IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxecpp/v68y2016i4p968-993..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do freedom of information laws improve bureaucratic efficiency? An empirical investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Krishna Chaitanya Vadlamannati
  • Arusha Cooray

Abstract

Previous studies find that adopting Freedom of Information (FOI) laws increase reporting of corruption, as this facilitates the right of access to governmental information. Thus, it is argued that FOI laws increase transparency and enhance government accountability. However, whether or not adopting such transparency laws improves bureaucratic efficiency remains unexplored. We provide first quantitative evidence on the impact of FOI laws on bureaucratic efficiency. Using panel data on 132 countries from 1990 to 2011, we find that adopting FOI laws, and in particular ‘stronger’ FOI laws, is associated with an improvement in bureaucratic efficiency, after controlling for self-section bias. FOI laws appear to be more effective in the long run, and if combined with a higher degree of media freedom, presence of non-governmental organization activism, and political competition. These findings are robust to controlling for endogeneity using instrumental variables, alternative samples, and estimation methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Krishna Chaitanya Vadlamannati & Arusha Cooray, 2016. "Do freedom of information laws improve bureaucratic efficiency? An empirical investigation," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 68(4), pages 968-993.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:68:y:2016:i:4:p:968-993.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oep/gpw008
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Salvatore Capasso & Rajeev K. Goel & James W. Saunoris, 2023. "The nexus between corruption and academic freedom: An international investigation of the underlying linkages," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(3), pages 513-531, July.
    2. De Luca, Giacomo & Lisi, Domenico & Martorana, Marco & Siciliani, Luigi, 2021. "Does higher Institutional Quality improve the Appropriateness of Healthcare Provision?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    3. Marenzi, Anna & Rizzi, Dino & Zanette, Michele & Zantomio, Francesca, 2023. "Regional institutional quality and territorial equity in LTC provision," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    4. Marenzi, A.; & Rizzi, D.; & Zanette, M.; & Zantomio, F.;, 2022. "Regional Institutional Quality and Territorial Equity in LTC Provision," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 22/27, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    5. Calogero Guccio & Domenico Lisi & Ilde Rizzo, 2019. "When the purchasing officer looks the other way: on the waste effects of debauched local environment in public works execution," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 205-236, September.
    6. Ma, Rui & Guo, Fei & Li, Dongdong, 2024. "Can public data availability affect stock price crash risk? Evidence from China," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    7. Krishna Chaitanya Vadlamannati & Arusha Cooray & Samuel Brazys, 2018. "Nothing to hide: Commitment to, compliance with, and impact of the special data dissemination standard," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 55-77, March.
    8. Changwony, Frederick Kibon & Paterson, Audrey S., 2019. "Accounting practice, fiscal decentralization and corruption," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(5).
    9. Salvatore Capasso & Rajeev K. Goel & James W. Saunoris, 2022. "The Nexus between Corruption and Academic Freedom: An International Examination Using Mediation Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 9890, CESifo.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • D73 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:68:y:2016:i:4:p:968-993.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.