Why Transparency is Costly

The emergence of e-government endorses the idea of transparency. It is believed to be able to minimize the room for corruptive behavior and increase participation in democratic society. E-budgeting, for example, allows citizens to propose, decide, watch, or even challenge the public fund management and/or usage. The idea of transparency gains massive public support worldwide and the technology is feasible. However, why are some governments reluctant to provide transparency?

We can understand this phenomenon by viewing transparency as a costly project. It is a revolutionary work, a lot of things need to change and they could cost a lot. How could it be costly if the technology is supposed to be cheap? Even though e-governance’s transparency is delivered through digital technology where most of them are cheap and easy, the story does not resound similarly. Such technology requires environment that is supportive enough so that transparency may run well.

First thing we need to address is political willingness. Although the society demands a clean and transparent governance, making the wish come true is not always (politically and economically) beneficial for politicians. Transparency under e-government will put more eyes on politicians or, in advance, force them to share the power towards the fund with more actors (constituents). Even if accommodating people’s demands does really matter, providing transparency is somehow not deemed as a priority, since some – especially poor societies – prefer to receive practical solutions that put more money to their wallet as well as more food to their mouth. Besides, employing e-governance is expected to result a more effective government with slim organizational structure – which means less public spending for government official wages, and less jobs in public sector. In fact, not all governments do cut the number of their personnel following the e-government adoption.[1] Even if they do, it will lead to another social problem: unemployment.

The second one is about technology establishment. Digital and online technology is a paramount solution of the century. It cuts time, activate efficiency, as well as more transparent, but it is not that cheap. An established e-governance system will cost significant amount of money. It, at least, comprises of the costs of internal investment (to achieve digitization), portal building, and maintenance (operational, security, upgrade, etc).[2] Thus, for governments with limited budget, of course, e-government is not tempting. Governments with limited budget are more likely to prioritize the fund for something more concrete and visible. Even if e-government program is initiated, it will be limited to data provision instead of participation facilitation.

The third is the cost of upgrading human resources to meet the requirements to operate the system. Transparency under e-governance is not merely about digitization, but also about habit conversion. It converts analog working procedures into digital and apathetic citizens into participatory. Dealing with computerized office activities is a problem for many officials, both in urban and rural areas. When the system is settled, the challenge is then to invite people to live the system because the spirit of transparency is not only providing canals of democracy, but also making a democratic society. These need continuous and persistent promotion, and again it costs a lot.

Transparent and clean government are the core to the goal that mankind has been dreaming for centuries. E-governance is a tool to achieve that. The high cost is a consequence we must compromise. However, e-governance is a powerful investment that is worthy to execute.

image: pexels.com

[1] M. Douglas, ‘The Economics of E-Government Services Are Far From Simple,’ Government Technology (online), 21 January 2011, , accessed 15 July 2016.

[2] S. Kertesz, ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis of e-Government Investments,’ 2003, , accessed 15 July 2016.