The Cost of State Online Spending-Transparency Initiatives

Posted on September 19th, 2009

Legislatures around the country have begun to propose spending-transparency Web sites. The most effective argument against these efforts is the potential high cost of such Web sites. The Mercatus Center at George Mason University looked at ten recently established state spending sites and found that initial cost estimates often overestimated the final cost. The cost of the surveyed sites range from $30,000 to $300,000, and there is little correlation between the amount spent and the quality of the Web site. [Full Report]

The idea is a simple one: By placing the details of every government purchase and contract online where citizens can easily review them, the government will be much more accountable. Why? First, hundreds or thousands of citizens’ eyes will pore over the newly transparent data, discovering instances of previously unnoticed waste, fraud, and abuse. As a result, one can expect that these constituents will hold their elected representatives accountable and demand action. Second, once government officials become aware of the heightened scrutiny created by a transparency Web site, they will have an increased incentive to be more careful, frugal, and to think twice before making questionable expenditures.

One does not have to be a cynic to recognize that a proposal to throw light on how politicians spend tax dollars—and therefore make it easier for citizens to hold them accountable—might not be a very popular idea among politicians. Of course, it is virtually impossible to oppose a transparency measure on the grounds that one prefers more government secrecy and less citizen scrutiny. As a result, the most persuasive reason to oppose online transparency legislation is the potential high cost of developing a searchable Web site. This is exactly what was done in Arkansas during the last session.

The bottom line is that official cost estimates of spending transparency Web sites should be taken with a grain of salt—especially those that put a price tag in the millions. Additionally, the potential budget benefits of transparency should be taken into account. For example, according to Texas Comptroller Susan Combs, the state’s transparency initiative has saved the state over $5 million.33 This was possible because the site facilitated the discovery of wasteful duplicative contracts for express mail, printer toner, and other goods and services that were later consolidated and renegotiated.

Filed under Uncategorized |

One Response to “The Cost of State Online Spending-Transparency Initiatives”

1. eLwood Says:
   September 23rd, 2009 at 2:35 am

   I have an additional suggestion for REAL transparency.

   Since governments are now openly and frequently spying on the citizens who support them it’s time for a turnaround.

   Spying on the government. Put a camera in every legislator’s office, complete video coverage of every committee meeting and subcommittee meeting included. Since they’re working on the people’s dime we can do as WalMart does and put sensing devices on their persons when they go to D.C. or Little Rock so we know their whereabouts all day long. Good enough for Walmart, good enough for the people.

   Additionally, let’s put a camera in every mayor’s office including the judges’ offices. We have them in some cop cars so why not just extend it so that every deal, compromise and patting of backs can be viewed by all of us.

   No more of this double, hypocritical standard!

   Had enough on my end!

   .