Priviet Social Sciences Journal

Local open government: Key issues in Contagem, Brazil

by Syed Agung Afandi , Rizki Erdayani
Vol. 6 No. 1 (2026): January 2026

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the key issues of open government in Contagem, Brazil, using a bibliometric analysis approach. Research data were collected from Google Scholar using Publish or Perish and analyzed with VOSviewer through co-occurrence techniques on keyword units with the full counting method. The findings revealed three major dimensions within the discourse: normative, policy, and local practice. The normative dimension underscores transparency and accountability in digital platforms. The policy dimension demonstrates the institutionalization of open government principles in urban planning and social programs. The local practice dimension reflects contextual adaptation by emphasizing inclusivity, sustainability, and smart governance. Moreover, the five core commitments of Contagem—digital participation through Decidim, the Integrity Plan, the establishment of CPRAC-C for administrative conflict resolution, a mobile application for georeferencing third-sector services, and the enhancement of the Transparency Portal—illustrate the city’s serious efforts to integrate OGP values at the local level. Nevertheless, several challenges remain, including limited and uneven citizen engagement, fragmentation of participatory instruments, digital divides, and the risk of symbolic implementation of the law. This study concludes that Contagem represents both opportunities and constraints in the execution of local open government, underscoring the need to strengthen inclusiveness, operational integrity, and integration of participatory mechanisms. Reinforcing these aspects would not only consolidate Contagem’s position within Brazil, but also enable it to serve as a model for participatory and sustainable urban governance in Latin America.

References

  1. Aboalmaali, F. S., Daneshfard, K., & Pourezzat, A. A. (2020). A Pattern to Recognition of Triggering Element of Open Government Implementation in Iran’s Public Organizations (Case Study: Ministry of Interior). Journal of Public Administration, 12(1), 145–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1645684
  2. Afandi, S. A., Erdayani, R., & Afandi, M. (2024). Open Parliament: Study from Indonesia and Philippines. Journal of Governance and Social Policy, 5(1), 126–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101855
  3. Bonina, C., & Eaton, B. (2020). Cultivating Open Government Data Platform Ecosystems through Governance: Lessons from Buenos Aires, Mexico City and Montevideo. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101479
  4. Criado, J. I., & Gil-García, J. R. (2019). Creating public value through smart technologies and strategies: From digital services to artificial intelligence and beyond. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(5), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2019-0178
  5. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133(1), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
  6. Gao, Y., Janssen, M., & Zhang, C. (2021). Understanding the evolution of open government data research: towards open data sustainability and smartness. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211009955
  7. Gascó-Hernández, M. (2014). Open government: Opportunities and challenges for public governance. The Spanish Journal of Public Administration, 161(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.06.003
  8. Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigó, J. M., & Baier-Fuentes, H. (2019). Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140(12), 194–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.006
  9. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Zhang, J., & Puron-Cid, G. (2016). What makes a city smart? Identifying core components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization. Information Polity, 21(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150362
  10. Gil-Garcia, R., Gasco-Hernandez, M., & Pardo, T. (2020). Beyond Transparency, Participation, and Collaboration? A Reflection on the Dimensions of Open Government. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(3), 483–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.09.001
  11. Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740
  12. Janssen, M., & Helbig, N. (2018). Innovating and changing the policy-cycle: Policy-makers be prepared! Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.001
  13. Khurshid, M. M., Zakaria, N. H., Arfeen, M., Rashid, A., Shehzad, S. U. N., & Faisal, H. M. (2022). Factors Influencing Citizens’ Intention to Use Open Government Data—A Case Study of Pakistan. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 6(31), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101698
  14. Kulsum, U., Nurmandi, A., Isnaini, Muallidin, Jafar, M., Loilatu, & Kurniawan, D. (2022). A Bibliometric Analysis of Open Government: Study on Indonesia and Philippines. Journal of Governance, 7(1), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1419069
  15. Lnenicka, M., & Saxena, S. (2021). Re-Defining Open Government Data Standards for Smart Cities’ Websites: A Case Study of Selected Cities. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 23(4), 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-12-2020-0174
  16. 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
  17. Mendonça, R. F., & Maia, R. C. M. (2022). Digital platforms and democratic deliberation in Brazil: Lessons from local governments. Journal of Latin American Studies, 54(2), 335–357. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
  18. Michener, G., & Bersch, K. (2013). Conceptualizing the Quality of Transparency. Politics & Society, 41(4), 529–558. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-130299
  19. Moon, M. J. (2020). Shifting from Old Open Government to New Open Government: Four Critical Dimensions and Case Illustrations. Public Performance and Management Review, 43(3), 535–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1691024
  20. Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. J. (2020). Software Tools for Conducting Bibliometric Analysis in Science: An Up-to-date Review. Multidisciplinar, 29(1), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
  21. Nam, T. (2012). Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.07.005
  22. Noushin, M. K., Farajollah, R., Mahdi, M., & Mahmoud, S. (2020). A Model for Measuring the Willingness of Policy Makers to Open Government in Iran. Journal of Public Administration Perspective, 11(2), 35–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101491
  23. Open Government Partnership. (2024). Contagem open government journey. https://www.opengovpartnership.org/contagem-open-government-journey
  24. Peixoto, T., & Fox, J. (2016). When Does ICT-Enabled Citizen Voice Lead to Government Responsiveness? World Development, 79, 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.019
  25. Piotrowski, S. J. (2017). Transparency and secrecy: A reader linking literature and contemporary debate. Lexington Books.
  26. Prastya, D. E., Misran, & Nurmandi, A. (2021). A Bibliometric Analysis of E-Democracy On Government Research. Jurnal Ilmiah Mimbar Demokrasi, 20(2), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1840325
  27. Ruijer, E., Détienne, F., Baker, M., Groff, J., & Meijer, A. J. (2020). The Politics of Open Government Data: Understanding Organizational Responses to Pressure for More Transparency. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(3), 156–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101449
  28. Safarov, I. (2019). Institutional Dimensions of Open Government Data Implementation: Evidence from the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK. Public Performance and Management Review, 42(2), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1438296
  29. Shao, D. D., & Saxena, S. (2019). Barriers to Open Government Data (OGD) Initiative in Tanzania: Stakeholders’ Perspectives. Growth and Change, 50(1), 470–485. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133607
  30. Wampler, B., Touchton, M., & Pereira, F. (2021). Participatory Governance During the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Case Study of Brazil. World Development, 137(1), 105-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105295
  31. Wang, V., & Shepherd, D. (2020). Exploring the Extent of Openness of Open Government Data – A Critique of Open Government Datasets in the UK. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 405-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101405
  32. 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
  33. Wirtz, B., Weyerer, J., & Rösch, M. (2019). Open Government and Citizen Participation: An Empirical Analysis of Citizen Expectancy towards Open Government Data. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(3), 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1419986
  34. Zhao, Y., Liang, Y., Yao, C., & Han, X. (2022). Key Factors and Generation Mechanisms of Open Government Data Performance: A Mixed Methods Study in the Case of China. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 1717-1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101630