Article Sidebar

Download
Download Article

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aims to explore how data transparency and digital participation influence public trust and government legitimacy in the contemporary era of open government. Through a qualitative literature-based approach, the research synthesizes recent theoretical and empirical findings published between 2015 and 2025, encompassing studies on transparency, e-participation, and institutional trust across diverse political and cultural contexts. Data were collected from reputable databases such as Scopus, ScienceDirect, and SpringerLink, and analyzed using qualitative content analysis to identify conceptual patterns and thematic relationships among the key constructs. The results indicate that data transparency enhances perceptions of government competence and integrity, while digital participation fosters inclusiveness and responsiveness, together generating a multidimensional form of legitimacy. However, these effects are contingent on the quality, accessibility, and sincerity of transparency practices as well as on the meaningfulness of participatory mechanisms. The study also finds that trust functions both as an outcome and as a mediating variable, moderating how citizens interpret openness and accountability. Theoretically, this research contributes to the integration of Legitimacy Theory and Trust Theory by demonstrating that legitimacy in the digital era is co-produced through communicative interaction and ethical transparency. Managerially, the findings imply that open government must evolve toward sustainable governance by institutionalizing transparency and digital participation as continuous, ethical, and inclusive processes. The study concludes that enduring legitimacy requires adaptive institutions capable of aligning openness with technological transformation, citizen expectations, and responsible data stewardship.

Keywords

Data Transparency Digital Participation Public Trust Government Legitimacy Open Government

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Prasodjo, T. (2025). Public Trust Reloaded: The Impact of Data Transparency and Digital Participation on Government Legitimacy in the Era of Open Government. Golden Ratio of Social Science and Education, 6(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.52970/grsse.v6i1.1894
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Alessandro, M., Cardinale Lagomarsino, B., Scartascini, C., Streb, J., & Torrealday, J. (2021). Transparency and trust in government: Evidence from a survey experiment. World Development, 138, 105223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105223
  2. Arifin, M., & Pratama, I. (2020). Public perception of open government implementation in Indonesia. Journal of Government and Civil Society, 4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.31000/jgcs.v4i1.2351
  3. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002
  4. Barati, M. (2023). Open government data programs and information privacy concerns: A narrative review. JEDEM - eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 15(2), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v15i2.812
  5. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001
  6. Bouckaert, G., & Van de Walle, S. (2003). Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of “good governance.” International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(3), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852303693003
  7. Bryer, T. A. (2007). Toward a relevant agenda for a responsive public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3), 479–500. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mul010
  8. Campbell, J. W. (2023). Public participation and trust in government: Results from a vignette experiment. Korean Journal of Policy Studies, 38(2), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.52372/kjps2023.38.2.23
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
  10. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
  11. Cucciniello, M., Porumbescu, G. A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G. (2017). 25 years of transparency research: Evidence and future directions. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12685
  12. Denzin, N. K. (2012). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315418796
  13. Does Participation Have an Impact on Transparency and Trust? (2025). Journal of Governance and Regulation, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv14i2siart3
  14. Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12361
  15. Grieco, P., Ali, H., & Leone, G. (2025). Digital participatory budgeting and legitimacy in developing contexts. International Journal of Public Administration, 48(3), 450–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2024.2325693
  16. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G. (2012). Transparency and trust: An experimental study of online disclosure and trust in government. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.07.001
  17. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Meijer, A. J. (2014). Effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: Evidence from an online experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus048
  18. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., Porumbescu, G. A., Hong, B., & Im, T. (2013). The effect of transparency on trust in government: A cross-national comparative experiment. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 575–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12047
  19. Harrison, T. M., & Sayogo, D. S. (2014). Transparency, participation, and accountability practices in open government: A comparative study. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 513–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.08.002
  20. Haryanti, A., & Suryani, A. (2019). Open government in Indonesia: Opportunities and challenges for public participation. Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan, 22(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.20473/jip.v22i2.2019.101-115
  21. Husni, M. (2023). The role of village government performance and transparency on public trust in Indonesia. AI Journal: Accountability & Integrity, 5(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.53899/aij.v5i1.312
  22. Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819–828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02593.x
  23. Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
  24. Kumalasari, A., Gibreel Musa, H., Emovwodo, S. O., & Aditasari, K. (2024). How digital communication transparency and public trust influence crisis communication effectiveness in local governments. Jurnal Komunikator, 16(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.18196/jkm.24485
  25. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
  26. Lourenço, R. P. (2015). An analysis of open government portals: A perspective of transparency for accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.05.006
  27. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
  28. Meijer, A. J. (2015). E-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 32(2), 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.01.001
  29. Meijer, A. J., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: Connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311429533
  30. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  31. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  32. OECD. (2022). Building trust to reinforce democracy: Key findings from the 2021 OECD survey on drivers of trust in public institutions. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b407f99c-en
  33. Parycek, P., Höchtl, J., & Scherer, S. (2018). Open government data: Towards empirical analysis of open data policies. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 654–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.10.003
  34. Piotrowski, S. J. (2014). Transparency and accountability. In M. Holzer & A. E. Schwester (Eds.), Public administration: An action orientation (pp. 43–57). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
  35. Porumbescu, G. A. (2015). Linking transparency to trust in government and voice. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(5), 520–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013515299
  36. Porumbescu, G. A. (2017). Does transparency improve citizen perceptions of government performance? Public Administration Review, 77(5), 782–792. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12714
  37. Pratolo, S. (2022). The intervening role of COVID-19 handling services quality: Accountability and transparency towards public trust in village governments. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), 2110648. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2110648
  38. Pratono, A. H. (2021). Digital transformation and public participation in Indonesia’s open government initiative. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 14(3), 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2020.1811164
  39. Reddick, C. G., Chatfield, A. T., & Jaramillo, P. A. (2017). Public opinion on national e-government policies: A cross-country analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.09.006
  40. Roberts, A. (2012). The logic of discipline: Global capitalism and the architecture of government. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195148251.001.0001
  41. Ruijer, E., Détienne, F., Baker, M., Groff, J., & Meijer, A. (2020). The politics of open government data: Understanding organizational responses to open data initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101486
  42. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
  43. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
  44. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
  45. Wirtz, B. W., & 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
  46. Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., Becker, M., Müller, W. M., & Schmidt, F. (2022). Open government data: A systematic literature review of empirical research. Electronic Markets, 32(4), 2381–2404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00582-8
  47. Yang, K., & Holzer, M. (2006). The performance–trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00560.x
  48. Zainal, N. Z., Abdul Rahim, N. H., & Mior Nazri, M. N. (2024). Academic perspectives on open government data: A study of quality, trust and intention to use. Information Management and Business Review, 16(2), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.24052/imbrev.2024.162.5361