Implementing open government: a qualitative comparative analysis of digital platforms in France, Italy and United Kingdom

  • Emiliana De Blasio
  • Donatella SelvaEmail author


Open government is spreading throughout the world as a policy agenda oriented to foster transparency, participation and collaboration. Despite its increasing relevance in policy documents, there has been a scarce interest in deepening the analysis of how such agenda has been implemented in different national contexts. By adopting a multidimensional and multilevel perspective, we propose a qualitative comparative analysis of institutional digital platforms able to gather the evolution of open government in three European countries. We retrieved 979 open government platforms in France, Italy, and United Kingdom and analyzed them with an original set of indicators grouped in the three macro-areas of e-government, open data and transparency, participation and collaboration. Our study has methodological and policy implications: from the one hand, we provide the widest and deepest survey of open government platforms so far, contributing to the standardization of research methods on this field. From the other hand, we can observe that open government implementation is characterized by some typical traits, suggesting a trans-national convergence; this evidence is particularly prominent in the e-government and open data areas, whereas Participatory platforms are characterised by higher degrees of fragmentation both at the trans-national and at the intra-national levels. The analysis of open government platforms also reveals that, at the intra-national level, public administrations’ approaches to digital government are not homogeneous, although at different degrees among the three countries involved in our study, suggesting the need of a better integration and coordination by central authorities.


QCA Digital government Open government e-government Open data Participation 


  1. Alabau, A.: The European Union and Its e-Government Development Policy: Following the Lisbon Strategy Objectives. Fundación Vodafone España, Madrid (2004)Google Scholar
  2. Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., Grimes, J.M.: Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: e-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Gov. Inf. Q. 27(3), 264–271 (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolmgren Bingham, L.: The next generation of administrative law: building the legal infrastructure for collaborative governance. Wis. Law Rev. 2010(2), 298–356 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. Chadwick, A., May, C.: Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the internet: “e-government” in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance 16(2), 271–300 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, A., Francoli, M.: What’s in a name? A comparison of ‘open government’definitions across seven Open Government Partnership members. JeDEM 6(3), 248–266 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. Coleman, S., Moss, G.: Under construction: the field of online deliberation research. J. Inf. Technol. Politics 9(1), 1–15 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Blasio, E.: Democrazia Digitale: Una Piccola Introduzione. Luiss University Press, Roma (2014)Google Scholar
  8. De Blasio, E.: forthcoming). Open Government. Roma, Carocci (2018)Google Scholar
  9. De Blasio, E., Selva, D.: Why choose open government? Motivations for the adoption of open government policies in four European countries. Policy Internet 8(3), 225–247 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Blasio, E., Sorice, M.: Open government: a tool for democracy? Medijske Studije Media Studies 7(14), 14–30 (2016).
  11. De Cindio, F.: Guidelines for designing deliberative digital habitats: learning from e-participation for open data initiatives. J Community Inform 8(2). (2012). Accessed 30 Oct 2017
  12. della Porta, D.: Comparative research: case-oriented versus variable-oriented research. In: della Porta, D., Keating, M. (eds.) Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, pp. 198–222. Cambridge University Press, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission: Ministerial Declaration on e-Government. (2009). Accessed 18 Oct 2017
  14. Fuller, M. (ed.): Software studies: a Lexicon. The MIT Press, Boston, MS (2008)Google Scholar
  15. Gillespie, T.: The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media Soc. 12(3), 347–364 (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grönlund, A.: State of the art in e-Gov research—a survey. In: Traunmüller, R. (ed.) Electronic government. EGOV 2004. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 3183, pp. 178–185. Springer, Berlin (2004). Google Scholar
  17. Morlino, L.: Introduzione alla ricerca comparata. Il Mulino, Bologna (2005)Google Scholar
  18. Morlino, L.: Changes for democracy: actors, structures, processes. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mulgan, R.: Making open government work. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. OECD: Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies. OECD, Paris. (2014). Accessed 18 Oct 2017
  21. Orton-Johnson, K., Prior, N. (eds.): Digital sociology: critical perspectives. Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan (2013)Google Scholar
  22. Porta, D., Keating, M. (eds.): Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  23. Ragin, C.: Set relations in social research: evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Anal. 14(3), 291–310 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reddick, C.G.: Citizen interaction and e-government: evidence for the managerial, consultative, and participatory models. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 5(2), 167–184 (2011). Google Scholar
  25. Rumbul, R.: ICTs, openness and citizen perceptions of government: how civic technologies can facilitate external citizen efficacy. Medijske Studije Media Studies 7(14), 32–47. (2016)
  26. Schneider, C.Q., Wagemann, C.: Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comp. Sociol. 9(3), 397–418 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scholl, H. J.: The EGOV research community: an update on where we stand. In: Janssen, M. et al. (eds.). Electronic Government. Proceedings of the 13th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2014, pp. 1–16. Berlin: Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  28. The White House: Open Government Directive. (2009). Accessed 18 Oct 2017
  29. United Nations: UN e-Government Survey 2008: from e-Government to Connected Governance. United Nations, New York. (2008). Accessed 17 Oct 2017
  30. West, D.M.: Digital government: technology and public sector performance. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (2005)Google Scholar
  31. Wright, S., Street, J.: Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. New Media Soc. 9(5), 849–869 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Conflict and Participation StudiesRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations