Interview

Q. В последние десятилетия в политических и экономических системах многих стран произошли существенные изменения. В каждом случае произошедшие перемены имеют свою специфику. Можно ли, на ваш взгляд, определить некие общие черты, характеризующие эти изменения?

A. For a large number of countries, the direction of these changes appears to be, on the political side, toward more democratic forms of government and, on the economic side, toward more market-based economies.

Q. Вы считаете, что такое совпадение экономических и политических изменений случайно?

A. In both the political and the economic domains, a key component of change is that information is becoming more decentralized and 'freely' available. There have been significant moves in the direction of increasing the transparency of both political and economic systems.

Q. Что вы вкладываете в понятие “прозрачность системы”?

A. When we say that a system is transparent we mean that reasonably accurate information about the workings of the system are easily and cheaply available and that the quality of that information does not depend in any significant way on one's position in that system. Thus defined, of course, captures what might be meant by full transparency. It is useful to think of a (possibly multidimensional) continuum ranging from stark opacity on one end to full transparency on the other.

Q. В наше время, время глобализации, прозрачность в сфере экономики помогает преодолеть недоверие компании к той стране, где она открывает свои отделения. А что вы можете сказать о выгодах прозрачности политических систем?

A. Generally, and especially in transitional systems, the lack of political transparency has been associated with governmental corruption. Frequently, this takes the form of bureaucrats requiring payments from citizens to perform routine tasks such as permit approvals or license renewals. This rent-seeking behavior on the part of bureaucrats has several deleterious effects.

Q. Какие именно?

A. First, it typically increases the time required to complete routine interactions. For example, to get a building permit, one must not only fill out and submit the relevant paperwork; one must also identify the relevant bureaucrats and negotiate prices with them in order to facilitate permit approval. Second, the lack of transparency makes democratic accountability nearly impossible. How can a government be held accountable for outcomes when those outcomes are the consequence of opaque negations between citizens and bureaucrats? Third, low transparency can result in increased cynicism about a government on the part of its citizens as well as on the part of potential external allies and investors. Taken together these effects reinforce the consequences of low economic transparency by adding to overall inefficiency.

Q. Вам не кажется, что вы преувеличиваете значение информационной прозрачности?

A.No, the thing is that in our highly interconnected world, country specific inefficiencies result in reduced competitiveness and ultimately in a reduced quality of life for most of the citizens of that country. For example, the foreign exchange crisis faced by the Republic of Korea in 1997 resulted in large part from a lack of both political and economic transparency together with, at the end, a global lack of confidence in the system. The result in the Global Information Age was a fast moving, severe and wide-ranging economic and political crisis in South Korea.

CASE STUDY

The Transformative Potential of E-Government in Transitional Democracies