Where's The Data

Warning: Long post ahead!

In comments to this post about Recovery.gov, commenter "Concerned Retiree" makes the fair point that a lot of folks' predictions about how great it will be When We All Have Data have a...vaguely aspirational quality to them. Or, as Concerned puts it:

The heart of the matter - I say -- is simply what you -- Munz and Newell - or your blog references -- e.g. WaPo -- expect, predict, or speculate will occur as the Administration showers more and more data - let's assume accurate data and relevant data -- on the public. The story is the result, NOT the equipment of delivery â€" it’s what IN the letter, not the media. I'm a pessimist, or let's say a restrained realist.

My immediate reaction is that Concerned Retiree should probably cut three or four carafes of espresso out of their morning routine. But this really is a legitimate question: Does this kind of transparency actually improve government? Where's the beef?

First, it's worth acknowledging that if Policy X is fundamentally ill-equipped to meet its intended goal (say, saving the American economy), there's nothing about implementing Policy X really transparently that's going to change that. Transparency is a procedural virtue. That said, assuming Policy X isn't totally off-the-rails wacky, does transparency actually improve implementation? The answer is Absolutely, for two reasons.

First, particularly when it comes to data, transparency means customizability, which means citizen engagement. Government has spent years believing that transparency means "put stuff up on our website." But as DOT CIO Dan Mintz is fond of saying, TV isn't radio with pictures, and government 2.0 isn't putting documents online. So what is government 2.0? President Obama spoke repeatedly during the campaign about iPod Government -- the idea that government should be like every other web 2.0 service in the universe: lightweight, portable, and easy to integrate into your life and customize to your needs and interests. Government should be a push service.

This also gives me a chance to cite this great Atlantic article about iPod Government in action at San Francisco's transit authority. (Read the whole thing: Obama himself makes an appearance!) For years, transparency advocates have had the basic problem that, like a horse to water, you can post stuff online, but you can't make people care. Publishing data out, and letting enterprising citizens remix and redistribute it in ways that interest them, can actually make people care. That's not trivial, and if you think this isn't the route that the Obama folks are going to take, just Google "Vivek Kundra" and see what comes up. (More on this tomorrow.)

A second, related point is that transparency is the heart of accountability. There's a famous story about FDR where he's meeting with a group of constituents who are pushing a policy proposal that he likes but that really doesn't have much popular support. Finally, at the end of the meeting, he said: "I agree with you. I want to do it. Now, make me do it." Accountable government requires citizens who are well-informed enough to tell government what they'd like done differently; in other words, it enhances our ability to "make them do it." If you think this hasn't worked in practice, I refer you to this case study of TSA's Evolution of Security blog*:

Site administrators on February 4th, 2008 began receiving questions from concerned passengers about airports that were requiring all electronics including blackberrys and iPods to be removed from carry-on bags. TSA conducted a subsequent investigation and learned that the exercises had been set up by local TSA offices and were not part of any national security strategy. The agency promptly stopped the exercises, and all airports returned to standard security procedures regarding electronics. On February 6th, Evolution of Security issued a post entitled "Hooray for Bloggers" which thanked the online community for improving TSA operations.

Obviously, this also requires that government is willing to listen to what people say once they have the facts. But if they are, some truly high-quality governance can take place. It's not hard to see how this same kind of thing (times 787 billion!) could work with the ARRA funds.

So, Concerned Retiree: No, publishing data won't suddenly make our banks solvent or resurrect our manufacturing base. But it actually might help ensure that when government tries to do these things, citizens are informed, engaged, and leading the way to better outcomes.

--

* Note: This content is content is courtesy of an initiative run by my employer, the National Academy of Public Administration.