E-Government, Transparency and Trust

Abstract

It is essential for democracy to know about government activities. In Japan, e-Government was introduced in the late 1990s. e-Government is said to be a means of building "citizens’ trust and confidence in their government." This paper discusses the relationship between Japan’s e-Government, transparency and trust. The relationship between e-Government and trust is discussed from the perspectives of administrative performance, electronic online services, and. citizen empowerment.. The relationship between information to citizens by e-Government and trust is discussed from the following three perspectives. Firstly, with the increasing amount of information provided by the Government, the predictability of the Government’s activities increases and the possibility of reducing uncertainties increases, influencing the public to trust the Government. Secondly, with the increasing amount of information provided by the Government, information asymmetry in the principal-agent model decreases. As a result, acting for principal’s benefit is rational behavior for the agent. The risk of the agent’s betrayal decreases, and the agent is trusted by the principal. Thirdly, open data(machine-readable data) can facilitate active participation and enhance trust. The following three issues need to be considered in further studying the relationship between e-Government, transparency and trust. Firstly, while the amount of information provided by the Government has increased, the capacity of humans to process information has not significantly changed. It is questionable whether people can find useful information among a large amount of information. Secondly, in order to verify whether the agent has acted for the benefit of the principal, access to information needs to be guaranteed. However, the period for disclosing government information varies depending on the organization, and in the present circumstances, it is not long enough. Thirdly, information provided by e-Government is arbitrarily selected by the Government and may be biased. It should be considered whether the information is needed by the public and is sufficient to facilitate participation.