The bandwagon of open data has barely started to roll in Europe, while the first chimes of death bells are already feared to be heard from USA.
Data.gov, the mother of all national open data repositories worldwide, is expected to be shut down by the end of May this year. Reasons for shutdown are reportedly financial: US government funding for the transparency scheme is likely to be reduced from $37m to a mere $2m.
It remains to be seen, whether possible shutting of data.gov and several other transparency-related sites in US prove to have a significant and irreversibly negative effect on global open data movement. Probably – and hopefully – not, but what we do know, however, is that the need for comprehensive research on wider social impacts and intrinsic justification of open data is more crucial than ever.
Initial results of studies on the impact of UK Freedom of Information Act have played down the great expectations of FOI’s overly positive social impacts. Only a fraction of people in UK in fact use FOI. People are still aware of its existence, and it is seen to lead to a more accountable and transparent government.
It might be a good idea to stay somewhat realistic about impacts of open data, as well. Nathan Yau makes a good point in his recent article in Guardian, that if data sites are to be put down, very few people outside open data community would in fact even notice it.
It is increasingly important to ask the question ‘what does open data really bring to transparency and society at large?’ There are calculations on its positive economic impact and hopes for increased levels of public participation, but is there any intrinsic justification for spending public money to open up government data sets for a small minority who effectively are able to use the data? Furthermore, should there be more alternative methods of measuring the impacts of open data?
Interestingly, the UK government has argued in favour of open data mainly due to accountability and efficiency factors; government is spending money to publish data sets in order to save money in the long run. However, if it proves that economic impacts of open data are not as significant as expected, will the austerity measures hit hard on open data policies, as well?
We live in interesting times. Reactive FOI is feared to be too expensive, but arguably it still remains the only proper way of truly holding officials to account. It is highly unlikely, that all public information would some day be published proactively in open format, thus in the end it is up to government officials to decide, what data sets are to be published. FOI remains a primary tool to ask for those that are not.
Perhaps we should not put our hopes too heavily on the beatific capacities of open data. It is a delightful bonus and worth to fight for, but in terms of ensuring the functionality of transparency regime, reactive FOI is still needed. If FOI is played down in favour of proactive publishing of data, what do we have left if the axe eventually hits the open data movement?
