Open Data and Open Government

Open data and open government in the UK: how closely are they

related?

Martin De SaullesUniversity of Brighton

June 2013

13th European Conference on e-GovernmentUniversity of Insubria, Como

Martin De Saulles ECEG 2013

Context ConclusionsResearch


Long Tradition

• 1766 – Freedom of the Press Act, Sweden

• 1966 – Freedom of Information Act, US

• 2000 – Freedom of Information Act, UK

• 2003 – Re-use of Public Sector Information Directive, EU

• 2005 – Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations, UK


Multiple reasons

• Accountability• Transparency• Change culture• Pre-empt whistle blowers• Improve safety• Improve efficiency

• Aid innovation• Generate tax receipts


Impacts


Impacts


Source: Shakespeare Independent Review of Public Sector Information, 2013


Issues/Questions

Open Government• Accessibility• Exemptions• Enforcement• Reactive/proactive

Open Data• Accessibility• Formats• Copyright• Currency• Frequency• Reliability• Reactive/proactive

“Is the right data being released in the best formats and at the appropriate time for users to maximise its social and economic benefits?”


ResearchContext Conclusions



OverviewPublisher Datasets % of totalOffice for National Statistics 847 9%Department for Communities and Local Government 740 8%NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care 589 7%British Geological Survey 363 4%Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 329 4%Centre for Ecology and Hydrology 298 3%Welsh Government 241 3%Department of Health 239 3%Department for Children, Schools and Families 227 3%Home Office 212 2%

All Datasets 8981 100.00%Total of 786 publishersTop 10 publishers (1.2% of all publishers) account for 45.48% of all datasets

Data correct as of 28 Dec 2012


OverviewFormats Legal



Evaluating data.gov.uk“The popular term “open government data” is, therefore, deeply ambiguous – it might mean either of two very different things. If “open government” is a phrase that modifies the noun “data”, we are talking about politically important disclosures, whether or not they are delivered by computer. On the other hand, if the words “open” and “government” are separate adjectives modifying “data”, we are talking about data that is both easily accessed and government related, but that might not be politically important.” (Yu and Robinson, 2012 p 181-182)


Analysis8,981 data sets (December 2012)

Sample of 100 (random)

Adaptable (CSV, XML) – scores 1Inert (PDF, Word, HTML) – scores 1Service delivery (bus times, mapping etc) – scores 1Public Accountability (salary levels, complaints etc) – scores 1

95 data sets categorised ( 5 excluded for ambiguity)


Adaptable

Public Accountability

Inert

Service Delivery

50

32

45

63

Note: Data collected on 28 December 2012, based on sample of 100 datasets

Results


Results

• Small sample so treat with caution

• Strong bias toward service delivery – from accountability

• Less obvious re. adaptable but CSV dominates

• Dead links an issue


ConclusionsContext Research


Conclusions

• Yu and Robinson offer useful framework

• Differentiate public accountability (open government) from generative resource (open data)

• Room for calibration• Work needed on making data more adaptable

• International agreement on definitions to allow benchmarking


References

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. (2013) Shakespeare review: an independent review of public sector information (Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shakespeare-review-of-public-sector-information)

De Saulles, M. (2007) “When Public Meets Private: Conflicts in Information Policy”, Info, Vol 9, No. 6, pp 10-16.

Yu, H. and Robinson, D. (2012) “The New Ambiguity of Open Government”, UCLA Law Review Discourse, Vol 59, pp178-208.


Questions

Dr Martin De SaullesPrincipal LecturerUniversity of Brighton

www.mdesaulles.net@[email protected]

Education

Open Data and Open Government