Enhancing Sustainability Transparency in Local Governments—An Empirical Research in Europe
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Sustainability Transparency and Administrative Cultures
3. Sample Selection and Research Methodology
3.1. Sample Selection
3.2. Empirical Method
3.3. Selecting the Independent Variables
3.3.1. Population Factors
3.3.2. Socioeconomic Factors
3.3.3. Financial Factors
3.3.4. Legal Factors
4. Empirical Results
4.1. Descriptive Analysis
4.2. Statistical Analysis
4.2.1. First Regression Analysis
4.2.2. Second Regression Analysis
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Afonso, A.; Jalles, J.T. Fiscal sustainability: A panel assessment for advanced economies. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2015, 22, 925–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Bolívar, M.P.; Navarro-Galera, A.; Alcaide Muñoz, L. New development: The role of accounting in assessing local government sustainability. Public Money Manag. 2014, 34, 233–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Union (EU). Fiscal Sustainability Report 2012; 2012. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2012/pdf/ee-2012-8_en.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2018).
- EU. SGPTD Second Tier Cities and Territorial Development in Europe: Performance, Policies and Prospects; EU: Luxembourg, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). Accountability, Sustainability, and Growth Recommendations for the G-20 Leaders’ Summit. 2013. Available online: http://www.ifac.org/publications-resources/accountability-sustainability-and-growth-recommendations-g-20-leaders-summit (accessed on 13 January 2018).
- IMF. Fiscal Transparency Code; IMF: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Randma-Liiv, T.; Kickert, W. The Impact of Fiscal Crisis on Public Administration Reforms in Europe. J. Comp. Policy Anal. Res. Pract. 2017, 19, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, B.G.; Pierre, J.; Randma-Liiv, T. Global Financial Crisis, Public Administration and Governance: Do New Problems require New Solutions? Public Organ. Rev. 2011, 11, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebner, D.; Baumgartner, R.J. The relationship between sustainable development and corporate social responsibility. In Proceedings of the Corporate Responsibility Research Conference 2006, Dublin, Ireland, 4–5 September 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Opp, S.M.; Saunders, K.L. Pillar talk: Local sustainability initiatives and policies in the United States—finding evidence of the “three E’s”: Economic development, environmental protection, and social equity. Urban Aff. Rev. 2013, 49, 678–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stazyk, E.C.; Moldavanova, A.; Frederickson, H.G. Sustainability, Intergenerational Social Equity, and the Socially Responsible Organization. Adm. Soc. 2014, 48, 655–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcaraz-Quiles, F.J.; Navarro-Galera, A.; Ortiz-Rodríguez, D. Factors influencing the transparency of sustainability information in regional governments: An empirical study. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 82, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Sánchez, I.M.; Frías-Aceituno, J.V.; Rodríguez-Domínguez, L. Determinants of corporate social disclosure in Spanish local governments. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 39, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Sol, D.A. The institutional, economic and social determinants of local government transparency. J. Econ. Policy Reform 2013, 16, 90–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonsón, E.; Torres, L.; Royo, S.; Flores, F. Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Gov. Inf. Q. 2012, 29, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guillamón, M.D.; Bastida, F.; Benito, B. The determinants of local government’s financial transparency. Local Gov. Stud. 2011, 37, 391–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niemann, L.; Hoppe, T. Sustainability reporting by local governments: A magic tool? Lessons on use and usefulness from European pioneers. Public Manag. Rev. 2017, 20, 201–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brusca, I.; Rossi, F.M.; Aversano, N. Online sustainability information in local governments in an austerity context. Online Inf. Rev. 2016, 40, 497–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcaraz-Quiles, F.J.; Navarro-Galera, A.; Ortiz-Rodríguez, D. A Comparative Analysis of Transparency in Sustainability Reporting by Local and Regional Governments. Lex Localis J. Local Self-Gov. 2014, 12, 55–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcaide Muñoz, L.; Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P. Determining Factors of Transparency and Accountability in Local Governments: A Meta-Analytic Study. Lex Localis J. Local Self-Gov. 2015, 13, 129–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro Galera, A.; de los Ríos Berjillos, A.; Ruiz Lozano, M.; Tirado Valencia, P. Transparency of sustainability information in local governments: English-speaking and Nordic cross-country analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grimmelikhuijsen, S.; Porumbescu, G.; Hong, B.; Im, T. The effect of transparency on trust in government: A cross-national comparative experiment. Public Adm. Rev. 2013, 73, 575–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro Galera, A.; Ruiz Lozano, M.; Tirado Valencia, P.; de los Ríos Berjillos, A. Promoting Sustainability Transparency in European Local Governments: An Empirical Analysis Based on Administrative Cultures. Sustainability 2017, 9, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortiz-Rodríguez, D.; Navarro-Galera, A.; Alcaraz-Quiles, F.J. The influence of administrative culture on sustainability transparency in European Local Governments. Adm. Soc. 2018, 50, 555–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haque, M.S. Modernising government: The way forward—An analysis. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2006, 72, 319–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pollit, C.; Bouckaert, G. Public Mangement Reform: A Comparative Analysis; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Hąbek, P.; Wolniak, R. Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports: The case of reporting practices in selected European Union member states. Qual. Quant. 2016, 50, 399–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Camilleri, M.A. Valuing stakeholder engagement and sustainability reporting. Corp. Reput. Rev. 2015, 18, 210–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reverte, C. The new Spanish corporate social responsibility strategy 2014–2020: A crucial step forward with new challenges ahead. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 91, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EU. Fiscal Sustainability Report. 2014. Available online: http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/41298-OBR-accessible.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2018).
- Overmans, J.F.A.; Noordegraaf, M. Managing austerity: Rhetorical and real responses to fiscal stress in local government. Public Money Manag. 2014, 34, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryson, J.M.; Crosby, B.C.; Bloomberg, L. Public Value Governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the New Public Management. Public Adm. Rev. 2014, 74, 445–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J. Preparing performance information in the public sector: An Australian perspective. Financ. Account. Manag. 2008, 24, 117–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gandía, M.C.; Archidona, J.L. Determinants of web site information by Spanish city councils. Online Inf. Rev. 2008, 32, 35–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Da Cruz, N.F.; Marques, R.C. Scorecards for sustainable local governments. Cities 2014, 39, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bellringer, A.; Ball, A.; Craig, R. Reasons for sustainability reporting by New Zealand local governments. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2011, 2, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lodhia, S.; Jacobs, K.; Park, Y.J. Driving public sector environmental reporting. Public Manag. Rev. 2012, 14, 631–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hahn, R.; Lülfs, R. Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability reporting: A qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 123, 401–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EU. Corporate Social Responsibility: Accountable, Transparent and Responsible Business Behaviour and Sustainable Growth. 2013. Available online: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2012/2098(INI)&l=EN (accessed on 22 January 2018).
- G-20. G-20 Leaders’ Declaration. Document, St. Petersburg, Russia, 6 September 2013. Available online: www.g20.org (accessed on 22 January 2018).
- United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Fundamentals of NGO Financial Sustainability; Abt Associates Inc.: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Krause, R.M.; Feiock, R.C.; Hawkins, C.V. The administrative organization of sustainability within local government. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2016, 26, 113–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guthrie, J.; Ball, A.; Farneti, F. Advancing sustainable management of public and not for profit organisations. Public Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 449–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beare, D.; Buslovich, R.; Searcy, C. Linkages between corporate sustainability reporting and public policy. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2014, 21, 336–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erkkila, T. Global governance indices as policy instruments: Actionability, transparency and comparative policy analysis. J. Comp. Policy Anal. 2015, 18, 382–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IFAC. Illuminating the Issues Highlighting the Solutions. 2011. Available online: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/ed4395af#/ed4395af/1 (accessed on 10 January 2018).
- Dumay, J.; Farneti, F.; Guthrie, J. The worth of international guidelines for sustainability reporting in public and not for profit sector organisations. In Proceedings of the Sustainable Management of Organisations Conference, Bologna, Italy, 1–3 July 2009. [Google Scholar]
- KPMG. The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2013. 2013. Available online: http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/corporateresponsibility/pages/corporate-responsibility-reporting-survey-2013.aspx (accessed on 15 January 2018).
- Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines; GRI: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- GRI. G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. 2013. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/g4/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 10 January 2018).
- GRI. Reporting in Government Agencies; GRI: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, N.C.; Lessen, G. Mainstreaming corporate responsibility: An introduction. In Mainstreaming Corporate Responsibility; Smith, N.C., Lessen, G., Eds.; Willey: West Sussex, UK, 2009; pp. 2–8. [Google Scholar]
- Caamaño-Alegre, J.; Lago-Peñas, S.; Reyes-Santias, F.; Santiago-Boubeta, A. Budget transparency in local governments: An empirical analysis. Local Gov. Stud. 2013, 39, 182–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro-Galera, A.; Alcaraz-Quiles, F.J.; Ortiz-Rodríguez, D. Online dissemination of information on sustainability in Regional Governments. Effects of technological factors. Gov. Inf. Q. 2016, 33, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papenfuß, U.; Grüb, B.; Frieländer, B. Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung öffentlicher Unternehmen—Entwicklung eines Qualitätsmodells und empirische Befunde für Stadtwerke im internationalen Vergleich. J. Public Nonprofit Serv. 2015, 38, 170–187. [Google Scholar]
- Greiling, D.; Traxler, A.A.; Stötzer, S. Sustainability reporting in the Austrian, German and Swiss public sector. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2015, 28, 404–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopatta, K.; Jaeschke, R. Sustainability reporting at German and Austrian universities. Int. J. Educ. Econ. Dev. 2014, 5, 66–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goswami, K.; Lodhia, S. Sustainability disclosure patterns of South Australian local councils: A case study. Public Money Manag. 2014, 34, 273–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcaraz-Quiles, F.J.; Navarro-Galera, A.; Ortiz-Rodríguez, D. Factors determining online sustainability reporting by local governments. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2015, 81, 79–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B. The impact of functional decentralization and externalization on local government transparency. Gov. Inf. Q. 2014, 31, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Midttun, A.; Gjølberg, M.; Kourula, A.; Sweet, S.; Vallentin, S. Public policies for corporate social responsibility in four Nordic countries: Harmony of goals and conflict of means. Bus. Soc. 2015, 54, 464–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Centre for Law and Democracy (CDL). Global Right to Information Rating. 2015. Available online: www.rti-rating.org (accessed on 15 January 2018).
- Alam, M.; Nandam, R. Public Sector Reform and Accounting Change in a Cultural Environment. In Proceedings of the 7th ASBBS International Conference, Cairns, Australia; 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Gallego-Álvarez, I.; Rodríguez-Domínguez, L.; García-Sánchez, I.M. Are determining factors of municipal E-government common to a worldwide municipal view? An intra-country comparison. Gov. Inf. Q. 2010, 27, 423–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Bolívar, M.P.; Navarro-Galera, A. The Effect of Changes in the Public Sector Accounting Policies on Administrative Reforms Addressed to Citizens. Adm. Soc. 2016, 48, 31–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- David, N.; Justice, J.; McNutt, J.G. Smart Cities Are Transparent Cities: The Role of Fiscal Transparency in Smart City Governance. In Transforming City Governments for Successful Smart Cities; Rodriguez-Bolivar, M.P., Ed.; Springer International Publishing AG: Basel, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 69–86. [Google Scholar]
- United Nation (UN). World Urbanization Prospects; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Shepherd, E.; Stevenson, A.; Flinn, A. Information governance, records management, and freedom of information: A study of local government authorities in England. Gov. Inf. Q. 2010, 27, 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Relly, J.E.; Sabharwal, M. Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: A cross-national study. Gov. Inf. Q. 2009, 26, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez-López, G.; Prior, D.; Zafra-Gómez, J.L.; Plata-Díaz, A.M. Cost efficiency in municipal solid waste service delivery. Alternative management forms in relation to local population size. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 255, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro Galera, A.; Rodríguez Bolivar, M.P. Modernizing governments in transitional and emerging economies through financial reporting based on international standards. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2011, 77, 609–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Porte, T.M.; Demchak, C.C.; de Jong, M. Democracy and bureaucracy in the age of the web. Empirical findings and theoretical speculations. Adm. Soc. 2002, 34, 411–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joseph, C.; Taplin, R. The Measurement of Sustainability Disclosure: Abundance versus Occurrence. Account. Forum 2011, 35, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kickert, W. Public Management in the United States and Europe. In Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe; Kickert, W., Ed.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 1997; pp. 15–38. [Google Scholar]
- Margetts, H. The Internet and Transparency. Political Q. 2011, 82, 518–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GRI. Sector Supplement for Public Agencies; GRI: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Wasiluk, K.L. Beyond eco-efficiency: Understanding CS through the IC practice lens. J. Intellect. Cap. 2013, 14, 102–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tort, L.E. GRI Reporting in Government Agencies; GRI: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Chu, H. Research methods in library and information science: A content analysis. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 2015, 37, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, D.L. Advancing E-Government performance in the United States through enhanced usability benchmarks. Gov. Inf. Q. 2009, 26, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melitski, J.; Manoharan, A. Performance measurement, accountability, and transparency of budgets and financial reports. Public Adm. Q. 2014, 38, 38–70. [Google Scholar]
- Homsy, G.C.; Warner, M.E. Cities and Sustainability: Polycentric Action and Multilevel Governance. Urban Aff. Rev. 2015, 51, 46–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro, A.; Alcaraz, F.J.; Ortiz, D. La Divulgación de Información sobre Responsabilidad Social Corporativa en Administraciones Públicas: Un Estudio Empírico en Gobiernos Locales. Rev. Contabilidad/Span. Account. Rev. 2010, 13, 285–314. [Google Scholar]
- Colby, S.L.; Ortman, J.M. Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060; U. S. Census Bureau: Washintong, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Helliwell, J.F.; Layard, R.; Sachs, J. World Happiness Report 2015; Sustainable Development Solutions Network: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Benito, B.; Bastida, F.; García, J.A. Explaining differences in efficiency: An application to Spanish municipalities. Appl. Econ. 2010, 42, 515–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, T.M.; Sayogo, D.S. Transparency, participation, and accountability practices in open government: A comparative study. Gov. Inf. Q. 2014, 31, 513–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
ANGLO-SAXON | IRELAND | Dublin | SOUTHERN EUROPEAN | PORTUGAL | Lisbon | |||
NORDICS | FINLAND | Helsinki | Cork | Porto | ||||
Oulu | Galway | Braga | ||||||
Tampere | UNITED KINGDOM | London | Coimbra | |||||
Turku | Birmingham | Seixal | ||||||
Espoo | Leeds | Amadora | ||||||
Vantaa | Glasgow | Almada | ||||||
NORWAY | Jyväskylä | Bradford | Odivelas | |||||
Bergen | Liverpool | Matosinhos | ||||||
Oslo | Edinburg | Gondomar | ||||||
Stavanger | Manchester | Guimarães | ||||||
Trondheim | Cardiff | Vila Franca de Xira | ||||||
Kristiansand | Sheffield | SPAIN | Madrid | |||||
SWEDEN | Goteborg | Bristol | Barcelona | |||||
Malmö | Belfast | Valencia | ||||||
Stockholm | Leicester | Sevilla | ||||||
Uppsala | Coventry | Zaragoza | ||||||
Vasteras | Plymouth | Málaga | ||||||
DENMARK | Aalborg | Newcastle | Murcia | |||||
Copenhagen | Derry | Las Palmas de Gran Canaria | ||||||
Odense | Exeter | Palma de Mallorca | ||||||
Aarhus | Worcester | Bilbao | ||||||
Frederiksberg | Stoke-on-trend | Alicante | ||||||
THE NETHERLANDS | The Hague | Nottingham | Córdoba | |||||
Amsterdam | Wirral | Valladolid | ||||||
Rotterdam | Brighton | Vigo | ||||||
Utrecht | Wolver Hampton | Granada | ||||||
Eindhoven | Southampton | Gijón | ||||||
Tilburg | Reading | Hospitalet | ||||||
Groningen | Derby | La Coruña | ||||||
Kingston Upon Hull | Vitoria |
Variable | Definition | Selection | |
---|---|---|---|
Population Factors | Population Size | Total population of the Local Government (LG) | Eurostat website |
Dependent Population | Percentage of population under 18 and over 65 divided by total population of LG | Eurostat website | |
Immigrant Population | Percentage of immigrant population divided by total population of LG | Eurostat website | |
Population Density | Total population of LG divided by total area of LG in km2 | Eurostat website | |
Socioeconomic Factors | Political Competition | The government of LG is by majority or in coalition | Website of each LG |
Level of Education | Percentage of graduates divided by total population of LG | Eurostat website | |
Internet Access | Percentage of inhabitants with broadband divided by total population of LG | Eurostat website | |
Average Disposable Income | Average income of the municipality divided by the average number of inhabitants | Eurostat website | |
Unemployment Rate | Percentage of population unemployed | Eurostat website | |
Financial Factors | Budget surplus/deficit | Difference between total revenue and total expenditure budget settlement | Ministry of Economy and Finance website |
Debt per Capita | Total debt divided by total population of LG | Ministry of Economy and Finance website | |
Financial Autonomy | Total budgeted income, less (current transfers + capital transfers), divided by total budgeted income | Website of each LG | |
Fiscal Pressure | Sum of direct taxes and indirect taxes divided by total population of LG | Ministry of Economy and Finance website | |
Legal Factors | Age of Transparency Law (ATL) | Years elapsed since Access to Information Law came into effect | Centre for Law and Democracy |
Judicial Quality of the Law (JQL) | Measure of how well the judicial framework suits the provisions of the Access to Information Law | Centre for Law and Democracy |
PS | <19 | 65> | IP | PD | LoE | IA | ADI | UR | DpC | FA | FP | ATL | JQL | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ps | 1.000 | |||||||||||||
<19 | −0.161 | 1.000 | ||||||||||||
0.128339 | ||||||||||||||
65> | −0.197 | −0.389 | 1.000 | |||||||||||
0.061268 | 0.000141 | |||||||||||||
IP | 0.060 | −0.112 | 0.200 | 1.000 | ||||||||||
0.570702 | 0.291417 | 0.057567 | ||||||||||||
PD | 0.258 * | −0.252 * | 0.082 | 0.232 * | 1.000 | PEARSON | ||||||||
0.013721 | 0.015862 | 0.442218 | 0.026972 | |||||||||||
LoE | 0.788 | −0.041 | −0.210 * | −0.100 | 0.291 | 1.000 | ||||||||
1.75 × 10−20 | 6.98 × 10−1 | 4.61 × 10−2 | 3.44 × 10−1 | 5.10 × 10−3 | ||||||||||
IA | 0.101 | 0.355 | −0.417 | −0.599 | −0.036 | 0.266 * | 1.000 | |||||||
0.341412 | 0.000552 | 0.000039 | 0.000000 | 0.731800 | 0.010707 | |||||||||
ADI | 0.008 | 0.037 | −0.176 | −0.415 | 0.023 | 0.129 | 0.464 | 1.000 | ||||||
0.938348 | 0.727251 | 0.096047 | 0.000043 | 0.828648 | 0.222722 | 0.000004 | ||||||||
UR | 0.015 | 0.260 * | −0.073 | 0.080 | −0.015 | −0.056 | 0.026 | 0.109 | 1.000 | |||||
0.888952 | 0.012648 | 0.493189 | 0.452476 | 0.890217 | 0.600270 | 0.809027 | 0.301675 | |||||||
DpC | −0.120 | 0.339 | −0.246 * | −0.159 | −0.256 * | −0.049 | 0.218 * | 0.288 | 0.033 | 1.000 | ||||
0.258261 | 0.001005 | 0.018538 | 0.131022 | 0.014276 | 0.646081 | 0.037557 | 0.005601 | 0.758115 | ||||||
FA | −0.053 | 0.501 | −0.280 | 0.299 | −0.069 | −0.033 | 0.076 | 0.034 | 0.227 * | 0.418 | 1.000 | |||
0.619363 | 0.000000 | 0.007151 | 0.004016 | 0.513400 | 0.754814 | 0.472983 | 0.747416 | 0.030478 | 0.000038 | |||||
FP | −0.101 | 0.218 * | −0.266 * | −0.229 * | −0.100 | −0.001 | 0.412 | 0.699 | 0.166 | 0.481 | 0.473 | 1.000 | ||
0.338746 | 0.038343 | 0.010888 | 0.028688 | 0.346877 | 0.995695 | 0.000050 | 0.000000 | 0.115595 | 0.000001 | 0.000002 | ||||
ATL | −0.036 | 0.277 | 0.068 | −0.076 | −0.229 * | −0.085 | 0.207 * | 0.095 | 0.277 | 0.382 | 0.380 | 0.471 | 1.000 | |
0.732657 | 0.007899 | 0.519995 | 0.474889 | 0.029363 | 0.422225 | 0.048699 | 0.370397 | 0.007832 | 0.000184 | 0.000200 | 0.000002 | |||
JQL | 0.076 | 0.477 | −0.369 | −0.047 | −0.100 | 0.172 | 0.426 | −0.132 | 0.021 | 0.169 | 0.515 | 0.018 | 0.151 | 1.000 |
0.473703 | 0.000002 | 0.000316 | 0.659654 | 0.344900 | 0.103094 | 0.000025 | 0.212474 | 0.841185 | 0.109971 | 0.000000 | 0.865462 | 0.153294 |
PS | <19 | 65> | IP | PD | LoE | IA | ADI | UR | DpC | FA | FP | ATL | JQL | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ps | 1.000 | |||||||||||||
<19 | −0.077 | 1.000 | ||||||||||||
0.466487 | ||||||||||||||
65> | −0.168 | −0.380 | 1.000 | |||||||||||
0.111690 | 0.000202 | |||||||||||||
IP | −0.117 | 0.209 * | −0.263 * | 1.000 | ||||||||||
0.267709 | 0.046431 | 0.011793 | ||||||||||||
PD | 0.291 | −0.195 | −0.046 | 0.371 | 1.000 | SPEARMAN CORRELATION R | ||||||||
0.00512 | 0.06408 | 0.66218 | 0.00030 | |||||||||||
LoE | 0.366 | 0.196 | −0.218 * | −0.160 | 0.178 | 1.000 | ||||||||
0.000354 | 0.062885 | 0.037468 | 0.128822 | 0.090818 | ||||||||||
IA | 0.134 | 0.316 | −0.331 | −0.088 | 0.001 | 0.436 | 1.000 | |||||||
0.204779 | 0.002273 | 0.001371 | 0.407196 | 0.992577 | 0.000015 | |||||||||
ADI | 0.243 * | 0.030 | −0.197 | −0.475 | −0.096 | 0.314 | 0.383 | 1.000 | ||||||
0.020105 | 0.775902 | 0.061208 | 0.000002 | 0.367179 | 0.002415 | 0.000181 | ||||||||
UR | −0.149 | 0.207 * | −0.015 | 0.340 | −0.115 | −0.302 | −0.088 | 0.002 | 1.000 | |||||
0.159230 | 0.049307 | 0.891444 | 0.000979 | 0.278288 | 0.003641 | 0.407307 | 0.985236 | |||||||
DpC | −0.240 * | 0.488 | −0.320 | 0.193 | −0.188 | 0.148 | 0.351 | 0.225 * | 0.227 * | 1.000 | ||||
0.021945 | 0.000001 | 0.002021 | 0.067403 | 0.074872 | 0.162807 | 0.000644 | 0.031971 | 0.030636 | ||||||
FA | −0.177 | 0.439 | −0.263 * | 0.404 | 0.035 | 0.105 | 0.290 | 0.110 | 0.268 * | 0.578 | 1.000 | |||
0.093496 | 0.000014 | 0.011781 | 0.000070 | 0.740137 | 0.321661 | 0.005345 | 0.297648 | 0.010112 | 0.000000 | |||||
FP | −0.047 | 0.406 | −0.333 | −0.094 | −0.177 | 0.273 | 0.552 | 0.607 | 0.156 | 0.695 | 0.577 | 1.000 | ||
0.655503 | 0.000066 | 0.001258 | 0.373673 | 0.093172 | 0.008835 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.140459 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | ||||
ATL | −0.323 | 0.321 | −0.050 | 0.181 | −0.312 | 0.023 | 0.197 | 0.144 | 0.384 | 0.671 | 0.630 | 0.543 | 1.000 | |
0.001795 | 0.001912 | 0.635325 | 0.085256 | 0.002617 | 0.826893 | 0.060609 | 0.174071 | 0.000169 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | |||
JQL | 0.048 | 0.495 | −0.401 | 0.265 * | −0.019 | 0.349 | 0.34 | −0.028 | −0.080 | 0.368 | 0.481 | 0.274 | 0.160 | 1.000 |
0.756796 | 0.000003 | 0.000171 | 0.007830 | 0.867131 | 0.001056 | 0.003302 | 0.751388 | 0.472051 | 0.001886 | 0.000002 | 0.005555 | 0.135546 |
TOTAL | BL 1 | BL 2 | BL 3 | BL 4 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ID | SD | ID | SD | ID | SD | ID | SD | ID | SD | |
Nordic | 54% | 3.8529 | 60% | 5.0707 | 48% | 2.1553 | 50% | 2.8855 | 56% | 8.4024 |
Anglo-Saxon | 60% | 4. 3169 | 63% | 5.7994 | 60% | 2.1545 | 67% | 2.7255 | 46% | 13.0638 |
Southern European | 46% | 2.7549 | 48% | 5.0383 | 48% | 1.8836 | 52% | 3.3831 | 34% | 9.5673 |
Overall | 53% | 4.0698 | 57% | 5.4247 | 52% | 2.1912 | 57% | 3.2092 | 45% | 11.0632 |
COUNTRY | Sustainability Transparency Index | Human Development Index (United Nations, 2016) | Government Effectiveness Index (World Bank Group, 2016) |
---|---|---|---|
Ireland | 70.83% | 0.923 | 1.35 |
Norway | 58.80% | 0.949 | 1.88 |
United Kingdom | 57.96% | 0.909 | 1.61 |
Finland | 49.43% | 0.895 | 1.84 |
The Netherlands | 48.43% | 0.924 | 1.84 |
Spain | 48.32% | 0.884 | 0.52 |
Denmark | 44.40% | 0.925 | 1.88 |
Portugal | 42.92% | 0.843 | 1.22 |
Sweden | 38.80% | 0.915 | 1.78 |
Parameter | Estimated Error | Student t Value | p Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Nordic | 0.5068 | 0.0291 | 17.4242 | 0.0000 |
Anglo-Saxon | 0.6444 | 0.0291 | 22.1563 | 0.0000 |
Southern European | 0.5035 | 0.0291 | 17.3119 | 0.0000 |
TOTAL | BLOCK 1 | BLOCK 2 | BLOCK 3 | BLOCK 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Population Size | 0.1599 | 0.0891 | 01.420 | 0.1168 | 0.1833 |
(0.0564) * | (0.0533) | (0.0877) | (0.0697) | (0.0860) * | |
<19 | 0.2291 | 0.1641 | 0.1976 | 0.0825 | 0.3162 |
(0.2149) | (0.2031) | (0.3345) | (0.2656) | (0.3279) | |
65> | 0.1406 | 0.1695 | 0.0202 | −0.0001 | 0.2905 |
(0.1170) | (0.1106) | (0.1820) | (0.1466) | (0.1785) | |
Immigrant population | −0.0269 | −0.0008 | −0.0177 | −0.0656 | −0.0215 |
(0.0524) | (0.0495) | (00815) | (0.0647) | (0.0799) | |
Population density | 0.0603 | 0.0645 | 0.0767 | 0.0955 | −0.0035 |
(0.0517) | (0.0488) | (0.0804) | (0.0639) | (0.0788) | |
Political competition | 0.0012 | 0.0289 | 0.0039 | −0.0238 | −0.0596 |
(0.0425) | (0.0401) | (0.0661) | (0.0525) | (0.0648) | |
Level of education | −0.1386 | −0.0284 | −0.1097 | −0.1023 | −0.1989 |
(0.0711) | (0.0672) | (0.1106) | (0.0879) | (0.1085) | |
Internet Access | 0.1104 | 0.1969 | −0.0268 | 0.4223 | −0.0107 |
(0.2921) | (0.2761) | (0.4546) | (0.3611) | (0.4457) | |
Average Disposable Income | −0.0417 | −0.0407 | −0.0887 | −0.0038 | −0.0475 |
(0.0867) | (0.0819) | (0.1349) | (0.1071) | (0.1322) | |
Unemployment rate | −0.0128 | −0.0309 | 0.0000 | −0.0440 | 0.0091 |
(0.0430) | (0.0407) | (0.0607) | (0.0532) | (0.0656) | |
Budget surplus/deficit | 0.0478 | 0.0501 | 0.0210 | 0.0773 | 0.0473 |
(0.0448) | (0.0423) | (0.0697) | (0.0554) | (0.0683) | |
Debt per Inhabitant | 0.1083 | 0.0926 | 0.1010 | 0.0991 | 0.2106 |
(0.0468) * | (0.0443) * | (0.0729) | (0.0579) | (0.0715) * | |
Financial autonomy | 0.0580 | 0.2394 | −0.0856 | 0.2293 | −0.2955 |
(0.1230) | (0.1162) * | (0.1914) | (0.1520) | (0.1876) | |
Fiscal pressure | 0.0676 | 0.0633 | 0.1092 | −0.1019 | 0.2954 |
(0.0885) | (0.0837) | (0.1378) | (0.1094) | (0.1351) * | |
Age of transparency Law (ATL) | −0.2195 | −0.1645 | −0.2005 | −0.2363 | −0.2955 |
(0.0592) * | (0.0560) * | (0.0921) * | (0.0732) * | (0.0903) * | |
Judicial Quality of Law (JQL) | 0.4791 | 0.1755 | 0.8263 | 0.3731 | 0.5610 |
(0.2907) | (0.2748) | (0.4525) | (0.3593) | (0.4436) | |
R2/R2 Adjusted | 0.9173/0.9155 | 0.9359/0.9345 | 0.8577/0.8273 | 0.8601/0.8585 | 0.8868/0.8829 |
TOTAL Parameter (Estimated Error) | BLOCK 1 Parameter (Estimated Error) | BLOCK 2 Parameter (Estimated Error) | BLOCK 3 Parameter (Estimated Error) | BLOCK 4 Parameter (Estimated Error) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Population Size | 0.1047 | 0.0290 | 0.0489 | 0.0909 | 0.2487 |
(0.0953) | (0.1133) | (0.1932) | (0.1451) | (0.1758) | |
<19 | 0.8113 | 1.1666 | 1.2510 | 0.5867 | 1.2334 |
(0.4822) | (0.5732) | (0.9770) | (0.7340) | (0.8894) | |
65> | −0.0949 | −0.2602 | −1.0521 | −0.2354 | 0.2538 |
(0.3872) | (0.4603) | (0.7845) | (0.5894) | (0.7141) | |
Immigrant population | 0.0907 | 0.0623 | −0.1335 | 0.3942 | 0.1214 |
(0.1839) | (0.2187) | (0.3727) | (0.2800) | (0.3393) | |
Population density | 0.0603 | 0.0813 | 0.2121 | 0.1037 | 0.0165 |
(0.1014) | (0.1205) | (0.2054) | (0.1543) | (0.1870) | |
Political competition | −0.0356 | −0.0112 | −0.0520 | −0.1475 | 0.0334 |
(0.0570) | (0.0678) | (0.11569 | (0.0868) | (0.1052) | |
Level of education | 0.1687 | 0.2829 | 0.4930 | 0.3469 | 0.3330 |
(0.1725) | (0.2050) | (0.34949 | (0.2625) | (0.3181) | |
Internet Access | −0.4418 | 0.0264 | 0.4510 | −0.2740 | −2.1682 |
(0.7818) | (0.9295) | (1.5842) | (1.1901) | (1.4421) | |
Average Disposable Income | 0.0239 | 0.0697 | 0.1887 | 0.0378 | −0.1467 |
(0.2233) | (0.2655) | (0.4525) | (0.3399) | (0.4119) | |
Unemployment rate | 0.0737 | 0.0656 | 0.0152 | 0.0846 | 0.0463 |
(0.1169) | (0.1390) | (0.2369) | (0.1779) | (0.2156) | |
Budget surplus/deficit | 0.2679 | 0.1733 | 0.5473 | 0.3406 | 0.3865 |
(0.1207) * | (0.1434) | (0.2445) * | (0.1837) | (0.2226) | |
Debt per Inhabitant | 0.2510 | 0.1341 | 0.3306 | 0.2336 | 0.3990 |
(0.0862) * | (0.1025) | (0.1746) | (0.1312) | (0.1590) * | |
Financial autonomy | −1.6787 | −1.9421 | −3.7962 | −2.3507 | −1.7571 |
(0.7397) * | (0.8795) * | (1.4989) * | (1.1261) | (1.3645) | |
Fiscal pressure | 0.3811 | 0.2978 | 0.3937 | 0.1420 | 0.9969 |
(0.2230) | (0.2652) | (0.4520) | (0.3395) | (0.4114) * | |
Age of transparency Law (ATL) | −0.3254 | −0.2032 | 0.0470 | −0.3983 | −0.5676 |
(0.2061) | (0.2451) | (0.4177) | (0.3138) | (0.3802) | |
Judicial Quality of Law (JQL) | 1.4525 | 1.1338 | 2.2584 | 2.0587 | 1.7649 |
(0.5527) * | (0.6571) | (1.1199) | (0.8414) * | (1.1095) | |
R2/R2 Adjusted | 0.97900/.9532 | 0.9704/0.9339 | 0.9139/0.8080 | 0.9514/0.8917 | 0.9287/0.8409 |
TOTAL Parameter (Estimated Error) | BLOCK 1 Parameter (Estimated Error) | BLOCK 2 Parameter (Estimated Error) | BLOCK 3 Parameter (Estimated Error) | BLOCK 4 Parameter (Estimated Error) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Population Size | 0.3022 | 0.1850 | 0.3918 | 0.1751 | 0.3776 |
(0.1884) | (0.1620) | (0.2645) | (0.2079) | (0.2226) | |
<19 | −0.0629 | −0.4980 | 0.0158 | −0.1728 | 0.4469 |
(0.7096) | (0.6101) | (0.9962) | (0.7831) | (0.8385) | |
65> | −0.3025 | −0.2713 | −0.5086 | −0.5898 | 0.0866 |
(0.5167) | (0.4443) | (0.7254) | (0.5703) | (0.6106) | |
Immigrant population | −0.1549 | −0.1539 | −0.0815 | −0.1635 | −0.3392 |
(0.2018) | (0.1735) | (0.2834) | (0.2228) | (0.2385) | |
Population density | −0.1659 | −0.0521 | −0.2483 | −0.0961 | −0.2621 |
(0.2134) | (0.1835) | (0.2997) | (0.2356) | (0.2522) | |
Political competition | −0.0477 | −0.0249 | −0.0727 | −0.0597 | −0.0636 |
(0.1207) | (0.1038) | (0.1695) | (0.1332) | (0.1427) | |
Level of education | −0.3176 | −0.1678 | −0.5002 | −0.2164 | −0.2996 |
(0.2325) | (0.1982) | (0.3237) | (0.2544) | (0.2724) | |
Internet Access | −0.1140 | −1.2278 | −0.9875 | −0.8300 | 3.3584 |
(2.3702) | (2.0380) | (3.3278) | (2.6160) | (2.8010) | |
Average Disposable Income | 0.1744 | 0.1456 | 0.1291 | 0.0310 | 0.3830 |
(0.2150) | (0.1849) | (0.3018) | (0.2373) | (0.2541) | |
Unemployment rate | −0.0262 | −0.0204 | −0.0142 | −0.0418 | −0.0214 |
(0.0770) | (0.0662) | (0.1081) | (0.850) | (0.0910) | |
Budget surplus/deficit | 0.0137 | 0.0947 | −0.0067 | 0.0241 | −0.0999 |
(0.0936) | (0.0805) | (0.1314) | (0.1033) | (0.1106) | |
Debt per Inhabitant | 0.1811 | 0.1596 | 0.0779 | 0.1195 | 0.4040 |
(0.1492) | (0.1283) | (0.2095) | (0.1647) | (0.1763) * | |
Financial autonomy | 0.6403 | 0.4579 | 0.3275 | 0.8735 | 1.1564 |
(0.5829) | (0.5012) | (0.8184) | (0.6434) | (0.6889) | |
Fiscal pressure | −0.0120 | 0.0294 | 0.0316 | −0.0997 | 0.0796 |
(0.2460) | (0.2116) | (0.3454) | (0.2715) | (0.2908) | |
Age of transparency Law (ATL) | 0.4308 | 0.6671 | 0.3415 | 0.1083 | 0.6312 |
(0.9587) | (0.8243) | (1.3460) | (1.0581) | (1.1329) | |
Judicial Quality of Law (JQL) | 0.5709 | 1.8217 | 2.1491 | 1.8978 | −4.6368 |
(3.0927) | (2.6592) | (4.3422) | (3.4134) | (3.6547) | |
R2/R2 Adjusted | 0.9582/0.9135 | 0.9691/0.9361 | 0.9175/0.8296 | 0.9490/0.8947 | 0.9416/0.8793 |
TOTAL Parameter (Estimated Error) | BLOCK 1 Parameter (Estimated Error) | BLOCK 2 Parameter (Estimated Error) | BLOCK 3 Parameter (Estimated Error) | BLOCK 4 Parameter (Estimated Error) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Population Size | 0.2281 | 1.3970 | −0.7356 | −0.3869 | 0.7163 |
(0.7449) | (0.7080) | (0.9917) | (1.1057) | (1.1773) | |
<19 | 0.7418 | −0.5453 | 1.4890 | 1.0467 | 1.2781 |
(0.5291) | (0.5028) | (0.7043) | (0.7853) | (0.8362) | |
65> | 0.2498 | 0.0576 | 0.2172 | 0.0345 | 0.4543 |
(0.2972) | (0.2825) | (0.3957) | (0.4412) | (0.4698) | |
Immigrant population | −0.1010 | −0.0752 | −0.2220 | −0.2391 | −0.0662 |
(0.1296) | (0.1232) | (0.1726) | (0.1924) | (0.2049) | |
Population density | 0.0206 | 0.0442 | 0.0688 | 0.1137 | −0.1176 |
(0.1079) | (0.1026) | (0.1437) | (0.1602) | (0.1706) | |
Political competition | −0.1442 | −0.0057 | −0.1327 | −0.0468 | −0.3348 |
(0.0860) | (0.0817) | (0.1145) | (0.1276) | (0.1359) * | |
Level of education | −0.0559 | −1.1511 | 0.8874 | 0.4434 | −0.5546 |
(0.6726) | (0.6392) | (0.8954) | (0.9983) | (1.0631) | |
Internet Access | 0.5066 | −0.0958 | 0.3368 | 0.1885 | 1.1573 |
(0.6414) | (0.6095) | (0.8538) | (0.9520) | (1.0137) | |
Average Disposable Income | 0.0474 | 0.1570 | 0.0240 | 0.2010 | 0.3268 |
(0.1770) | (0.1682) | (0.2356) | (0.2627) | (0.2797) | |
Unemployment rate | 0.2977 | 0.2088 | 0.2371 | −0.1671 | 0.1665 |
(0.3201) | (0.3042) | (0.4262) | (0.4751) | (0.5059) | |
Budget surplus/deficit | −0.0388 | 0.0738 | −0.0583 | 0.0896 | −0.1277 |
(0.0826) | (0.0785) | (0.1099) | (0.1226) | (0.1305) | |
Debt per Inhabitant | −0.2996 | −0.1171 | −0.3672 | −0.2819 | −0.6178 |
(0.1652) | (0.1570) | (0.2200) | (0.2452) | (0.2611) * | |
Financial autonomy | 0.9069 | 0.8768 | 0.7242 | 0.6525 | 1.5725 |
(0.4269) | (0.4057) * | (0.5683) | (0.6336) | (0.6747) * | |
Fiscal pressure | −0.0404 | −0.1544 | 0.0305 | −0.1327 | −0.2816 |
(0.1610) | (0.1530) | (0.2144) | (0.2390) | (02545) | |
Age of transparency Law (ATL) | −0.7497 | −0.6673 | −0.3792 | −0.1505 | −1.2022 |
(0.5294) | (0.5031) | (0.7047) | (0.7857) | (0.8367) | |
Judicial Quality of Law (JQL) | −0.5232 | 1.1186 | −1.0764 | −0.2694 | −1.4704 |
(1.1879) | (1.1290) | (1.5815) | (1.7632) | (1.8775) | |
R2/R2 Adjusted | 0.9655/0.9288 | 0.9689/0.9357 | 0.9389/0.8738 | 0.9241/0.8431 | 0.9416/0.8793 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Navarro-Galera, A.; Alcaraz-Quiles, F.J.; Ortiz-Rodriguez, D. Enhancing Sustainability Transparency in Local Governments—An Empirical Research in Europe. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2161. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072161
Navarro-Galera A, Alcaraz-Quiles FJ, Ortiz-Rodriguez D. Enhancing Sustainability Transparency in Local Governments—An Empirical Research in Europe. Sustainability. 2018; 10(7):2161. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072161
Chicago/Turabian StyleNavarro-Galera, Andrés, Francisco José Alcaraz-Quiles, and David Ortiz-Rodriguez. 2018. "Enhancing Sustainability Transparency in Local Governments—An Empirical Research in Europe" Sustainability 10, no. 7: 2161. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072161