CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 798Administrative Law and GovernanceRegulation and Compliance StudiesPublic Policy and Administration Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 286 of the 299 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency

Open access
Fung, Archon, Graham, Mary, Weil, David·2007·Cambridge University Press eBooks
DOI 10.1017/cbo9780511510533
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Governments employ public disclosure strategies to reduce risks, improve public and private goods and services, and reduce injustice. In the United States, these targeted transparency policies include financial securities disclosures, nutritional labels, school report cards, automobile rollover rankings, and sexual offender registries. They constitute a light-handed approach to governance that empowers citizens. However, these policies are frequently ineffective or counterproductive. Based on a comparative analysis of eighteen major policies, the authors suggest that transparency policies often produce information that is incomplete, incomprehensible, or irrelevant to the consumers, investors, workers, and community residents who could benefit from them. Sometimes transparency fails because those who are threatened by it form political coalitions to limit or distort information. To be successful, transparency policies must place the needs of ordinary citizens at centre stage and produce information that informs their everyday choices. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/9780521699617

Cites

286 of 286 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 299 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 798

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Fung, A., Graham, M., & Weil, D.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Boston University (US)
ORCID
Fung, Archon
Venue
Cambridge University Press eBooks
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published
2007-03-05
DOI
10.1017/cbo9780511510533
OpenAlex
W1481162202
Cited by
752
References
299
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 93 · 2019: 87 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 68 · 2013: 61 · 2012: 47
FWCI
43.58
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Administrative Law and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Regulation and Compliance Studies
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
Keywords
transparency policy, public disclosure, financial disclosure, nutrition labeling, school reports, information quality, political alliances, citizen empowerment, governance, policy effectiveness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review