Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Government Data Openness and Coverage. How do They Affect Trust in European Countries? Cover

Government Data Openness and Coverage. How do They Affect Trust in European Countries?

Open Access
|Jan 2021

References

  1. Alesina, A., & Ferrara, E.L. (2000). The determinants of trust (No. w7621). National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w7621
  2. Altayar, M.S. (2018). Motivations for open data adoption: An institutional theory perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 633–643. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.006
  3. Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
  4. Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
  5. Berelson, B. (1952). Democratic theory and public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 313–330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/266397
  6. Bollen, K.A., & Paxton, P. (2000). Subjective measures of liberal democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 33(1), 58–86.
  7. Bozeman, B., & Kingsley, G. (1998). Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 109–118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/976358
  8. Cangur, S., & Ercan, I. (2015). Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 14(1), 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1430453580
  9. Chun, S., Shulman, S., Sandoval, R., & Hovy, E. (2010). Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity, 15(1–2), 1–9.
  10. Drakos, K., Kallandranis, C., & Karidis, S. (2019). Determinants of trust in institutions in times of crisis: Survey-based evidence from the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(6), 1228–1246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12884
  11. Euro Area Business Cycle Dating Committee (2020) Available from: https://cepr.org/content/euro-area-business-cycle-dating-committee-announcements.
  12. European Parliament and Council of the EU (2003). Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2003/98/oj
  13. European Parliament and Council of the EU (2019). Directive (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1024/oj
  14. Gilbert, D., Balestrini, P., & Littleboy, D. (2004). Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e-government. International Journal of Public Sector Management. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550410539794
  15. Gonzálvez-Gallego, N., Nieto-Torrejón, L., & Pérez-Cárceles, M.C. (2020). Is open data an enabler for trust? Exploring the link and the mediating role of citizen satisfaction. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(14), 1218–1227. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1668412
  16. Grimmelikhuijsen, S.G. (2012). Transparency and trust. An experimental study of online disclosure and trust in government. Dissertation, Utrecht Univ.
  17. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2016). Monnet's error? Economic Policy, 31(86), 247–297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eiw003
  18. Harrison, T.M., Guerrero, S., Burke, G.B., Cook, M., Cresswell, A., Helbig, N., & Pardo, T. (2012). Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity, 17(2), 83–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-2012-0269
  19. Hix, S. (2013). What's Wrong with the Europe Union and How to Fix it. John Wiley & Sons.
  20. Hood, C. (2006). Transparency in historical perspective. In Transparency: The key to better governance?, Ed. Christopher Hood and David Heald, 3–23. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  21. Hooghe, M., & Marien, S. (2013). A comparative analysis of the relation between political trust and forms of political participation in Europe. European Societies, 15(1), 131–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2012.692807
  22. Hossain, M.A., Dwivedi, Y.K., & Rana, N.P. (2016). State-of-the-art in open data research: Insights from existing literature and a research agenda. Journal of organizational computing and electronic commerce, 26(1–2), 14–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2015.1124007
  23. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  24. Jackson, M.C. (2016). Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers. John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
  25. Janssen, M., & Kuk, G. (2016). Big and open linked data (BOLD) in research, policy, and practice. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(1–2), 3–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2015.1124005
  26. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740
  27. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
  28. MacCallum, R.C., & Hong, S. (1997). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(2), 193–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3202_5
  29. Martin, C. (2014). Barriers to the open government data agenda: Taking a multi-level perspective. Policy & Internet, 6(3), 217–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.POI367
  30. McDermott, P. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401–413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.002
  31. Meijer A. (2009). Understanding computer-mediated transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(2), 255–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0020852309104175
  32. Meijer, A. (2014). Government transparency in historical perspective: From the ancient regime to open data in the Netherlands. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(3), 189–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.934837
  33. Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2005). What are the political consequences of trust? A test of cultural and institutional theories in Russia. Comparative Political Studies, 38(9), 1050–1078. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414005278419
  34. Moss, G., & Coleman, S. (2014). Deliberative manoeuvres in the digital darkness: E-democracy policy in the UK. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16(3), 410–427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-856X.12004
  35. Muller, E.N., & Jukam, T.O. (1983). Discontent and aggressive political participation. British Journal of Political Science, 13(2), 159–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400003203
  36. Muñoz, J., Torcal, M., & Bonet, E. (2011). Institutional trust and multilevel government in the European Union: Congruence or compensation?. European Union Politics, 12(4), 551–574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116511419250
  37. O’Hara, K. (2012, June). Transparency, open data and trust in government: Shaping the infosphere. In Proceedings of the 4th annual ACM web science conference, 223–232.
  38. Open Data Watch (2019). Open data inventory 2018/2019. Methodology report. Available from: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ubPL1l_3im9bjlCVZ6W2ICAy6UAiXl1hGeA1aXImkxI/edit
  39. Parycek, P., Hochtl, J., & Ginner, M. (2014). Open government data implementation evaluation. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Eelectronic Commerce Research, 9(2), 80–99. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762014000200007
  40. Pereira, G.V., Macadar, M.A., Luciano, E.M., & Testa, M.G. (2017). Delivering public value through open government data initiatives in a Smart City context. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(2), 213–229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9673-7
  41. Porumbescu, G.A., & Park, Y. (2014). Examining the distinctiveness of antecedents to trust in government: Evidence from South Korea. African and Asian Studies, 13(3), 315–337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15692108-12341301
  42. Rigdon, E.E. (1996). CFI versus RMSEA: A comparison of two fit indexes for structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3(4), 369–379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519609540052
  43. Safarov, I., Meijer, A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2017). Utilization of open government data: A systematic literature review of types, conditions, effects and users. Information Polity, 22(1), 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-160012
  44. Savoldelli, A., Codagnone, C., & Misuraca, G. (2014). Understanding the e-government paradox: Learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption. Government Information Quarterly, 31, 63–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.008
  45. Schafheitle, S., Weibel, A., Meidert, N., & Leuffen, D. (2020). The Road to Trust. A Vignette Study on the Determinants of Citizens’ Trust in the European Commission. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 58(2), 256–275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12901
  46. Schedler, K., Guenduez, A.A., & Frischknecht, R. (2019). How smart can government be? Exploring barriers to the adoption of smart government. Information Polity, 24(1), 3–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-180095
  47. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
  48. Schumpeter, J.A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
  49. Smith, A., Voß, J.P., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39(4), 435–448. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023
  50. Thorhildur, J., Avital, M., & Bjorn-Andersen, N. (2013). The generative mechanisms of open government data. In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Utrecht, 6–7, June.
  51. Ullman, J.B., & Bentler, P.M. (2012). Structural equation modeling. Handbook of Psychology, 607–634.
  52. Van der Meer, T.W. (2018). Economic performance and political trust. The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust, 599–616.
  53. Williams, L.J., Edwards, J.R., & Vandenberg, R.J. (2003). Recent advances in causal modeling methods for organizational and management research. Journal of Management, 29(6), 903–936. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0149-2063_03_00084-9
  54. Wirtz, B.W., & Birkmeyer, S. (2015). Open government: Origin, development, and conceptual perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(5), 381–396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.942735
  55. Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20, 557–585.
  56. Yu, H., & Robinson, D.G. (2011). The new ambiguity of open government. UCLA L. Rev. Discourse, 59, 178.
  57. Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2014). Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 17–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.04.003
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0010 | Journal eISSN: 2543-683X | Journal ISSN: 2096-157X
Language: English
Page range: 139 - 153
Submitted on: Aug 12, 2020
Accepted on: Nov 19, 2020
Published on: Jan 27, 2021
Published by: Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Science Library
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2021 Nicolás Gonzálvez-Gallego, Laura Nieto-Torrejón, published by Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Science Library
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.