Admin Law Review Explosion of Foi 2006

A DMINISTRATIVE
L AW R EVIEW
The Global Explosion of Freedom

of Information Laws
John M. Ackerman
Irma E. Sandoval-Ballesteros
Reprinted from
Administrative Law Review
Volume 58, Number 1, Winter 2006
Cite as
58 ADMIN. L. REV. 85 (2006).
The Administrative Law Review is a joint publication of the ABA Section of

Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice and the Washington College of Law,
American University. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This
information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or
by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system
without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
58-1 - ACKERMAN DESKTOPPED 2/25/2006 12:15:54 PM
THE GLOBAL EXPLOSION OF FREEDOM OF

INFORMATION LAWS
JOHN M. ACKERMAN & IRMA E. SANDOVAL-BALLESTEROS*
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................85
I. Theory and Impact of Freedom of Information Laws ......................88
II. Freedom of Information Laws in Practice ........................................93
A. What Is a FOI Law? ...................................................................93
B. Global Statistics .........................................................................95
C. Variation in Content of FOI Laws .............................................99
1. Coverage ..............................................................................99
2. Exemptions ........................................................................101
3. Enforcement.......................................................................105
4. Ease of Access ...................................................................108
D. Categories of Countries with FOI Laws ..................................109
E. Comparative Historical Lessons..............................................115
1. FOI Laws Are Political Creatures......................................115
2. The Centrality of Civil Society..........................................119
3. The Role of International Actors .......................................121
III. Challenges for the Future................................................................123
INTRODUCTION
A global wave of innovation in administrative law has gone virtually
unnoticed by the community of legal scholars. Twenty years ago only ten
nations had laws that specifically guaranteed the rights of citizens to access
* John M. Ackerman is Professor and Coordinator of the Research Program on

Accountability, Legality, and the Rule of Law at the Latin American Faculty of Social
Sciences in Mexico City (FLACSO-Mexico). Irma E. Sandoval-Ballesteros is Professor and
Director of the Laboratory for the Documentation and Analysis of Corruption
& Transparency at the Institute for Social Research of the National Autonomous University
of Mexico (IIS-UNAM). The authors would like to thank Bruce Ackerman, Susan Rose-
Ackerman, David Banisar, Pedro Salazar, Mauricio Merino, Ricardo Becerra, and Netzaí
Sandoval for their helpful comments on previous versions of this Article as well as
Mexico’s Federal Institute for Access to Public Information for funding support.
85
Number 1 • Volume 58 • Winter 2006 • American Bar Association • Administrative Law Review
“The Global Explosion of Freedom of Information Laws” by John M. Ackerman & Irma E. Sandoval-Ballesteros,
published in the Administrative Law Review, Volume 58, No. 1, Winter 2006. © 2006 by the American Bar
Association. Reproduced by permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof
may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database
or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
86 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW [58:1
government information. Since then, 56 countries have passed Freedom of

Information (FOI) laws, resulting in a total of 66 nations by October 2005.
This impressive display of policy innovation at a global level demands
explanation and understanding.
The “third wave” of transitions to democracy1 has been amply studied.
Over the last two decades, scholars have produced hundreds of texts that
compare, contrast, and draw lessons from the world phenomenon of
democratization.2 One of the central lessons of the more recent texts is that
new democracies are plagued with problems of accountability.3 Despite
the fact that they are democratically elected, leaders of state tend to behave
like short-term dictators; they often act without informing the public and,
for the most part, are not subject to sanctions for wrongdoing.4 Some
1. This term originally comes from SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON, THE THIRD WAVE:
DEMOCRATIZATION IN THE LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY 3-30 (1991), and refers to the global
spread of free and fair elections during the past 30 years as the principal mechanism for
deciding who holds government power. Starting in the mid 1970s, picking up steam in the
1980s, and culminating in the 1990s, a series of democratic transitions swept throughout the
world. In 1974 António Salazar, dictator of Portugal, was removed from office by a group
of progressive generals who then relinquished power to a democratically elected
government. During the following decade transitions followed in Spain, Greece, Uruguay,
Brazil, and Argentina. Then, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the former Soviet
states, Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic all followed
suit. Finally, in more recent years, long time authoritarian holdouts like Indonesia, Mexico,
and South Korea have joined this movement toward electoral democracy.
2. For some of the most important examples, see TRANSITIONS FROM AUTHORITARIAN
RULE: TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT UNCERTAIN DEMOCRACIES 4 (Guillermo O’Donnell,
Philippe C. Schmitter & Laurence Whitehead eds., 1986); Guillermo O’Donnell, Delegative
Democracy, 5 J. DEMOCRACY 55, 55-69 (1994); JUAN LINZ & ALFRED STEPAN, PROBLEMS OF
DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION AND CONSOLIDATION (1996); THE SELF RESTRAINING STATE:
POWER AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN NEW DEMOCRACIES (Andreas Schedler, Larry Diamond
& Marc F. Plattner eds., 1999). See also DIETRICH RUESCHEMEYER ET AL., CAPITALIST
DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOCRACY (1992) (speaking about the historical process of
democratization in the world); DEMOCRACY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND REPRESENTATION
(Bernard Manin, Adam Przeworski & Susan Stokes eds., 1999) (analyzing the relationship
between elections and accountability); SUSAN STOKES, MANDATES AND DEMOCRACY:
NEOLIBERALISM BY SURPRISE IN LATIN AMERICA (2001) (examining policy switches and
their implications for democracy and questioning O’Donnell’s concept of “delegative
democracy”).
3. See O’Donnell, supra note 2 (explaining the characteristics of Latin America’s new
democracies); LINZ & STEPAN, supra note 2, at 55-83; SELF RESTRAINING STATE, supra note
2, at 29-74 (expounding on the notion of government accountability and the challenges of
strengthening accountability in new democracies); DEMOCRACY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND
REPRESENTATION, supra note 2, at 1-26 (examining the relationship between elections and
accountability); STOKES, supra note 2, at 1-24 (examining the process of economic
liberalization and its implications for the quality of democracy in Latin America).
4. Providing information to the public and being subject to sanctions are two minimum
requirements for democratic accountability, although broader definitions include many more
aspects. There is a wide debate on the topic that we will not summarize here. See JOHN M.
ACKERMAN, SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR: A CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION
2-7 (2005), available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resources/
Social_Accountability_in_the_Public_Sector_with_cover.pdf (debating the concept of
accountability); see also Richard Mulgan, Accountability: An Ever-Expanding Concept?,
78 PUB. ADMIN. 555 (2000) (examining the scope and meaning of accountability as it has
been applied to official behavior); Andreas Schedler, Conceptualizing Accountability, in
58-1 – ACKERMAN DESKTOPPED 2/25/2006 12:15:54 PM
2006] GLOBAL EXPLOSION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS 87
scholars have gone so far as to claim that many new democracies are best
termed “delegative democracies”5 since the public is left virtually
powerless between elections.
FOI laws are a crucial step toward the solution of the accountability
deficit. Nevertheless, the cure has not received the same attention as the
sickness. There are only a couple of comparative surveys in print, as well
as a great number of case studies and activist accounts on the Internet that
speak to the issue of freedom of information.6 There is a pressing need to
systematically study the existing information and collect fresh data using a
more self-conscious social science perspective.
This Article is a first step towards this end. It brings together the
existing information on the topic of FOI laws and sets an agenda for future
research and policymaking. The first Section discusses the theory and
practical impact of FOI laws in particular and transparency in general. It
discusses the sources of these laws, their relationship to laws that regulate
freedom of expression and citizen participation in government, and their
impact on political, economic, and bureaucratic performance. The second
Section then reviews existing FOI laws. It identifies common elements as
SELF-RESTRAINING STATE, supra note 2, at 13-28 (offering a definition of government

accountability particularly apt for analyzing the situation of new democracies); ROBERT
BEHN, RETHINKING DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY 1-21 (2001) (surveying the multiple
ways in which academics and public servants think about accountability).
5. See TRANSITIONS FROM AUTHORITARIAN RULE, supra note 2, at 55-57.
6. The book length, broad-based comparative study, PUBLIC ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT-
HELD INFORMATION (Norman Marsh ed., 1987), is now outdated. For two important,
contemporary surveys of Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation, see DAVID BANISAR,
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT RECORD LAWS AROUND THE
WORLD (2004), available at http://www.freedominfo.org/survey/global_survey2004.pdf,
and TOBY MENDEL, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: A COMPARATIVE LEGAL SURVEY (2003),
available at http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/file_download.php/fa422efc11c9f9b15f9374a5eac
31c7efreedom_info_laws.pdf (describing established international standards in FOI).
Additionally, several Internet sources publish case studies and activist accounts. See
generally ARTICLE 19, http://www.article19.org (last visited Feb. 7, 2006) (discussing an
international human rights organization that defends and promotes FOI); Freedominfo.org,
http://www.freedominfo.org (last visited Feb. 7, 2006) (providing an online source for FOI
advocates); Freedom of Information Advocates Network, http://www.foiadvocates.net (last
visited Feb. 7, 2006) (promoting the adoption of FOI laws in countries that lack such
legislation); Open Society Institute Justice Initiative, http://www.justiceinitiative.org (last
visited Feb. 7, 2006) (pursuing law reform activities grounded in the protection of human
rights and access to information); Privacy International, http://www.privacyinternational.org
(last visited Feb. 7, 2006) (monitoring surveillance and privacy invasions by governments
and corporations); Transparency International, Anti-Corruption Handbook, Good Practice,
Access to Information, http://www.transparency.org/ach/strategies/access_info/good_practic
e.html (last visited Feb. 7, 2006) (organizing a global nongovernmental group devoted to
combating corruption); Corisweb, Access to Information,http://www.corisweb.org/article/ar
chive/246 (last visited Feb. 7, 2006) (charting the implementation of FOI laws
internationally); Alasdair S. Roberts, FOI Resources,http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/asrobert
s/foi/index.html (last visited Feb. 7, 2006) (providing resources related to Roberts’ current
research on access to information).
well as differences in their content and origins. The third Section outlines
the pending challenges in the design and implementation of FOI legislation
and suggests possible areas for future research.
I. THEORY AND IMPACT OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS

Sweden passed the first FOI law in 1766.7 This statute, entitled
Freedom-of-Press and the Right-of-Access to Public Records Act,8 was
enacted 23 years before the U.S. Revolution and 13 years before the French
Revolution. The principal sponsor of this law, clergyman and
Congressman Anders Chydenius, had been inspired by Chinese practice.
According to Chydenius, China was “the model country of the freedom of
the press” and set the example for other nations to follow.9 This scholar-
politician also admired the Chinese institution of the Imperial Censorate,
which was “an institution founded in humanist Confucian philosophy
[whose] main roles were to scrutinize the government and its officials and
to expose misgovernance, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and official
corruption.”10 He was particularly impressed by the fact that Chinese
emperors were expected to “admit their own imperfection as a proof for
their love of the truth and in fear of ignorance and darkness.”11 The origins
of government accountability are not in the West, but in the East at the high
point of the Ch’ing Dynasty.12
It is no coincidence that the first FOI act also assured the freedom of the
press. Access to government information and freedom of expression are
intimately linked. In order to form opinions that are worthy of being
expressed, individuals must have access to relevant government
information. For instance, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through
any media and regardless of frontiers.”13
7. See BANISAR, supra note 6, at 81 (referring to the world’s first FOI act, named the
“Freedom of the Press Act,” which required that official documents be made available
immediately upon request for no charge).
8. Tryckfrihetsförordningen [TF] [Constitution] (Swed.) [hereinafter FPA Sweden],
available in English at http://www.presscouncils.org/library/Swedish_Press_Law.doc (last
visited Feb. 9, 2006).
9. ANDERS CHYDENIUS, BERATTELSE OM CHINESISKA SKRIF-FRIHETEN, OFVERSATT AF
DANSKAN (A Report on the Freedom of the Press in China) (1766), reprinted in Stephen
Lamble, Freedom of Information, A Finnish Clergyman’s Gift to Democracy, 97 FREEDOM
INFO. REV. 2, 3 (2002), available at http://www.foi.law.utas.edu.au/foi_rev.html.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A, U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess.,
1st plen. mtg., U.N. Doc A/810 (Dec. 12, 1948), available at http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lan
g/eng.pdf (last visited Feb. 7, 2006).
A number of scholars acknowledge the international rise in FOI laws.

As Roberto Saba has cogently argued, freedom of expression and opinion
are not only about the defense of personal autonomy or the right of the
individual to communicate his or her thoughts.14 These freedoms are also
about guaranteeing that the users of information have access to “the widest
possible diversity of points of view on a particular issue.”15 Ernesto
Villanueva puts this same point in a different way. For Villanueva, the
overriding “Right to Information” which includes, but goes beyond,
freedom of expression and access to information consists of three elements:
(1) the right to seek and receive (“atraerse”) information, (2) the right to
inform, and (3) the right to be informed.16
Mark Bovens goes further. He characterizes Information Rights as the
fourth great wave of citizens’ rights, equivalent to the civil, political, and
social rights outlined in T.H. Marshall’s classic text.17 With the decline of
the industrial era and the rise of the “information society,” the world needs
to update its constitutional frameworks to take into account the new
universal right to information.18 Bovens makes a crucial distinction
between transparency as a question of “public hygiene” and information
rights as an issue of “citizenship”:
The current rules on open government are for the most part mainly a
question of public hygiene. This regulation is intended to increase the
transparency of public administration, with a view to better democratic
control and social accountability of government. By contrast, the
information rights are most of all an element of citizenship. They
concern first and foremost the social functioning of citizens, not only in
relation to the public authorities, but also in their mutual relations and
their relations with private legal entities. Information rights should be
part of the civil rights chapter of constitutions, together with the other
19
individual rights.
Thus, Bovens’s distinction recognizes that open government without an
informed populace is meaningless.
14. Roberto Saba, El Derecho de la Persona a Acceder a la Información en Poder del

Gobierno, 3 DERECHO COMPARADO DE LA INFORMACIÓN 45, 153 (Jan.-June 2004),
available at http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/publica/librev/rev/decoin/cont/3/art/art7.pdf
(last visited Feb. 7, 2006) (translation by Ackerman & Sandoval).
15. Id. at 153.
16. ERNESTO VILLANUEVA, DERECHO DE ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN PÚBLICA EN
LATINO AMÉRICA: ESTUDIO INTRODUCTORIA Y COMPILACIÓN 17 (2003).
17. See Mark Bovens, Information Rights: Citizenship in the Information Society, 10 J.
POL. PHIL. 317, 317-41 (2002) (adding FOI to the list of ancient civil rights).
18. See id. (discussing how access to information has now become a question of social
justice).
19. Id. at 327.
Alasdair Roberts also argues that information rights should be seen as

essential parts of basic political participation rights, including but going
beyond the right of freedom of expression:20
The task of providing critical public services that affect basic rights may
be given to governmental organizations, but citizens cannot evade their
own responsibility for ensuring that these agencies do their work
properly. . . . [There is] an obligation to monitor the conduct of agencies,
and a right of access to information could be justified as a mechanism for
allowing citizens to fulfill this obligation.21
According to Roberts, citizen participation in holding government to
account is not just a productive possibility under democracy.22 It is a duty
and a responsibility.23
These perspectives invite us to conceptualize liberties of the press and of
citizen participation as positive freedoms and not merely negative rights.
Negative freedoms allow us to be independent from oppression and
external controls. They are “freedoms from” the control of some external
force.24 Positive freedoms allow us to realize ourselves as full human
beings. They are “freedoms to” achieve some particular end.25 Once we
see freedom of expression and participation as rights to be informed and
not only as rights from censorship and control we would argue that we have
immediately moved into the realm of the overriding Right to Information,
which requires a right to access government information as one of its
central elements.
Unfortunately, such interpretations of basic liberal freedoms are by no
means universal. The U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to interpret
the First Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of
speech, as implying a full right to information.26 But the Supreme Court of
India has recognized this right:
20. See Alasdair Roberts, Structural Pluralism and the Right to Information, 51 U.
TORONTO L.J. 262, 243-71 (2001) (noting that access rights are grounded in participation
rights in addition to the freedom of expression).
21. Id.
22. See id. at 264 (describing how FOI would facilitate citizens in their duty to monitor
the government).
23. See id. (discussing the obligation to monitor the conduct of agencies).
24. See generally Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty: An Inaugural Lecture
Delivered Before the University of Oxford (Oct. 31, 1958), reprinted in LIBERTY:
INCORPORATING “FOUR ESSAYS ON LIBERTY” 169-78 (Henry Hardy ed., 2002), available at
http://www.hss.bond.edu.au/phil12-205/Berlin%20Liberty2.pdf (defining negative freedom
as the ability to act unobstructed by others).
25. See generally id. (defining positive freedom as the ability to be one’s own master).
26. See Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 16 (1978) (“Neither the First Amendment
nor the Fourteenth Amendment mandates a right of access to government information or
sources of information within the government’s control.”).
Where a society has chosen to accept democracy as its creedal faith, it is

elementary that its citizens ought to know what their government is
doing. . . . No democratic government can survive without accountability
and the basic postulate of accountability is that the people should have
information about the functioning of the government. It is only if people
know how government is functioning that they can fulfill the role that
democracy assigns to them and make democracy an effective
participatory democracy.27
FOI laws are a further development in age-old struggles for freedom of
opinion and of the press, as well as the right to participate in government
decisionmaking. In the past, governments had great military and legal
authority, but they did not hold the amounts of information that they do
today. The rise of the administrative state is a distinctly modern
phenomenon, which has fully developed only in the 20th century.28 For
instance, in the United States in 1802 there were only 2,700 civil servants
and by 1871 there were still only 50,000.29 Not until the early 20th century
did the U.S. administrative state set itself on more solid footing.30 By 1945
that number rose to 3,800,000 civil servants, a number “roughly equal to
the entire population of the United States in 1787 when the framers wrote
the Constitution.”31
A similar process occurred throughout the world in both the North and
the South. In East Asia and Latin America for instance, the rise of the
“Developmental State” during the middle of the 20th century led to a
significant strengthening of the bureaucratic apparatus.32 This phenomenon
has become so widespread that scholars like Ira Katznelson have called the
rise of the administrative state the “second great macroprocess of
modernity” comparable only to the rise of capitalist market relations in the
19th century.33
With the rise of the administrative state, the link between freedom of
27. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982), 69 A.I.R. 149, reprinted in Roberts, supra note
20, at 262.
28. See BERNARD SILBERMAN, CAGES OF REASON: THE RISE OF THE RATIONAL STATE IN
FRANCE, JAPAN, THE UNITED STATES, AND GREAT BRITAIN 244 (1993).
29. See JAMES STERLING YOUNG, THE WASHINGTON COMMUNITY 29 (1966) (charting
the “governmental establishment” in 1802); see also SILBERMAN, supra note 28, at 244
(“Between 1792 and 1871, the civil service increased from approximately one thousand to
over fifty thousand employees.”).
30. See DAVID ROSENBLOOM, BUILDING A LEGISLATIVE-CENTERED PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION: CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION STATE 1946-1999, at 5 (2000)
(citing the New Deal and World War II as factors in the explosion of the American
bureaucracy).
31. Id. at 6.
32. See generally THE DEVELOPMENTAL STATE (Meredith Woo-Cumings ed., 1998)
(detailing the evolution of a strong administrative apparatus in developing nations).
33. Ira Katznelson, Structure and Configuration in Comparative Politics, in
COMPARATIVE POLITICS: RATIONALITY, CULTURE, AND STRUCTURE 81-112 (Mark I.
Lichbach & Alan S. Zuckerman eds., 1997).
expression, citizen participation in government, and freedom of access to

government information becomes more important. Citizens can only be
considered to be fully informed and able to participate as democratic
citizens if they are able to access the information held about them and on
their behalf by the government. In the age of the administrative state,
expression and participation become meaningless if the polity is ignorant of
the internal workings of government.
In addition to their theoretical links to freedom of expression and the
right to citizen participation, FOI and transparency are also justified on
more instrumental, pragmatic grounds. FOI laws can have a positive
impact on at least three different spheres of society: politics, economics,
and public administration. In the political realm, they contribute to the
ability of citizens to become aware of and involved in the activities of
government.34 This enables them to transform themselves from passive
citizens who occasionally go to the polls into active citizens who call the
government to account and participate in the design of public policies.35
Overall, this raises the level of political debate and leads to a more
productive process of policymaking.36
In the economic realm, transparency increases efficiency by making the
investment climate more reliable and allowing capital to better calculate
where and when it can best be invested.37 Indeed, the market lives and dies
on information. Although secrecy and “insider information” is profitable
for the few, the health of the market in the long term depends on a steady
and reliable flow of trustworthy information.38
In the realm of public administration, transparency improves the
decisionmaking of public servants by making them more responsive and
accountable to the public and controls corruption by making it more
difficult to hide illegal agreements and actions.39 It also improves the
legitimacy and trust in government in the eyes of the people, allowing for
the more effective implementation of public policies.40
34. See Bovens, supra note 17, at 322-33 (equating information rights with civil rights).
35. See id. (demonstrating how a politically active public improves government).
36. See id. (highlighting positive effects of information on politics).
37. See Daniel Kaufmann & Tara Vishwanath, Toward Transparency: New
Approaches and Their Application to Financial Markets, 16 WORLD BANK RES. OBSERVER
41, 41-57 (2001) (linking the rise of successful financial markets to access to information).
38. See id. at 44 (discounting the arguments against governmental transparency in
economics).
39. See SUSAN ROSE-ACKERMAN, CORRUPTION AND GOVERNMENT: CAUSES,
CONSEQUENCES, AND REFORM 162-74 (1999) (observing that the following mechanisms
have a positive impact on reducing corruption: FOI laws; a press free from political party
associations and restrictive libel laws; and available avenues, such as ombudsmen, for
lodging individual complaints without fear or retribution).
40. See id. at 174 (arguing that governmental transparency and the individual’s ability
to push for public accountability are essential checks on corruption).
Daniel Kaufmann and Tara Vishwanath summarize the overall benefits

of transparency in the following manner:
Lack of transparency can be costly both politically and economically. It
is politically debilitating because it dilutes the ability of the democratic
system to judge and correct government policy by cloaking the activities
of special interests and because it creates rents by giving those with
information something to trade. The economic costs of secrecy are
staggering, affecting not only aggregate output but also the distribution
of benefits and risks. The most significant cost is that of corruption,
which adversely affects investment and economic growth.41
For instance, the authors argue that financial crises are much more likely
when government and private sector financial information is not available
to the public.42 According to Kaufmann and Vishwanath, “[t]heoretically,
a greater and less volatile flow of information about the decisions of the
central bank should be just as likely to stabilize and rationalize financial
markets as it is to disrupt and corrupt them.”43 They even state that access
to information about policy setting by central banks may be positive for the
economy.
FOI laws are a fundamental part of the larger project of creating a fully
transparent society and economy. But, what exactly is a FOI law? What
are the principal elements of such laws? What are the crucial differences
between the FOI laws that have been passed at different times and
locations? This is the topic of the following Section.
II. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS IN PRACTICE
A. What Is a FOI Law?

A FOI law gives citizens, other residents, and interested parties the right
to access documents held by the government without being obliged to
demonstrate any legal interest or “standing.” Under a FOI law, government
documents are assumed to be public unless specifically exempt by the law
itself, and individuals can access them without explaining why or for what
purpose they need them.44 In short, FOI laws imply a change in the
principle of the provision of government information from a “need to
know” basis to a “right to know” basis.
41. Kaufmann & Vishwanath, supra note 37, at 44.

42. See id. at 48 (detailing episodes of financial problems tied to lack of public
information).
43. See id. at 44.
44. See ARTICLE 19, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION TRAINING MANUAL FOR PUBLIC
OFFICIALS in ARTICLE 19, A MODEL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW, app. 2, at 94-110,
available at http://www.article19.org/pdfs/tools/foitrainersmanual.pdf (last visited Feb. 7,
2006) (providing a prototype for FOI laws).
FOI laws are important even when a country already has constitutional
provisions that guarantee the right to information or freedom of expression.
Constitutional clauses are difficult to enforce directly without the
intermediation of legal statutes. For instance, the numerous clauses
guaranteeing the right to work, education, food, and health that are
included in the constitutions of the world are almost always left as dead
letters.45 Only when the legislature does the work of grounding principles
in statutory law do these clauses gain the status of effective rights for the
population that the government is obliged to uphold.46
Article 19, a nongovernmental organization, has developed a template
that includes the basic elements that any FOI law should include.47 This
template is not intended to impose a single model on all countries but is
designed only to serve as inspiration for those countries seeking to pass a
new FOI law or modify the law already on the books.48 As we will see
below, it is a much superior model to both the historic Swedish law, which
does not include an independent administrative body or a public interest
override of exceptions,49 and the more recent U.S. law, which applies only
to “agencies” of the executive branch.50
Toby Mendel has summarized well the central guiding principles that
should guide any FOI law.51 These are
MAXIMUM DISCLOSURE: FOI laws should be guided by the
principle of maximum disclosure.
OBLIGATION TO PUBLISH: Public bodies should be under an
obligation to publish key information.
PROMOTION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT: Public bodies must actively
promote open government.
LIMITED SCOPE OF EXCEPTIONS: Exceptions should be clearly and
narrowly drawn and subject to strict “harm” and “public interest” tests.
PROCESSES TO FACILITATE ACCESS: Requests for information
should be processed rapidly and fairly and an independent review of any
refusals should be available.
COSTS: Individuals should not be deterred from making requests for
information by excessive costs.
45. See, e.g., Mary Robinson, Advancing Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: The
Way Forward, 26 HUMAN RIGHTS Q. 866 (2004).
46. See id.
47. See ARTICLE 19, supra note 44, at 94 (showing a model FOI law).
48. See id. Introduction (describing the benefit of this model FOI law).
49. See discussion infra Part II.C.2 (describing “public interest overrides”).
50. See Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2000) (establishing U.S.
government procedures for public access to information).
51. See MENDEL, supra note 6, at 25-36 (listing guiding principles for FOI laws).
OPEN MEETINGS: Meetings of public bodies should be open to the

public.
DISCLOSURE TAKES PRECEDENCE: Laws which are inconsistent
with the principle of maximum disclosure should be amended or
repealed.
PROTECTION FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS: Individuals who release
information on wrongdoing—whistleblowers—must be protected.52
There are a variety of different ways in which countries have actually
designed and applied FOI laws. Some live up to these principles better
than others, and each country has developed its own organic understanding
of what FOI means conceptually and what FOI requires in practice. As we
will see below, there are four general areas in which FOI laws vary
significantly: (1) Coverage, or whether the FOI law reaches into all aspects
of government and all activities that are publicly funded or carried out in
the public’s interest; (2) Exemptions, or the extent to which the government
can withhold information even though it is covered by the law;
(3) Enforcement, or the way in which compliance with the law is overseen
and assured; and (4) Ease of Access, or the extent to which interested
parties are able to get reliable information in an efficient and cheap manner.
B. Global Statistics
The most systematic running count of the enactment of FOI laws in
existence has been the responsibility of David Banisar, Deputy Director
and Director of the Freedom of Information Programme at Privacy
International.53 He estimates that, as of October 2005, there were 66
different countries with FOI laws on the books.54 The countries range from
Peru to Liechtenstein, and Angola to Thailand, including nations from all
five continents. The map55 below shows the geographical distribution of
existing FOI laws.
52. See id. at 25-36 (highlighting the nine principles that FOI laws should embody).
53. See About Privacy International, Principal Office Holders and Staff,
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-91569 (last visited Feb.
7, 2006).
54. See BANISAR, supra note 6. Complementary information from David Banisar on
Angola, Serbia, Switzerland, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Uganda, Germany, Antigua,
and Azerbaijan is on file with the authors.
55. See Privacy International, http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/foia/foia-
laws.jpg (last visited Feb. 7, 2006) (showing a map of countries with FOI laws).
Figure 1: National Freedom of Information Laws
[INSERT MAP HERE]
[INSERT LEGEND HERE]
The map illustrates a concentration of FOI laws in the more developed

countries. In fact, 25 of the 66 laws, or 38 percent, are concentrated in
Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Israel,
Australia, and New Zealand.56 In addition, the recent wave of passage of
FOI laws in the “developing” world has been concentrated in Central and
Eastern Europe.57 Of the remaining 41 laws, 20, or 49 percent, are from
this region, and they have all been passed since 1992.58 Of the other 21
laws in the developing world, ten are in Latin America and the
Caribbean—Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Panama, Belize, Jamaica, Trinidad
and Tobago, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, and Antigua & Barbuda—six
are in Asia—Thailand, Philippines, Pakistan, India, Tajikistan,
Uzbekistan—four are in Africa—South Africa, Zimbabwe, Angola,
Uganda—and one is in the Middle East—Turkey.59
56. Id.
57. See Table 1, infra (listing countries with FOI laws).
58. See Privacy International, supra note 55.
59. Id.
A chronology of the passage of FOI laws is informative:
Table 1: Chronology of FOI Laws60
YEAR COUNTRY
1766 Sweden
1888 Colombia
1951 Finland
1966 United States
1970 Denmark
Norway
1978 France
1982 Australia
New Zealand
1983 Canada
1987 Austria
Philippines
1990 Italy
1991 Netherlands
1992 Hungary
Ukraine
Spain
1993 Portugal
1994 Belize
Belgium
1996 Iceland
Lithuania
South Korea
1997 Thailand
Ireland
1998 Israel
Latvia
1999 Czech Republic
Albania
Georgia
Greece
Japan
Liechtenstein
Trinidad and Tobago
60. Constructed by the authors based on information in BANISAR, supra note 6, and
personal communication with David Banisar with regard to the FOI laws passed in Angola,
Serbia, Switzerland, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Uganda, Germany, Antigua, and
Azerbaijan between the date of publication of Banisar’s study in May 2004 and the date of
elaboration of the above map in October 2005. The year refers to when the law was passed
by the respective Congress or Parliament.
YEAR COUNTRY
2000 South Africa
United Kingdom
Boznia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Moldova
Slovakia
Estonia
2001 Poland
Romania
2002 Panama
Pakistan
Mexico
Jamaica
Peru
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Zimbabwe
Angola
2003 Croatia
India
Kosovo
Armenia
Slovenia
Turkey
2004 Dominican Republic
Serbia
Switzerland
Ecuador
2005 Uganda
Germany
Antigua & Barbuda
Azerbaijan
This chronology reveals that the passage of FOI laws has accelerated at a
rapid pace in recent years, with an explosion during the last five years.
Almost two thirds of all existing FOI laws (40 of 66, or 61 percent) have
been passed since 1999.61
61. See BANISAR, supra note 6 (detailing contries with FOI laws).
Figure 2: Chronology of FOI Laws62
Number of Laws
10
8
6
4
2
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
1980-1989
Year Passed
C. Variation in Content of FOI Laws

The specific content of FOI laws varies widely. Although all laws
permit broad access to government documents without the need to show
legal interest, there are various ways in which this idea has been
interpreted.63 Here we organize the types of variation in FOI laws into four
broad categories: coverage, exemptions, enforcement, and ease of access.
1. Coverage
An ideal law should cover all bodies that receive public money,
including all branches of government, autonomous agencies, nonprofit
organizations, individuals, private contractors, and foundations. It would
also open up to public scrutiny any “body” that carries out a function vital
to the public interest (for example, private hospitals, schools, prisons),
regardless of whether it receives government funding.
Most laws are much more restrictive. It is rare for them to cover
government-owned corporations or foundations, let alone contractors or
private corporations that carry out government or public responsibilities.
Even pioneers like Sweden have limited coverage. Sweden’s FOI law
limits public information to documents held by the government.64 The
62. Constructed by authors with information from BANISAR, supra note 6, and personal
communication with David Banisar (on file with authors).
63. See discussion infra subsections 1-4.
64. See FPA Sweden, supra note 8, at 2:3(1) (“A document is official if it is in the
United States has a serious problem here as well. For instance, the
widespread use of private prisons in the United States has submerged
prison management and conditions in a cloud of opacity since Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) does not allow the public to have full access to
information on how these prisons are run.65 Such limits in coverage are at
odds with the basic rationales for the statutes since they remove important
areas of public interest information from the public eye.
In contrast, South Africa provides a model FOI law. Chapter 2, Section
32, subsection 1, of the 1996 South African Constitution states, “Everyone
has the right of access to (a) any information held by the state, and; (b) any
information that is held by another person and that is required for the
exercise or protection of any rights.”66 The second part is the most
important, since it requires private corporations and nonprofit organizations
to follow transparency laws as well.67
There is also a characteristic weakness in dealing with legislative and
judicial bodies. The U.S. FOIA only covers “agencies” of the executive
branch.68 The Mexican FOI law covers all of the government although it
leaves significant autonomy to the Judiciary and Congress to decide how to
apply the law.69
keeping of a public authority, and if it can be deemed under the terms of Article 6 or 7 to
have been received, prepared, or drawn up by an authority.”).
65. See Roberts, supra note 20, at 266 (discussing the limits that commercial
confidentiality exemptions impose on access to information on how private prisons are run).
Roberts also discusses the particular problems that arise when private prisons in some states
house inmates from neighboring jurisdictions and the private prison does not have a contract
relating to the inmates’ home jurisdiction. Id. In this situation there is no opportunity for
the home jurisdiction to impose access requests to records under the terms of the contract.
Id.; see also Alred C. Aman Jr., Privatization, Prisons, Democracy, and Human Rights:
The Need to Extend the Province of Administrative Law, 12 IND. J. GLOBAL LEGAL STUD.
511 (2005) (arguing that domestic administrative law potentially offers a means for
addressing human rights problems arising from privatization, particularly privatization in
the United States dealing with prisons).
66. See S. AFR. CONST. 1996, available at http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constituti
ion/index.htm.
67. Id.
68. See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2000) (stating that “each agency shall make available to the
public information as follows”). See also discussion infra Part II.E for the origins of the
U.S. FOIA.
69. See Kate Doyle, In Mexico, A New Law Guarantees the Right to Know (July 9,
2002), http://www.freedominfo.org/reports/mexico1.htm (“Although [the law] is explicit
about the executive’s obligations to transparency, [it] takes only a half-hearted stab at
establishing the same kind of standards for Congress and the judiciary.”); see also Ley
Federal de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública Gubernamental [Federal
Transparency and Access to Public Government Information Law], Diario Oficial de la
Federación [D.O.], 6 de Noviembre de 2002 (Mex.) [hereinafter FTA Mexico], available at
http://www.freedominfo.org/reports/mexico1/laweng.pdf. Section Two outlines a detailed
set of procedures and requirements for access to information in the executive branch and
sets up a federal information commission to supervise the application of the law here, while
Section Three only sets out a brief, general outline for access to information in agencies that
are not a part of the executive branch. Id.
Another issue of coverage involves the definition of “public

information” itself. Again, there is wide variation in the definition among
FOI laws. Some countries like Pakistan define public information in an
extremely limited way, restricting it to documents that deal with a
previously set list of types of official documents instead of setting up an
initial blanket coverage for the FOI law.70 Other countries like Thailand
define information more liberally to include “any record held by a public
authority, regardless of form or status, including whether or not it is
classified.”71
2. Exemptions
The question of exemptions is generally the most debated aspect of FOI
laws. A badly written set of exemptions can gut the law by allowing the
authorities to withhold information at their discretion. Typical exemptions
include the protection of national security, personal privacy, public
security, commercial secrets, and internal deliberations.72 The central
issues are precisely how these concepts are defined, who gets to decide
whether a particular piece of information is covered by an exemption, on
what grounds this decision is made (for example, whether there is an
explicit “harm test”) and whether there is a “public interest override” that
70. See Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002 No. XCVI of 2002. F. No.2(1)/2002-
Pub. Islamabad § 7 (Pak.) [hereinafter FIO Pakistan]. This statute is available at http://www
.crcp.sdnpk.org/ordinance_of_2002.htm. According to the law of Pakistan, “public records”
are exclusively those records with the following characteristics:
(a) policies and guidelines; (b) transactions involving acquisition and disposal of
properly and expenditure undertaken by a public body in the performance of its
duties; (c) information regarding grant of licenses, allotments and other benefits
and privileges and contracts and agreements made by public body; (d) final orders
and decisions, including decisions relation to members of public; and (e) any other
record, which may be notified by the Federal Government as public record for the
purposes of this Ordinance.
The Pakistani law therefore significantly limits the range of possibly available information
even before formal exemptions are applied. Id. Subsection (e) allows for the incorporation
of new documents on the decision of the federal government, but it does not even come
close to a blanket provision that all documents in the hands of the government should
theoretically be public, as does the Swedish law. Id.; see also FPA Sweden, supra note 8
(defining document as “any representation in writing, any pictorial representation, and any
record which can be read, listened to, or otherwise comprehended only by means of
technical aids”).
71. See MENDEL, supra note 6, at 124 (comparing Pakistan’s law which restricts the
scope of information regardless of whether it is classified); see also Official Information
Act, B.E. 2540 § 4 (Thail.) (1997) [hereinafter OIA Thailand], available at
http://www.oic.thaigov.go.th/new2/ver4/oicnewweb2/content_eng/act.htm.
72. There are also additional exemptions, like the reference to “harm to financial,
economic or monetary stability” included in the Mexican FOI law. Unfortunately, the
precise meaning of these terms is not specified in the Mexican law, leaving their definition
to the discretion of the government agencies and the Information Commission. See FTA
Mexico, supra note 69, at ch. III, art. 13, § III.
could make exempted information public if the issue were important

enough.
The organization Article 19 has proposed an interesting three-part
“public interest test” for exemptions. The fourth principle of its document
The Publics Right to Know: Principles on Freedom of Information
Legislation states: “The [restricted] information must relate to a legitimate
aim listed in the law; disclosure of the information must threaten to cause
substantial harm to that aim; and the harm to the aim must be greater than
the public interest in having the information.”73
According to Article 19’s principles, information may be withheld only
when all three conditions are satisfied.74 This is consistent with the
Johannesburg Principles developed by more than 35 leading experts from
every region of the world at a meeting in South Africa in October 1995.75
Principle 1, Subsection (d) states:
No restriction on freedom of expression or information on the ground of
national security may be imposed unless the government can
demonstrate that the restriction is prescribed by law and is necessary in a
democratic society to protect a legitimate national security interest. The
burden of demonstrating the validity of the restriction rests with the
government.76
Principle 1.3 then expands on this requirement:
To establish that a restriction on freedom of expression or information is
necessary to protect a legitimate national security interest, a government
must demonstrate that:
(a) the expression or information at issue poses a serious threat to a
legitimate national security interest;
73. See ARTICLE 19, THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW: PRINCIPLES ON FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION LEGISLATION 5 (1999), available at http://www.article19.org/pdfs/standards/ri
ghttoknow.pdf (stating that a refusal to disclose is not justified unless the public authority
can show that the information meets this test).
74. See id. at 6 (explaining that restrictions, with the main purpose of protecting
governments from embarrassment or the exposure of wrongdoing, can never be justified).
75. See Toby Mendel, National Security vs. Openness: An Overview and Status Report
on the Johannesburg Principles, in CAMPBELL PUBLIC AFFAIRS INSTITUTE, NATIONAL
SECURITY AND OPEN GOVERNMENT: STRIKING THE RIGHT BALANCE 1, 8-9 (2003) (discussing
goals and the process of the Johannesburg Principles). See generally ARTICLE 19,
JOHANNESBURG PRINCIPLES ON NATIONAL SECURITY, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND ACCESS
TO INFORMATION, available at http://www.article19.org/pdfs/standards/joburgprinciples.pdf
(stating that the principles adopted in October 1995 are based on international and regional
law, as well as standards relating to the protection of human rights, evolving state practice,
and the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations).
76. See ARTICLE 19, supra note 73, at 6-8 (desiring to promote a limited scope of
regulations on FOI that may be imposed in the interest of national security, so as to
discourage governments from using the pretext of national security to place unjustified
restrictions on the exercise of freedoms).
(b) the restriction imposed is the least restrictive means possible for
protecting that interest; and
(c) the restriction is compatible with democratic principles.77
These principles have been taken up by the United Nations (UN). In
1996, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression
recommended that the UN Commission on Human Rights endorse the
principles.78 They have been taken into account in the annual resolutions
of the Commission on Freedom of Expression every year since then.79
Unfortunately, most FOI laws do not include such rigorous tests. For
instance, the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (UK) include harm tests for some exemptions, but government
ministers are given power to override the decisions of the Information
Commissioner, allowing them to decide in the final instance whether the
issue or document passed the harm test.80 The UK law is also worrisome
since it has a very extensive list of exemptions including “communications
with Her Majesty.”81 The Swedish law does not include any public interest
override.82
Pakistan is a striking example of an extremely deficient exemption
regime, excluding information such as “notings on the file,” “minutes of
meetings,” “intermediary opinions or recommendation,” and “any other
record which the Federal Government may, in public interest exclude from
the purview of this ordinance.”83 These exclusions are not subject to any
harm test or public interest override.84 The Pakistani law further allows the
government to refuse information when the applicant is “not entitled to
receive such information,” adding an additional loophole.85 In contrast,
progressive laws, like those of South Africa, subject all exemptions to
public interest overrides.86
77. See id. at 8-9.

78. See Mendel, supra note 75, at 9 (stating that the principles aim to be at the cutting
edge of international standards).
79. See id. (noting that they have also been referenced by many courts around the world
and used by numerous decisionmakers, NGOs, academics, and others).
80. See Freedom of Information Act 2000, ch. 36, pt. I, § 53 [hereinafter FIA UK],
available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000036.htm (giving the authority to
keep information secret upon certification that such person has reasonable grounds).
81. See id. at pt. II, § 37 (exempting information if it relates to communications with
Her Majesty or other members of the British Royal Family or Royal Household).
82. See FPA Sweden supra note 8, at ch. 2, art. 2 (listing exceptions that do not include
a public interest override).
83. See FIO Pakistan, supra note 70, § 8. The exclusions in § 8 are in addition to the
more formal “exemptions” included in §§ 14-18. Id.
84. See id. § 8 (listing exceptions that do not include a public interest override).
85. Id. § 13(c).
86. See Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 s. 46 (S. Afr.) [hereinafter
PAI S. Afr.], available at http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/acts/2000/a2-00.pdf (permitting
disclosure if “the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs the harm contemplated”).
One hotly debated topic in the area of exemptions is the issue of internal
deliberations. To what extent should the public be allowed to view not
only the final decisions of public officials but also the process that led to
the decision? The tendency has been to restrict public view to completed
decisions in the interest of efficiency. Nevertheless, experts have argued
that both democracy and government effectiveness are aided by making
deliberations as well as final decisions public.87 For instance, Thomas
Ellington writes that “official secrecy poses a risk of diminishing the
quality of deliberations, because it limits input to insiders alone and may
create an atmosphere hostile to criticism and an echo-chamber effect, in
which only proponents of a particular course of action have a voice.”88
Another crucial aspect of FOI laws is privacy, since many FOI laws are
also simultaneously laws for the protection of personal information. This is
particularly true in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, where
there is a history of state intervention in the personal affairs of its citizens.89
For instance, the Hungarian FOI law is entitled the “Protection of Personal
Data and Disclosure of Data of Public Interest Act.”90 The central question
becomes where to draw the line. Are the opinions expressed by the
advisory council or commission of a government agency during their
meetings personal opinions or are they public? Are the resumes of
government employees personal or public information? Recently, the
authors have been denied both the minutes of the meetings of the citizen
Advisory Council and the resumes of top officials of the Mexican Human
Rights Commission.91
National security is another central topic, particularly since the spread of
a new type of “national security state” after the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001.92 On the one hand, as Rodney Smolla has pointed
87. See ARTICLE 19, supra note 75, at 6 (affirming the notion that a truly democratic
society is achieved only when people have access to the decisions of their government).
88. See Thomas Ellington, Presentation at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Canadian
Political Science Association: Opening Doors: The Role of Freedom-of-Information Laws
in Protecting and Expanding Democracy, June 3-5 (2004), at 8, available at
http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2004/Ellington.pdf (citing SISSELA BOK, SECRETS: ON THE
ETHICS OF CONCEALMENT AND REVELATION 196 (1984)).
89. See SUSAN ROSE-ACKERMAN, FROM ELECTIONS TO DEMOCRACY: BUILDING
ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT IN HUNGARY AND POLAND 24-36 (2005) (discussing how the
history of socialism affected the formation of new democratic institutions).
90. Protection of Personal Data and Disclosure of Data of Public Interest Act, Act
LXIII of 1992 (Hung.) [hereinafter PPD Hungary], available at http://www.
privacy.org/pi/countries/hungary/hungary_privacy_law_1992.html.
91. See Comité de Información, Secretaría Técnica de la Comisión Nacional de
Derechos Humanos, Oficio No. CI/ST/96/04 (2004) (on file with the authors); Secretaría
Técnica del Consejo Consultivo de la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos, Oficio No.
1697 (2004) (on file with authors).
92. See generally Kristen Elizabeth Uhl, The Freedom of Information Act Post-9/11:
Balancing the Public’s Right to Know, Critical Infrastructure Protection, and Homeland
Security, 53 AM. U. L. REV. 261 (2003) (discussing the unnecessary expansion of
out, “[H]istory is replete with examples of government efforts to suppress

speech on the grounds that emergency measures are necessary for survival
that in retrospect appear panicky, disingenuous, or silly.”93 On the other
hand, the new international context most definitely requires innovative
responses on the part of government to deal with new threats.
3. Enforcement
A FOI law without enforcement is doomed to be a dead letter, since the
culture of bureaucracy typically works against the automatic
implementation of openness.94 The ideal arrangement is to create a special
public body responsible for receiving appeals and generally enforcing the
right to freedom of information. Without an independent body, all appeals
must go to the courts, which entail a very slow process and high monetary
costs.95
But only 12 of the 62 countries with FOI laws have independent
Information Commissions at the national level,96 including Belgium,
Canada, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Mexico, Portugal,
Slovenia, Thailand, and the UK.97 There is also an important variation
between these different commissions. Some, like the Hungarian
Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, are only
governmental secrecy since September 11, 2001); see also Thomas Blanton, National
Security and Open Government in the United States: Beyond the Balancing Test, in
CAMPBELL PUBLIC AFFAIRS INSTITUTE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND OPEN GOVERNMENT:
STRIKING THE RIGHT BALANCE 33 (2003) (detailing the history of the modern incarnation of
FOIA). The use of the expression “national security state” to refer to the present context
comes from Susanne Jonas and Catherine Tactaquin, Latino Immigrant Rights in the
Shadow of the National Security State: Responses de Domestic Preemptive Strikes in 31
(no.1-2) Social Justice 67.
93. Mendel, supra note 75, at 7 (citing RODNEY SMOLLA, FREE SPEECH IN AN OPEN
SOCIETY 319 (1992)).
94. See, e.g., Out of the Darkness, ECONOMIST, Jan. 1, 2005, at 41 (referring to the
supposed “‘British disease’—an obsession with official secrecy”); Transparency
International, Transparency International Marks Right to Know Day (Sept. 28, 2005),
http://www.transparency.org/in_focus_archive/right_to_know_day.html (referring to the
“entrenched culture of secrecy” that predominates in governments around the world).
95. For instance, as discussed above, supra note 69, in Mexico the independent
Information Commission only has jurisdiction over compliance in the executive branch.
This has led to the quick release of information originally classified as confidential in this
branch (with over three quarters of the appeals found in favor of the complainant (1,508 of
the 2,040 substantive complaints filed) since the Information Commission started its work in
2003). See MARIA MARVAN, TRANSPARENCIA Y ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN A DOS AÑOS DE
VIGENCIA DE LA LEY 17 (2005) (on file with authors). In contrast, requesters of information
from those agencies who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Information Commission
are forced to go through much longer and tedious channels. For instance, a complaint filed
over two years ago against the refusal of the National Human Rights Commission to reveal
information contained in its files has yet to be finally resolved by the courts. See MIGUEL
SARRE, SE PROMUEVE JUICIO DE AMPARO CONTRA LA COMISIÓN NACIONAL DE DERECHOS
HUMANOS (2003) (on file with authors).
96. BANISAR, supra note 6, at 6.
97. Id.
Ombudsmen, without the capacity of making binding legal decisions.98

Others, like the Mexican Federal Institute for Access to Information, have
the power of an administrative court.99 In still other cases, as in Ireland, a
powerful Information Commissioner can also be the general Ombudsman,
giving the Commission added clout.100 In New Zealand the Human Rights
Ombudsman is also responsible for overseeing the implementation of FOIA
legislation.101
In general, Roberts has outlined three different approaches to
enforcement.102 These are:
(a) Individuals are given a right to make an “administrative appeal” to
another official within the institution to which the request was made. If
the administrative appeal fails, individuals may appeal to a court or
tribunal, which may order disclosure of information.103
(b) Individuals are given a right of appeal to an independent ombudsman
or information commissioner, who makes a recommendation about
disclosure. If the institution ignores the recommendation, an appeal to a
court is permitted.104
(c) Individuals are given a right of appeal to an information
commissioner who has the power to order disclosure of information. No
further appeal is provided for in the access law, although the
commissioner’s actions remain subject to judicial review for
reasonableness.105
Each of these options requires the support of an independent judiciary and
the operation of the public service in a professional manner. FOI laws can
98. See PPD Hungary, supra note 90, art. 24 (assigning the duties of the data protection
commissioner to include controlling the observation of the laws, considering reports
submitted, and keeping the data protection register).
99. See FTA Mexico, supra note 69, arts. 33-39 (creating the Federal Institute for
Access to Public Information and charging it with interpreting the Act, overseeing appeals,
making recommendations, and providing guidelines and advice).
100. See Freedom of Information Act of 1997, § 33 (Ir.) [hereinafter FIA Ireland],
available at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA13Y1997.html (establishing the office of
Information Commissioner and acknowledging that the offices of Commissioner and
Ombudsman may be held by the same individual).
101. See Official Information Act 1982, Act No. 156, pt. 5 (N.Z.), available at
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browsevw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes (follow the hyperlink
for the letter O in “A-Z Contents” on the left side of the page and then select the name of the
Act) (conferring authority on the Ombudsman to investigate and ensure compliance
regarding official information requests).
102. Alasdair Roberts, Access to Government Information—An Overview of the Issues
(The Carter Center, Working Paper, 1999), available at http://www.transparency.org/
working_papers/roberts/roberts.foi.html.
103. Id. This is the case for all of the countries with FOI laws except for the 12 countries
mentioned above which have independent commissions especially designed to enforce the
application of the law.
104. Id. In Hungary and New Zealand, the law grants a right of appeal to an
administrative body and then to a reviewing court. See supra notes 98 and 101.
105. Roberts, supra note 102. Mexico is the exemplary case of this form of
enforcement. See supra note 99.
only operate effectively within a friendly institutional enabling

environment.106
Another important variable is the extent to which agencies can delay
before providing information. Some countries, like Sweden and Norway,
have an exceedingly short period of time to respond—24 hours.107 Others,
like Canada, India, Ireland, and South Africa, allow up to 30 days.108 The
original U.S. FOIA, passed in 1966, did not set any time limits at all.109
Some developing countries have feared that short time limits might
overburden already weak bureaucracies and make access to information
even more difficult as time limits expire without government response,
prompting citizens to appeal to the courts and, consequently, burden court
dockets.110 Nevertheless, a recent comparative study conducted by the
Open Society Institute has shown that short time limits are actually quite
effective at making FOI laws work.111
One particularly complicated issue in the area of enforcement arises
when government agencies tend to circumvent transparency laws by using
informal, unofficial communication channels for discussions that
previously took place through more formal channels. The experience with
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in the United States is an
important example in this regard.112 Due to the complex and time-
consuming procedures the APA requires for formal rulemaking, agencies
often prefer to rely on informal adjudication and interpretive rules.113 The
problem with employing these methods is that such decisionmaking
106. Roberts, supra note 102.

107. OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE, JUSTICE INITIATIVE ACCESS TO INFORMATION MONITORING
TOOL: REPORT FROM A FIVE-COUNTRY PILOT STUDY 15 (2004), available at
http://www.justiceinitiative.org/db/resource2?res_id=102207 (click on .pdf file entitled
“Access to Information Tool: Overview 2003 (text)”).
108. Id.
109. Freedom of Information Act, Pub. L. 89-487, 80 Stat. 250 (1966) [hereinafter U.S.
FOIA]. Today there is a 20 working day limit for agencies to respond to requests. Section
552(a)(6)(A) of Title Five, U.S. Code, states that:
Each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of
this subsection, shall (i) determine within twenty days (excepting Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to
comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such
request of such determination.
Nevertheless, there are no firm time limits for the actual provision of the information, only
that agencies should make records available “promptly.” In addition, the U.S. FOIA states
that, “Upon any determination by an agency to comply with a request for records, the
records shall be made promptly available to such person making such request.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(6)(C)(i) (2000).
110. OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE, supra note 107, at 15.
111. Id.
112. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, 701-706 (2000).
113. Stephen Johnson, The Internet Changes Everything: Revolutionizing Public
Participation and Access to Government Information through the Internet, 50 ADMIN. L.
REV. 277, 282-89 (1998).
strategies do not have the same publication requirements, leading to the

development of a large body of shadow law, distant from the public eye.114
This produces the paradoxical result of a law designed to open up
government but actually pushing it into obscurity. Such a phenomenon
challenges information commissioners, ombudsmen, and courts to take a
proactive stance in their interpretation of the law, evaluating not only the
response of public servants to specific information requests but behaviors
designed to avoid the law altogether.
4. Ease of Access
An open government is not sufficient to achieve full accountability. It is
not enough for public servants to leave their ledgers open on their desks so
that citizens can catch a glimpse of their reports. Accountability demands
that they actively inform and explain what they are doing and perhaps even
provide plain language justifications for their actions.115 As a result, the
section of FOI laws that refer to the obligation to publish is absolutely
crucial. For instance, the exemplary Article 7 of the Mexican FOI law
states that all of the entities subject to the law must publish in a
comprehensible form the full information about their internal structure; the
duties of each administrative unit; a directory of public servants; the salary
of all positions; the goals and objectives of each administrative unit; the
services it offers; a list of all forms, requirements, and procedures;
information about the budget assigned and the use that has been made of it;
the results of all audits performed; the permits, concessions, and contracts
the agency has entered into; the mechanisms of citizen participation in
place, and further information.116
Most countries do not have such a complete list, thereby requiring
citizens to go through the process of a formal request in order to acquire
basic information.117 For instance, the new law in Japan does not include
any “obligation to publish” in its law.118 The new law in the UK leaves the
list of information to be published up to the discretion of each agency.119
114. Id.
115. See ACKERMAN, supra note 4, at 3-7 (examining the concept of government
accountability and suggesting that being active in a process and justifying governmental
actions are essential to accountability).
116. See FTA Mexico, supra note 69, art. 7.
117. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1) states that the only information U.S. government agencies are
required to make public (by publishing in the Federal Register) independently of whether a
formal FOIA request has been filed is the information on how to request information and
how these requests are processed.
118. See Law Concerning Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs, Law
No. 42 of 1999, ch. 2 (Japan) [hereinafter LCA Japan], available at http://www.
soumu.go.jp/gyoukan/kanri/translation3.htm.
119. See FIA UK, supra note 80, § 19 (requiring authorities to publish information but
allowing for an exception when the agency considers it appropriate).
Although the list of information needs to be approved by the Information

Commissioner, this opening in the law leaves an important area exposed to
discretionary use of the law.120
Additional elements in the debate over public access to information are
the fees and costs to the public to obtain information. There are at least
four different areas in which costs are incurred by freedom of information
requests: searching, reviewing, reproducing, and sending. Some countries,
like the UK, allow agencies to charge for all four steps of the process.121
Other countries, like Mexico, only charge for the reproduction and sending
of the information.122 The recently passed law in Japan charges a fixed fee
of 300 yen for each request—approximately two U.S. dollars—plus 100
yen to view every 100 pages of a requested document, and sometimes also
20 yen per page for photocopying.123 The amount of fees charged is crucial
for determining the real level of accessibility of information. Although
there is clearly a justification for inhibiting frivolous requests, high user
fees exclude large segments of the population from having access to public
information.
Finally, it is important to note that some laws that are called FOI acts are
actually designed to limit, not open up, freedom of speech and access to
government information. For instance, Zimbabwe’s Protection of Privacy
and Access to Information Act imposes strict controls on journalists and
makes it extremely difficult for the public to access information.124
Further, in Paraguay “the Parliament adopted a FOI law in 2001 which
restricted speech and was so controversial that media and civil society
groups successfully pressured the government to rescind it shortly after it
was approved.”125
D. Categories of Countries with FOI Laws

We can identify four broad categories of countries with FOI laws. First,
there are the historic pioneers, which include the ten countries that passed
laws before the worldwide wave of democratization of the 1980s.126 These
include the four Nordic countries—Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and
120. Id.
121. See id. § 9 (allowing agencies to charge for providing information).
122. See FTA Mexico, supra note 69, art. 27 (permitting fees for obtaining information
but limiting them to only the cost of reproducing and sending the information).
123. Lawrence Repeta, Government Transparency: Japan’s Information Disclosure
Law of 2001, 106 FREEDOM INFO. REV. 56, 57 (2003).
124. See Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, pts. III, VII, XI, XII
(2003) (Zimb.), available at http://www.kubatana.net/html/archive/legisl/030611aippaamd.
asp?sector=LEGISL (maintaining control of the accreditation of journalists in the country
and what information journalists are allowed to obtain).
126. See supra Table 1.
Norway—four ex-British colonies—Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and

the United States—as well as France and Colombia.127
The laws in these countries tend to be intensely used by the public and
function relatively well, but they do not stand out as particularly innovative
or progressive. The Swedish law, for instance, does not include any of the
recent innovations in FOI law.128 Similarly, the U.S. FOIA does not cover
a great number of important government offices, including Congress, the
courts, the White House Chief Counsel, or private bodies and contractors
that receive public monies.129 Moreover, the U.S. FOIA does not provide
public interest overrides,130 nor does the law have solid constitutional
footing as previously discussed.131
There are important differences among the historic pioneers, particularly
between the Nordic and the Anglo countries. For instance, a quick
comparison between the Swedish and U.S. models reveals many crucial
distinctions.
Table 2: The Swedish and U.S. Models of FOI Legislation132
Model Sweden United States

Influences 7th to 18th century Chinese Press interests, the
culture, Lutheran church, United Nations, post
academe, liberal/libertarian WWII democratic ideals,
ideals of individual freedoms desire by Congress and
and a free press, emerging the executive to stop
democratic concepts. public service from
becoming a fourth arm of
government.
FOI Yes. No.
Constitutional
Requirement
127. Id.
128. See FPA Sweden, supra note 8, ch. 3, art. 2 (lacking independent oversight
commissions, public interest overrides, and applications to the private sector).
129. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1) (2000) (defining agency as “any executive department,
military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation or other
establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of
the President), or any independent regulatory agency”).
130. See id. (neglecting to highlight the importance of public interest).
131. See id. § 552(b) (listing circumstances in which the provisions do not apply); see
also Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 9, 14-15 (1978) (discussing the lack of a right of
access to government information under the First and Fourteenth Amendments).
132. Adapted from Stephen Lamble, United States FOI Laws Are a Poor Model for
Statutes in Other Nations, 106 FREEDOM INFO. REV. 51, 53 (2003) (outlining the history and
scope of various countries’ FOI laws).
Model, Cont’d. Sweden United States

Perceptions and A cultural tradition of Ranging from enthusiasm to
Attitudes of administrative openness. obstruction. A deep and
Legislators and Strong expectations of long-standing pre-FOIA
Officials transparency as a natural tradition of administrative
right. secrecy, which was
reinforced by the Cold War.
Cost Free. No access or Often expensive. Nearly
processing fees. always processing and
photocopying charges.
Processing Short, often within Generally drawn out,
Time for hours. usually takes at least a
Requests month and possibly much
longer.
Public and Generally very high. Generally poor to mediocre.
Media
Awareness of
FOI rights
Possibilities for Broad, either through an Often a matter of official
Appeal ombudsman or direct to a discretion or administrative
court. The vast majority appeal at first but can then
of such appeals have go to court in many cases,
been won by appellants. although outcomes are
unpredictable.
This table reveals the many advantages that the Swedish system has over
the U.S. system, including support in the constitution, origins in the free
speech movement as opposed to the anti-government movement, shorter
processing times, lower costs, and broader possibilities for appeal.
Nevertheless, the U.S. system is the one normally taken as a model for
contemporary FOI laws.133 The Swedish system has only been explicitly
used as a model by Finland, Norway, Denmark, and the United States
itself, while the U.S. model has been taken up by over 35 countries
including South Africa, Japan, Thailand, Australia, Canada, and others.134
According to Lamble, using the U.S. FOIA as a model law is a mistake:
“[W]hile the U.S. legislation works relatively well within its own
jurisdiction . . . its statutes do not provide the most appropriate template in
many other nations and they generally do not work well in other political
133. See id. (finding that a number of foreign countries have based their FOI laws on
similar laws in the United States).
134. See id. (comparing the minimal number of countries that have taken Swedish FOI
laws as a model versus the sizeable number that have used U.S. laws as a model).
systems.”135 But it is not clear whether the Swedish model is the best one
for contemporary governments to take up either. There are many other
more progressive examples of FOI legislation that have emerged in newly
democratic countries that may be even more inspiring.136
The second category of countries includes the 29 countries that have
passed FOI laws as part of a process of democratic transition and/or the
drafting of a new constitution.137 These include the Philippines, Spain,
Portugal, South Korea, Thailand, South Africa, Mexico, and the 22
countries that have previously been part of the Soviet Union or the Soviet
Bloc—19 from Central and Eastern Europe plus Tajikistan, Uzbekistan,
and Azerbaijan.138 In this latter subcategory, Hungary and Ukraine were a
step ahead, passing laws in 1992 shortly after the fall of the Soviet
Union.139
These laws tend to be the strongest on paper since they represent a
reaction to previous authoritarian rule. For instance, the South African FOI
law stands out in its blanket application to all “bodies” in both the public
and private sectors.140 This is in many ways a response to the iron-tight
commitment to state secrecy that existed during the apartheid
governments.141 The recent Mexican law stands out for the strength of its
relatively independent Access to Information Commission,142 strong
guarantees on process including strict and short time horizons,143 an
extensive list of information that is required to publish,144 and special
provisions for access to information related to human rights violations.145
The legislation in Thailand stands out for its liberal definition of public
information.146
135. Id. at 51.

136. See, for example, the recent laws in Mexico, South Africa, and Thailand discussed
infra, which provide broad access to a wide variety of government documents.
137. See supra Table 1 (noting the years when these countries passed FOI laws and
suggesting that these were periods of democratic transition in these countries).
138. Id.
139. See id. (setting forth the years in chronological order and showing that Hungary and
the Ukraine passed laws before the other countries).
140. See PAI S. Afr., supra note 86, pt. 1, ch. 2, § 3 (making the Act specifically
applicable to “a record of a public body” and “a record of a private body”).
141. See Ian Currie & Jonathan Klaaren, An Update on Access to Information in South
Africa: New Directions in Transparency, 107 FREEDOM INFO. REV. 72, 73 (2003).
142. See FTA Mexico, supra note 69, at ch. 2 (endowing the “Access to Information
Commission” with significant powers).
143. See id. ch. 3 (requiring liaisons to aid individuals in preparing information requests,
mandating response to requests within 20 days, and providing for an automatic positive
response to the request if no formal response is given—“positive ficta”).
144. See id. ch. 2, art. 7 (listing numerous areas of required disclosure and excepting
only classified and confidential information).
145. See id. ch. 3, art. 14 (stating that “information may not be classified when the
investigation of grave violations of fundamental rights or crimes against humanity is at
stake”).
146. See OIA Thailand, supra note 71, § 4. The FOI of Thailand defines information as:
In practice, the successful application of laws in these newly democratic

countries depends on the progress of democracy and on other external
pressures that may limit the spread of the freedom of information.147 For
instance, the desire of many of the newly independent nations of Eastern
Europe to join NATO has led them to increase the reach of “state secrets”
laws even as they pass new FOI legislation.148
The third category of countries is comprised of 13 wealthy countries
with long democratic histories that have been swept up in the move
towards FOI over the past two decades.149 These countries include Austria,
Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Greece,
Liechtenstein, the UK, Switzerland, and Germany.150 The first four
countries were early starters, passing their laws between 1987 and 1994,
while the latter nine countries have all passed their laws since 1996.151
These countries have been characterized by a somewhat schizophrenic
stop-and-go process of FOI reform. It appears that the long democratic
traditions in these countries make the passage of a FOI law a natural move.
Given the global wave of FOI laws, it would be very difficult for such
countries to justify not adopting some form of FOI legislation.
Nevertheless, the fact that they have been late to come on board may
indicate that there are also important internal resistances to transparency
from within governments. The specific reasons for the existence of such
resistances are fertile ground for future research.
The laws in these countries therefore tend to be less innovative and
progressive than those passed by newly democratic countries.152 In
addition, the implementation of the laws appears to run up against
particularly strong resistance in these countries. The delay in the full
implementation of the law in the UK until 2005,153 the strong resistance of
a material which communicates matters, facts, data, or anything, whether such

communication is made by the nature of such material itself or through any means
whatsoever and whether it is arranged in the form of a document, file, report, book,
diagramme, map, drawing, film, visual or sound recording, or recording by a computer or
any other method which can be displayed.
Id.
147. See Alasdair Roberts, NATO’s Security of Information Policy and the Right to
Information, in NATIONAL SECURITY AND OPEN GOVERNMENT: STRIKING THE RIGHT
BALANCE 149, 149 (Campbell Public Affairs Institute ed., 2003) (noting that 11 Central and
Eastern European countries “have adopted laws to restrict access to information that has
been classified as sensitive”).
148. See id. at 149, 151 (detailing the chronology of the passage of right to information
laws and state secret laws in various Central and Eastern European countries and their
NATO status).
149. See supra Table 1 (laying out the passage of FOI laws in various countries over the
years).
150. Id.
151. Id.
152. See infra UK, Japan, and Ireland examples discussing opposition to FOI laws.
153. See, e.g., Rob Evans, At Last, Whitehall Declares Opening Time, GUARDIAN (U.K.),
the Japanese bureaucracy to FOI law,154 and the recent gutting of the Irish
FOI law155 are examples of this opposition.156
Finally, there are 14 countries from the developing world that have not
experienced recent democratic transitions.157 These include six countries
that used to form a part of the British Empire—India, Pakistan, Jamaica,
Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Trinidad and Tobago—four other
countries from the Latin America and Caribbean region—Peru, Panama,
Dominican Republic, and Ecuador—three countries from Africa—Angola,
Zimbabwe, and Uganda—and finally the only middle eastern country with
a FOI law—Turkey.158 With the exception of Trinidad and Tobago (1999)
and Belize (1994), all of these countries have passed their FOI laws since
the year 2002.159
In general, these countries seem to have weaker FOI legislation,
especially when the government has less than full democratic credentials,
as in Pakistan, Angola, and Zimbabwe.160 Pakistan has an extremely
restrictive exemptions regime.161 In Zimbabwe, the law was designed to
actually limit freedom of expression: “While the title refers to FOI and
privacy, the main thrust of the law is to give the government extensive
powers to control the media by requiring the registration of journalists and
prohibiting the ‘abuse of free expression.’”162 This restraint is worrisome,
Dec. 30, 2004, at 11 (recalling that the Labour Party first promised a FOI act in 1974 but
that one was not passed until 2000 by the Blair government that then delayed its
introduction for five years).
154. See Repeta, supra note 123, at 58; see also discussion infra § III (discussing how
the law needs more use by journalists and members of civil society to promote government
accountability).
155. See Meave McDonagh, The Honeymoon is Over: Ireland Rows Back on FOI,
FREEDOM INFO. REV. 78-84 (2003); see also discussion infra § III (arguing that the new Irish
FOI law seems to be a step back from the original law of 1997).
156. Further research should be conducted to evaluate whether there is an overarching
reason for why these countries appear to resist the full implementation of FOI legislation.
157. See supra Table 1 (laying out the chronology of the passage of the FOI laws in
various countries).
158. Id.
159. Id.
160. Freedom House, an independent, nongovernmental organization, annually ranks
nations based on the political rights and civil liberties they afford their citizens. Freedom
House civil and political rights rankings (1 = most free and 7 = less free) for these countries
are: Pakistan = 5.5, Angola = 5.5, and Zimbabwe = 6.5. See FREEDOM HOUSE, FREEDOM IN
THE WORLD 2006, available at http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/pdf/charts2006.pdf
(charting the ratings for various countries). Pakistan’s elected government was overthrown
by a military coup in 1999, and today its democracy remains unstable and under heavy
influence from the military. Angola’s government has been rife with civil war, and its
elections remain questioned and unstable today. Zimbabwe’s government has had a
tumultuous history and struggles with democracy.
161. See FIO Pakistan, supra note 70, § 8 (excluding many items such as meeting
minutes, notes on files, and intermediary opinions or recommendations from becoming part
of the public record). These exclusions included in § 8 are in addition to the more formal
“exemptions” in Articles 14-18.
although it is by no means the universal rule in these countries. For

instance, the laws in Peru clearly live up to international standards.163
Any broad based comparative-historical analysis of FOI laws would
need to take into account these four categories of countries.164 Although
there is a great deal of diversity within each category, our hypothesis is that
one should be able to discover general underlying patterns within each
category that characterize both the origins and the experience with the
implementation of FOI laws.
E. Comparative Historical Lessons

Taking a step back from the specific categories, a look at the overall
history of the passage of FOI laws allows us to hazard a few propositions
with regard to their origins and nature. First, FOI laws are political
creatures.165 It would be a mistake to imagine that freedom of information
is a natural outgrowth of economic development. Although economic
growth may create some pressures in favor of freedom of information, the
decisive factors with regard to whether a FOI law will be passed are
political.166 Second, the mobilization of civil society plays an absolutely
central role in the passage of FOI laws.167 Although there are plenty of
examples of truly honest and open government officials, it is rarely in the
interest of government as a whole to reveal its inner workings to society.
Society stands to gain much more from the passage of FOI laws and tends
to be the driving force behind their passage. Third, international actors
have played an especially significant role, particularly in the most recent
wave of creation of FOI laws.168 Below, we discuss each one of these
propositions in turn.
1. FOI Laws Are Political Creatures

A great number of countries with FOI laws are relatively well off
economically.169 Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to attribute their FOI
laws to this fact. FOI laws do not grow organically and functionally out of
163. See BEATRIZ BOZA, ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN DEL ESTADO: MARCO LEGAL Y
BUENAS PRACTICAS 19-70 (2004) (accenting the virtues of Peruvian FOI laws).
164. See infra Part II.D (discussing in detail the four categories of countries that have
FOI laws).
165. See infra Part II.E.1 (discussing that political factors are the primary contributors to
creating FOI laws).
166. See infra Part II.E.1 (discussing that economic factors are important with regard to
the passage of FOI laws)
167. See infra Part II.E.2 (discussing how civil society has played a significant role in the
passage of FOI legislation because FOI laws significantly empower civil society).
168. See infra Part II.E.3 (discussing in depth the three relevant categories of
international actors that strongly supported the adoption of FOI laws in recent years).
169. See Table 1 (listing the countries that have FOI laws and the year in which they
were adopted).
economic development. In fact, economic development and modernization

can sometimes go along with extremely restrictive policies on government
information and freedom of speech. As Sheila Coronel has noted:
Singapore is the most wired country in the world after the United
States . . . . Singapore also boasts the highest penetration of newspapers,
radio and television in the region [of Southeast Asia]. Its citizens are
among the best educated in the world. Singapore is a player on the
global stage and the darling of international investors. It is the regional
trading, media and financial hub. Yet . . . draconian laws, a paternalistic
state and a culture that puts a premium on comfort and conformity keeps
Singaporeans in the dark about what is going on where it matters most:
170
their own country.
Modern day Singapore is a case in point, since it is highly developed
economically but does not have an FOI law.
The numerous poor countries that passed FOI legislation provide further
evidence of the lack of a clear correlation between development and
freedom of information. Jamaica and Uzbekistan are much poorer than
Singapore but are much further ahead with regard to access to government
information. The large numbers of newly democratic countries with
radically different levels of economic development (from Spain and
Portugal to Thailand and Estonia) that have passed FOI laws speak to the
importance of politics over and above economic development. In the end,
it appears that political factors are much more important in explaining the
presence or absence of FOI laws in any given country.
The history of the passage of the FOIA in the United States is a case in
point. The FOIA arose out of two fundamentally political sources. First,
Congress sought to reinforce its capacity to control and supervise the
executive branch.171 With the explosion of the administrative state during
the first half of the 20th century, Congress started to lose authority in favor
of the executive branch.172 Congress did not take the consolidation of
executive power lightly. They quickly began to protest and to demand their
constitutionally mandated place as the central political authority of the
nation. For instance, Congressman John Jennings (R-TN) complained that,
The Federal Government now touches almost every activity that arises in
the lives of millions of people who make up the population of this
country. The chief indoor sport of the Federal bureaucrat is to evolve out
of his own inner consciousness, like a spider spins his web, countless
170. SHEILA CORONEL, THE RIGHT TO KNOW: ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN SOUTHEAST

ASIA 8-10 (2003).
171. See ROSENBLOOM, supra note 30, at 8 (citing the increase in the number of agencies
and in administrative power as the root of Congress’s concern of oversight).
172. See id. (discussing how the increase in administrative agencies, which Congress
created in order to delegate some of its responsibility, gave the executive branch more
authority).
confusing rules and regulations which may deprive a man of his

property, his liberty, and bedevil the very life out of him.173
Representative Hamilton Fish (R-NY) followed suit in his comment on the
Hoover Commission Report that recommended centralizing power over the
bureaucracy. Fish wrote that the Report is “a step to concentrate power in
the hands of the President and set up a species of fascism or nazi-ism or an
American form of dictatorship.”174
Congress then moved beyond words. The first effort made by Congress
to tame the overgrown bureaucracy was the passage of the APA in 1946.175
This act sought to force agencies to “adhere to legislative values when they
make rules, and to judicial values when they adjudicate and enforce.”176 It
also tried to make agencies more transparent in publicizing information
about their organizational structure, rules, and decisions.177 As Senator
Homer Ferguson (R-MI) argued in support of the Act, “In my opinion,
there will be fewer complaints because of the activities of governmental
agencies if they will attempt to live within the rules and regulations laid
down by Congress. After all, the Congress is the policy-making body of
the United States.”178
The core of the APA was, and continues to be, the obligation of federal
agencies to publish proposed rules and decisions and open them up for
“public comment.”179 During the comment period, individuals and groups
may “participate in the [rulemaking] through submission of written data
views, or arguments . . . .”180 Afterwards, when the agency issues its rules
it must provide “a concise general statement of their basis and purpose.”181
The rules, decisions, and justifications can then be appealed to the federal
courts, which can judge their constitutionality, procedural regularity, and
conformity to statute.182
173. See id. (arguing that the federal government was too involved in the activities of the
people of the country and cautioned that, because the federal government was so large, it
could impinge upon the liberty of its people).
174. See id. at 18 (arguing that the concentration of power in the President and executive
branch is a form of dictatorship).
175. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, 701-706 (2000).
176. ROSENBLOOM, supra note 30, at 38.
177. See id. at 48 (emphasizing that a concern raised in the congressional debate of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was the need to provide information to the public in
order to ensure that democracy is not undercut).
178. Id. at 39.
179. See § 553(b) (outlining that a general Notice of Proposed Rulemaking needs to be
published in the Federal Register and further detailing what this notice shall include).
180. See § 553(c) (discussing how the agency must give the public the opportunity to
participate in the rulemaking process).
181. See id. (outlining agencies’ actions following their creation of a rule).
182. See generally § 554 (imparting the provision that applies to adjudication by the
federal courts).
As administrative law scholar Jerry Mashaw observed, the APA

demands that bureaucrats “must not only give reasons, they must give
complete ones. We insist that they be authentic by demanding that they be
both transparent and contemporaneous. ‘Expertise’ is no longer a
protective shield to be worn like a sacred vestment. It is a competence to
be demonstrated by cogent reason-giving.”183 The APA therefore brings
societal actors into the most intimate chambers of the state and forces
bureaucrats to face up to and justify themselves before society. Through
the APA, Congress “responded to its own relative impotence by giving
outsiders access not only to the bureaucracy but also to the courts.”184
The U.S. FOIA grew out of the same distrust in the power of
administrative agencies that had stimulated the passage of the APA. As
Thomas Blanton remarked, the secrecy with which the executive branch
managed its affairs during the Cold War created congressional distrust in
and fear of the executive:
Secrecy turned into the bureaucracy’s defense mechanism and, at the
same time, it helped the President when he had to confront a critical
Congress. A key moment occurred when, at the beginning of the
Eisenhower administration, the Executive Branch announced the firing
of various employees out of suspicion that they were communists, but
refused to give Congress the papers which documented the way in which
the action had been taken.185
A law which explicitly required the executive branch to reveal information
would help Congress reconstruct its lost authority over the overgrown
administrative, national security state, empowering it to carry out its
oversight tasks more effectively.
Nevertheless, the FOI law passed in 1966 was deficient because it did
not have any “teeth.” The law did not establish a fixed response time to
requests or any sanctions for the failure of an agency to comply with its
obligation.186 It took the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal to oblige
183. See Jerry Mashaw, Small Things Like Reasons are Put in a Jar: Reason and
Legitimacy in the Administrative State, 70 FORDHAM L. REV. 17, 26 (2001) (noting that
American administrative law brings the power to reason into politics).
184. See SUSAN ROSE-ACKERMAN, CONTROLLING ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: THE LIMITS
OF PUBLIC LAW IN GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES 16 (1995) (referring to environmental
statutes as examples containing provisions for citizen suits).
185. See Thomas Blanton, La Experiencia de Estados Unidos con Respecto a la Ley de
Libertad de Información: Activismo del Congreso, Liderazgo de los Medios de
Comunicación y Política Burocrática, 2 DERECHO COMPARADO DE LA INFORMACIÓN 13
(2003), available at http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/publica/librev/rev/decoin/cont/2/
art/art1.pdf (authors’ translation).
186. See FOIA, Pub. L. No. 89-487, 80 Stat. 250 (1966) (showing how the FOIA does
not list any sanctions for noncompliance within the Act).
Congress to strengthen the law in the 1970s.187 This new law was promptly
vetoed by President Ford and only passed after a two-thirds majority
overrode his veto.188
In addition to conflict between the branches of government, the second
political source of the FOIA was interparty politics.189 The origins of the
FOIA came from the activism of Democratic Congressman John Moss,
who chaired the Special Subcommittee of Public Information and was a
great critic of the Republican Eisenhower Administration.190 The FOIA
was finally passed in 1966 when it gained the support of Republican
Congressmen interested in overseeing the Democratic Administrations of
Kennedy and Johnson.191
2. The Centrality of Civil Society

The founding debates about the origins of democratic transitions de-
emphasized the role of civil society. For instance, the classic text written
by Guillermo O’Donnell and Phillippe Schmitter describes the transition
process as one essentially guided by elites.192 This involves two different
claims. On one hand, the idea is that the transition process is inaugurated
by a split in the regime elites between “hard-liners” and “soft-liners:”193
“We assert that there is no transition whose beginning is not the
consequence—direct or indirect—of important divisions within the
authoritarian regime itself, principally along the fluctuating cleavage
between hard-liners and soft-liners.”194 Here, the hard-liners are those who
“believe that the perpetuation of authoritarian rule is possible and
desirable”195 and the soft-liners are those who are aware that “the regime
they helped to implant . . . will have to make use, in the foreseeable future,
187. See Blanton, supra note 185, at 18.

188. Id.
189. See HERBERT FOERSTEL, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND THE RIGHT TO KNOW: THE
ORIGINS AND APPLICATIONS OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 21-27 (1999)
(identifying a key event in the creation of the FOIA as the confrontation between a
conservative former public relations man, Honaman, and a liberal newspaper editor,
Wiggins, that spawned tension between the Democratic Congress and the Republican
Eisenhower Administration).
190. See id. (asserting the tension that was created by the Honaman-Wiggins
confrontation proved the necessity of a subcommittee for information).
191. See Blanton, supra note 185, at 15. But see FOERSTEL, supra note 189, at 39-42
(discussing the background and events that led up to FOIA’s passage and signing).
192. See TRANSITIONS FROM AUTHORITARIAN RULE, supra note 2, at 19 (discussing the
political instability in Argentina and its political cycles); see also Terry Lynn Karl,
Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America, 23 COMP. POL. No. 1, 5-6 (1990) (providing
that elite factions play key roles in democratic transitions and in determining what type of
democracy will be created).
193. See TRANSITIONS FROM AUTHORITARIAN RULE supra note 2, at 16 (denoting the
difference between the armed forces, or hard-liners, and the civilian supporters of the
authoritarian regime, or soft-liners).
194. Id. at 19.
195. Id. at 16.
of some degree or some form of electoral legitimacy.”196

On the other hand, the installation of democracy itself is understood to
consist of the successful negotiation of a “pact”197 between the moderate
elites on each side. Once the soft-liners gain leverage over their hard-line
colleagues within the regime and once the moderates get dominance over
their more radical or “maximalist” colleagues outside of the regime, these
two moderate forces are able to ally their strengths to form a winning
democratic coalition.198 At this point, there is the generation of a “subtle
but effective, and most often implicit, ‘first-order understanding’—the
foundation of eventual pacts between soft-liners and those in the opposition
who are preeminently interested in the installation of political
democracy.”199 In other words, the installation of democracy is envisioned
to follow the rules of a classic “4-player game” scenario in which centrists
from both sides of a conflict find it more in their interest to align
themselves with each other than to maintain allegiance to their more radical
colleagues. Therefore, elites are the fundamental driving forces behind
democratization, both at the beginning and at the end of the process of
democratic transition. This position is not unique to O’Donnell and
Schmitter. For instance, in a classic piece published in Comparative
Politics, Terry Karl wrote:
To date . . . no stable political democracy has resulted from regime
transitions in which mass actors have gained control, even momentarily,
over traditional ruling classes. Efforts at reform from below, which have
been characterized by unrestricted contestation and participation, have
met with subversive opposition from unsuppressed traditional elites . . . .
Thus far, the most frequently encountered types of transition, and the
ones which have most often resulted in the implantation of a political
democracy are “transitions from above.”200
In exploring the origins of FOI laws, it would be all but impossible to
sustain such top-down hypotheses. Although elite splits and moderation
have definitely played a part, civil society groups and leaders have played
the leading role.201 This is perhaps because of the nature of a FOI law
196. Id.
197. Id.
A pact can be defined as an explicit, but not always publicly explicated or justified,
agreement among a select set of actors which seeks to define (or, better, to
redefine) rules governing the exercise of power on the basis of mutual guarantees
for the ‘vital interests’ of those entering into it.
Id. at 37.
198. See TRANSITIONS FROM AUTHORITARIAN RULE, supra note 2, at 25.
199. Id.
200. Karl, supra note 192 at 1, 8-9.
201. ARTICLE 19, PROMOTING PRACTICAL ACCESS TO DEMOCRACY: A SURVEY OF
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE 15 (2002), available at http://
www.article19.org/pdfs/publications/promoting-access.pdf (observing that in Romania and
when compared to the nature of a democratic transition. In a democratic

transition, a significant group of elites, both inside and outside of
government, stand to gain from change. Although free and fair elections
disempower elites as a whole by giving power to the masses, they also
open up vast future opportunities to those who are able to guide and adapt
to the new democratic situation. It is, therefore, in the interest of a
significant group of elites to lead a democratic transition.
FOI laws are different. Although in the long run they significantly
improve governance, they do not represent an immediate benefit for those
who are in power.202 FOI laws open the government to external scrutiny,
making elites much more vulnerable to outside criticism and significantly
empowering civil society. There are numerous individual freedom of
information pioneers within governments throughout the world. But
government leaders “as a group” do not favor FOI laws because it is not in
their interest to do so. The picture is totally inverted for civil society.
Here, there is a clear net gain and strong incentives to vigorously back FOI
legislation.203 The empirical data seem to bear out this hypothesis. Civil
society has played a significant role in the passage of FOI legislation in
Central and Eastern Europe204 as well as in Latin America.205
3. The Role of International Actors

International actors have created a highly favorable context for the
adoption of FOI laws in recent years. There are at least three different
categories of relevant actors. First, international nonprofit organizations
and foundations have been very influential in funding and otherwise
backing civil society groups that pressure leaders for the passage of FOI
Slovakia the participation and cooperation of governments with nongovernmental

organizations enabled civil society to be closely involved in the drafting of FOI legislation);
see also infra notes 228-29 (discussing the problems of implementation of FOI laws).
202. See ARTICLE 19, supra note 201, at 14 (noting that FOI legislation is frequently
opposed by governments).
203. See id. at 13 (identifying FOI laws as a key step in transforming secretive
governments into democratic institutions that will guarantee the right to information to their
citizens).
204. See generally OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE, ACCESS TO INFORMATION TOOL:
OVERVIEW 2003, at 1-3, available at http://www.justiceinitiative.org/db/resource2?res_id=
102207 (highlighting countries in which the Justice Initiative has helped to create FOI
legislation).
205. See ERNESTO VILLANUEVA, SOCIAL PARTICIPATION AND ACCESS TO PUBLIC
INFORMATION IN LATIN AMERICA, in ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN THE AMERICAS: A PROJECT
OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DIALOGUE 40-42 (The Inter-American Dialogue ed., 2004),
available at http://www.thedialogue.org/publications/programs/policy/politics_and_
institutions/ press_freedom/ AccessReport.pdf (discussing the groups of people who formed
the “Oaxaca Group,” which was instrumental in the development of FOI legislation); see
also Robert Gregory Michener, Engendering Political Commitment: The Grupo Oaxaca—
Expertise, Media Projection—and the Elaboration of Mexico’s Access to Information Law
(June 2003) (unpublished M.A. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin) (on file with
authors).
laws.206 This has been particularly clear in the case of Central and Eastern
Europe, where the Open Society Institute sponsored by George Soros has
had an important impact in the promulgation of FOI laws throughout the
region.207 The Open Society Institute has recently begun to work more in
Latin America as well, funding civil society initiatives in Mexico and Peru.
Second, interstate diplomatic pressure has played a crucial role in some
countries. Once again the countries of Central and Eastern Europe are a
case in point. Eager to boost their democratic credentials in order to be
considered as possible members of the European Union, elites in these
countries have been more willing than otherwise to support FOI
legislation.208 The passage of the Mexican law itself can also be attributed
in part to it being viewed favorably by its northern neighbor.209
Third, international organizations like the World Bank have also begun
to push for increased transparency throughout the developing world. This
issue is part and parcel of the larger agenda of controlling corruption. In
order to improve the investment climate in a developing country, it is said
that governments need to open up their accounts and their transactions to
outside eyes.210 Here the emphasis is more on access of the private sector
to government information and procedures and not so much on the access
of normal citizens. Nevertheless, this agenda still pushes in the same
direction.
There can of course be problems with the role of international actors. As
the Open Society Institute has argued, “the proliferation of FOI laws is
not . . . without its dangers: states eager to tender their democratic
credentials to the international community may adopt substandard laws.
Even where laws are excellent on paper, they may not be well implemented
206. See generally Press Release, Open Society Justice Initiative, Public Information
Still Hard To Get, Five Country Survey Finds (Sept. 28, 2004), available at
http://www.justiceinitiative.org/db/resource2?res_id=102207 (noting that the Justice
Initiative is one example of an organization that promotes the passage of FOI laws).
207. See OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE, supra note 204, at 2-3 (showcasing Armenia,
Bulgaria, and Macedonia as countries where civil society groups have worked with the
Open Society Justice Initiative to pass FOI legislation).
208. See ARTICLE 19, supra note 202, at 3 (asserting that the adoption of
Recommendation (2002) by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which
establishes a required standard to access of information in Europe, shows potential members
of the Council of Europe that access to information is a fundamental right).
209. See generally VILLANUEVA, supra note 205 (describing efforts of the U.S.
organization, Inter-American Dialogue, to help Latin America create FOI laws).
210. See, e.g., The World Bank, Political Accountability, http://www.worldbank.org
(follow the hyperlink at the top right of the page titled “Topics” and then follow these sub-
sequent hyperlinks: “Public Sector Governance,” “Topics,” “Anticorruption,” “Increasing
Political Accountability,” and finally “Tranparency”) (last visited Feb. 9, 2006)
(recommending measures such as opening sessions of parliament; registering lobbying
activities; publishing voting and trial records, annual reports, judicial decisions; and
fostering a free and vibrant media).
in practice.”211 In addition, some international actors can actually pressure

nation states to restrict information.212
III. CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE

The wave of FOI laws that have swept the world over in the past two
decades offers great hope for the future. As Blanton has argued “[T]he
international freedom-of-information movement stands on the verge of
changing the definition of democratic governance. The movement is
creating a new norm, a new expectation, and a new threshold requirement
for any government to be considered a democracy.”213 Or, as Roberts
commented, “the burden was once on proponents of access rights to make a
case for transparency; today, the burden is on governments to make the
case for secrecy.”214 The tables have finally been turned.
In addition, the fact that many developing countries that have not
experienced recent democratic transitions have recently passed FOI laws is
particularly encouraging.215 This means that FOI laws are not limited to
wealthy countries and are not dependent on the existence of radical regime
change. Given the correct political context, FOI laws can be passed in
almost any country at any time.
Nevertheless, there are also some important challenges. One major
challenge is the new “structural pluralism” that has arisen in public
administration throughout the world.216 As government shrinks, public
tasks are increasingly being taken up by private corporations, nonprofit
organizations, independent contractors, or quasi-governmental entities.217
FOI laws have typically developed as a way to control the new
administrative state or fourth branch of government that emerged
throughout the world during the 19th and 20th centuries. Access to
information by the public has been one of the best ways to dynamize and
control large, hierarchical bureaucracies and to avoid the threat of being
trapped in the threat of immobility and secrecy that they pose. But now the
situation is different. According to Roberts, “[T]he old system of
administrative controls, built to suit a world in which power was centered
211. OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE, supra note 207, at 2.

212. See Thomas Blanton, The World’s Right to Know, FOREIGN POL’Y 50, 55 (July-
August 2002) (“[M]embership in a supranational organization, such as the WTO, does not
always encourage transparency—as when NATO refuses to release files without a
consensus among all NATO members or requires Poland to adopt a new law on state
secrets.”).
213. Id. at 56.
214. Roberts, supra note 102, at 2.
215. See supra note 157 and accompanying text.
216. See Roberts, supra note 20, at 243 (introducing Anthony Giddens’ use of the term
“structural pluralism” as a characterization of the public sector’s willingness to experiment
with new forms of organization as instruments for the delivery of public services).
217. Id.
within government departments and agencies, no longer seems to fit

contemporary realities.”218 He continues, “our understanding of what
counts as an abuse of power is expanding, at a moment when power itself is
slipping out of the restraints imposed by the post-war regulatory
regime.”219
It appears that we find ourselves in the paradoxical situation of being
swept up in a wave that has passed its time. Just as FOI legislation has
started to spread in a worldwide search to hold government accountable,
government has found a way to slip out the back door. This poses a major
challenge to the achievement of full information rights. While access to
government information has always been only a part of the overall search
for transparency and accountability in society at large, it is now a smaller
part than ever before. The challenge, therefore, is to follow the example of
countries like South Africa and to expand the reach of FOI legislation
beyond the public sector.220 For instance, on March 30, 2005, the Mexican
Senate’s modification of the FOI law to include government fideicomisos,
or foundations that receive both public and private monies, was a crucial
step in the right direction.221
The increasing spread of “disclosure laws” in the United States may hold
a partial solution to this challenge. These laws require private corporations
to notify the public about the risks involved in their operations or the use of
their products, from the emission of toxic pollution to the use of
medicine.222 For instance, Mary Graham has argued that today we are
witnessing the emergence of what she calls “technopopulism”:223
The combination of new access to standardized information and new
technology, especially the growth of the Internet, has set in motion an
irreversible process that involves dangers as well as opportunities.
Ordinary citizens can now do what government regulators have
traditionally done . . . . Armed with the facts, they create pressures for
change through what they buy, how they invest, where they work, how
they vote, and what groups they join. The expansion of the World Wide
Web offers new ways to distribute and personalize information that
224
automatically enhances the power of disclosure.
218. Id. at 270.

219. Id. at 271.
220. See supra note 66 and accompanying text.
221. Benito Jiménez, Alaba IFAI apertura de fideicomisos, REFORMA (Mexico City),
Apr. 1, 2005, at 2.
222. See MARY GRAHAM, DEMOCRACY BY DISCLOSURE, THE RISE OF TECHNOPOPULISM
1-20 (2002) (tracing the development of disclosure as a form of regulation in the United
States and focusing on both the substance and mode of communication of disclosure laws).
223. Id. at 137-57 (discussing the proliferation of information availability as a result of
the Internet as a benefit to public awareness and government accountability as well as
potentially dangerous due to misinformation and interpretation problems).
224. Id. at 137.
This brings us to a second challenge or, in this case, opportunity for the
expansion of the right to information—the Internet. The Internet is a
powerful communication mechanism that can be used to facilitate access to
government and other information. In particular, with the Internet, the
“obligation to publish” sections of FOI laws take on added importance.
Since publication on the Internet brings information out into the public
domain much more than the printing of a report, these sections should get
special attention in new FOI laws and should be reformed in older laws.
Once again, the Mexican FOI law sets a positive example in this regard,
requiring agencies to publish a large amount of information on the Internet
and providing computing centers so that the public at large can have access
to the information.225
A third challenge is that the implementation of FOI laws is usually much
more difficult than the mere approval of a law. As Roberts has argued,
Whether a freedom of information law succeeds in securing the right to
information depends heavily on the predispositions of the political
executives and officials who are required to administer it. Statutory
entitlements could be undermined if government institutions refuse to
commit adequate resources for implementation or consistently exercise
discretionary powers granted by the law in ways that are inimical to aims
of the legislation.226
Indeed, a recent study conducted by the Open Society Justice Initiative
shows that problems with the implementation of FOI laws may be
endemic.227 The study revealed that on average, only 35 percent of
requests for information have been fulfilled. In fact, many requests for
information were not even accepted or processed.228 About 36 percent of
requests submitted resulted in tacit or “mute” refusals. This pilot survey
included five countries—Armenia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Peru, and South
Africa. Two of these—Armenia and Macedonia—do not have explicit FOI
legislation on the books.229 Nevertheless, there was not a significant
difference between the countries with FOI laws and without FOI laws in
terms of access to government information.230 In some cases the non-FOI
225. See FTA Mexico, supra note 69, arts. 7 and 9.

226. Alasdair Roberts, Administrative Discretion and the Access to Information Act: An
Internal Law on Open Government?, 45 CAN. PUB. ADMIN. 175, 176 (2002) (analyzing
problems the Canadian system has encountered in attempting to implement information
access).
227. See OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE, supra note 107, at 11-16 (reporting the results of a
five-county pilot study in the developing world).
228. See id. at 12 (reporting that 15% of attempted requests were unable to be
submitted).
229. See id. at 2 (“The five countries were selected to represent a spectrum of legislative
development and implementation . . . .”).
230. See id. at 13 (noting that the lack of a formal FOI law was not correlated to lack of
openness).
countries ranked higher than the countries with FOI.231 For instance, 41
percent of the requests were fulfilled in Armenia compared to 23 percent in
South Africa.232
Figure 3: Fulfilled Requests Country-by-Country233
Percent Fulfilled
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Overall Armenia Bulgaria Macedonia Peru South Africa
Country
This data is worrisome to the extent it implies that FOI laws are not
doing their job.234 Nevertheless, it can also be read in a positive way
insofar as it “underlines the argument, often used by FOI activists, that
introduction of an access to information law need not be seen as a threat by
public authorities, as they are already practicing a certain amount of
openness.”235
Independent studies of the implementation of the South African FOI—
clearly one of the most ambitious laws on paper—also send some important
warning signals.236 A survey carried out by the Open Democracy Advice
Center two years after promulgation of the Act revealed that only 30
percent of public bodies and only 11 percent of private bodies were both
aware of the existence of the Act and active in implementing it.237 In
addition, only nine percent of public bodies and six percent of private
bodies had begun to compile the legally mandated manual of record.238 In
general, “[u]se of the [FOI Act] by the public in its first two years of
231. Id.
232. Id.
233. OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE, supra note 107.
234. Id. at 9.
235. Id. at 13.
236. See Currie & Klaaren, supra note 141, at 74 (reporting on implementation of the
FOI law in South Africa).
237. Id.
238. Id.
operation has been extremely limited.”239

In Canada, there also appear to be difficulties with implementation of the
FOI law.240 Roberts performed a study that sampled 2,120 FOI requests
carried out between 1999 and 2001 by the Human Resources Development
Canada, one of the major Canadian government agencies. This study
revealed that requests that came from the media or political parties and
those that touched on sensitive areas were processed in a different manner
than requests from common citizens.241 Such requests met with slower
responses and the answers given were of lower quality, violating the
principle of “equal treatment” inscribed in the Canadian FOI law.242
Such studies are extremely useful initial approaches to evaluating the
effectiveness of FOI legislation. Nevertheless, in order to permit
systematic cross-national and historical comparisons of their effectiveness,
it is urgent to develop a common set of indicators that can be used to track
the implementation of transparency laws. A group of researchers at
Murdoch University in Australia is presently developing such a system.
Inspired by “The Corruption Perception Index” of Transparency
International and the “Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes,” this group has
begun to develop an “International Comparative Freedom of Information
Index.”243 This would begin with an analysis of FOI laws in Australia,
Sweden, the United States, South Africa, and Indonesia, and include an
analysis of the objectives of the laws, sample requests from journalists, and
a survey of the attitudes of leading politicians and public servants toward
FOI.244
An additional issue with regard to implementation is the question of who
most frequently uses FOI laws. The top users of FOI laws are often
corporations in search of information that can be of private commercial
interest to them. For instance, during the first year of implementation of
Japan’s new FOI law, the agency that received the most information
requests was the National Tax Agency.245 This is apparently the case
239. See Verne Harris, Using the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA): The
Case of the South African History Archive, 107 FREEDOM INFO. REV. 72 (2002) (questioning
effectiveness of the South African FOI Act).
240. See generally Roberts, supra note 225 (analyzing aspects of Canadian Access to
Information Act).
241. See id. at 11-14 (reporting the results of an empirical comparison of sensitive to
nonsensitive information requests).
242. See id. at 7 (citing the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s concern that
disparate treatment of information requests was “unrelated to the requirements of the Act”).
243. See Johan Lidberg, Gail Phillips & Stephen Tanner, The Freedom of Information
Index: Measuring the Gap Between the Promise and Practice of Information Legislation,
108 FREEDOM INFO. REV. 88, 93 (2003) (rationalizing the necessity for a FOI index for
increased political accountability).
244. Id. at 90-93 (explaining development of methodology).
245. Repeta, supra note 123, at 56.
because this agency holds lists of people with the highest reported incomes,
extremely valuable information for merchants.246 Such information can be
highly lucrative since it allows corporations to identify people with large
amounts of disposable income, especially if the competition has failed to
file a similar request. Such use of FOI laws is not necessarily negative, but
it is not the principle reason why most laws are passed. Governments and
Information Commissions need to pro-actively promote the use of FOI
laws by journalists, academics, and civil society groups in order to help
them become more effective sources of government accountability.
A fourth challenge is the tendency toward backlash by government and
politicians against strong FOI laws sometimes only a few years after they
are passed. For instance, the reforms introduced in 2003 to the Irish
Freedom of Information Act247 represent a significant step back from the
original 1997 law. They extend the time limit for disclosure of Cabinet
documents from five to ten years, limit access significantly to internal
deliberation in government, expand the application of national security
exemptions, add new exemptions, limit the definition of “factual
information” not subject to crucial exemptions, and increase user fees,
among other changes.248 Interestingly enough, this reform was passed on
the eve of the fifth anniversary of the law, when large amounts of
government documents would have come to the public eye.249 These
reforms have led scholars to conclude that the “amendment of the Irish FOI
Act has altered its character substantially. In its original form, the Act was
a relatively progressive measure by international standards. While it would
be going too far to say that it has been entirely emasculated by its
amendment, it has certainly been weakened considerably.”250
In Japan the backlash has been a bit different.251 In May of 2002, a
major national newspaper revealed that government officials from the
Defense Agency had put together a list of people who had submitted
information requests, “conducted background investigations of those
people and then distributed this information” throughout the agency.252
Unfortunately such behavior is not penalized by Japanese law and has
served to intimidate future information requesters.253
A final challenge for FOI laws is the increasing concern with national
246. Id.
247. FIA Ireland, supra note 100.
248. See McDonagh, supra note 155, at 84 (itemizing the retreat from earlier more
liberal FOI laws in Ireland).
249. Id.
250. Id.
251. See Repeta, supra note 123 (surveying freedom of information progress in Japan).
252. See id. at 58 (noting the Japanese government’s retributive tactics with regard to
individuals seeking information).
253. Id.
security since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As discussed

above, the issue of national security exemptions has always been a hot
topic in the debate about the nature of FOI laws.254 The new U.S.-led “War
on Terror” makes this issue even more of a central concern. Terrorism
seems to make just about any area of government crucial for national
security and risks closing down the important progress that has been made
in FOI legislation throughout the world over the past two decades.255 For
instance, under pressure to join NATO the wave of new FOI laws in
Central and Eastern Europe has been accompanied by a simultaneous wave
of new “State Secrets Laws” which restrict public access to government
held information (see Table 3 below).
Table 3: FOI Laws and State Secrets Laws in Central and Eastern
Europe256
COUNTRY NATO STATUS FOI LAW STATE

SECRETS LAW
Albania Candidate 1999 1999
Bulgaria Candidate 2000 2002
Czech Republic 1999 1999 1998
Estonia Candidate 2000 1999
Hungary 1999 1992 1995
Latvia Candidate 1998 1997
Lithuania Candidate 2000 1995
Poland 1999 2001 1999
Romania Candidate 2001 2002
Slovakia Candidate 2000 2001
Slovenia Candidate None 2001
In order to continue to push forward the worldwide movement toward

open government and freedom of information, the contributions of civil
society will be absolutely necessary. Without constant pressure and
activism, FOI laws will turn into dead letters, and their principle statutes
will be slowly eaten away by other concerns. We cannot expect
government to change on its own. The winds of modernization and
254. See discussion on exemptions, supra notes 74-94 and accompanying text
(discussing the difficulties in balancing national security interests with the public’s right to
transparency in government).
255. See also ALASDAIR ROBERTS, BLACKED OUT: GOVERNMENT SECRECY IN THE
INFORMATION AGE (2006). See generally CAMPBELL PUBLIC AFFAIRS INSTITUTE, supra note
75 (country case studies).
256. Roberts, supra note 147, at 151.
globalization will not automatically transform closed bureaucrats into open

public servants. Political action and public debate are the keys to the
consolidation of transparency.
This struggle can be aided by further research into the origins and
functioning of FOI laws. What sorts of political coalitions and political
environments are most likely to facilitate getting a FOI law passed? What
explains the large diversity in the content of FOI laws? After passage, do
FOI laws have a typical “life cycle”? What are the social, political, and
economic conditions that constitute a particularly good “enabling
environment” for the consolidation of FOI laws? Only by expanding our
knowledge of the origins, nature, and development of FOI laws will we be
able to consolidate the right to information at a global level.

Admin Law Review Explosion of Foi 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Admin Law Review Explosion of Foi 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Admin Law Review Explosion of Foi 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A DMINISTRATIVE

The Global Explosion of Freedom

The Administrative Law Review is a joint publication of the ABA Section of

THE GLOBAL EXPLOSION OF FREEDOM OF

JOHN M. ACKERMAN & IRMA E. SANDOVAL-BALLESTEROS*

* John M. Ackerman is Professor and Coordinator of the Research Program on

86 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW [58:1

government information. Since then, 56 countries have passed Freedom of

2006] GLOBAL EXPLOSION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS 87

SELF-RESTRAINING STATE, supra note 2, at 13-28 (offering a definition of government

88 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW [58:1

I. THEORY AND IMPACT OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS

2006] GLOBAL EXPLOSION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS 89

A number of scholars acknowledge the international rise in FOI laws.

14. Roberto Saba, El Derecho de la Persona a Acceder a la Información en Poder del

90 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW [58:1

Alasdair Roberts also argues that information rights should be seen as

2006] GLOBAL EXPLOSION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS 91

Where a society has chosen to accept democracy as its creedal faith, it is

92 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW [58:1

expression, citizen participation in government, and freedom of access to

2006] GLOBAL EXPLOSION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS 93

Daniel Kaufmann and Tara Vishwanath summarize the overall benefits

II. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS IN PRACTICE

A. What Is a FOI Law?

41. Kaufmann & Vishwanath, supra note 37, at 44.

94 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW [58:1

2006] GLOBAL EXPLOSION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS 95

OPEN MEETINGS: Meetings of public bodies should be open to the

96 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW [58:1

Figure 1: National Freedom of Information Laws

[INSERT MAP HERE]

[INSERT LEGEND HERE]

The map illustrates a concentration of FOI laws in the more developed

2006] GLOBAL EXPLOSION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS 97

A chronology of the passage of FOI laws is informative:

Table 1: Chronology of FOI Laws60

98 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW [58:1

2006] GLOBAL EXPLOSION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS 99

Figure 2: Chronology of FOI Laws62

C. Variation in Content of FOI Laws

100 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW [58:1

2006] GLOBAL EXPLOSION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS 101

Another issue of coverage involves the definition of “public

102 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW [58:1

could make exempted information public if the issue were important

2006] GLOBAL EXPLOSION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS 103

77. See id. at 8-9.

104 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW [58:1

2006] GLOBAL EXPLOSION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS 105

out, “[H]istory is replete with examples of government efforts to suppress

106 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW [58:1

Ombudsmen, without the capacity of making binding legal decisions.98

2006] GLOBAL EXPLOSION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS 107

only operate effectively within a friendly institutional enabling

106. Roberts, supra note 102.

108 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW [58:1

strategies do not have the same publication requirements, leading to the

2006] GLOBAL EXPLOSION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS 109