Transparency, Accountability and Technology

This policy paper seeks to update current understanding of information communication technology (ICT) for transparency and accountability (T/A) and discusses whether or not ICT for developtment (ICT4D) is succeeding in bringing T/A to governance.  By "providing a brief current overview of the field, it suggests a new, political economy-based frame for understanding the distinct pieces of this evolving area of development. This also means rethinking the lingua franca of 'ICT as a tool' that crosscuts these projects."

The paper divides current ICT for T/A into 4 somewhat overlapping categories: Open Government and Open Data, Collective Action, Voice, and Service Delivery.  As stated in the brief, the effectiveness of ICT for T/A is difficult to gauge, since "there is no commonly agreed unit of measurement for transparency and accountability projects," but new standards and findings are beginning to emerge.

The document discusses a number of cross-cutting issues based on expert opinions, current trends, and publications.  These include the following issues, which are explained in more details in the brief:

• The development community is still struggling to define good governance, which bleeds into ICT for T/A initiatives.
• Partly because ICT is seen primarily as a 'tool' rather than an element with its own set of political economy drivers and implications, it can be inserted into projects in a non-holistic way.
• While ICT can make processes more efficient, it is more difficult to understand how its introduction can have an effect on long-term attitudes toward accountability.
• There is still a mythology surrounding ICT – nurtured by the tech industry and popular culture – that leads to inflated expectations.
• ICT integration has not always been thoughtful or appropriate for projects or communities.
• The importance of sustainability continues to be questioned.
• ICT for T/A can be used in a variety of political environments, but the privacy aspects of the data revolution are particularly salient in authoritarian contexts.

The brief concludes by stating that "ultimately, as the field matures, it must be willing to learn and redefine itself. By reframing ICT for T/A to understand that it is more than the sum of its parts, perhaps new and previously unexplored connections may surface. Understanding these connections, and the full nature of the relationship between ICT and accountability, will have consequential implications for both policy and practice."