71 Abstract The aim of this article is to develop the fi nd- ings of a previous research on policies regarding proactive information disclosure, both voluntary and mandatory. We present and analyze new evidence on the factors that infl uence decisions taken in this respect. This study is focused on Mercosur area, a region that has received little previous research attention on these issues. To achieve the study goals, we analyze the proac- tive information disclosure made by local author- ities, regarding both the degree of compliance with legal requirements and whether these local authorities are voluntarily and homogeneously implementing the proactive information disclo- sure policies recommended by the Organization of American States (OAS). Finally, with respect to the voluntary information provision, we de- termine the infl uence of environmental factors on information disclosure. The results obtained show that transparency is more an issue of at- titude than of laws, and highlight the existence of a large gap between legal requirements, the OAS requirements and actual performance. Fi- nally, it can be seen that fi ve factors are statis- tically signifi cant for the voluntary disclosure of the OAS recommended items: corruption, tech- nology, size, mandatory disclosure policy and socio-economic development. Keywords: factors, FOI Act, transparency policy, harmonization, website. PROACTIVE TRANSPARENCY POLICY IN THE MERCOSUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: REGULATION VS. SELF-REGULATION*1 Manoli GARCÍA-TABUYO Alejandro SÁEZ-MARTÍN Maríadel Carmen CABA-PÉREZ Manoli GARCÍA-TABUYO University of Almería, La Cañada, Almería, Spain Tel: 0034-950-015.191 E-mail: mtabuyo@ual.es Alejandro SÁEZ-MARTÍN University of Almería, La Cañada, Almería, Spain Tel: 0034-679-591.179 E-mail: alejandro.saez@ual.es Maríadel Carmen CABA-PÉREZ (corresponding author) Assistant Professor, Department of Economy and Company, Faculty of Economic and Business Studies, University of Almería, La Cañada, Almería, Spain Tel: 0034-630-811.523 E-mail: ccaba@ual.es * Acknowledgement: This research was carried out with fi - nancial support from the Regional Government of Andalusia (Spain), Department of Innovation, Science and Enterprise (Research Projects P10-SEJ-06628 and P11-SEJ-7700). Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, No. 46 E/2015, pp. 71-90 72 1. Introduction Increasing perceptions among stakeholders that public funds are being misman- aged have eroded confi dence in and credibility of public institutions (Tolbert and Mossberger, 2006). To restore this confi dence, numerous authors consider that public bodies should be more transparent and allow greater access to public information (Cuillier and Piotrowski, 2009; Relly, 2012), and the development of a legal frame- work to support such access is of fundamental importance (Spahiu, 2012). As regards legal requirements on access to information, two facets of transparency can be distinguished: proactive and reactive (Darbishire, 2010). The fi rst of these is the obligation to disclose public information, without prior request, while the second means that information on government activity will only be provided when specifi - cally requested. In this context, Xiao (2010) observed that legislation is placing ever-greater em- phasis on the inclusion of policies promoting proactive transparency. According to Relly (2012), such policies benefi t citizens and government; stakeholders can thus ob- tain information more conveniently and at no charge, while public bodies, by making information available at all times, are freed of the burden of responding to numerous requests. To implement proactive policies on transparency, new technologies such as inter- net websites are being used as a means of disseminating information without prior request (Cuillier and Piotrowski, 2009), and this circumstance has led to diverse leg- islative frameworks being established to regulate and enhance access to public infor- mation. In Latin America, the Organization of American States (OAS) recently called for information disclosure laws to be adopted, taking into account the benefi ts of pro- active disclosure based on the use of information and communication technologies (ICT). Accordingly, the OAS has issued a Model Inter-American Law (LMI, Spanish initials), as a blueprint for countries wishing to draft a national law in this regard (or to amend an existing one), with the aim of fostering a more homogeneous culture of transparency in Latin America. Application of the LMI could make a vital contribution to political, economic and social integration in contexts such as Mercosur, whose goals include the harmoniza- tion of legislation within its member countries (Mercosur, 2010). Furthermore, global- ization is spurring demands for greater transparency, because economic and fi nancial decisions or events in one area may impact on other countries (Florini, 1999). Currently, some Mercosur member countries (for example, Argentina) do not have information disclosure laws, and those that do may not have followed the LMI blueprint; this is the case of Uruguay, which adopted its legislation in this fi eld before the model was published. Therefore, the legal situation regarding proactive policies on transparency varies considerably within the region. Another point that should be taken into account is that the LMI, and laws based on it, merely stipulates minimum policy requirements. Information disclosure at this 73 level might be insuffi cient to achieve the legitimation sought by public bodies, which therefore may decide, voluntarily, to publish complementary information (Neuman, 2006). Thus, public authorities in the Mercosur region may be complying with LMI recommendations on proactive transparency (or exceeding them) even if this is not called for under their national legislation. The factors and motivations that could infl uence self-regulation policies on infor- mation disclosure by public bodies vary widely, and have been addressed in many studies, especially in developed countries. However, litt le is known about the factors that may infl uence an organization’s voluntary decision to apply the proactive trans- parency policies recommended by supranational bodies, especially when national laws in this respect must also be complied with. In view of these considerations, the present study has a threefold objective: fi rst, with regard to facilitating citizen participation in government aff airs, to analyze the degree of compliance by local governments in Mercosur countries with national laws on proactive information disclosure. Second, to consider whether these local authori- ties are voluntarily and homogeneously implementing the proactive information dis- closure policies recommended by the OAS, and to identify the measures still to be applied, in order to comply with the LMI guidelines on proactive transparency. Final- ly, as some of these recommendations may be followed voluntarily, we also examine whether local authorities in countries where the LMI is incorporated into national legislation are more likely to follow it, and whether they are also aff ected by other factors. The fundamental aim of this study, thus, is to contribute to our understanding of mandatory policies on proactive transparency in contrast to self-regulation. In do- ing so, we present new evidence on the factors that infl uence a local government’s decision to voluntarily apply the proactive transparency policies recommended by supranational bodies. 2. Regulating access to public information: case study of the Mercosur countries The national constitutions of many countries include the right of access to public information. However, experience has shown that this right is merely hypothetical in the absence of appropriate legislation, ifstakeholders cannot readily access their con- stitutional courts (Neuman, 2006). The existence of a law on access to public information induces public servants to act in accordance with applicable laws in their area of responsibility (Coglianese, 2009). Therefore, the existence of a law guaranteeing this access can make a major contribution to the democratic development of a country (Piotrowski and Van Ryzin, 2007). Additionally, these laws benefi t the economy, as public-sector transparency and information contribute to achieving a climate of trust, because the positive evolution of the market largely depends on the reliable provision of information (Mendel, 2003; 74 Islam, 2006; Spahiu, 2012). Moreover, regulation of this area is a means of combating corruption, since the very act of requiring information alerts public servants that they must act in the public interest and not seek private gain (Bertot, Jaeger and Grimes, 2010). However, as each country is sovereign in regulating this right, large asymmetries can arise in terms of legislative content, and various international agencies and NGOs are seeking to overcome this imbalance. In order to support the development of na- tional laws, papers have been presented, focusing on general principles and require- ments in this area. Such documents include the Open Society Justice Initiative (2005), Article 19 (2007) and the Council of Europe (2009), together with model laws (OAS, 2010). In many cases, these publications seek to contribute to standardizing the con- cept of transparency within a specifi c region (Commonwealth; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights). In 2009, aware of an absence of harmonization in the content of their laws in this fi eld, the OAS member states approved Resolution AG/RES. 2514, which called for the preparation of a Model Inter-American Law (LMI) on access to information, to provide member states with the legal framework to support this right, together with an implementation guide to ensure its proper functioning. The LMI was also intend- ed to assist countries that had already adopted legislation in this area to harmonize their transparency policy with that of the other countries. After a year of prepara- tion,the LMI was adopted by the OAS (as Resolution AG/RES. 2607 (XL-O/10). Among the Mercosur countries – Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela, Para- guay and Bolivia (the latt er two, currently in a transitional stage of membership) – not all national constitutions incorporate the right of access to public information (Figure 1). Moreover, despite the important benefi ts believed to be obtained from informa- tion disclosure legislation, not all Mercosur countries have enacted such laws. Thus, only Uruguay (2008), Brazil (2011) and most recently Paraguay (2014), have adopted laws on public access to information. Bolivia regulates access to public information through Supreme Decree 27329/2004, as amended by Supreme Decree 28168/2005. Nevertheless, for decades all the Mercosur countries have given international undertakings to guarantee access to public information, by ratifying international agreements in this respect, such as Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights (1969), Article 3 of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (1996) and the UN Convention against Corruption (2003), Article 10 of which obliges each State Party to ‘take such measures as may be necessary to enhance transparency in its public administration, including (...)procedures or regulations allowing members of the general public to obtain, where appropriate, information on the organization, functioning and decision-making processes of its public administration (...)’. During the early years of the century, att empts by Mercosur countries to comply with these international commitments led to the parliamentary discussion of access to public information, but litt le was achieved until late 2006, when the pace quick- ened. Two events were probably responsible for this acceleration: fi rst, in 2006 the 75 Inter-American Court of Human Rights handed down its fi rst judgment on the sub- ject, ruling against the State (in Claude Reyes vs. Chile); second, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, re- quired the 32 member countries of the OAS to implement legal mechanisms to guar- antee access to public information. Paraguay pioneered action in this fi eld, with its Administrative Transparency Act (1728/01). However, this law actually limited freedom of access to information, and was repealed only two months later. Subsequently, in 2005, the Steering Group on Access to Public Information (GIAI, Spanish initials), presented a Bill in Parliament, but this failed to advance. Finally, in September 2013, the organization Seeds for De- mocracy and GIAI sponsored another Bill, which was approved one year later. In Uruguay, the initiative was taken by an NGO, the Archives and Access to Pub- lic Information Group (GAIP), composed of various human rights groups and media associations, which prepared a draft Bill in 2005. This was presented to Parliament in 2006 and approved two years later. In Brazil, several organizations (the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journal- ism, Transparency Brazil and ContasAbertas, among others), began work in 2003 to promote a culture of transparency. The fi rst Bill was drafted in 2006, but it was not presented to Parliament until 2009, and was fi nally approved two years later. In other Mercosur countries, all parliamentary initiatives on access to public in- formation have failed to prosper, due to a lack of political will that neither parlia- mentary debates nor pressure from other member countries have been able to over- come. Thus, although Bolivia pioneered initiatives in this area in 2000, all successive att empts have failed. Although the att empt made in 2004 was unsuccessful, it did lead to Supreme Decree 27329/2004, which aff ected only the executive power. In Argentina, the fi rst att empt to regulate information disclosure took place in 2001, when the Anti-Corruption Bureau presented a draft document, but disagree- (2000) 1st Init. (2005) 2nd Init.. 2011 Decree LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES ON INFORMATION DISCLOSURE Law (2001) 1st Initiative (2010) 2nd Initiative (2004) 2nd Init.. (2008) 3rdInit. (2013) 4thInit. (2006) 1st Initiative Constitution (Article) COUNTRY ARGENTINA BOLIVIA BRAZIL PARAGUAY URUGUAY VENEZUELA 1994 -------- 2009 Article 21.6 1988 Article 5 1992 Article 28 1997 ---------- 1992 Article 28 (2001) 1st Init. (2013) 3rdInit.. (2005) 1st Initiative (2008) 1st Initiative (2010) 2nd Initiative 2004 2001 revoked 2014 2008 Figure 1: Information disclosure legislation in Mercosur countries Source: Authors’ own calculations 76 ments between the government and the opposition prevented it from coming into law, and parliamentary procedures were abandoned in February 2006. After several years of neglect, the issue was revived in 2010, when a new Bill was passed by both houses. Nevertheless, as had happened previously, the initiative ultimately failed. Despite these setbacks, Argentina does have some legislation in this respect, such as Act 25.188/99 on public service ethics and Decree 1172-1103 to improve the quality of democracy and its institutions. In addition, regional legislation has been enacted in provinces such as Entre Ríos and Córdoba. The country that was slowest to consider legislating on access to public informa- tion was Venezuela, where in 2008 the Pro-Access Coalition, together with Venezue- lan journalists, presented a draft law to Parliament, without success. In 2010, anoth- er proposal was presented, by Transparency Venezuela and Public Space, but again nothing came of it. Nevertheless, as in Argentina, some regional initiatives have been taken to increase public sector transparency, in the states of Anzoátegui (2007) and Zulia (2010), among others. The proactive information policy incorporated in the laws or decrees on access to public information that have been approved in Mercosur countries (i.e., Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil and Paraguay) is very limited and undemanding, tending to favor a very conservative policy; thus, only 7, 11, 9 and 13 requirements, respectively, are imposed, and so public bodies are largely free to regulate themselves. It is notewor- thy that Paraguay has adopted policies on proactive information that vary depending on the public organization in question, with demands being less stringent for local authorities. This contrasts with LMI recommendations on proactive information dis- closure. The OAS is aware of the benefi ts of the latt er, according to its content analysis of the LMI, and has urged that all laws drafted in this respect should incorporate the mandatory disclosure of at least 46 areas of information. The nature of the proactive information required is shown in Table 1, where the data are distributed, following Transparency International (2010), in four groups. The LMI calls on local authorities to provide 15 specifi c items of proactive informa- tion, while the laws adopted actually require between 2 and 8 such items. Proactive information on institutional relations with citizens and society is virtually ignored in the regulations currently in force in the Mercosur countries, since only Uruguay and Paraguay take this question into consideration, although the LMI requires the pro- active disclosure of 10 items in this respect. Proactive information on the organiza- tion’seconomic and fi nancial position and on planning and public works is present in all the information disclosure rules of the countries analyzed, but these require- ments are far less strict than those recommended by the LMI, to provide 9 and 12 items, respectively. In summary, despite the lengthy discussion of these regulations, most Mercosur countries have information disclosure policies that are far from being proactive. 77 Ta bl e 1: P ol ici es o n m an da to ry p ro ac tiv e tra ns pa re nc y in M er co su r c ou nt rie s RE Q UI RE M EN TS LMI BOL URU BRA PAR LMI BOL URU BRA PAR Pr oa ct iv e in fo rm at io n ab ou t t he m un ic ip al c or po ra tio n 15 2 2 4 8 P ro ac tiv e in fo rm at io n ab ou t e co no m ic -fi na nc ia l i ss ue s 9 2 4 2 1  Pu bl ic- se ct or s ta ff, re sp on sib ilit ie s an d sa la rie s  Co ns ol id at ed a nd in di vid ua l b ud ge t a pp ro ve d  Co m m un ica tio n m ec ha ni sm s  Ex ec ut io n of c on so lid at ed a nd in di vid ua l b ud ge t  M iss io n, a im s an d an nu al o pe ra tin g pl an  Au di t r ep or t  Ac co m pl ish m en t o f t he o pe ra tin g pl an  Re cip ie nt s of n on -re im bu rs ab le p ub lic fu nd s  Pl an s an d pr og ra m s be in g im pl em en te d  St at ist ica l in fo rm at io n on a re as o f m un ici pa l m an ag em en t o f g en er al in te re st  O rg an ic st ru ct ur e an d re gu la to ry fr am ew or k  Bu dg et a m en dm en ts  Se rv ice s pr ov id ed  Re po rt an d in di ca to rs o f a nn ua l a ct ivi ty  M an ua ls of p ro ce du re  Co ns ol id at ed a nd in di vid ua l fi n an cia l s ta te m en ts  De cis io ns ta ke n an d re so lu tio ns a do pt ed  Co m pa ra tiv e fi g ur es fo r t he p re vio us p er io d  M in ut es o f m un ici pa l s es sio ns Pr oa ct iv e in fo rm at io n ab ou t t he p ro cu re m en t o f g oo ds a nd s er vi ce s 12 3 3 3 2  Ar ch iva l a nd d oc um en ta ry in st ru m en ts  Pr oc ur em en t o f g oo ds a nd s er vic es  Pr ici ng o f m un ici pa l s er vic es  Bi ds a nd c on tra ct a wa rd s  Co de o f e th ics o r g oo d go ve rn an ce  Ag re em en ts a nd c on tra ct s ex ec ut ed  Pe rs on ne l: jo b tit le s an d CV  In fo rm at io n on m aj or p ub lic w or ks b ei ng e xe cu te d  O ffi cia l t ra ve l c os ts  Co nt ra ct s fo r s tu di es a nd c on su lta nc y Pr oa ct iv e in fo rm at io n ab ou t r el at io ns w ith c iti ze ns a nd s oc ie ty 10 0 2 0 2  Li st o f p er so ns /o rg an iza tio ns in b re ac h of c on tra ct  Pe rs on re sp on sib le fo r r es po nd in g to re qu es ts fo r i nf or m at io n  Da te o f c on clu sio n of m aj or p ub lic w or ks  In fo rm at io n ab ou t m ec ha ni sm s fo r c itiz en e ng ag em en t  In fo rm at io n ab ou t p ub lic w or ks e xe cu te d an d ap pr ov ed p en di ng e xe - cu tio n  Cl ie nt a tte nt io n ce nt er  Pu bl ica tio n of th e G en er al T ow n Pl an  Ap pl ica tio n fo rm s fo r s er vic es  Cu rre nt re gu la tio ns o n m un ici pa l t ow n pl an ni ng  In fo rm at io n ab ou t p ro ce du re s fo r a cc es s to p ub lic s er vic es  Te nd er in g pr oj ec ts a nd c rit er ia fo r m aj or p ub lic w or ks  Pr oc ed ur e to re qu es t i nf or m at io n  Co m pa ni es th at h av e te nd er ed fo r m aj or p ub lic w or ks  Li st o f r es tri ct ed /c on fi d en tia l in fo rm at io n  Li ce ns es , c on ce ss io ns a nd p er m its  Ap pe al s pr es en te d ag ai ns t t he o rg an iza tio n  Da ta o n m un ici pa l li ce ns es  Su bs id ie s, g ra nt s, e tc . o ffe re d  Re qu es ts a nd a pp lic at io n by c itiz en s re so lve d by a dm in ist ra tiv e sil en ce TO TA L NU M BE R O F PR O AC TI VE IN FO RM AT IO N IT EM S RE Q UI RE D 46 7 11 9 13 LM I: M od el In te r-A m er ica n La w; B O L: B ol ivi a; U RU : U ru gu ay ; B RA : B ra zil ; P AR : P ar ag ua y So ur ce : A ut ho rs ’ o wn c al cu la tio ns 78 3. Policy on proactive information transparency and its determinant factors Agency, institutional and dependence theory are the approaches most often used to explain policies adopted toward proactive transparency. Taking into account these theories, our review of the literature found that various studies have examined both internal and external factors that infl uence public entities’ information disclosure policies. These factors include population size (García-Sánchez, Fríasand Rodríguez, 2013),education (Evans and Yen, 2005), the political ideology of the governing par- ty(Tolber, Mossberger and McNeal, 2008; Guillamón, Bastida and Benito, 2011), the economic level of the population (Mossberger and McNeal, 2008), the infl uence of mandatory information policies (Bajoet al., 2009; Baginski,Hassell and Kimbrough, 2004) and the infl uence of technology (Debreceny, Gray and Rahman, 2002; Xiao, Yang and Chow,2004) or of corruption (Pina, Torres and Royo, 2007). Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed. Corruption: Pina, Torres and Royo (2007) examined the relationship between the level of corruption and the level of voluntary information disclosure, and concluded that access to information enables citizens to participate in management, thus reduc- ingopportunities for corruption (Bertot, Jaeger and Grimes, 2010). Therefore, it seems reasonable to believe that higher levels of corruption will hamper organizations’poli- cies for voluntary transparency, and sowe propose the following hypothesis: H1: The level of corruption infl uences voluntary information disclosure. Political ideology: According to García-Sánchez, Fríasand Rodríguez (2013), diff er- ent political ideologies usually give rise to diff erent styles of government, which can lead to the application of diff erent policies on information disclosure. Various studies have analyzed the infl uence of conservative and left-wing governments on the type of proactive transparency policy employed (Alt and Dreyer, 2006). Although some authorshave found left-wing governments to be more likely to employ proactive transparency policies (Guillamón, Bastida and Benito, 2011), others have obtained no conclusive results in this respect (Grimmelikhuijsen and Welch, 2012). Accordingly, we propose: H2: Political ideology infl uences voluntary information disclosure. Technological development: Information disclosure via the internet requires public entities to have suffi cient technological resources and political will. According to Rel- ly and Sabharwal (2009), technology is a determinant factor of information disclo- sure, and these authors observed a positive relationship between these parameters; however, other authors have obtained contrary results (Tolber, Mossberger and Mc- Neal, 2008). In this respect, we propose the following hypothesis: H3: The level of ICT development in a country infl uences voluntary information disclosure. Size: Norris and Moon (2005) argued that municipalities with larger populations manage larger budgets and thus are under greater pressure from stakeholders and will provide a higher level of online information disclosure. Although some stud- ies have reported a positive relationship between population size and information disclosure, othershave found this relationship to be non-signifi cant (Rodríguez, Caba and López, 2013), and in one case a negative relationshipwas recorded (Da Costa et 79 al., 2007). Therefore, we propose: H4: The size of the municipality infl uences voluntary information disclosure. Mandatory proactive transparency: According to Kasznik and Lev (1995), the orga- nizations that disclose more mandatory information will be less willing to provide voluntary information, in the view that they have already made suffi cient disclosure. In the same line, Baginski, Hassell and Kimbrough (2004) reported that regulated en- tities subjected to highlevels of mandatory information disclosure are less likely to provide voluntary information. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the lev- el of disclosure of mandatory information will infl uence municipal policy regarding voluntary transparency. Thus, we propose: H5: A high level of information disclosure due to legal obligation has a negative infl uence on voluntary information disclosure. Socio-economic development: It has been argued that a high rate of literacy is required for citizens to access information (Martin and Feldman, 1998). In this respect, too, Evans and Yen (2005) reported that an adequate level of education was necessary to access and request information online. Similarly, Styles and Tennyson (2007) argued that the economic level of the population aff ected the degree of fi nancial information disclosure by the local authority. These authors found that cities with a higher per capita income provide greater online disclosure of fi nancial information, although Gi- roux (1989) observed a negative relationship in this respect. Since the combination of higher levels of education and greater per capita income gives rise to a higher degree of socio-economic development among the population, we propose: H6: The socio-eco- nomic development of the population infl uences voluntary information disclosure. 4. Method 4.1. Goal 1 In line with other studies of information disclosure (Díaz, Archundia and Nacif, 2007; López-Ayllón and Arellano, 2008), our fi rst study goal was to develop an on- line mandatory index (OMI). The items comprising this index are those specifi ed as being of obligatory provision as proactive information in the relevant law on access to public information. From this general index we then created four partial indexes, according to the nature of the information: a) online mandatory informationonthe organizationprofi le; b) online mandatory information on relations with citizens and society; c) online mandatory information onthe economic-fi nancial situation; d) on- line mandatory information on service contracts. The general OMI and each partial index (are determined by the relation between- the total sum of mandatory items identifi ed inthe municipal website (omiL) and the total number of items that comprise the total or partial index (LJ). To express this as a percentage, it was multiplied by 100. To assign a score,if the item appeared in the website it was assigned a score of 1, otherwise 0. 100 L omi OMI L L 1 ×= 100 L omi OMI j L Lj J j 1 ×= 80 4.2. Goal 2 Our second goal was to obtain an online voluntary disclosure index (OVI). The items that make up this index are those corresponding to the proactive information requirements of the LMI (Table 1). For countries that do not have legislation on access to public information, any information disclosed by local authorities will be volun- tary, and arises from self-regulation. For local authorities that are subject to an infor- mation disclosure law, the information that is published in accordance with the LMI and in compliance with national legislation is not voluntary but mandatory informa- tion disclosure. This index is calculated by the following expression, where OVLMI represents the LMI items that are not mandatory under national law, and OVDI is the sum of voluntary items identifi ed in the municipalwebsite. In the same way as for Goal 1, four indexes of voluntary information disclosure were developed, corre- sponding to the respective information groups. 100 OVLMI ovi OVI v v 1 ×= 100 OVLMI ovi OVI j v vj 1 ×= Additionally, to determine to what extent the information disclosure approaches LMI recommendations and how much remains to be done, the voluntary and manda- tory indices of information disclosure (otiv) were combined, thus creating an online total disclosure index (OTI), with its corresponding sub-indexes. 4.3. Goal 3 The independent variables included in the hypotheses described in Section 3 were then contrasted with the total and partial indices of voluntary disclosure, taken as the dependent variable. The independent variables were measured using the magnitudes adopted in comparable earlier studies (Table 2). Table 2: Independent variables used for the explanatory factors Variable Source Description Hypothesis Expected sign Corruption (CORR) Transparencia Internacional Corruption, measured by the index of perceptions of corruption (year in which the law came into force) H1 - Political ideology (POLIDE) Electoral councils (latest municipal election) Dummy variable with the value 1 when the governing party is left-wing, and the value 0 when its ideology is conservative. H2 + Technological development (TECH) INE (2013) The development of ICT,measured by internet penetration H3 + Size (SIZE) INE (2013) Municipal population H4 + Omi (MAND) Derivedby the authors Number of items disclosed in accordance with legal requirements H5 - Socio-economic development (DVPT) HDI (2013) Measured by the HDI H6 + INE: Spanish National Institute of Statistics; HDI: Human Development Index 81 Taking into account the structure of the dependent variables, the association be- tween the dependent and independent variables was tested using Tobit regression analysis. 4.4. Scope of the study The empirical study focuses on analyzing the information disclosed by the local authorities of the Mercosur countries, since this level of government is the fi rst level of citizen participation in public aff airs. Among the Mercosur countries, only Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay have passed Access to Public Information laws that specifi cally address local authorities and oblige them to disclose information via the internet. However, in Paraguay this law was only recently adopted (in September 2014) and will not come into force until later in 2015. Thus, local governments in this country are not yet required to disseminate online information, and so for the purposes of the present study, the information that is published in Paraguay is considered voluntary. With regard to Bolivia, although the right to online public information disclosure is regulated by Supreme Decree 27329/2004, this does not apply to local governments, and so this information, too, is considered voluntary. Following the criteria applied in numerous previous studies, we selected for anal- ysis the 40 largest municipalities (by population) in each of the Mercosur countries, thus obtaining a total of 240 municipalities, which represent over 57% of the total population of the region. The analysis was conducted in August-September 2014. It should be noted that only 175 of the local authorities examined had a municipal website. These represent- ed 73% of the total sample and had approximately 50% of the Mercosur population. All of the 40 largest municipalities in Argentina and Brazil had a website, while for the other countries, the corresponding fi gures were Venezuela 80%, Bolivia 57.5%, Paraguay 52.5% and Uruguay 47.5%. 5. Mandatory vs. voluntary proactive information disclosure in Mercosur: Results 5.1. Compliance with legal obligations As noted above, the local authorities in Brazil are outstanding in their level of com- pliance with mandatory proactive information disclosure requirements, providing 75% of the items stipulated. By contrast, those in Uruguay only achieve a compliance rate of 30% (althoughthe number of items required in this country is slightly higher). With respect to information provided online about the municipal corporation, the local authorities in Brazil are also at the forefront, providing 87% of the items required under this subindex of mandatory information disclosure. In contrast, al- though Uruguay only requiresthe proactive disclosure of two information items of this nature,barely half of the municipalities examined provide these data. 82 Only 16% of the municipalities in Uruguay provide information on municipalre- lations with citizens and society. Brazil does not require the disclosure of any such information. Regarding the subindex of mandatory economic-fi nancial information disclosure, very litt le such information is provided by the municipalities analyzed. Again, those of Brazil (36%) achieve the highest rate of compliance, although this is much poorer than the fi gures corresponding to other types of information. Finally, considerably more transparency was observed with respect to municipal service contracts than was the case with economic and fi nancial information. In this fi eld, too, the local authorities in Brazil achieve the highest degree of compliance with legal requirements (85%). 5.2. Voluntary information disclosure and convergence with the Model Interamerican Law The local governments analyzed voluntarily disclose 30% of the information items identifi ed as being of mandatory disclosure under the LMI. These authorities, thus, are voluntarily contributing to achieving greater homogeneity and transparency in their information disclosure. Local managers in Brazil are those most closely following the LMI recommenda- tions published by the OAS, scoring 50% on the voluntary disclosure index. More- over,when information items that are mandatory in Brazil and consistent with the LMI (thus comprising the total disclosure index) are taken into account, this rate in- creases to 56%, indicating that an eff ort of 44% is required to fully comply with the proactive transparency policy recommended by the OAS. Table 3: Index of proactive information disclosure by Mercosur countries, according to the nature of the information Argentina Bolivia Brazil Paraguay Uruguay Venezuela Mean Information about the municipal corporation omiop 87 54 oviop 48 26 50 22 40 23 34.83 otiop IDEM IDEM 60 IDEM 42 IDEM 36.83 Information about rela- tions with stakeholders and society omirc - 16 ovirc 42 15 44 16 36 20 28.83 otirc IDEM IDEM IDEM IDEM 32 IDEM 28.17 Economic-fi nancial information omifs 36 22 ovifs 31 17 62 11 23 8 25.33 otifs IDEM IDEM 57 IDEM 23 IDEM 24.50 Information about mu- nicipal procurement of services omics 85 35 ovics 39 23 48 16 33 12 28.50 otics IDEM IDEM 61 IDEM 39 IDEM 31.67 Index of information disclosure OMI 75 30 OVI 41 21 50 17 35 16 30.00 OTI IDEM IDEM 56 IDEM 35 IDEM 31.00 OMI: online mandatory disclosure index; OVI: online voluntary disclosure index; OTI: online total disclosure index. 83 In Uruguay, voluntary information disclosure, with respect to the LMI require- ments (35%), is higher than compliance with mandatory disclosure in this country (30%), a rather surprising result which suggests that local authorities tend to ignore the priorities imposed by legislators, preferring to disclose the information (i.e., the data fi elds recommended by the OAS) that they believe will confer greater legitimacy. With the exception of Argentina, local managers in countries that have a law on access to public information are more likely to comply with LMI stipulations than those with no such legislation (Table 3). Nevertheless, for Argentinian municipalities the absence of legislation in this respect does not hinder the application of voluntary policies on transparency in moderateaccordance (41%) with those recommended by the OAS. Among the Mercosur municipalities analyzed, the information most often dis- closed voluntarily is that concerning municipal corporation (34.83%), followed by in- formation on service contracts (28.50%). Economic-fi nancial information is least often supplied voluntarily by these local governments; within this area, statistical informa- tion on municipal management is the largest single component, but even this is only provided by 38% of the municipalities sampled. The information disclosed voluntarily by these municipalities concerns the mech- anisms of communication available (83%) and citizen att ention services (83%). It is striking that in no case are stakeholders informed about what information is consid- ered restricted or about requests and applications that have been resolved by means of ‘administrative silence’. Moreover, only 12 information items are off ered by at least 50% of the municipalities analyzed, and so much progress is still needed in this area. As a fi nal observation in this area, compliance with OAS recommendations, whether mandatory or voluntary, is only 31%. Therefore, to achieve the minimal OAS level of proactive information disclosure, a medium-high (69%) information gap re- mains to be overcome. Goal 3: Determinant factors Before performing the regression analysis, we determined the correlations be- tween the independent variables proposed to test the hypotheses. As shown in Table 4, no strong correlations were found between the independent variables. Table 4: Correlations between the independent variables CORR POLIDE TECH SIZE MAND DVPT CORRUPTION 1.0000 POLITICAL IDEOLOGY -0.1718 1.0000 TECHNOLOGY -0.0522 0.0283 1.0000 SIZE -0.0183 -0.1292 0.1324 1.0000 MANDATORY DISCLOSURE 0.5063 -0.1921 -0.1007 0.3029 1.0000 SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -0.0881 -0.1396 0.2284 0.3259 0.3412 1.0000 The results of this analysis show that fi ve factors are statistically signifi cant for the voluntary disclosure of the OAS recommended items: corruption, technology, size, 84 mandatory disclosure policy and socio-economic development. The other factor pro- posed, political ideology, was not statistically signifi cant with respect to the total in- dex of voluntary disclosure (Table 5). Table 5: Determinant factors of information disclosure policy TOTAL Prob> chi2 = 0.00 A Prob> chi2 = 0.00 B Prob> chi2 = 0.00 C Prob> chi2 = 0.00 D Prob> chi2 = 0.00 Coeff. t Coeff. t CORR 0.3227074 3.60*** 0.3748279 4.03*** 0.4945435 6.29*** -0.0376883 -0.15 0.6950815 3.51*** POLIDE 3.35499 1.52 2.263243 0.92 4.131846 1.89** 7.343422 1.33 3.311048 0.97 TECH 0.072626 3.05*** 0.0535216 2.01** 0.0420058 1.85** 0.1326973 2.33** 0.0632326 1.72* SIZE 2.81e-06 2.67*** 1.38e-06 1.14 2.31e-06 2.32** 7.69e-06 3.12*** 5.04e-06 3.14** MAND 2.33982 4.62*** 2.800991 2.63*** 0.2503796 0.05 38.46912 5.21*** 1.619721 0.24 DVPT 50.39908 3.10*** 71.31413 3.93*** 100.0947 6.83*** 59.17001 1.55 57.12196 2.33** * Signifi cant at 0.10. ** Signifi cant at 0.05. *** Signifi cant at 0.01. These results show that municipalities where levels of corruption are lower are more likely to supply online information voluntarily. These fi ndings coincide with the eff ect proposed in our hypothesis, and with the results obtained by Pina, Torres and Royo (2007) and Relly and Sabharwal (2009). We conclude, therefore, that the local governments in the Mercosur region where levels of corruption are highest are the least willing to voluntarily disclose the information recommended by the OAS, preferring a policy of non-communication. It could be argued that when corruption is present, municipal politicians seek to create a defensive mechanism by controlling and limiting the data made public. In contrast, the adoption of ICT within the municipality has a positive eff ect on the voluntary disclosure of the OAS information items, which is in accordance with our hypothesis. Following Pina, Torres and Royo (2007),we believe that new technologies facilitate public-sector information disclosure by reducing its cost. Our results show that municipal managers are aware that increased internet penetration raises the number of citizens who can obtain information online. This understanding creates a favorable att itude among these managers toward the OAS policy on transparency. These results are consistent with those obtained by Serrano, Ruedaand Portillo (2009). The size of the municipality, in terms of its population, is also related to the level of voluntary online information disclosure, which is in accordance with our hypoth- esis. Thus, and in agreement with Norris and Moon (2005), public managers in large municipalities within the Mercosur area deal with larger numbers of citizens requir- ing information and therefore have a positive att itude toward compliance with OAS recommendations on proactive information disclosure. Moreover, their task is likely to be facilitated by the fact that large municipalities usually have knowledgeable staff that is fully capable of creating a website for information disclosure. Since this task is considered a fi xed cost, economies of scale can be obtained. The socio-economic situation of the municipality is another determinant factor. In general, the higher the level of socio-economic development among the local popula- tion, the more information is made available online by municipalmanagers. Further- 85 more, high levels of education usually coincide with stricter ethical standards and demands. Thus, and in agreement with Evans and Yen (2005), we fi nd that in Mercos- ur towns and cities where the population is more highly educated, opacity in gover- nance is less acceptable, and municipal managers are more likely to provide higher levels of voluntary information disclosure. Analysis of the latt er factor in conjunction with the level of economic welfare among society revealed a positive association with the level of disclosure by local governments in the Mercosur area, which corroborates the fi ndings of Styles and Tennyson (2007). The last of the parameters found to aff ect municipal policies of voluntary informa- tion disclosure is that of mandatory disclosure. In this case, however, the statistical sign measured is contrary to expectations and to that reported by Baginski, Hassell and Kimbrough (2004) and by Kasznik and Lev (1995). Our fi ndings show that the Mercosur countries where most information is legally required to be provided, and is so provided, are also those where most information is supplied voluntarily. Thus, in towns and cities where information disclosure is mandatory and where municipal managers, therefore, are more accustomed to stakeholder supervision and to inform- ing of the government’s compliance with its election pledges, there is less reluctance to voluntarily provide further information, and thus the effi cient management of lo- cal aff airs can be publicized. Let us now focus on the variables that aff ect the information disclosed, in terms of the nature of this information. Information on the municipal corporation is aff ected by the same factors as those relevant to total information, except for municipalsize, which appears to have no statistical eff ect. Thus, the fact that the organization is larg- er does not lead to managers voluntarily providing more information of this nature to reduce information asymmetries between managers and other stakeholders. Neither information on relations with citizens and society nor information on ser- vice contracts are aff ected by the existence of a mandatory policy on proactive in- formation disclosure. Therefore, the fact that the municipality is subject to external control by the legal obligation to supply information in these areasis of negligible importance in making managers more likely to voluntarily supply information of this kind. However, when control is exercised over economic-fi nancial information, this does make municipal managers less reluctant to disclose it voluntarily. Finally, it can be seen that the political ideology of the party in power only seems to be related to the information on relations with citizens and society. In this case, the trend is positive, which means that, in the Mercosur countries, left-wing parties are bett er disposed to the disclosure of information of this nature, a fi nding that is in accordance with Tolber, Mossberger and McNeal (2008). 6. Discussion and conclusions Numerous authors have noted that to ensure and enhance access to public infor- mation, it is useful to create mechanisms to this eff ect. In consequence, the regulation of access to public information has been strengthened throughout Latin America and much of the rest of the world. 86 In the legislation passed in this respect, increasing emphasis is being placed on promoting a policy under which basic information disclosure should be made in the broadest possible terms, without the need for prior request, using the internet (i.e., government websites) as a communication channel for this purpose. However, public managers may consider this policy of basic information disclosure insuffi cient to le- gitimize their governance. Accordingly, they may complement this minimal, manda- tory disclosure with their own policy of voluntary information provision, and it is this activity that really defi nes the organization’s position with regard to transparency. In the Mercosur area, not all member countries have laws on access to public in- formation, and among those that do, despite the long and complex process of adop- tion, the law often requires only minimal levels of proactive transparency. Within the region as a whole, the situation is very heterogeneous, which provokes major diff erences in the policies adopted on transparency, not only among the Mercosur countries, but even within the same country. In an att empt to alleviate this situation, the OAS has published a model of recommended measures, to act as an instrument of legislative harmonization. The above model should be considered taking into account, for example, that local governments in Brazil achieve medium-high levels of mandatory proactive informa- tion disclosure, a situation that is totally contrary to that of Uruguay, where local authorities virtually ignore the existence of this legal obligation. Therefore, in many municipalities, even where there exists a legal framework requiring transparency, the culture of restricting information disclosure that has pervaded the region for so many years has not been eradicated. A great deal still remains to be done for these local authorities to comply with their legal obligations on transparency, and suitable con- trol measures should be established to enforce these requirements. Local managers in these countries should be reminded that information disclosure is a legal obligation, and that it is of vital importance to create an eff ective culture of transparency. Many local managers in the Mercosur countries, whether or not there exists a law of mandatory disclosure, seek to enhance their legitimacy and do so by means of vol- untary proactive disclosure policies. Nevertheless, the outcome is still far removed from the OAS recommendations. Outstanding in this respect are the voluntary trans- parency policies established by municipal managers in Brazil and Argentina, where a greater eff ort is being made to approach the culture of transparency advocated by the OAS, but much remains to be done. The nature of the information that is most often supplied voluntarily by munic- ipalmanagers in the Mercosur area concerns the municipal corporation itself. Litt le information of an economic-fi nancial nature, which is considered the most sensitive and/or controversial, is off ered voluntarily. On the other hand, although policies on voluntary information disclosure vary widely, at least half of the municipalities ana- lyzed voluntarily provide information on the same twelve information items. It is the Brazilian municipalities which, overall, are making greatest eff ort (wheth- er required to do so by law or voluntarily) to approach the culture of transparency 87 recommended by the OAS. In contrast, municipal managers in Venezuela are furthest from achieving full implementation of these policies on transparency. Therefore, more progress is still needed in the Mercosur area to make public managers aware of the importance of implementing policies on access to information, because if this culture of opacity were allowed to persist, it would prevent Mercosur from achieving its full potential. Our analysis of the factors that most infl uence local managers’ decision making in the fi eld of voluntary proactive information disclosure highlights the importance of the level of ICT in the municipality, together with its socio-economic development, size, degree of corruption suff ered and compliance with mandatory disclosure stipu- lations. The Mercosur municipalities where new technologies have made most impact are aware that the information supplied online will reach more users, and this un- derstanding encourages them to publish more information and thus enhance their legitimacy. Furthermore, municipalities that most fully comply with mandatory dis- closure obligations already submit their management to the supervision of stakehold- ers through mandatory online disclosure, and are less reluctant to provide additional information, believing this will illustrate their effi cient management of local aff airs. The results of our analysis show that the greater the corruption aff ecting a munici- pality in the Mercosur area, the more local managers will tend to maintain traditional policies of non-disclosure and ignore OAS recommendations. The data recommend- ed would, of course, be of interest to stakeholders, but municipalmanagers might be- lieve disclosure would also expose their own shortcomings. We found that munic- ipalities with larger populations and higher levels of socio-economic development were closest to meeting the OAS recommendations, and assume that this is because a large, prosperous and well-educated population will require more ethical behavior of its government and demand transparency to verify this. With regard to political ideology, our analysis shows that left-wing parties are more likely to follow the OAS recommendations for information on relations with citizens and society. This may be because these parties have a greater preference for socially oriented policies, and seek to achieve close affi nity with stakeholders,to determine their needs and wishes in a direct way. And this goal is best achieved through trans- parency, by providing citizens with abundant information and enabling feedback. Transparency continues to be a challenge for local governments in the Mercosur area, one calling more for a change of att itude than for new laws. The fact that some of these countries have a law requiring the online disclosure of certain information, of interest and/or value tostakeholders, does not seem to be suffi cient for local managers to do so. The problem is that local authorities are often sidelined during the prepara- tion of legislation but are subsequently called on to implement it in an environment in which control and supervision are in short supply. It is therefore necessary to continue promoting access to public information, which is a fundamental right, to raise the threshold of democracy and of human rights with- 88 in Mercosur, and to empower society. Furthermore, in view of the current variability among these countries as regards transparency, we should consider whether existing laws on transparency within Mercosur should be harmonized, using the OAS recom- mendations as a model. References: 1. Alt, J. and Dreyer, D., ‘Fiscal Transparency, Political Parties, and Debt in OECD Coun- tries’, 2006, European Economic Review, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1403-1439. 2. Article 19, ‘Elementos fundamentales de una ley de acceso a la información’, [Online] available at www.article19.org/work/regions/ latin.../index.html, accessed on October 20, 2014. 3. Baginski, S.P., Hassell, J.M. and Kimbrough, M.D., ‘Why Do Managers Explain Their Earnings Forecasts?’, 2004, Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 1-29. 4. Bajo, E., Bigelli, M., Hillier, D. and Petracci, B., ‘The Determinants of Regulatory Com- pliance: An Analysis of Insider Trading Disclosures in Italy’, 2009, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 331-343. 5. Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T. and Grimes, J.M., ‘Using ICTs to Create a Culture of Trans- parency: E-government and Social Media as Openness and Anti-Corruption Tools for Societies’, 2010, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 264-271. 6. Coglianese, C., ‘The Transparency President? The Obama Administration and Open Government’, 2009, Governance, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 529-544. 7. Commonweath, ‘Communiqué, Meeting of Commonwealth Law Ministers’, [Online] available at htt p://assets.thecommonwealth.org/assetbank-commonwealth/action/ viewAsset?id=22555, accessed on October 20, 2014. 8. Council of Europe, ‘Convenio del Consejo de Europa sobre el acceso a documento- sofi ciales’, [Online] available at www.access-info.org/documents/Access_Docs/.../Con venio.esp-en.pdf, accessed on October 20, 2014. 9. Cuillier, D. and Piotrowski, S.J., ‘Internet Information-Seeking and Its Relation to Sup- port for Access to Government Records’, 2009, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 441-449. 10. Da Costa, J.B., Camões, P., Jorge, S. and Fernándes, M., ‘Conformity and Diversity of Accounting and Financial Reporting Practices in Portuguese Local Government’, 2007, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 2-14. 11. Darbishire, H., ‘Proactive Transparency: The Future of the Right to Information’, World Bank Institute Governance, Working Paper Series, 2010. 12. Debreceny, R., Gray, G. and Rahman, L. ‘The Determinants of Internet Financial Re- porting’, 2002, Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, vol. 21, no. 4/5, pp. 371-394. 13. Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa, ‘African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’, [Online] available at www.afrimap.org/.../treaty/afri ca-declaration-of-principles-on-foe.pdf, accessed on October 15, 2014. 14. Díaz, E., Archundia, L. and Nacif, B., ‘Métrica de la transparencia en México’, Confe- rencia Mexicana de Acceso a la Información Pública – Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económica, 2007. 89 15. Evans, D. and Yen, C.D., ‘E-government: An Analysis of Implementation: Framework for Understanding Cultural and Social Impact’, 2005, Government Information Quarter- ly, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 354-373. 16. Florini, A.M., ‘Does the Invisible Hand Need a Transparent Glove?’, [Online] avail- able at siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWBIGOVANTCOR/Resources/fl orini.pdf, ac- cessed on November 20, 2014. 17. García-Sánchez, I., Frías, J. and Rodríguez, L., ‘Determinants of Corporate Social Dis- closure in Spanish Local Governments’, 2013, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 39, pp. 60-72. 18. Giroux, G., ‘Political Interests and Governmental Accounting Disclosure’, 1989, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 199-217. 19. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. and Welch, E., ‘Developing and Testing a Theoretical Frame- work for Computer-Mediated Transparency of Local Governments’, 2012, Public Ad- ministration Review, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 562-571 20. Guillamón, M.D., Bastida, F. and Benito, B., ‘The Determinants of Local Government’s Financial Transparency’, 2011, Local Government Studies, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 391-406. 21. International Transparency, ‘Índice de Transparencia de losayuntamientos’, [Online] available at htt p://www.transparencia.org.es/ITA_2012/Objetivos_y_caracteristicas_ basicas_ITA_2012.ht, accessed on October 14, 2014. 22. Islam, R., ‘Does More Transparency Go Along with Bett er Governance?’, 2006, Eco- nomics & Politics, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 121-167. 23. Kasznik, R. and Lev, B., ‘To Warn or Not to Warn: Management Disclosures in the Face of An Earnings Surprise’, 1995, Accounting Review, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 113-134. 24. López-Ayllón, S. and Arellano Gault, D., ‘Estudio en materia de transparencia de otrossujetos obligados por la Ley Federal de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública Gubernamental’, [Online] available at htt p://hdl.handle.net/10089/16074, ac- cessed on October 15, 2014. 25. Martin, R. and Feldman, E., ‘Access to Information in Developing Countries: Why Is Access Important in Developing Countries?’, Transparency International, Berlin, Ger- many, 1998. 26. Mendel, T., ‘Freedom of Information: An Internationally Protected Human Right’, 2003, Comparative Media Law Journal, [Online] available at htt p://www.juridicas.unam. mx/publica/rev/comlawj/cont/1/cts/cts3.htm, accessed on November 10, 2014. 27. MERCOSUR, ‘Request by an International Organization, MERCOSUR, Wishing to Be Invited to ILO Meetings’, 2010, [Online] available at htt p://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/ groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_124389. pdf, accessed on November 10, 2014. 28. Neuman, L., ‘Mechanisms for Monitoring and Enforcing the Right to Information around the World’, Carter Center Atlanta, 2006. 29. Norris, D.F. and Moon, M.J., ‘Advancing E-government at the Grassroots: Tortoise or Hare?’ 2005, Public Administration Review, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 64-75. 30. Open Society Justice Initiative, ‘Ten Principles on The Right to Know’, 2005, ACARM’ Newslett er, 37, Winter. 31. Organization of American States, ‘Model Inter-American Law on Access to Informa- tion’, [Online] available at htt p://www.oas.org/dil/access_to_information.htm, ac- cessed on November 25, 2014. 90 32. Pina, V., Torres, L. and Royo, S., ‘Is E-government Leading Global Convergence to- wards Accountable Governments?’, XIV Congress AECA, Valence (Spain), 2007. 33. Piotrowski, S.J. and Van Ryzin, G.G., ‘Citizen Att itudes toward Transparency in Local Government’, 2007, American Review of Public Administration, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 306-323. 34. Relly, J.E, and Sabharwal, M., ‘Perceptions of Transparency of Government Policy Making: ACross-national Study’, 2009, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 148-157. 35. Relly, J.E., ‘Examining aModel of Vertical Accountability: A Cross-National Study of the Infl uence of Information Access on the Control of Corruption’, 2012, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 335-345. 36. Rodríguez, M., Caba, C. and López A., ‘Online Budget Transparency in OECD Mem- ber Countries and Administrative Culture’, 2013, Administration & Society, Online fi rst published on November 6, 2013. 37. Serrano, C., Rueda, M. and Portillo, P., ‘Factors Infl uencing e-Disclosure in Local Pub- lic Administrations’, 2009, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 355-337. 38. Spahiu, I.,‘Transparency and Access to Information in Canada and the European Union (UE)’, Transatlantic Conference on Transparency Research, Utrecht, 2012. 39. Styles, A.K. and Tennyson, M., ‘The Accessibility of Financial Reporting of U.S. Mu- nicipalities on the Internet’, 2007, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 56-92. 40. Tolbert, C.J. and Mossberger, K., ‘The Eff ects of E-government on Trust and Confi - dence in Government’, 2006, Public Administration Review, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 354-369. 41. Tolbert, C.J., Mossberger, K. and McNeal, R., ‘Institutions, Policy and E-government in the American States’, 2008, Public Administration Review, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 549-563. 42. Xiao, J.Z, Yang, H. and Chow, C.W., ‘The Determinants and Characteristics of Vol- untary Internet-Based Disclosures by Listed Chinese Companies’, 2004, Journal of Ac- counting and Public Policy,vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 191-225. 43. Xiao, W., ‘China’s Limited Push Model of FOI Legislation’, 2010, Government Informa- tion Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 346-351.