Transparency is a popular word in the discourse and rhetoric on virtues of public policy. According to the Cambridge Dictionary it means “the characteristic of being easy to see through” (visibility) and “the quality of being done in an open way without secrets” (openness). The norm of transparency prescribes that government institutions should make visible what decisions they make and why, and that information should be disclosed to the full extent. As the magic wand of successful democratic government, transparency is believed to promote accountability, legitimacy and public trust. Also in the risk communication literature, transparency figures as a key element for achieving successful communication. Critics, however, have pointed out that transparency policies in risk regulation and communication can be problematic for several reasons. In cases of scientific controversy, when information is scientifically complex or there is high uncertainty, transparency may feed dis-trust, confusion and worry among receivers.
This study aims to shed light on the role of transparency in risk communication. It consists of two Swedish samples: public officials at six government agencies (food, chemicals, environmental protection, road and rail infrastructure, contingency planning, and housing and zoning planning) (n= 23) and forty municipalities (n=40). Data derives from telephone interviews on a range of topics relating to risk management and risk communication (including transparency).
The findings suggest considerable differences in how public officials understand the role of transparency in risk communication at the national and the local level respectively. At the national level the generally view is that transparency is unquestionable positive. Although some hesitance is expressed that too much openness regarding information on risk might contribute to unfounded worry among the public, the common idea was that the provisioning of plentiful information on risk issues would promote empowered and knowledgeable citizens, with good capacity to make informed decisions about risk in their daily lives. The municipal officials (in our case emergency planners) however, were much less confident about the inherent value of transparency. Many actually argued against communicating the municipal risk and vulnerability plans to the local citizens. Two reasons stand out: a) citizens might become confused and worried and b) the security of the municipality might be jeopardized if sensitive information about identified vulnerabilities were openly presented. The study suggests that there are crucial differences between national and local government levels regarding transparency in risk communication.