What Transparency Really Is — and Why It Matters Today

In recent times, institutions have released vast quantities of documents and data under the label of “transparency”. Yet instead of clarity, many people experienced confusion, speculation and mistrust. This reveals a critical misunderstanding: transparency is not the act of releasing information, but the act of making information understandable.

Academic research consistently shows that transparency only works when it helps people make sense of decisions, processes and outcomes (Meijer, 2013; Grimmelikhuijsen and Welch, 2012). When information is released without structure, timing or explanation, it does not reduce uncertainty — it increases it.

What Transparency Is

Transparency refers to the degree to which an organisation enables others to see, understand and follow how decisions are made and actions are taken.

Grimmelikhuijsen and Welch (2012) define transparency as the availability of information that allows external stakeholders to monitor and understand organisational behaviour. Importantly, this definition goes beyond access — it emphasises comprehension.

Similarly, Meijer (2013) argues that transparency is not a static state but a dynamic relationship between information providers and users. Information must be relevant, intelligible and timely in order to be perceived as transparent.

In practical terms, transparency means:

• providing the right information,

• at the right time,

• in the right structure,so that people can understand what is happening and why.

What Transparency Is Not

Transparency is not:

• publishing large volumes of documents without explanation,

• releasing data without context or sequencing,

• sharing information after decisions are already irreversible,

• transferring the burden of interpretation entirely onto the public.

Fox (2007) describes this phenomenon as opaque transparency — situations where information is technically available but practically unusable. In such cases, institutions may appear open while stakeholders remain unable to trace decisions, responsibility or intent.

Research shows that opaque transparency can actively undermine trust, as people interpret confusion as concealment rather than openness (Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2013).

Transparency, Trust and Uncertainty

One of the core functions of transparency is to reduce uncertainty. When people understand how decisions are made, they are more likely to perceive institutions as fair and legitimate (Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2013).

Empirical studies demonstrate that transparency can increase trust — but only when information is meaningful and comprehensible. A survey experiment by Alessandro et al. (2021) found that providing citizens with clear information about government performance significantly increased perceived transparency and trust. However, the effect weakened when information lacked relevance or explanation.

Wang and Guan’s (2023) meta-analysis of 49 studies confirms this pattern: transparency has a positive effect on trust only when it helps people understand decision logic, not when it overwhelms them with raw data.

In other words, people do not trust institutions because they release information; they trust institutions because they can make sense of that information.

Transparency and Accountability

Transparency and accountability are closely related but not identical concepts. Transparency makes information visible; accountability allows actions to be questioned, explained and judged.

According to Bovens, Schillemans and Goodin (2014), accountability requires three elements:

1. visibility of actions,

2. the ability to question those actions,

3. and the obligation to justify them.

Without transparency, these conditions cannot exist. Fox (2007) therefore argues that accountability without transparency is structurally impossible.

When decisions are visible but unexplained, responsibility becomes diffuse and accountability weak. Clear transparency, by contrast, enables stakeholders to trace decisions back to actors and rationales.

Transparency as a Public Value

Transparency is widely recognised in governance research as a core public value. It supports democratic participation, reduces corruption and strengthens institutional legitimacy (Hood, 2006; Meijer et al., 2012).

International governance frameworks also emphasise transparency as a prerequisite for accountable and inclusive institutions (UN DESA, 2020). When people have access to understandable information, they are more likely to participate meaningfully in public life and comply with collective decisions.

However, research cautions that transparency must be designed with care. Poorly structured disclosure can increase misinformation, polarisation and distrust, especially in complex or emotionally charged contexts (Meijer, 2013).

Why Transparency Often Fails in Practice

Many transparency failures stem from confusing disclosure with understanding.

When institutions release large quantities of information without:

• explaining roles and responsibilities,

• clarifying timelines and causality,

• or distinguishing facts from allegations,

people are left to interpret fragments on their own. This creates fertile ground for speculation and mistrust — not because information is hidden, but because meaning is absent.

Organisational transparency research emphasises that transparency is defined by the quality of information shared, not its quantity (Rawlins, 2008).

Transparency That People Can Use

True transparency enables people to:

• understand how decisions were made,

• see how outcomes relate to processes,

• know who is responsible for what,

• and anticipate what will happen next.

This form of transparency supports trust, accountability and engagement simultaneously. It treats understanding as a shared responsibility — not a private burden placed on the public.

Conclusion

In an age of information overload, transparency is no longer about releasing more data. It is about designing information so that people are not left alone with it.

Academic research is clear: transparency builds trust and accountability only when it reduces uncertainty and enables understanding (Grimmelikhuijsen and Welch, 2012; Meijer, 2013; Wang and Guan, 2023).

Transparency done well illuminates systems.Transparency done poorly obscures them.

For institutions — especially NGOs — the difference is not technical.It is ethical, relational and deeply human.

References

Alessandro, M., Lafuente, M. and Santiso, C. (2021) ‘Transparency and trust in government: Evidence from a survey experiment’, Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), pp. 1–11.

Bovens, M., Schillemans, T. and Goodin, R. (2014) Public accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fox, J. (2007) ‘The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability’, Development in Practice, 17(4–5), pp. 663–671.

Grimmelikhuijsen, S. and Welch, E. (2012) ‘Developing and testing a theoretical framework for computer-mediated transparency’, Public Administration Review, 72(4), pp. 562–571.

Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Porumbescu, G., Hong, B. and Im, T. (2013) ‘The effect of transparency on trust in government’, Public Administration Review, 73(4), pp. 575–586.

Hood, C. (2006) ‘Transparency in historical perspective’, in Hood, C. and Heald, D. (eds.) Transparency: The key to better governance? Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–23.

Meijer, A. (2013) ‘Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency’, Public Administration Review, 73(3), pp. 429–439.

Meijer, A., Curtin, D. and Hillebrandt, M. (2012) ‘Open government: Connecting vision and voice’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), pp. 10–29.

Rawlins, B. (2008) ‘Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency and trust’, Public Relations Journal, 2(2), pp. 1–21.

UN DESA (2020) Transparency and access to information. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

Wang, Q. and Guan, Z. (2023) ‘Can sunlight disperse mistrust? A meta-analysis of transparency and trust in government’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(3), pp. 453–467.