
CBM can be understood from two perspectives. In the academic field, CBM is located within the concept of citizen or community science and refers to the involvement of citizens as researchers in programs coordinated by professional scientists (Conrad & Hilchey, 2011; Danielsen, et al., 2008). From this perspective, it can be defined as the “gathering of information by local residents over a period of time” (Gofman, 2010, p. 6) to validate the results produced with conventional research methods or synthesize different types of knowledge (Gofman, 2010).
Following the governance and policy-making perspective, the CBM definition is broader, based on the concepts of social accountability, and underlining the importance of citizen engagement and collective action, especially at the local level (Centro de Estudios Sociales; United Cities and Local Governments; OIDP). Authors in this area understand CBM as a process that involves different stakeholders, like government agencies, citizens, community groups, the productive sector, and the academia, in the monitoring of issues or resources of common concern (Centro de Estudios Sociales; United Cities and Local Governments; OIDP; Conrad & Hilchey, 2011; Kouril, Furgal, & Whillans, 2016).
Despite the existence of social accountability literature, CBM has no common theoretical base. The CBM literature entails a wide range of research projects collected and analyzed by authors to present different categorizations of what CBM initiatives look like in practice, based on activities (Centro de Estudios Sociales; United Cities and Local Governments; OIDP), methods (Gofman, 2010), types of assessments (Conrad & Hilchey, 2011), and the level of citizen participation (Conrad & Hilchey, 2011; Danielsen, et al., 2008; Kouril, Furgal, & Whillans, 2016). Each category has its advantages and disadvantages in terms of internal and external costs, required expertise, capacity building, accuracy and precision, decision-making time, and scalability (Danielsen, et al., 2008).
On the concept of Open Government
The origins of open government are largely debated in the literature. There are records of academic work since the 1950´s (Hansson, Belkacem, & Ekenberg, 2014; Valenzuela Mendoza, 2013). Yet, authors relate the concept to some of the main characteristics of the modern state, like citizen participation, social exchange, and legitimacy (Calderón & Lorenzo, 2010), as well as to historical hits like the American Revolution in the 18th century, the Athenaeum Club in London in the 19th century (Noveck, 2010; Wirtz & Birkmeyer, 2015), the Water Gate Scandal, and the 1970´s economic and political crisis in the United Kingdom (Criado, Ruvalcaba-Gómez, & Valenzuela-Mendoza, 2018). The global expansion of the internet, the e-government, and the New Public Management have largely contributed to the popularization of OG (Calderón & Lorenzo, 2010; Estermann, 2018; Noveck, 2010; Wirtz & Birkmeyer, 2015). However, the most recent and clear precedent is the adoption of this term by Barack Obama, which resulted in the creation and expansion of OGP. OG is now seen as a governance model under the pillars of transparency, citizen participation, and collaboration, and is translated into initiatives following OGP´s methodology (Ponce, 2022).
Similarities, differences, and mutual learnings
The first divergence between the concepts is that on the one hand, the development of OG follows a deductive (general to specific) approach, starting with theories on the importance of transparency and citizen participation, moving to the adoption of the term by Obama´s administration and the creation of OGP, which proposes a standardized methodology reflected in national and local action plans with specific commitments. On the other hand, CBM has been developed with an inductive approach (specific to general). In this approach, CBM’s definition and categorization builds on evidence in literature. However, some CBM initiatives such as the Community-Based Monitoring System, created to measure poverty in the Philippines and then expanded mainly to Asian countries have also been institutionalized (although on a much smaller scale than OGP) (Reyes & Due, 2009).
The institutionalization of OGP attracted government funding and allowed for experience sharing, extending the OG interventions to the global scale
Nevertheless, institutionalization may result in a disconnection with the local components. Despite the OGP’s flexibility to co-create action plans and commitments, its evaluation methodology designates a local researcher and applies standardized criteria imposed by a panel of experts. This methodology can discourage governments and civil society as locally designed commitments might be poorly evaluated, even when they result from a wide participatory process. In the case of CBM, this issue might also be found in projects led by international development agencies. On the contrary, completely autonomous evaluation processes are often unregistered and, therefore do not contribute to development discussion and are harder to scale up (Kouril, Furgal, & Whillans, 2016). With these considerations, local governance could benefit from standardized approaches.
OG and CBM also vary based on the milieu of their application. OGP´s current policy areas include anti-corruption, health, education, extractive industries, gender, public contracting, and justice (Open Government Partnership, n.d), establishing alliances with international organizations to promote the adoption of commitments in specific sectors (Open Government Partnership, n.d.). In the case of CBM, approximately 80% of the literature corresponds to environmental sciences (Kouril, Furgal, & Whillans, 2016), although there is some research dealing with public services, basic needs, and poverty assessment, especially in the Global South (Centro de Estudios Sociales; United Cities and Local Governments; OIDP; Reyes & Due, 2009). There is no apparent reason why CBM research in other fields cannot increase in the way that OG initiatives have. Likewise, local governments should also adopt participatory approaches in all policy areas, although some subject specific variations are possible.
In terms of effectiveness, literature on CBM indicates that most of the time CBM gathers information which, unfortunately, is not always translated into informed policy development (Centro de Estudios Sociales; United Cities and Local Governments; OIDP; Conrad & Hilchey, 2011). In contrast, OG is an action-oriented concept barked by Obama’s critic of the passive role of states in international spaces (Weinstein, 2013). In this sense, the role OGP in the state is two-fold. On one hand, politicians benefit from the initiative´s funding opportunities, technical support, and experience exchange. On the other hand, the politicians are pressured by an Action Network including diplomatic channels (Open Government Partnership, n.d.), and thus, non-governmental actors benefit too. Additionally, researchers should pledge on the legitimacy component when convincing governments to use participatory processes, as citizens are more likely to support politicians if they feel that their insights have been taken into consideration.
OGP requires its members to incorporate civil society organizations in the process, however, often excludes the academia. Therefore, OGP-based policies are often tailored more towards social demands than on evidence and do not guarantee their effectiveness. In contrast, the inclusion of the academia in CBM initiatives aims to create a baseline and adopt evidence-based decisions. Similarly, following a multi-disciplinary approach, the CBM literature analyzes the limitations of citizen participation (Dewachter & Holvoet, 2017). Hence, while civil society can advocate for equally represented spaces, the inclusion of academia in OGP and local governance remains an urgent condition to better understand and solve local problems.
Finally, the two-year duration of OGP´s action plans has often been questioned (Berliner, Ingrams, & Piotrowski, 2021; Piotrowski, 2017), resulting in flexibility for the local program (Open Government Partnership, n.d.). In the case of CBM initiatives, there is no standardization in the projects’ duration. This is advantageous since the CBM initiatives are usually locally applied, for example in one village and are service/sector specific leading to better outcomes. Similarly, at the local governance level, few policies can be fitted into one specific period, most certainly not in one externally imposed. It is also recommended to start with pilot projects that are then scaled up both in terms of territory and services.
References
Berliner, D., Ingrams, A., & Piotrowski, S. J. (2021). Process effects of multistakeholder institutions: Theory and evidence from the Open Government Partnership. Regulation & Governance. doi:10.1111/rego.12430
Calderón, C., & Lorenzo, S. (2010). Open Government (1st ed.). Algón Editores.
Centro de Estudios Sociales & United Cities and Local Governments; OIDP. (n.d.). Basic Principles of Community-based Monitoring. Retrieved from https://www.uclg.org/en/media/news/basic-principles-community-based-monitoring
Conrad, C. C., & Hilchey, K. G. (2011). A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environ Monit Assess, 176, 273-291. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5
Criado, J. I., Ruvalcaba-Gómez, E. A., & Valenzuela-Mendoza, R. (2018). Revisiting the Open Government Phenomenon. A Meta-Analysis of the International Literature. Journal of democracy & open government, 10(1), 50-81. doi:2075-9517
Danielsen, F., Burgess, N. D., Balmford, A., Donald, P. F., Funder, M., Jones, J. P., . . . ... Yonten, D. (2008). Local Participation in Natural Resource Monitoring: a Characterization of Approaches. Conservation Biology, 23(1), 31-42. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01063
Dewachter, S., & Holvoet, N. (2017). Intersecting social-capital and perceived-efficacy perspectives to explain underperformance in community-based monitoring. Evaluation, 23(3), 339-357. doi:10.1177/1356389017716740
Estermann, B. (2018). Development paths towards open government – an empirical analysis among heritage institutions. Government Information Quaterly, 35, 599-612. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2018.10.005
Fraundorfer, M. (2016). The Open Government Partnership: Mere Smokescreen or New Paradigm? Globalizations, 14(4), 611-626. doi:10.1080/14747731.2016.1236463
Gofman, V. (2010). Community-Based Monitoring Handbook. Lessons from the Artic and beyond. Conservation of Artic Flora and Fauna. CAFF International Secretariat. Retrieved from https://caff.is/monitoring-series/community-based-monitoring/9-community-based-monitoring-handbook-lessons-from-the-arctic-and-beyond
Hansson, K., Belkacem, K., & Ekenberg, L. (2014). Open Government and Democracy: A Research Review. Social Science Computer Review, 35(5), 540-555. doi:10.1177/0894439314560847
Kouril, D., Furgal, C., & Whillans, T. (2016). Trends and key elements in community-based monitoring: a systematic review of the literature with an emphasis on Arctic and Subarctic regions. Environmental Review, 24, 151-163. doi:10.1139/er-2015-0041
Noveck, B. S. (2010). The Single Point of Failure. In D. Lathorp, & L. Ruma, Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice (1 ed., pp. 51-72). O’Reilly Media, Inc. doi:978-0-596-80435-0
Obama, B. (2009). Transparency and Open Government: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/transparency-and-open-government
Open Government Partnership. (n.d.). Action Network. Retrieved from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/action-network/
Open Government Partnership. (n.d). Members. Retrieved from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/our-members/
Open Government Partnership. (n.d). Policy Areas. Retrieved from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/policy-areas/
Open Government Partnership. (n.d.). About OGP Local. Retrieved from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/ogp-local/about-ogp-local-program/
Open Government Partnership. (n.d.). Partnerships and Coalitions. Retrieved from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/partnerships-and-coalitions/
Piotrowski, S. J. (2017). The “Open Government Reform” Movement: The Case of the Open Government Partnership and U.S. Transparency Policies. American Review of Public Administration, 74(2), 155-171. doi:10.1177/0275074016676575
Ponce, C. (2022). Open Government: policy implications for development [Unpublished].
Reyes, C., & Due, E. (2009). Fighting Poverty with Facts: Community-Based Monitoring Systems. International Development Research Centre.
Valenzuela Mendoza, R. (2013). Delimitar Gobierno Abierto para ampliar la Colaboración con una Sociedad más Abierta. Estado, Gobierno, Gestión Pública, 21, 127-158. doi:0717-6759
Weinstein, J. (2013). Transforming Multilateralism: Innovation on a Global Stage. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Sponsored Supplement, 3-7.
Wirtz, B. W., & Birkmeyer, S. (2015). Open Government: Origin, Development, and Conceptual Perspectives. International Journal ofPublic Administration, 38, 381–396. doi:10.1080/01900692.2014.942735
Comentarios