Ir al menú de navegación principal Ir al contenido principal Ir al pie de página del sitio

Dossiê Governo e Parlamento Digital

V. 15 N. 38 Maio/Ago. 2022

DIMENSIONES INSTITUCIONALES ASOCIADAS A LA APERTURA DE DATOS GUBERNAMENTALES: UN ANÁLISIS TRANSNACIONAL

DOI
https://doi.org/10.51206/elegis.v15i38.752
Enviado
junio 30, 2021
Publicado
2022-06-22

Resumen

La academia ha estado investigando los beneficios y las barreras de adoptar datos gubernamentales abiertos (DGA). Sin embargo, existen lagunas teóricas sobre la influencia de los factores institucionales en la DGA. Por tanto, el objetivo del estudio es analizar la relación entre las dimensiones institucionales y el nivel de apertura de los datos gubernamentales en diferentes países. Para ello, se adoptó un enfoque cuantitativo, utilizando datos secundarios y un modelo de regresión lineal. Se evidenció que el desempeño de las iniciativas de la DGA está asociado al grado de existencia de una política pública específica para la DGA, la existencia de una ley de acceso a la información, el desarrollo de programas de gobierno electrónico, la participación del país en la Alianza de Gobierno Abierto y la calidad administrativa del gobierno. Por lo tanto, además de los desafíos técnicos, las características de las dimensiones institucionales de cada país hacen que el patrón de implementación y desempeño de las iniciativas nacionales de DGA varíe de un caso a otro.

Citas

  1. ALBANO, Claudio Sonaglio; REINHARD, Nicolau. Desafios para governos e sociedade no ecossistema brasileiro de dados governamentais abertos (DGA). Cadernos Gestão Pública e Cidadania, v. 20, n. 67, 2015.
  2. ALLISON, Paul D. Multiple Regression: A Primer. Thousand Oaks. Pine Forge Press, 1999.
  3. ALTAYAR, Mohammed Saleh. Motivations for open data adoption: An institutional theory perspective. Government Information Quarterly, v. 35, n. 4, p.633-643, 2018.
  4. BROWN, D. Electronic government and public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, v. 71, n. 2, p. 241–254, 2005.
  5. CINGOLANI, Luciana; THOMSSON, Kaj; CROMBRUGGHE, Denis de. Minding Weber More Than Ever? The Impacts of State Capacity and Bureaucratic Autonomy on Development Goals. World Development, v. 72, p. 191-207, 2015.
  6. DAVIES, Tim; PERINI, Fernando; ALONSO, Jose. Researching the emerging impacts of open data. ODDC Working Papers. World Wide Web Foundation. 2013.
  7. DAVIES, Tim; PERINI, Fernando. Researching the emerging impacts of open data: revisiting the ODDC conceptual framework. The Journal of Community Informatics, v. 12, n. 2, p.148-178, 2016.
  8. DAVIES, Tim. Open data policies and practice: An international comparison. In: European Consortium for Political Research Conference, 8., 2014, Glasgow. 8th European Consortium for Political Research Conference. Glasgow, 2014. p. 1-26.
  9. DIMAGGIO, Paul J.; POWELL, Walter W.. The Iron Cage Revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, v. 48, n. 2, p. 147-160, 1983.
  10. EVANS, Peter. Embedded Autonomy. Princeton. Princeton University Press, 1995.
  11. FOUNTAIN, Jane E. Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press, 2001.
  12. FUKUYAMA, Francis. What is Governance? Governance, v. 26, n. 3, p.347-368, 2013.
  13. GONZÁLEZ-ZAPATA, Felipe; HEEKS, Richard. The Challenges of Institutionalising Open Government Data: a historical perspective of Chile’s OGD initiative and digital government institutions. In: VAN SCHALKWYK, François; VERHULST, Stefaan G.; MAGALHAES, Gustavo; PANE, Juan; WALKER, Johanna (ed.). The Social Dynamics of Open Data. Cape Town: African Minds, 2017. p. 13-34.
  14. GONZALEZ-ZAPATA, Felipe R. The Influence of Political Institutions and Power on Open Government Data (OGD): a case study of the chilean OGD initiative. 2017. 328 f. Tese (Doutorado) - Curso de Doutorado em Ciência Política. Global Development Institute School of Environment, Education nd Development, Universidade de Manchester, Manchester, 2017.
  15. GUJARATI, Damodar N.; PORTER, Dawn C. Econometria Básica. 5. ed. Porto Alegre: Amgh Editora Ltda., 2011.
  16. HAIR, J. F. et al. Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th. ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall International, 2005.
  17. HARRISON, Teresa M.; GUERRERO, Santiago; BURKE, G. Brian; COOK, Meghan; CRESSWELL, Anthony; HELBIG, Natalie; HRDINOVA, Jana; PARDO, Theresa. Open government and e-government: democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity, v. 17, n. 2, p. 83-97, 2012.
  18. HENNINGER, Maureen. Reforms to counter a culture of secrecy: open government in australia. Government Information Quarterly, v. 35, n. 3, p. 398-407, 2018.
  19. JANSSEN, Marijn; CHARALABIDIS, Yannis; ZUIDERWIJK, Anneke. Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government. Information Systems Management, v. 29, n. 4, p.258-268, 2012.
  20. KALAMPOKIS, Evangelos; TAMBOURIS, Efthimios; TARABANIS, Konstantinos. A classification scheme for open government data: towards linking decentralised data. International Journal of Web Engineering and Technology, v. 6, n. 3, p.1-20, 2011.
  21. KASSEN, Maxat. Open data and its institutional ecosystems: A comparative cross‐jurisdictional analysis of open data platforms. Canadian Public Administration, v. 61, n. 1, p. 109-129, 2018.
  22. KELLSTEDT, Paul; WHITTEN, Guy. The Fundamentals of Political Science Research. 2. ed. Nova York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
  23. LUNA-REYES, Luis F.; NAJAFABADI, Mahdi M. The US open data initiative: the road ahead. Information Polity, v. 24, n. 2, p. 163-182, 2019.
  24. MARCH, James G.; OLSEN, Johan P. Rediscovering institutions: the organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press, 1989.
  25. MARTIN, Chris. Barriers to the open government data agenda: Taking a multi‐level perspective. Policy & Internet, v. 6, n. 3, p. 217-240, 2014.
  26. MATHEUS, Ricardo; RIBEIRO, Manuella Maia; VAZ, José Carlos. Strategies and instruments for the dissemination and promotion of open government data use in Brazil: case study of Rio de Janeiro city hall. Revista Tecnologia e Sociedade, Curitiba, v. 14, n. 33, p.172-189, 2018.
  27. NORTH, Douglass. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
  28. OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP. Open Government Partnership - Members. 2020. Disponível em: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/our-members/. Acesso em: 23 nov. 2019.
  29. OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP. Open Government Declaration. 2011. Disponível em: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/process/joining-ogp/open-government-declaration/ . Acesso em: 12 mar. 2021.
  30. PETERS, B. Guy. Institutional Theory in Political Science: The 'New Institutionalism'. Pinter, 1999.
  31. POSSAMAI, Ana Júlia. Dados Abertos no Governo Federal Brasileiro: desafios de transparência e interoperabilidade. 2016. 300 f. Tese (Doutorado) - Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciência Política, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 2016.
  32. PURON-CID, Gabriel. Factors for a successful adoption of budgetary transparency innovations: a questionnaire report of an open government initiative in Mexico. Government Information Quarterly, v. 31, p. 49-62, 2014.
  33. ROSNAY, Melanie Dulong de; JANSSEN, Katleen. Legal and Institutional Challenges for Opening Data across Public Sectors: towards common policy solutions. Journal of Theoretical And Applied Electronic Commerce Research, v. 9, n. 3, p. 1-14, 2014.
  34. ROTHSTEIN, Bo; TEORELL, Jan. What Is Quality of Government? A Theory of Impartial Government Institutions. Governance, v. 21, n. 2, p. 165-190, 2008.
  35. SAFAROV, Igbal; MEIJER, Albert; GRIMMELIKHUIJSEN, Stephan. Utilization of open government data: a systematic literature review of types, conditions, effects and users. Information Polity, v. 22, n. 1, p. 1-24, 2017.
  36. SAFAROV, Igbal. Institutional Dimensions of Open Government Data Implementation: Evidence from the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK. Public Performance & Management Review, v. 42, n. 2, p.305-328, 2019.
  37. SAYOGO, Djoko Sigit; PARDO, Theresa A.; COOK, Meghan. A Framework for Benchmarking Open Government Data Efforts. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, p.1896-1905, 2014.
  38. SEWADEH, Mirvat; SISSON, Jeffrey. Disseminating Government Data Effectively in the Age of Open Data. Federal Data Science, p.13-28, 2018.
  39. UNITED NATIONS. Sustainable Development Goals Indicators Database. 2016. Disponível em: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database. Acesso em: 02 jan. 2020.
  40. UNITED NATIONS. UN E-Government Survey 2016. 2016. Disponível em: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2016. Acesso em: 10 abr. 2020.
  41. UNITED NATIONS. UN Data. 2021. Disponível em: http://data.un.org/. Acesso em: 04 mar. 2021.
  42. VAN SCHALKWYK, Francois; WILLMERS, Michelle A.; SCHONWETTER, Tobias. Institutionalizing Open Data in Government. SSRN Electronic Journal, p. 1-23, 2016.
  43. VARIETIES OF DEMOCRACY. V-Dem Dataset V6. 2016. Disponível em: https://www.v-dem.net/en/data/archive/previous-reference-materials/reference-material-v6/. Acesso em: 05 jun. 2020.
  44. VELJKOVIĆ, Nataša; BOGDANOVIĆ-DINIĆ, Sanja; STOIMENOV, Leonid. Benchmarking open government: An open data perspective. Government Information Quarterly, v. 31, n. 2, p.278-290, 2014.
  45. WEB FOUNDATION. Open Data Barometer, 4th Edition. 2016. Disponível em: <https://opendatabarometer.org/4thedition/?_year=2016&indicator=ODB>. Acesso em: 22 jul. 2019.
  46. WEB FOUNDATION. Open Data Barometer 4th edition - Research Handbook. 2016b. Disponível em: https://opendatabarometer.org/doc/4thEdition/ODB-4thEdition-ResearchHandbook.pdf. Acesso em: 07 mar. 2020.
  47. WEB FOUNDATION. Open Data Barometer 4th edition: Primary Data - Context and Impact. 2016. Disponível em: https://opendatabarometer.org/data/4thEdition/ODB-4thEdition-PrimaryData-Context-Impact.csv. Acesso em: 14 abr. 2020.
  48. YANG, Tung-mou; LO, Jin; SHIANG, Jing. To open or not to open? Determinants of open government data. Journal of Information Science, v. 41, n. 5, p.596-612, 2015.
  49. YANG, Tung-Mou; WU, Yi-Jung. Examining the socio-technical determinants influencing government agencies' open data publication: a study in taiwan. Government Information Quarterly, v. 33, n. 3, p. 378-392, 2016.
  50. YU, H.; ROBINSON, D. G. The new ambiguity of ―open government. UCLA Law Review Discourse, Los Angeles, v. 59, p.178-208, 2012.
  51. ZUIDERWIJK, Anneke; JANSSEN, Marijn. Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison. Government Information Quarterly, v. 31, n. 1, p.17-29, 2014.
  52. ZUIDERWIJK, Anneke; JANSSEN, Marijn; CHOENNI, Sunil; MEIJER, Ronald. Design principles for improving the process of publishing open data. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, v. 8, n. 2, p. 185-204, 2014.