Midiendo la apertura gubernamental: diseño, resultados y aportaciones de la métrica de Gobierno Abierto en México
Abstract
As with any public intervention, open government strategies need to be informed by evidence in order to assess their performance, their results, and their opportunities for improvement. Since 2017, in Mexico, the Open Government Metric (MGA, by its Spanish acronym) measures the way in which a person may know what government offices do and influence their decisions. Thanks to its design, its scope, and the disaggregation of its results, the MGA allows us to know the state of government openness in the country. In this paper, we explain how the MGA was designed and we detail its methodology. We show how disaggregated information allows for specific diagnoses, analysis of territorial and time variations, and, more importantly, provides inputs for open government agendas based on evidence, focused on the specific challenges of each public office, and with the possibility of being evaluated and monitored.Keywords:
Gobierno abierto , transparencia , datos abiertos, acceso a la información , gobernanza colaborativaReferences
Ansell, C. (2012). Collaborative Governance. En D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance (p. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0035
Bonivento, J. H. (2021). “Índice Institucional para el Gobierno Abierto Municipal”, Ediciones Universidad Autónoma de Chile, https://ediciones.uautonoma.cl/index.php/UA/catalog/view/105/156/472-1
Cejudo, G. M. (2016). “Gobierno Abierto en México: ¿etiqueta, principio o práctica?”. In: Issa Luna, J. Bojórquez (coords.). and Hofmann, A. (ed.). Gobierno abierto. El valor social de la información pública, México City, UNAM-Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas.
Cejudo, G., Michel, C., Sobrino, A. y Vázquez, M. (2018). "Observing and Measuring Government Openness. A conceptual discussion and application to Mexico" en Gobernar: The Journal of Latin American Public Policy and Governance: Vol. 2 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. DOI: 10.22191/gobernar/vol2/iss1/1
Cejudo, G., de los Cobos, P., y Ramírez, D. (2022). “Los datos abiertos en México: ocultos, incompletos o en plataformas poco perdurables”, Nexos, blog de la redacción, 2 de junio de 2022, https://redaccion.nexos.com.mx/los-datos-abiertos-en-mexico-ocultos-incompletos-o-en-plataformas-poco-perdurables/?_gl=1*mudur8*_ga*MTgwNzE5NDMxMC4xNjU0Mjc0NzQw*_ga_M343X0P3QV*MTY1NDI4NzYxNS4zLjAuMTY1NDI4NzYxNS42MA.
Chen, S., Liu, Y., Sun, C., y Zhang, R. (2019). “Measuring Open Government in the Americas”. Organization of American States/Georgetown McCourt School of Public Policy.
https://www.oas.org/es/sap/dgpe/escuelagob/docs/MEASURING%20OPEN%20GOVERNMENT.pdf
Falla, R. (2017). “Why OGP Commitments Fall Behind”. Independent Reporting Mechanism, 1-24.
INEGI (2021). “Censo Nacional de Transparencia, Acceso a la Información Pública y Protección de Datos Personales Estatal 2021”, 2 de junio de 2022, https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/cntaippdpe/2021/
Kornberger, M., Meyer, R. E., Brandtner, C. y Höllerer, M. A. (2017). “When Bureaucracy Meets the Crowd: Studying ‘Open Government’ in the Vienna City Administration”. In: Organization Studies, 38 (2), 179-200.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., y Feeney, M. K. (2017). Developing and Testing an Integrative Framework for Open Government Adoption in Local Governments. Public Administration Review, 77(4), 579-590. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12689
Meijer, A. J., Curtin, D., y Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: Connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311429533
Métrica de Gobierno Abierto (2021a) “Metodología”, 31 de mayo de 2022, https://lnppmicrositio.shinyapps.io/metrica_gobierno_abierto_2021/_w_f2b9403e/documentos/Metodologia_MGA%202021.pdf
Métrica de Gobierno Abierto (2021b) “Reporte Final”, 1 de junio de 2022, https://lnppmicrositio.shinyapps.io/metrica_gobierno_abierto_2021/_w_a3bb87ee/documentos/Reporte%20final_MGA%202021.pdf
Métrica de Gobierno Abierto (2021c), “Ejemplos de utilidad social”, 3 de junio de 2022, https://micrositios.inai.org.mx/gobiernoabierto/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Utilidad-social_MGA2021.pdf
Métrica de Gobierno Abierto (2017) “Reporte de Resultados”, 3 de junio de 2022,
https://eventos.inai.org.mx/metricasga/images/docs/ReportedeResultadosMetricafeb17.pdf
Observatorio Ciudadano del Sistema Estatal Anticorrupción de Nuevo León (2021). “2o informe de avances del SEANL”, Observatorio Ciudadano del Sistema Estatal Anticorrupción de Nuevo León, 3 de junio de 2022, https://consejocivico.org.mx/noticias/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/doc-2ndo-informe-del-observartorio-2021.pdf
OECD. (s.f.). “Open Government Data”, 3 de junio de 2022, https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/open-government-data.htm
Open Data Watch. (2022). “Open Data Inventory”, 3 de junio de 2022, https://odin.opendatawatch.com/
Open Knowledge Foundation. (s.f.). “Global Open Data Index”, 3 de junio de 2022, https://index.okfn.org/
Peixoto, T. (2013). “The Uncertain Relationship between Open Data and Accountability: A Response to Yu and Robinson's 'The New Ambiguity of Open Government'”, en UCLA Law Review Disc, 200, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2264369.
Pérez, D., Grünbaum, N., Sierkovich, L., Giuliano, C., Gómez, D., y Barczak, D. (s.f.). “Cuarto Plan de Acción Nacional de Gobierno Abierto 2019-2022”. Jefatura de Gabinete de Ministros/Secretaría de Innovación Pública, 3 de junio de 2022, https://archivos.paisdigital.modernizacion.gob.ar/s/kAsQaYc3CZfEEx7
Procuraduría General de la Nación. (s.f.). “Índice de Gobierno Abierto—IGA”, 3 de junio de 2022, https://www.procuraduria.gov.co/portal/Indice-de-Gobierno-Abierto.page
Ribera, J., y Emilsson, C. (2020). “OECD Open, Useful and Re-usable data (OURdata) Index: 2019”, (OECD Policy Papers on Public Governance No. 1). OECD/Innovative Government Division. https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/ourdata-index-policy-paper-2020.pdf
Soria, R. (2021). “Gobierno abierto en México: implantación y contraste con un modelo ideal”, en Perfiles latinoamericanos, 29(57), 309-336, https://doi.org/10.18504/pl2957-012-2021
Schnell S. y Jo, S. (2019). “Which Countries Have More Open Governments? Assessing Structural Determinants of Openness”, en The American Review of Public Administration. 2019;49(8):944-956. doi:10.1177/0275074019854445
Tai, K.-T. (2021). Open government research over a decade: A systematic review. Government Information Quarterly, 38(2), 101566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101566
van Hesteren, D., van Knippenberg, L., Weyzen, R., y Cecconi, Gi. (2021). “Open Data Maturity”. Unión Europea, 3 de junio de 2022, https://data.europa.eu/sites/default/files/landscaping_insight_report_n7_2021_0.pdf
Wirtz, B. W., y Birkmeyer, S. (2015). Open Government: Origin, Development, and Conceptual Perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(5), 381-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.942735
Wirtz, B.W., Weyerer, J.C., y Rösch, M. (2019). Open government and citizen participation: an empirical analysis of citizen expectancy towards open government data. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85, 566 - 586.
Yu, H. y Robinson, D. G. (2012). “The New Ambiguity of 'Open Government'”. En UCLA Law Review Discourse, 59, 178-230, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2012489.
Zuiderwijk, A., Pirannejad, A., y Susha, I. (2021). “Comparing open data benchmarks: Which metrics and methodologies determine countries’ positions in the ranking lists?”, en Telematics and Informatics, 62, 101634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.10163
Twitter