Sergio Amadeu da Silveira - Cidadania e Redes Digitais

eng
c i t i z e n s h i p a n d d i g i t a l n e t w o r k s
Archon Fung, Mary Graham and David Weil (2007) wrote an important work
for the understanding of transparency in the contemporaneity, called Full Disclosure:
The Perils and Promise of Transparency. The book, based on empiric analyses
that describe the treatment, in the USA, of the public information subject to the
different political wills, approaches the issue of transparency as if it was a political
dogma — evoking various polemics, risks, losses and gains in the extensive adoption
of this principle.
The book also approaches transparency in the private institutions, a delicate
subject for North-American economy. According to the authors, researches point
out and justify why “the transparency policies can be socially benefic. The markets
alone do not offer information necessary to the consumers, employees and investors
to be able to make informed choices. And even when there is sufficient information
available, the individuals not always process such information with accuracy and
logic to make their decisions. Because of that, bargains such as those of the environmental
causes and other risks may not lead to optimum social results. (...) Together,
these comments indicate that the natural flow of information in a market with no
restrictions and its applications in the decision-making of the individuals in the real
world may not always lead to the optimum results foreseen for the politic theories”
(FUNG, GRAHAM and WEIL, 2007:30).
Prior to the perspectives of transparency and of an open government, initiated
by the Obama administration, Brito (2008) had published an article with concerns
relative to transparency and the accountability in the USA. In this article,
the author states that: “Democracy is grounded on the principle that the moral
authority of the government derives from the consent of the governed parties.
This consent is not very significant, by all means, unless it is informed. Whenever
a government makes decisions in secrecy, the opportunity for corruption increases
and accountability decreases. That is why government transparency should be a
priority” (BRITO, 2008:120).
Researchers Phineas Baxandall and Benet Magnuson (2008) had also carried
out, prior to the Obama government, studies on the situation of transparency and
its association with the network technologies in the North-American States governments.
They proposed the characterization of the concepts of Transparency 1.0
and Transparency 2.0 presented in the table below (BAXANDALL and MAGNU-
SON, 2008:1):
128