25 Years of Transparency Research: Evidence and Future Directions
Open accessAbstract
This article synthesizes the cross‐disciplinary literature on government transparency. It systematically reviews research addressing the topic of government transparency published between 1990 and 2015. The review uses 187 studies to address three questions: (1) What forms of transparency has the literature identified? (2) What outcomes does the literature attribute to transparency? and (3) How successful is transparency in achieving those goals? In addressing these questions, the authors review six interrelated types of transparency and nine governance‐ and citizen‐related outcomes of transparency. Based on the findings of the analysis, the authors outline an agenda for future research on government transparency and its effects that calls for more systematically investigating the ways in which contextual conditions shape transparency outcomes, replicating studies with varying methodologies, investigating transparency in neglected countries, and paying greater attention to understudied claims of transparency such as improved decision making and management .
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
Performing the experiment in a country where overall levels of trust are very low expands the existing evidence and the understanding of the phenomenon.
“Performing the experiment in a country where overall levels of trust are very low expands the existing evidence and the understanding of the phenomenon (Cucciniello et al. (2017)).”
From Transparency and Trust in Government. Evidence from a Survey Experiment (2021) · cites this paper as Cucciniello et al. (2017)
The sections “Replicate Studies across Different Administrative Contexts” and “Replicate Studies Using Different Methods” say that research in new contexts and experimental replication can improve understanding of transparency’s effects. They do not identify a country with very low overall trust or specifically establish low trust as the condition that makes this experiment an addition to the evidence. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe paper's findings resemble some prior results on manifest transparency and trust.
“These findings mirror some of what has been found with respect to manifest transparency and trust (e.g., Cucciniello et al., 2017;Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2017)”
From Latent transparency and trust in government: Unexpected findings from two survey experiments (2020) · cites this paper as Cucciniello et al., 2017
The section on transparency outcomes reports prior findings on transparency and trust in government, including positive survey findings and mixed or negative experimental findings. Our copy does not identify those findings specifically as concerning “manifest transparency,” so it supports the broader comparison but not that qualifier. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA systematic review by Cucciniello et al. found that the existing literature generally suggests greater transparency results in less corruption.
“Conversely, in a cross-disciplinary, systematic review of the transparency literature, Cucciniello et al. (2017) found that the existing literature in general”
From Latent transparency and trust in government: Unexpected findings from two survey experiments (2020) · cites this paper as Cucciniello et al. (2017)
A systematic review found that experiments and case studies tended to show negative or mixed transparency-trust findings, while survey studies more often showed positive relationships, suggesting possible methodological bias.
“However, in a systematic review of the literature on transparency, Cucciniello et al. (2017) found a pattern suggesting a potential methodological bias in favor of a positive relationship.Experiments and case studies have tended to produce negative or mixed findings, while research conducted using survey data have more often shown a positive relationship.”
From Latent transparency and trust in government: Unexpected findings from two survey experiments (2020) · cites this paper as Cucciniello et al. (2017)
Experimental studies on transparency and trust have produced mixed results.
“yet experimental studies have found mixed results.”
From Latent transparency and trust in government: Unexpected findings from two survey experiments (2020) · cites this paper as Cucciniello, Porumbescu, & Grimmelikhuijsen, 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 · Cited by 10,349 · see citing works
Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach
Cooper, H. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071878644 · Cited by 1,716 · see citing works
INNOVATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA
DE VRIES, H., BEKKERS, V., & TUMMERS, L. (2016) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12209 · Cited by 1,214 · see citing works
Coping During Public Service Delivery: A Conceptualization and Systematic Review of the Literature
Tummers, L. L. G., Bekkers, V., Vink, E., & Musheno, M. (2015) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muu056 · Cited by 756 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…reviews dealing with other areas of public administration scholarship in that they demonstrate an emphasis on either qualitative or quantitative research (see De Vries, Bekkers, and Tummers 2015; Ritz, Brewer, and Neumann 2016 ; Tummers et al. 2015 ; Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers 2014 ).”
BackgroundGrimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Meijer, A. J. (2014) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mus048 · Cited by 565 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Some contextual conditions that bear upon the effect of transparency identified to date include national cultural values (Grimmelikhuijsen et al. 2013 ), the type of policy issue at stake (de Fine Licht 2014), the form of government (Michener 2015 ), and the method used to enhance transparency…”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationWhy is democracy performing so poorly?
Fukuyama, F. (2015) · Journal of Democracy · doi:10.1353/jod.2015.0017 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization
Barberá, P. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.004 · Cited by 373 · see citing works
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2023) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13483 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Self-citationGovernment Openness and Public Trust: The Mediating Role of Democratic Capacity
Schmidthuber, L., Ingrams, A., & Hilgers, D. (2021) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13298 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Transparency and Trust in Government. Evidence from a Survey Experiment
Alessandro, M., Cardinale Lagomarsino, B., Scartascini, C., Streb, J., & Torrealday, J. (2021) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105223 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Lights on the shadows of public procurement: Transparency as an antidote to corruption
Bauhr, M., Czibik, Á., de Fine Licht, J., & Fazekas, M. (2020) · Governance · doi:10.1111/gove.12432 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Latent transparency and trust in government: Unexpected findings from two survey experiments
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., Piotrowski, S. J., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2020) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2020.101497 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Self-citationWang, Q., & Guan, Z. (2023) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muac040 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Vian, T., Kohler, J. C., Forte, G., & Dimancesco, D. (2017) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice · doi:10.1186/s40545-017-0106-x · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., John, P., Meijer, A., & Worthy, B. (2019) · Journal of Behavioral Public Administration · doi:10.30636/jbpa.12.34 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Self-citationYang, Y. (2018) · Journal of Service Theory and Practice · doi:10.1108/jstp-06-2017-0102 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
“It’s Not Over When It’s Over”―Post-Decision Arrangements and Empirical Legitimacy
de Fine Licht, J., Agerberg, M., & Esaiasson, P. (2022) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muab023 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Fang, X., Zhou, H., & Chen, S. (2025) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.70015 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cucciniello, M., Porumbescu, G. A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S.
- Affiliations
- Bocconi University (IT)
- Northern Illinois University (US)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Venue
- Public Administration Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-11-09
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 32-44
- ISSN
- 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-6210
- OpenAlex
- W2555400967
- Cited by
- 512
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 76 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 130.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Public Administration Review (publishedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Archivio istituzionale della Ricerca - Bocconi (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF‐2014S1A3A2044898)
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (VENI‐451‐15‐024)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Administrative Law and Governance
- Keywords
- government transparency, governance outcomes, contextual factors, decision-making, public sector management, research agenda
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
