Author(s)
Pozen, David E.Keywords
transparencypublicity
secrecy
open records
open meetings
open data
campaign finance
First Amendment
consumer protection
administrative law
legislative process
governance
regulation
law and politics
progressivism
neoliberalism
SSRN
Administrative Law
First Amendment
Law
Law and Politics
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2453https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3457&context=faculty_scholarship
Abstract
In the formative periods of American "open government" law, the idea of transparency was linked with progressive politics. Advocates of transparency understood themselves to be promoting values such as bureaucratic rationality, social justice, and trust in public institutions. Transparency was meant to make government stronger and more egalitarian. In the twenty-first century, transparency is doing different work. Although a wide range of actors appeal to transparency in a wide range of contexts, the dominant strain in the policy discourse emphasizes its capacity to check administrative abuse, enhance private choice, and reduce other forms of regulation. Transparency is meant to make government smaller and less egregious. This Article traces transparency's drift in the United States from a progressive to a more libertarian, or neoliberal, orientation and offers some reflections on the causes and consequences – and on the possibility of a reversal. Many factors have played a part, including corporate capture of freedom of information laws, the exponential growth in national security secrecy, the emergence of the digital age and associated technologies of disclosure, the desire to facilitate international trade and investment, and the ascendance of market-based theories of regulation. Perhaps the most fundamental driver of this ideological drift, however, is the most easily overlooked: the diminishing marginal returns to government transparency. As public institutions became subject to more and more policies of openness and accountability, demands for transparency became more and more threatening to the functioning and legitimacy of those institutions and, consequently, to progressive political agendas. Coming to terms with transparency law's ambivalent legacy is the first step toward redeeming its promise in the present day.Date
2018-01-01Type
textIdentifier
oai:scholarship.law.columbia.edu:faculty_scholarship-3457https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2453
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3457&context=faculty_scholarship