The headline reads 'Cracking Open the World Bank.'1 Above, a graphic shows ethereal streams of 1s and 0s issuing from a vault, its heavy door slightly ajar. The story below tells of a revolution at the World Bank. This global institution, long attacked as arrogant and inept, seems to be getting with the times. The information age heralds its future as open, digital and democratic. A closer reading, however, cautions against such a hasty conclusion.
The New York Times Business article tells us that the Bank is opening for public consumption its vast repositories of national statistics on everything from cell phone subscriptions rates to debt ratios to military expenditures. Traditionally the Bank has made its information hoard fully available to only internal researchers and paying subscribers. Now, Bank President Robert Zoellick says free data will 'democratize development economics' by bringing the out-of-touch institution to Web 2.0 with iPhone apps, open databases, crowd-sourcing, and online mashups.
The Times article, however, is misleading because it mixes up two meanings of 'open'—the instrumental openness as sharing data about others and the democratic openness as transparency about oneself. In other words, it equates data sharing with democracy, without recognizing that sharing data about others is not enough. With democracy comes accountability, made possible through the window of transparency. The graphic accompanying the story makes this oversimplification clear: The vault is open to let national indicators out but not open to letting the public in. We can see those 1s and 0's, but we still can't see behind its massive walls.
A truly democratic Bank would not only invite citizens to use its data, it would also let citizens inside the Bank to see how those numbers are made, how it manages its projects, and, ultimately, how to hold it accountable to the lives it profoundly affects. This kind of transparency is a needed corrective to an institution long criticized as promoting development projects and lending practices that have served Western elites at the expense of the developing world's poor.
To better evaluate the Bank's new democratic commitment, we need to see how its specific programs are helping to improve transparency and accountability. Although the Bank website too jumps the gun by equating 'Open Data' with 'Open Development' on its front page, a click-through delivers an alluring promise: 'A World Bank Flash: A More Open, Transparent and Accountable World Bank.' Letting go of the chance that this story really is but a flash—or fad—we can welcome the fact that, unlike the NY Times, the Bank distinguishes between data sharing, transparency, and accountability.
The site tells us of various Bank projects like the Open Data Initiative that is releasing its hoard of national indicators to the curious world. But the Bank also appears to be taking that second big step towards transparency to let citizens see in. The project on Mapping for Results offers "information on the location of projects and how much development aid is provided and received around the world," while the Access to Information Policy has led to at least 4 million page views of the over 7000 internal documents posted online.
These moves towards transparency are welcome, but do they take that third and final step from transparency towards democratic accountability? Here the Bank's news flash falls short. Accountability would mean that citizens could learn not only where projects currently exist but where they are being planned for in the future. It would allow communities to not simply download information on lending practices but to provide feedback of their own. And it would reach out not just with the latest technology but with whatever means necessary to benefit disaffected populations.
I'll let others evaluate whether or not the Bank's news flash is rhetoric or reality. When they do, they should remember to be a bit more critical before concluding that cracking open data and democracy are the same thing.
1In contrast to the print edition, the online edition has opted for the less suggestive headline: 'World Bank is opening its treasure chest of data'.
About the Author: Chad Monfreda is a Ph.D. student in the Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology and a fellow with ASU’s Urban Ecology IGERT.
The New York Times Business article tells us that the Bank is opening for public consumption its vast repositories of national statistics on everything from cell phone subscriptions rates to debt ratios to military expenditures. Traditionally the Bank has made its information hoard fully available to only internal researchers and paying subscribers. Now, Bank President Robert Zoellick says free data will 'democratize development economics' by bringing the out-of-touch institution to Web 2.0 with iPhone apps, open databases, crowd-sourcing, and online mashups.
The Times article, however, is misleading because it mixes up two meanings of 'open'—the instrumental openness as sharing data about others and the democratic openness as transparency about oneself. In other words, it equates data sharing with democracy, without recognizing that sharing data about others is not enough. With democracy comes accountability, made possible through the window of transparency. The graphic accompanying the story makes this oversimplification clear: The vault is open to let national indicators out but not open to letting the public in. We can see those 1s and 0's, but we still can't see behind its massive walls.
A truly democratic Bank would not only invite citizens to use its data, it would also let citizens inside the Bank to see how those numbers are made, how it manages its projects, and, ultimately, how to hold it accountable to the lives it profoundly affects. This kind of transparency is a needed corrective to an institution long criticized as promoting development projects and lending practices that have served Western elites at the expense of the developing world's poor.
To better evaluate the Bank's new democratic commitment, we need to see how its specific programs are helping to improve transparency and accountability. Although the Bank website too jumps the gun by equating 'Open Data' with 'Open Development' on its front page, a click-through delivers an alluring promise: 'A World Bank Flash: A More Open, Transparent and Accountable World Bank.' Letting go of the chance that this story really is but a flash—or fad—we can welcome the fact that, unlike the NY Times, the Bank distinguishes between data sharing, transparency, and accountability.
The site tells us of various Bank projects like the Open Data Initiative that is releasing its hoard of national indicators to the curious world. But the Bank also appears to be taking that second big step towards transparency to let citizens see in. The project on Mapping for Results offers "information on the location of projects and how much development aid is provided and received around the world," while the Access to Information Policy has led to at least 4 million page views of the over 7000 internal documents posted online.
These moves towards transparency are welcome, but do they take that third and final step from transparency towards democratic accountability? Here the Bank's news flash falls short. Accountability would mean that citizens could learn not only where projects currently exist but where they are being planned for in the future. It would allow communities to not simply download information on lending practices but to provide feedback of their own. And it would reach out not just with the latest technology but with whatever means necessary to benefit disaffected populations.
I'll let others evaluate whether or not the Bank's news flash is rhetoric or reality. When they do, they should remember to be a bit more critical before concluding that cracking open data and democracy are the same thing.
1In contrast to the print edition, the online edition has opted for the less suggestive headline: 'World Bank is opening its treasure chest of data'.
About the Author: Chad Monfreda is a Ph.D. student in the Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology and a fellow with ASU’s Urban Ecology IGERT.
In addition to transparency, a yet deeper way to achieve accountability is, as you say, through the openness gained from contributing to and taking part in public policy. The question then becomes how to distinguish the openness that comes from being in but not of a process (e.g. by acting as an adviser but not rule-maker) from an authentic democratic standard. On some occasions the former may be sufficient; on others, mere pablum. The theory and practice of this ideal, I'd wager, is where a lot of hard work still has to be done.
My exposure to this issue has been mainly in the area of science advisory mechanisms. In 2000, I helped draft a framework of principles and gudelines for the use of science advice in decision-making which became policy in the Government of Canada. The principles had been recommended in a report entitled Science Advice for Government Effectiveness (SAGE) prepared by a Cabinet-level advisory body called the Council of Science and Technology Advisors. The SAGE principles had in turn been heavily influenced by Lord Robert May's principles in the UK government, the work of David Beckler in the US and others.
In the Canadian framework, Principle 5 comes under the heading "Transparency and Openness" and states "The government is expected to employ decision-making processes that are open, as well as transparent, to stakeholders and the public." This wording was carefully chosen to draw a distinction betwen openness and transparency which are all too often used interchangeably. But, of course, there must be a distinction; otherwise, using the phrase "transparency and openness" would be like saying "repetitive and redundant."
In the context of science advisory mechanisms, the principle was meant to embrace a perceived shift away from traditional "confidential" expert panel approaches to science advice. The distinction being made was that, whereas in the past science advice was often made behind closed doors (i.e., the process was "opaque" to the public), "transparency" would imply that the public could view the advisory process and "openness" would imply that the public could actually enter and contribute to the process.
If the advisory boardroom were made of plate glass walls, the process would be "transparent" (from a physics point of view) but there would still exist a wall, a barrier between the advisors and the public. "Openness" therefore implies a higher "democractic" standard in which there is no wall at all; the public is invited into the advisory boardroom and able to have input. And, of course, we have seen many efforts over recent decades to include the public in science advisory mechanisms under various labels: consensus conferences, citizen panels, participatory technology assessment, etc.
The Canadian framework states that "Transparency implies an articulation in plain language of how decisions are reached, the presentation of policies in open fora, and public access to the findings and advice of scientists as early as possible. Openness implies early and ongoing consultation with stakeholder groups, as well as public discourse, to ensure that public concerns are considered in making decisions on science-based issues." The Framework goes on to suggest guidelines on how to make this principle real in the context of science advisory mechanisms.