Advertisement

Transparency Imperatives: Results and Frontiers of Social Science Research

  • Vincent AugustEmail author
  • Fran Osrecki
Chapter
  • 329 Downloads

Abstract

In Western societies, transparency has become an imperative and almost unquestionable norm. In this opening chapter, we provide an overview of social scientific debates about transparency. First, we trace the idea of transparency historically in order to contextualize past and present transparency imperatives. We start with the utilitarian tradition initiated by Jeremy Bentham and argue that transparency employs a mechanism of surveillance, formalization, and standardization that is supposed to transform insecurities into security and efficiency. This modernist legacy reaches into contemporary visions of transparency, for instance in institutional economics, new public management, or in current debates on big data. In a second step, we discuss the unintended consequences of these recent transparency imperatives. Based on a literature review, we show that transparency often does not achieve its self-proclaimed goals, as its rationale and practices produce unintended structural effects, such as organizational inefficiency, massive bureaucratization, and even intransparency. Building on these results, we propose a comparative approach for future social scientific research on transparency, outlining new frontiers and topics. We will refer to the articles collected in this book throughout the chapter and close with some remarks on the general structure of this anthology that combines contributions from sociology, political science, and anthropology and highlights the variety and ubiquity of transparency imperatives.

Keywords

Transparency Organization Politics Governance Interaction Norms Practices Structures Effects 

Schlüsselwörter

Transparenz Organisation Politik Interaktion Normen Strukturen Praktiken Gesellschaft Ergebnisse 

References

  1. Abazi, V. (2016). How confidential negotiations of the TTIP affect public trust. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 7(2), 247–251.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00005626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abend, G. (2014). The moral background. An inquiry into the history of business ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alber, N. (2018). Transparentes Hartz IV?! Die Leistungsmittel-Software ALLEGRO. Berliner Blätter, 21(76), 39–55.Google Scholar
  4. Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973–989.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anechiarico, F., & Jacobs, J. B. (1996). The pursuit of absolute integrity: How corruption control makes government ineffective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. August, V. (2018a). Ikonologie der Transparenz: Demokratie im Zeichen von Rationalität und Reinheit. Leviathan, 46(34), 115–147.  https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845285405-114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. August, V. (2018b). Theorie und Praxis der Transparenz. Eine Zwischenbilanz. Berliner Blätter, 21(76), 129–156.Google Scholar
  8. August, V. (2019a). Öffentlichkeit in der Transparenzgesellschaft. Merkmale, Ambivalenzen, Alternativen. In J. Knobloch (Ed.), Staat und Geheimnis. Der Kampf um die (Un)Sichtbarkeit der Macht (pp. 191–216). Baden-Baden: Nomos.  https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845299952-191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. August, V. (2019b). Von ›Unregierbarkeit‹ zu Governance: Neoliberale, teleologische und technologische Staatskritik. In A. Cavuldak (Ed.), Die Grammatik der Demokratie. Das Staatsverständnis von Peter Graf Kielmansegg (pp. 231–258). Baden-Baden: Nomos.  https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845288499-287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2011). The trouble with transparency: A critical review of openness in e-government. Policy & Internet, 3(1), 158–187.  https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barnstone, D. A. (2005). The transparent state. Architecture and politics in postwar Germany. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Barry, A. (2013). Material politics. Disputes along the pipeline. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baumann, M.-O. (2014). Die schöne Transparenz-Norm und das Biest des Politischen: Paradoxe Folgen einer neuen Ideologie der Öffentlichkeit. Leviathan, 42(3), 398–419.  https://doi.org/10.5771/0340-0425-2014-3-398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Baume, S. (2011). La transparence dans la conduite des affaires publique. Origines et sens d’une exigence. Raison publique. https://www.raison-publique.fr/article459.html. Accessed 13 June 2019.
  15. Becker, G. S. (1978). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bensman, J., & Gerver, I. (1963). Crime and punishment in the factory: The function of deviancy in maintaining the social system. American Sociological Review, 28(4), 588–598.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2090074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bentham, J. (1952–1954). The philosophy of economic science. In W. Stark (Ed.), Jeremy Bentham’s economic writings. Critical edition. Based on his printed works and unprinted Manuscripts (Vol. 1, pp. 79–120). London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  18. Bentham, J. (1962a). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. In J. Bowring (Ed.), The works of Jeremy Bentham (Vol. 1, pp. 1–154). New York: Russel & Russel.Google Scholar
  19. Bentham, J. (1962b). Constitutional code. In J. Bowring (Ed.), The works of Jeremy Bentham (Vol. 9). New York: Russel & Russel.Google Scholar
  20. Bentham, J. (1962c). Panopticon; or, the Inspection-House. In J. Bowring (Ed.), The works of Jeremy Bentham (Vol. 4, pp. 37–137). New York: Russel & Russel.Google Scholar
  21. Bentham, J. (1962d). Rationale of judicial evidence; specially applied to english practice, vol. 2. In J. Bowring (Ed.), The works of Jeremy Bentham (Vol. 7). New York: Russel & Russel.Google Scholar
  22. Bentham, J. (1962e). Tracts on poor laws and pauper management. In J. Bowring (Ed.), The works of Jeremy Bentham (Vol. 8, pp. 359–439). New York: Russel & Russel.Google Scholar
  23. Bentham, J. (1999). An essay on political tactics, or inquiries concerning the discipline and mode of proceeding proper to be observed in political assemblies: Principally applied to the practice of the British parliament, and to the constitution and situation of the national assembly of France. In M. James, C. Blamires, & C. Pease-Watkin (Eds.), Political tactics (pp. 13–156). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Berliner, D. (2014). The political origins of transparency. The Journal of Politics, 76(2), 479–491.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613001412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bernstein, E. S. (2012). The transparency paradox: A role for privacy in organizational learning and operational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2), 181–216.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212453028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Bishop, B. (2009). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded American is tearing us apart. Boston: Mariner Books.Google Scholar
  27. Black, L., Pemberton, H., & Thane, P. (Eds.). (2013). Reassessing 1970s Britain. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (2005). The new spirit of capitalism. London: Verso.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Bösch, F. (2019). Zeitenwende 1979. Als die Welt von heute begann. Munich: Beck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason. On the theory of action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Bowles, N., Hamilton, J. T., & Levy, D. A. L. (2014). Introduction. In N. Bowles, J. T. Hamilton, & D. A. L. Levy (Eds.), Transparency in politics and the media: Accountability and open government (pp. xi–xxiii). London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  32. Brandeis, L. D. (1914). What publicity can do. Other people’s money and how the bankers use it (pp. 92–108). New York: Stokes Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Brittan, S. (1975). The economic contradictions of democracy. British Journal of Political Science, 5(2), 129–159.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400008115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Buchanan, J. M. (1975). The limits of liberty. Between anarchy and leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Chabal, E. (Ed.). (2015). France since the 1970s. History, politics and memory in an age of uncertainty. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  36. Christensen, L. T., & Cheney, G. (2015). Peering into transparency: Challenging ideals, proxies, and organizational practices. Communication Theory, 25(1), 70–90.  https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Coles, K. (2007). Democratic designs: International intervention and electoral practices in postwar Bosnia-Herzegovina. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Courpasson, D., Dany, F., & Clegg, S. (2012). Resisters at work: Generating productive resistance in the workplace. Organization Science, 23(3), 801–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Cucciniello, M., Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Porumbescu, G. (2013). The effect of transparency on trust in government: A cross-national comparative experiment. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 575–586.  https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Cucciniello, M., Porumbescu, G. A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2017). 25 years of transparency research: Evidence and future directions. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 32–44.  https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Dalton, M. (1959). Men who manage. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. D’Angelo, J., & Ranalli, B. (2019). The dark side of sunlight. How transparency helps lobbyists and hurts the public. Foreign Affairs, 98(3), 155–168.Google Scholar
  44. De Fine Licht, J. (2011). Do we really want to know? The potentially negative effect of transparency in decision making on perceived legitimacy. Scandinavian Political Studies, 34(3), 183–201.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2011.00268.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Doering-Manteuffel, A., & Raphael, L. (2008). Nach dem Boom. Perspektiven auf die Zeitgeschichte seit 1970. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  46. Dymczyk, A., & Schwalbe, A. (2018). Einsichtige Arbeitszeit. Transparenz in der elektronischen Personalzeiterfassung. Berliner Blätter, 21(76), 76–91.Google Scholar
  47. Eberwein, T., & Porlezza, C. (2014). The missing link: Online media accountability practices and their implications for European Media Policy. Journal of Information Policy, 4, 421–443.  https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.4.2014.0421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Edmunds, A., & Morris, A. (2000). The problem of information overload in business organisations: A review of the literature. International Journal of Information Management, 20(1), 17–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-4012(99)00051-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Erkkilä, T. (2012). Government transparency. Impacts and unintended consequences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  50. Espeland, W., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Etzioni, A. (2010). Is transparency the best disinfectant? Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(4), 389–404.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00366.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Evetts, J. (2011). A new professionalism? Challenges and opportunities. Current Sociology, 59(4), 406–422.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392111402585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Farrell, C., & Morris, J. (2003). The ‘neo-bureaucratic’ state: Professionals, managers and professional managers in schools, general practices and social work. Organization, 10(1), 129–156.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508403010001380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Fischer-Lichte, E., Horn, C., Pflug, I., & Warstat, M. (Eds.). (2007). Inszenierung von Authentizität. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
  55. Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  56. Foucault, M. (1997). The masked philosopher. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Ethics. Subjectivity and truth (pp. 321–328). New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  57. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25(26), 56–80.  https://doi.org/10.2307/466240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Gadinger, F., & Yildiz, T. (2016). Transparenz/Intransparenz. Zur Ambivalenz einer neuen Leitunterscheidung demokratischen Regierens. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 26(2), 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Gheyle, N., & de Ville, F. (2017). How much is enough? Explaining the continuous transparency conflict in TTIP. Politics and Governance, 5(3), 16–28.  https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v5i3.1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  61. Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  62. Gosseries, A. (2017). Publicity. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford: The Metaphysics Research Lab. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/publicity/. Accessed 19 Jan 2019.
  63. Gouldner, A. W. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  64. Gropius, W. (2005). Glasbau. In D. Rübel (Ed.), Materialästhetik. Quellentexte zu Kunst, Design und Architektur (pp. 74–77). Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
  65. Han, B.-C. (2012). Transparenzgesellschaft. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz.Google Scholar
  66. Hansen, H. K. (2015). Numerical operations, transparency illusions and the datification of governance. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(2), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hansen, H. K., Christensen, L. T., & Flyverbom, M. (2015). Introduction: Logics of transparency in late modernity Paradoxes, mediation and governance. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(2), 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Heald, D. (2006). Transparency as an instrumental value. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency. The key to better governance? (pp. 59–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Hood, C. (2001). Public management, new. In N. J. Smelser (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 12, pp. 12553–12556). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Hood, C. (2006). Transparency in historical perspective. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency. The key to better governance? (pp. 3–25). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Hood, C. (2007). What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance? Public Management Review, 9(2), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2015). A government that worked better and cost less? Evaluating three decades of reform and change in UK central government. Oxford: University of Oxford Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Hurtado, J. (2008). Jeremy Bentham and Gary Becker: Utilitarianism and economic imperialism. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 30(3), 335–357.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837208000321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Illouz, E. (2007). Cold Intimacies. The making of emotional capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  75. Koch-Grünberg, M. (2018). Seeing like a subject. Quantifizierende Methoden der Selbstbeobachtung und die Künste der Existenz. Berliner Blätter, 21(76), 110–128.Google Scholar
  76. Kopits, G., & Craig, J. D. (1998). Transparency in government operations. Washington: International Monetary Fund.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Kühnert, N. (2018). Drug Checking in der akzeptierenden Drogenarbeit. Ein umstrittenes Verfahren zur Herstellung von Transparenz illegaler Substanzen und des Drogenmarktes. Berliner Blätter, 21(76), 92–109.Google Scholar
  78. Laffont, J.-J., & Martimort, D. (2002). The theory of incentives. The principal-agent model. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Leendertz, A., & Meteling, W. (Eds.). (2016). Die neue Wirklichkeit. Semantische Neuvermessungen und Politik seit den 1970er-Jahren. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  80. Levay, C., & Waks, C. (2009). Professions and the pursuit of transparency in healthcare: Two cases of soft autonomy. Organization Studies, 30(5), 509–527.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609104396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Luhmann, N. (1964). Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  82. Luhmann, N. (1981). Politische Theorie im Wohlfahrtsstaat. Munich: Olzog.Google Scholar
  83. Luhmann, N. (1982). The differentiation of society. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Luhmann, N. (1998). Love as passion. The codification of intimacy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Luhmann, N. (2017). Trust. In C. Morgner & M. King (Eds.), Trust and power (pp. 3–116). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  86. MacKinnon, R. (2012). Consent of the networked. The worldwide struggle for internet freedom. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  87. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  88. Marks, J. (2001). Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Michael Sandel and the politics of transparency. Polity, 33(4), 619–642. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235519. Accessed 13 June 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Marshall, T. H. (1964). Class, citizenship and social development. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  90. Mau, S. (2019). The metric society. On the quantification of the social. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  91. McGivern, G., & Ferlie, E. (2007). Playing tick-box games: Interrelating defences in professional appraisal. Human Relations, 60(9), 1361–1385.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707082851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Meijer, A. J., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: Connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10–29.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311429533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Moe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–777.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2110997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Nassehi, A., & Nollmann, G. (Eds.). (2004). Bourdieu und Luhmann. Ein Theorienvergleich. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  95. Naurin, D. (2006). Transparency, publicity, accountability—the missing links. Swiss Political Science Review, 12(3), 90–98.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2006.tb00056.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Nicola, F. G. (2015). The paradox of transparency: The politics of regulatory cooperation in the TTIP negotiation. Quaderni di SIDIBlog, 2, 356–362. http://www.sidiblog.org/2015/02/04/the-paradox-of-transparency-the-politics-of-regulatory-cooperation-in-the-ttip-negotiation/. Accessed 19 Jan 2019.
  97. Numerato, D., Salvatore, D., & Fattore, G. (2012). The impact of management on medical professionalism: A review. Sociology of Health & Illness, 34, 626–644.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01393.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Osrecki, F. (2015). Fighting corruption with transparent organizations. Anti-corruption and functional deviance in organizational behavior. Ephemera, 15(2), 337–364. http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/contribution/15-2osrecki_0.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2019.
  99. Oxford English Dictionary Online. (2019). transparent. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/204969. Accessed 10 Oct 2019.
  100. Pinto, J., Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2008). Corrupt organizations or organizations of corrupt individuals? Two types of organization-level corruption. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 685–709. http://amr.aom.org/content/33/3/685.short. Accessed 29 Aug 2016.
  101. Power, M. (2003). Auditing and the production of legitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(4), 379–394. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368201000472. Accessed 10 May 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Pozen, D. E. (2018). Transparency’s ideological drift. The Yale Law Journal, 128(1), 100–165. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/transparencys-ideological-drift. Accessed 15 Jan 2019.
  103. Prat, A. (2005). The wrong kind of transparency. The American Economic Review, 95(3), 862–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Reckwitz, A. (2006). Das hybride Subjekt. Eine Theorie der Subjektkulturen von der bürgerlichen Moderne zur Postmoderne. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
  105. Reckwitz, A. (2017). Die Gesellschaft der Singularitäten. Zum Strukturwandel der Moderne. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  106. Rice, F. P., Stinnett, N., Stinnett, N. M., & DeGenova, M. K. (2016). Intimate relationships, marriages, and families. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  107. Richter, P. (2017). Es werde Licht! Und es ward Licht?—Zur Wirkung von Transparenz auf die Legitimität öffentlicher Verwaltung. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 58(2), 234–257.  https://doi.org/10.5771/0032-3470-2017-2-234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Ringel, L. (2019). Transparenz in der Politik? Grenzen, Probleme und nicht intendierte Folgen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 57, 111–133.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-019-00591-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Ritzi, C. (2017). Das Geheimnis und die Demokratie. (In-) Transparenz als politische Herausforderung im digitalen Zeitalter. In R. Voigt (Ed.), Staatsgeheimnisse. Staat—Souveränität—Nation (pp. 179–204). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16235-1_9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Rottenburg, R., Merry, S. E., Park, S.-J., & Mugler, J. (Eds.). (2015). The world of indicators. The making of governmental knowledge through quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Rousseau, J.-J. (1959). Rousseau juge de Jean Jacques Dialogues. In B. Gagnebin & M. Raymond (Eds.), Œuvre complètes (Vol. 1, pp. 657–976). Geneva: Edition Gallimard.Google Scholar
  112. Rzepka, V. (2013). Die Ordnung der Transparenz. Jeremy Bentham und die Genealogie einer demokratischen Norm. Berlin: Lit.Google Scholar
  113. Sampson, S. (2010). Diagnostics: Indicators and Transparency in the Anti-Corruption Industry. In S. A. Jansen, E. Schröter, & N. Stehr (Eds.), Transparenz. Multidisziplinäre Durchsichten durch Phänomene und Theorien des Undurchsichtigen (pp. 97–111). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  114. Schudson, M. (2015). The rise of the right to know politics and the culture of transparency, 1945–1975. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Segal, L. (2012). Instilling stewardship to address the integrity/efficiency dilemma. Administration & Society, 44(7), 825–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Selznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the theory of organization. American Sociological Review, 13(1), 25–35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2086752. Accessed 10 May 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Sennett, R. (1992). The fall of public man. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  118. Sifry, M. L. (2011). WikiLeaks and the age of transparency. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Simmel, G. (1992). Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  120. Staffiere, L. (2018). Transparency international. Transparenz als Korruptionsbekämpfung. Berliner Blätter, 21(76), 21–38.Google Scholar
  121. Stark, F. (2018). Vom Basar zur Autolieferkette. Unsicherheit und ökonomisierte Verantwortung in den Informationsinfrastrukturen eines globalen Lieferantennetzes. Berliner Blätter, 21(76), 56–75.Google Scholar
  122. Starobinski, J. (1997). Jean-Jacques Rousseau. La transparence et l’obstacle. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  123. Stempfhuber, M. (2012). Paargeschichten. Zur performativen Herstellung von Intimität. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  124. Stichweh, R. (2003). The multiple publics of science. Inclusion and popularization. Soziale Systeme, 9, 210–220.Google Scholar
  125. Stichweh, R. (2009). Leitgesichtspunkte einer Soziologie der Inklusion und Exklusion. In R. Stichweh & P. Windolf (Eds.), Inklusion und Exklusion: Analysen zur Sozialstruktur und sozialen Ungleichheit (pp. 29–42). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Stichweh, R. (2016). Inklusion und Exklusion. Studien zur Gesellschaftstheorie. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  127. Strathern, M. (2000). The Tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 309–321.  https://doi.org/10.1080/713651562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Suntrup, J. C. (2018). Zwischen Herrschaftskontrolle und Verschwörungstheorie. Zur Ambivalenz von „Misstrauensdemokratien“. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 59(2), 221–243.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-018-0084-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of E-Government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354–369.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00594.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Tsoukas, H. (1997). The tyranny of light: The temptations and the paradoxes of the information society. Futures, 29(9), 827–843. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328797000359. Accessed 10 May 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Varga, S., & Guignon, C. (2017). Authenticity. In E. N. Zalta. (Ed.). The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: The Metaphysics Research Lab. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/authenticity/. Accessed 4 June 2019.
  132. Watrin, C. (1979). Zur Überlastung des Staates mit wirtschaftspolitischen Aufgaben. In W. Hennis, P. Graf Kielmansegg, & U. Matz (Eds.), Regierbarkeit Studien zu ihrer Problematisierung (pp. 233–253). Stuttgart: Ernst Klett.Google Scholar
  133. Wewer, G. (2017). Transparenz als Grundlage für Vertrauen? Die Sichtweise der Regierungslehre. Kiel: Lorenz-von-Stein-Institut für Verwaltungswissenschaften.Google Scholar
  134. Wirsching, A. (2011). The 1970s and 1980s as a turning point in European history? Journal of Modern European History, 9(1), 8–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  136. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations