A guest post from Martin Tisne

As director of policy at Omidyar Network, Martin brings extensive experience advocating for change in government and donor policies and driving sector-level change in the field of government transparency and accountability. Based in London, Martin leads policy, advocacy strategy, and related investments for the global Government Transparency initiative.

There is a huge amount of talk about a ‘data revolution’. The phrase emerged in the years preceding this September’s announcement of the Sustainable Development or Global Goals, caught on, and has recently been strongly reaffirmed by the launch of a Global Partnership on Sustainable Development Data.

The importance of data in measuring, assessing, and verifying the new Global Goals has been powerfully made and usually includes a mention of the data needing to be ‘open’. However, the role of ‘open’ has not been clearly articulated. Fundamentally, the discussion focuses on the role of data (statistics for example) in decision-making, and not on the benefits of that data being open to the public. Until this case is made, difficult decisions to make data open will go by the wayside.

Much of the debate justly focuses on why data matters for decision-making. Knowing (link is external) how many boys and girls are in primary and secondary schools, how good their education is, and the number of teachers in their schools, are examples of relevant data used in shaping education delivery, and perhaps policy. Likewise, new satellite and cell phone data (link is external) can help us prevent and understand the causes of death by HIV AIDS, TB, and Malaria.

Proponents of the data revolution make powerful points, such as that 1 in 3 births go unregistered. If you are uncounted, you will be ignored. If you don’t have an identity, you do not exist.

Yet as important as this information is, I still can’t help but think: Do we change the course of history with the mere existence of more data or because people access it, mobilize, and press for change?

We need an equally eloquent narrative for why ‘open’ data matters and what it means.

To my thinking, we need the data to be open because we need to hold governments accountable for their promises under the Global Goals, in order to incentivize action. The data needs to be available, accessible and comparable to enable journalists and civil society to prod, push and test the validity of these promises. After all, what good are the Goals if governments do not deliver, beginning with the funding to implement? We will need to know what financial resources, both public and private, will be put to work and what budget allocations governments will make in their draft budgets. We need to have those debates in the open, not in smoke-filled rooms.

Second, the data needs to be open in order to be verified, quality-checked and improved. The most powerful argument for opening up data is simply that it will make it better – its quality will increase. I have been told countless times by government officials that they could not open the data because they were not sure it was correct or good enough. But that precisely is a very good reason to open it up, thus enabling the crowd to fact check it.

Furthermore, we need to open up not just the statistics, but also the information on how it was developed. We need access to the formula, the algorithms, the models underpinning decision making (e.g. climate models used by countries in planning policy positions for COP21) so we can check and improve them. Many more different eyes on data beyond policy makers means we will come up with better ideas on how to solve the problems that new data illustrates.

Open data is critical because data itself can be held hostage to politics. By opening data, you enable different perspectives on its interpretation and implications.

Lastly, we need the data to be open, because we want the beneficiaries of these services to actually have a voice in changing policies, inputting in to policies and being fully-fledged participants in the development process.

I hear a lot of conversation in the data revolution debates about filling data gaps by accessing new forms of private sector data (on water, sanitation, health etc.) but much less (or not at all) about ensuring that official bodies include citizen-generated data in their analyses (for example supreme audit institutions agreeing to take the results of social audits into account). People have a right to access the data and a right to engage in the debate.

A data revolution where only the powerful get privileged access to more and better data sounds like the opposite of a revolution to me. However, if open data can be shaped to hold governments to account, shared in a way that improves its veracity and utility, and embraced by those who stand the gain the most from it, then perhaps we are participating in a ‘revolution’. Not one defined by bits and bytes, but one where open data empowers individuals and fuels their ability to bring about the changes they wish to see.

One can reasonably argue that having more and better data alone has not changed the course of history. But people have changed history. Let’s empower them.

Originally posted on the Open Government Partnership Blog, October 27, 2015.

By Heather McIntosh

Alexander Howard, The Huffington Post’s senior editor of technology and society, interviewed James Fletcher, Saint Lucia’s Minister for the Public Service (Sustainable Development, Energy, Science, and Technology) at the 3rd International Open Data Conference. Although brief, the conversation touched on some important issues pertaining to open data and improving governance.

Here are some of the highlights:

Open data is about strengthening democracy and improving the level of governance. Open data helps citizens learn about what governments are doing, allowing them to make informed assessments of government activities. This allows governments and citizens to have “enlightened conversations� due to open data, empowering both parties in decision-making and informing policy.

There needs to be a two-way data flow between the government and citizens. Although governments play a central role in opening data to improve democracy and governance, Fletcher states that open data is not just about making government data available. It is also about civil society feeling empowered to share their information with the government.

The digital divide cannot be ignored. The digital divide persists as a challenge in the Caribbean; although many areas of the islands have excellent access to broadband Internet, there are also many regions that have little or no connection. Because of this, Fletcher notes that attention needs to be paid to the digital divide when thinking about open data, as it can further isolate non-connected individuals and communities.

The culture of secrecy and withholding information needs to be changed. This is particularly an issue among employees of the public service, in which people want to withhold information because they believe that doing so makes them more powerful and provides job security. This understanding of public information and power is deemed counterproductive by Fletcher; he states that employees are actually more valuable and indispensable if they share information and can demonstrate their ability to use such information across multiple platforms and sectors. Fletcher emphasizes the pressing need to change this culture of secrecy and power and to incentivise the opening of data for the public good.

See the complete interview here:

By Heather McIntosh

Alexander Howard, The Huffington Post’s senior editor of technology and society, interviewed Ania Calderón during the 3rd International Open Data Conference. Calderón, the General Director of Open Data at the Coordination of National Digital Strategy in the Office in the President of Mexico, discussed the role of open data in Mexico and the ways in which her work with open data seeks to inform better policy and foster development.

Calderón begins by stating that the need for information provided by the government to the public is not new. However, the Government of Mexico’s activities in and pertaining to open data are; in fact, conversations on open data policy have been going on for just under two years.

Calderón explains that in the early stages of open data and policy, the Government of Mexico’s focus was publishing. It was primarily interested in sharing data and then polishing and refining it after its release. Almost two years later, the focus has shifted: it is no longer just about delivering open data-it is now about delivering impact. This idea is fundamental to how the Government of Mexico is structuring open data policy at present.

To exemplify a specific instance of impact, Calderón explains the issue of maternal mortality; a problem that is not new, but continues to be pressing in Mexico. Her team approached the ministry of health to find a wealth of data being collected around maternal health and morality. However, it had yet to be used to try to increase understanding of the issue or create better interventions. Collaborating with data scientists and academics, they were able to better understand the influence of variables contributing to maternal mortality, such as level of education and number of prenatal visits, allowing them to address the problem in a more effective manner.

Howard and Calderón further discuss issues pertaining to open data and development, reinforcing that open data and data analytics are essential to facilitating the targeted interventions essential to development.

See the complete interview below: