Learning from Opening Data in the Context of E-Governance: Finland, with Special Reference to Government Location Data

  • Pertti Ahonen


The purpose of this chapter is to construct a framework to examine change in e-governance, apply this framework in a one-country case study on opening government location data, and draw conclusions. The conceptual framework is comprised of four dimensions: influential historical, social and political mechanisms; the diffusion of innovations; stages of e-governance development; and facilitators of change. The research material is comprised of documents and interviews. According to the results, the will for e-governance change must accumulate in government and elsewhere, e-governance change has to be legitimated with accounts of its benefits, the costs of the change have to be accounted for, and organizational and individual facilitators may be needed. Conclusions are drawn for future research and concerning e-governance practice in developed and developing countries.


  1. Ahonen-Rainio, P., Mäkelä, J., & Virrantaus, K.. 2014. Menetelmä avoimen maastotiedon vaikuttavuuden arvioimiseksi. Publication on a method to assess the effectiveness of open terrain data, in Finnish. Espoo: Aalto University.Google Scholar
  2. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2015). The great theory hunt: Does e-Government really have a problem? Government Information Quarterly, 32, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry, E., & Bannister, F. (2014). Barriers to open data release: A view from the top. Information Polity, 19, 129–152.Google Scholar
  4. Bates, J. (2014). The strategic importance of information policy for the contemporary neoliberal state: The case of open government data in the United Kingdom. Government Information Quarterly, 31, 388–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berners-Lee, T. (2007). Linked data. Retrieved July 5, 2015, from
  6. Blatter, J., & Haverland, M. (2012). Designing case studies: Explanatory approaches in small-N research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. van der Boor, P., Oliveira, P., & Veloso, F. (2014). Users as innovators in developing countries: The Global sources of innovation and diffusion in mobile banking services. Research Policy, 43, 1594–1607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunsson, N. (2009). Reform as routine: Organizational change in the modern world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dey, B., Sorour, K., & Filieri, R. (Eds.). (2016). ICTs in developing countries. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Directive. (2007). Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 Establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (known under the acronym INSPIRE). Retrieved June 20, 2015, from
  11. Dulong de Rosnay, M., & Janssen, K. (2014). Legal and institutional challenges for opening data across public sectors: Towards common policy solutions. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 9, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EC. (2016). Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Directive 2007/2/EC of March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) pursuant to article 23. Retrieved October 14, 2016, from
  13. Erkkilä, T. (2012). Government transparency: Impacts and unintended consequences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EU. (2016). EU Share-PSI 2.0. 2016. Web pages of the network for innovation in European public sector innovation. Retrieved June 20, 2016, from
  15. FLIC. (2016). The Finnish location information cluster. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from
  16. Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20, 1408–1416.Google Scholar
  17. GODI. (2016). Global open data index. Retrieved July 2, 2016, from
  18. Heimstädt, M., Saunderson, F., & Heath, T. (2014). From toddler to teen: Growth of open data ecosystem. A longitudinal analysis of open data developments in the UK. Journal of eDemocracy, 6, 123–135.Google Scholar
  19. Holden, K., & Van Klyton, A. (2016). Exploring the tensions and incongruities of internet governance in Africa. Government Information Quarterly, 33. electronic preprint. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from doi: 10.106/j.giq.2016.08.00g.Google Scholar
  20. INSPIRE. See Directive 2007.Google Scholar
  21. Jaakkola, A., Kekkonen, H., Lahti, T., & Manninen, A. (2015). Open data open cities: Experiences from the Helsinki metropolitan area, case Helsinki region Infoshare Statistical Journal of the IOS, 31, 117–122.Google Scholar
  22. Kalampokis, E., Tambouri, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2011). Open government data: A stage model. In M. Janssen, H. J. Scholl, M. A. Wimmer, & Y. H. Tan (Eds.), Electronic government (pp. 235–246). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Katainen, J. 2011. Programme of Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen’s government. Official English translation. Helsinki: Prime Minister’s Office.Google Scholar
  24. Kitchin, R. (2014). The data revolution: Big data, open data, data infrastructures & their consequences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Koski, H. (2015). The impact of open data. Helsinki: Ministry of Finance.Google Scholar
  26. Laki paikkatietoinfrastruktuurista. (2009). Parliament act on location data infrastructure. 12 June 2009, no. 421. In Finnish.Google Scholar
  27. Lee, C. K., & Strang, D. (2006). The international diffusion of public-sector downsizing: Network emulation and theory-driven learning. International Organization, 60, 883–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, C., Chang, K., & Berry, F. S. (2011). Testing the development and diffusion of e-Government and e-Democracy. Public Administration Review, 71, 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maanmittauslaitos. (2015). Digitaaliset tuotteet. Web pages of the National Land Survey, Finland, concerning its digital products. Retrieved April 11, 2015, from
  30. MAF. (2014). Kansallinen paikkatietostrategia 2016. The Finnish national location data strategy until 2016. Helsinki: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.Google Scholar
  31. Meyer, R., & Hammerschmid, G. (2006). Changing institutional logics and executive identities: A managerial challenge to public administration in Austria. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 1000–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MF. (2015a). Avoimen tiedon ohjelma. Open data program, in Finnish. Ministry of Finance. Retrieved April 11, 2015, from
  34. MF. (2015b). Avoimesta datasta innovatiiviseen tiedon hyödyntämiseen: Avoimen tiedon ohjelman 2013–2015 loppuraportti. Final report of the Finnish open data program, in Finnish. Ministry of Finance. Retrieved April 11, 2015, from
  35. MF. (2015c). Digitalisaatio. Web pages on digitalization. Retrieved July 12, 2015, from
  36. Milakovich, M. E. (2012). Digital governance: New technologies for improving public service and participation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Nugroho, R. P., Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2015). A comparison of national open data policies: Lessons learned. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 9, 286–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. ODB. (2016). Open data barometer. Retrieved July 7, 2016, from
  39. OECD. (2010). Finland: Working together to sustain success. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  40. OECD. (2015). Government at a glance. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  41. Open Data Finland. (2015). Open data Finland. Finnish government open data portal. Retrieved June 21, 2015, from
  42. OpenGovData. (2016). The eight principles of open government data. Retrieved July 7, 2016, from
  43. Poikola, A., Kola, P., & Hintikka, K. A. (2010). Public data – An introduction to opening information resources. Helsinki: Ministry of Transport and Communications.Google Scholar
  44. RI. (2015). Research interviews for this study by the author, April to June 2015.Google Scholar
  45. RI. (2016). Research interviews for this study by the author, June to July 2016.Google Scholar
  46. Sipilä, J. (2015). Programme of Prime Minister Juha Sipilä’s Government. Official English translation. Helsinki: Prime Minister’s Office.Google Scholar
  47. Tilly, C., & Tarrow, S. (2012). Contentious politics (2 fully Rev. and updated ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Ubaldi, B. B. (2013). Open government data: Towards empirical analysis of open data initiatives. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Uusikylä, P. (2013). Transforming silo-steering into a performance governance system: The case of the Finnish Central Government. New Directions for Evaluation, 21, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Veljković, N., Bogdanović-Dinić, S., & Stoimenov, L. (2014). Benchmarking open government: An open data perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 31, 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zuiderwijk, A. M. G., Janssen, M. F. W. H. A., & Davis, C. B. (2014). Innovation with open data: Essential elements of open data ecosystems. Information Polity, 19, 17–33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pertti Ahonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of the Social SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations