Skip to content

Grimmelikhuijsen et al. 2013 – The Effect of Transparency on Trust in Government

In brief

The article compares the effect of government transparency on citizens' trust in the Netherlands and South Korea, using two similar series of three experiments with students (p. 575) [U]. The authors expected differences because the countries differ in cultural values (power distance and long-term orientation, after Hofstede) (p. 575) [U]. Results show similar patterns in both countries: transparency has a subdued and sometimes negative effect on trust, but the negative effect is much stronger in South Korea (p. 575) [U]. The main lesson is that officials should ‘expect no wonders from transparency’ (p. 584) [U].

Research question and main claim

  • Research question: to what extent does a country's national culture affect the relationship between transparency and trust in government organisations (p. 576) [U]?
  • Hypotheses: transparency has a stronger negative / less positive effect on trust in cultures with high power distance (H1) and high long-term orientation (H2) (p. 580) [U].
  • Both hypotheses are rejected, but the results have important implications (p. 583) [U].
  • Transparency appears to fit better with cultures that are short-term oriented and have low power distance (p. 583) [U].

Theoretical perspective

  • Literature on government transparency: ‘transparency optimists’ (Hood) vs. ‘transparency pessimists’ (O'Neill, Bannister and Connolly) (pp. 575, 577) [U].
  • Computer-mediated transparency (Meijer) (p. 575) [U].
  • Trust: Rousseau et al.'s cross-disciplinary definition, and trustworthiness as competence, benevolence and honesty (p. 577) [U].
  • Hofstede's dimensions of national culture, with discussion of criticisms (Geertz, DiMaggio) (pp. 578–579) [U].

Empirical material and context

  • Three experiments in each country with students: 381 in the Netherlands and 279 in South Korea (p. 580) [U].
  • The Dutch experiments concerned local air pollution policy; the Korean experiments concerned national identity-theft prevention (p. 581) [U].
  • In South Korea, identity theft is a widespread problem, and the legislature passed a Privacy Act in 2011 (p. 581) [U].

Method

  • Cross-national comparison combined with experiments: participants were randomly assigned to websites with different degrees and types of transparency, then answered a questionnaire on perceived competence, benevolence and honesty (pp. 576, 580–582) [U].
  • Analysis with MANCOVA and ANCOVA, controlling for gender, age and political preference (p. 582) [U].

Key concepts

Concept How the source defines or uses it Page U/T
transparency The availability of information about an organisation that allows external actors to monitor its internal workings or performance 576 U
computer-mediated transparency Transparency through ICT and the internet 575–576 U
decision-making / policy / policy outcome transparency Three objects of transparency 576–577 U
completeness / colour / usability Three dimensions of transparent information 576 U
trust (Rousseau et al.) A psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations 577 U
competence / benevolence / honesty Three dimensions of perceived trustworthiness 577 U
power distance / long-term orientation Hofstede's cultural dimensions 578–580 U

How privacy and private data are understood

  • Not a theme. Privacy appears only as context: the Korean experiments were about identity theft, and South Korea passed a Privacy Act in 2011 (p. 581) [U].
  • The article focuses on information, not data, and distinguishes the two (p. 584, n. 1) [U].

Arguments and findings

  • Transparency is often seen as preventing corruption and contributing to legitimacy; some even see it as a human right (p. 575) [U].
  • In South Korea, all three types of transparency significantly reduced perceived competence; in the Netherlands, only negative policy outcomes did so (pp. 582–583) [U].
  • Transparency had no significant effect on perceived honesty or benevolence in either country (p. 583) [U].
  • Negative effects of transparency appear more pronounced than positive ones; ‘trust comes on foot and goes away on horseback’ (Kampen et al.) (p. 584) [U].
  • An alternative explanation is that the Dutch are used to open government and a free press, and are therefore less sensitive to new information (p. 584) [U].

Limitations the source itself mentions

  • The samples are students from top universities, not representative of the population (pp. 580, 584) [U].
  • Policy topics and levels of government differ between the countries (p. 581) [U].
  • Hofstede's work has known limitations (p. 578) [U].
  • Results should be interpreted with caution (p. 584) [U].

What the source does not cover

  • Norway [T].
  • Personal data or privacy as such [T].

Possible relevance for the thesis

  • If Norwegian documents present transparency as a way to build trust in the state's use of data, this article suggests the effect is limited and can even be negative [T].
  • The Netherlands as a low-power-distance, open-government country is arguably closer to Norway than South Korea; that comparison is Rebekka's to make [T].
  • The definitions of transparency and trust are useful for clarifying concepts [T].

Connections to other sources

Key quotes

“Transparency is now proposed as the solution to one of the most intangible problems of democratic governance: citizens’ increasing mistrust of government.” (p. 575)

“transparency has a subdued and sometimes negative effect on trust in government. However, the negative effect in South Korea is much stronger.” (p. 575)

“transparency is the availability of information about an organization or actor that allows external actors to monitor the internal workings or performance of that organization.” (p. 576)

“The main lesson is that public officials and political leaders should expect no wonders from transparency. It is no magic or universal cure for trust in government.” (p. 584)

Open questions for Rebekka

  • Do Norwegian documents assume that transparency about data use will strengthen trust?
  • Is the Netherlands a meaningful comparison for Norway, given the findings?
  • Is this source for you mainly about transparency, about trust, or about method (experiments)?