American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 2013, 3, 23-32
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2013.36A003 Published Online October 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ajibm)
23
Benchmarking Mexico & Brazil Open Government
Websites: Model and Metrics
Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazan1, Fabro Steibel2
1Facultad de Contaduría y Administración, Universidad Autonoma del Estado de México, Toluca, México; 2Programa de Pós-
Graduação em Comunicação, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Received August 28th, 2013; revised September 27th, 2013; accepted October 3rd, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazan, Fabro Steibel. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
ABSTRACT
Latin American open government websites have not been compared or benchmarked. However, this is a key to assess
and understand the open government impact on Latin American countries. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a
model to assess open government websites and to compare Mexican and Brazilian portals related on open government
and transparency practices. The result shows different levels of innovations and similarities on the interpretation of open
government budget portals. Our paper will be divided into five sections. The first section will be an introduction where
we address our research question and summarize the Mexican and Brazilian context; the second section is a literature
review about open government; the third section is a methodology section which proposes the research model and re-
search design; the fourth section discusses the main findings and the last section presents some conclusions and future
research.
Keywords: Open Government; e-Government; Benchmarking
1. Introduction
Open government’s trend of public administration has
arrived to Latin American countries. However, very few
researches have been done to understand the impact of
open government and the implementation advances
across in the region. Some previous research has focused
on the conceptual area [1] while others have focused on
the implementation of web 2.0 technologies [2-4], met-
rics [5] or describing experiences of open government in
different countries [6-8].
The purpose of this paper is to present a combined ef-
fort to compare Mexico with Brazil initiatives of open
government websites. There are very few initiatives to
compare and benchmark implementations efforts on this
field, which points to a difficulty to address recommenda-
tions or best practices that can be implemented by gov-
ernments and policy makers in the region. We argue, as
others have done, that evaluation model and the com-
parison between websites are the first steps to under-
stand this new field of open government [9].
For such purpose five sections of the paper are di-
vided as the follow: this introduction will present the
context of the two countries—Mexico and Brazil—and
compare the background of the two case studies’ open
government contexts. The second section of the paper
will provide a theoretical framework of this field, fol-
lowed by a third section that presents the model of analy-
sis and the methodological considerations for this re-
search. Fourth section discusses main findings and com-
parison of the two countries, and finally the last section
will present some conclusions and future research lines.
1.1. Mexico’s Open Government Context
Open government in Mexico has been a parallel effort
along with democratic trends. When president Vicente
Fox (right wing PAN) took power on 2000 after 70 years
of dominant ruling party PRI, changes to release infor-
mation and open government started on 2001 when
Mexican government promoted the first law of Account-
ability and Open Government act; this law mandates all
levels of government to diffuse several aspects of the
government task using electronic means [10].
There are previous backgrounds of a transparency or
freedom of information law that achieves such purposes.
This law promotes the use of websites along federal, lo-
cal and municipal governments, which mostly present the

Benchmarking Mexico & Brazil Open Government Websites: Model and Metrics 24
requirements of the law such as: address book of public
servants, wages, data from the government offices, gov-
ernment expenses and law archives among others.
This is partially accomplished because main govern-
mental officials provide the information on large PDF
files or lists with different numbers or codes to identity
the rank but very few of them make public the real wages,
ranks with names and address of the public servants.
The Open Government act also creates the Federal In-
stitute for Information Access (IFAI) who is responsible
to promote, organize, force and penalize all government
agencies to open government data in all levels [11].
Also through the IFAI they support the Open Gov-
ernment Partnership initiative held since September 2011,
and committed to achieve ten goals of open government
characteristics of the impact of the open government act
into the 32 local governments, was perform by the Center
of Research and Economic Teaching (CIDE), which is a
non-centralized public research center that promotes the
first comparative study to accomplish law requirements
on 2005 [12].
The next step was developed on 2007 to measure open
government portals accomplish of the law but also the
usability and design of the websites. The first measure
was developed by using an instrument that was applied
online, the main outcome was that from 32 states, only
27 states have open government portals with reduced
openness among their characteristics [13].
After this comparative study followed another ranking
studies during 2009, 2010 and lastly the 2011 and 2012
measurements, some changes have been made to the in-
struments in order to measure more accurately several
aspects such as accountability and information flow or
access from the 2009 and 2010 studies [14]. On the other
side, the CIDE along the Council of Mexican Open Ac-
cess websites (COMAIP) produces another in-depth
study on (2011) that includes interviews to most of the
open government websites and requirements to measure
the speed and quality of response [15].
The main findings of both studies reflect a maturity
and increase of the openness among local government
portals in Mexico, however most of them have different
levels of achievements [16]. So far there are not re-
searches over the federal government websites neither
other government levels such as municipalities nor legis-
lative and judiciary levels that are required to have an
open government portal by law.
1.2. Brazils’ Open Government Context
The Freedom of Access Law in Brazil (12.527/11) was
approved in November 2011, and further regulated in
May 2012 (7.724/12). The Bill outlines a right to infor-
mation, sustaining that all information is public unless
explicit reason for secrecy is given. In a comparative
perspective, by the end of 2008 ten countries in Latin
America had enacted freedom of information laws, al-
ready late when compared to most templates of freedom
of information laws that emerged during from the 1960s
to the 1980s. The first open government initiatives dated
from the mid 2000s [17-19] including the event in 2004
when the first federal government transparency portal
was launched [20,21]. The 2011 Bill in Brazil nonethe-
less brought some elements of innovation, by simultane-
ously regulating rights of information and specific
open-data provisions to implement such rights.
The Freedom of Access Law sets some minimum cri-
teria to disclosure of information and minimum stan-
dards that government websites must provide. The open
government initiative is supported by a group of institu-
tions from all branches of government, leaded by one
Executive Branch agency: the Office of the Comptroller
General (in Portuguese, the Controladoria Geral da
União, CGU). In regards of budget transparency matters,
the federal government creates a national website that
presents information from all levels of government. State
level websites (and eventually, municipal level websites,
or websites from other branches of government), gener-
ally diverge in terms of design, open data tools, and level
of detail provided. It is known however from previous
analysis that most of Brazilian portals focus on prelimi-
nary aspects of open government, such as providing in-
formation, rather than providing tools for collaborative
policy making or civil society engagement [22,23].
2. Literature Review
When Parks [24] wrote, in the 50s, “The Open Govern-
ment principle: applying the right to know under the
constitution” article, a new field of research becomes the
open government trend. Addressing the importance of
information rights and the freedom of information for the
US Government, the article discusses how war secrets
are related to open government principles. The Cold war
created another informational barrier to open government
information; Beer research on Japan leads to another
stream of knowledge about open government and free-
dom information [25], what lead to a debate on argu-
ments and theoretical frameworks to understand the uses
and limits of government records and informational
management [26-28].
In the following years similar efforts to push freedom
of information and guarantee this idea as a main right
were developed. Bertil [29] research in four Nordic
countries states found procedures to provide access to
official records; Okudaira [30] analyzes the differences
in freedom of information and the way that discretionary
secrecy in the UK and the obstacles of the government to
release information [31]. Hubbertz [32,33] research on
the Crown corporation in Canada revels some troubles of

Benchmarking Mexico & Brazil Open Government Websites: Model and Metrics 25
making public information as an openness condition; and
others have focused on freedom of information acts and
the electronic dissemination of practices within Federal
agencies [34] or transnational governmental organiza-
tions, such as the EU [35].
In the last decade several scholars have been promot-
ing the concept of open government, openness and free-
dom of information [1,36-40]. However the Barack
Obama’s administration launched the open government
initiative in the early days of his presidency [41] has
been push the debate over the Open government world-
wide, and take new steps toward a more concrete tasks to
introduce accountability, freedom of information, open
data and disclosure of classified information and the use
of web 2.0 technologies to promote it [42-44].
Following this idea, a different stream of research is
the proposal of [31,32,34-38,40] who combined a per-
spective between FOI and open government as a tool is
the idea of stewardship that states on one side the regu-
latory purpose of the government as a gatekeeper, on the
other side promotes the idea of citizens’ obligation and
share responsibility of the data along with the govern-
ment. Even this continue debate about open government
and transparency, we define open government as an in-
stitutional and technological platform that turns the gov-
ernmental data into opened data to allow its use, protec-
tion and collaboration on the part of the citizens.
According to this concept we believe that open gov-
ernment conceptual evolution from 1950s to date has
been adapted to a new technological environment, in
which technologies has take part as an important role for
promoting, organize and publish government data and
process. Most recent research is a proof of this link
among internet technology and open government efforts
[45-47].
Open Government Model for Assessing Websites
Our research model for assessing open government on-
line is a consequence of this technological and economi-
cal environment [48], but also to the new trends of glob-
alization and technology that invaded the world in recent
years [49]. The components of the model come from four
different theoretical frameworks that complement each
other: 1) The new economy; 2) The open data; 3) The
Networked state and 4) The New Institutionalism and the
sociotechnical framework.
The information and technology communication
changes have transformed the way people interact with
business and government. Tapscott & Williams [50] de-
velop a framework to explain such changes using the
idea of wikinomics, in which principles are the collabo-
ration, co-production, outsourcing, prosumers and the
internet as a platform to organize production and gener-
ates value, this concept integrates the idea of openness
and transparency. Further research has been place this
idea as a central category to explain the use of web 2.0
features and changes on e-government [46,51].
The second framework comes directly from the rela-
tionship between new technologies and information sys-
tems named as open data. Geiger & and vol Lucke con-
cept of open data refers to “storage data on the public
sector that can be accessible and part of the public inter-
est without restrictions of use and distribution” [52]. The
idea is brought forward by Tim O’Reilly initiative to
create a framework for open data based on eight princi-
ples, what we adopted with some modification in our
benchmark model [53].
Our third concept is the Networked state, conceived
from the idea that open government has a common back-
ground with the new changes and transformations of the
state due the technological emergence. [54] ideas that
internet changes trust, privacy and confidence on the
state places a different direction of a new kind of state,
named the fifth state [55]. Castells [56] agrees with Dut-
ton and defines this new kind of state “the new state
network is characterized to share the sovereignty and the
responsibility between different states and levels from
government; the flexibility in the procedures of govern-
ment and a greater diversity of times and spaces in rela-
tionship among citizens and government…” [56].
The last framework are two interrelated concepts: the
new institutionalism [57,58] and the sociotechnical the-
ory [59] in which we intent to interpret how public offi-
cials and citizens interact in the government organization.
The four frameworks interact each other to develop
components of the assessment model explained in the
next section.
3. Methodology
This section is divided in two subsections: the proposal
of the research model to assess open government portals
and the description of the sample and the instrument
linked to the model.
3.1. Research Model
The research model is based on the experience of five
years research assessing open government websites [14]
and also support on the previous literature research. The
model is based on five main components: legal obliga-
tions, open data, collaboration, co-production and institu-
tional arrangements (See Figure 1).
The legal obligations refers to the official requirements
of each government—municipal, local or federal gov-
ernments, this component comes from the normative idea
of Institutionalism Dimaggio [57] and the Orlikowsky
[59] theoretical framework.
The open data component’s main idea is to make the

Benchmarking Mexico & Brazil Open Government Websites: Model and Metrics 26
Figure 1. Open government assessment model.
Mexican websites e-government transparency portal
evaluations [14] and it was adapted for our comparative
study after two pilot waves of survey using three ran-
domly-selected websites in each country. Data in both
countries were collected in February of 2013, and vari-
ables were coded, as present when within a maximum of
two clicks away from the home page the observed activ-
ity could be located.
government data public in two ways: 1) generating trust
in the government, and 2) using information technologies
such as information systems, to make this open data of
easy access, friendly interfaces and with usability stan-
dards. We consider the O’Reilly Open Government
Working Group (2007) to analyze this component.
The leading idea of collaboration is to produce im-
provements in the open government portals. The previ-
ous component focused on measuring tools or sections
on the website, directly related to improving the open
government portals; linking different collaborations in
order to strengthen the idea of promoting citizens par-
ticipation obtaining improvements for the portals [36].
4. Findings & Discussion
This section presents the main findings of the research,
firstly presented the overall findings of the comparison
between the two countries, the next section analyses each
case separately.
The coproduction component creates a more directed
relationship citizen-government to produce, to share and
to create data for the public decision-making. The idea to
link two previous components: information value and
accountability into this component is to promote citizen
participation in the task of generating more value to pub-
lic data and at the same time to improve tools and sec-
tions for the accountability area [50].
4.1. Overall Scores
Mexico and Brazil present similar overall scores (see
Table 1). Out of the 50 variables observed, the compli-
ance percentage is of 46% in Brazil and 48% in Mexico.
Brazilians compliance percentage is better than Mexico
in terms of Open data framework (58% vs. 45%) and
Interface (70% vs. 60%). Mexican websites perform bet-
ter than Brazil in terms of Legal arrangements frame-
work (74% vs. 57%), Vertical collaboration (48% vs.
41%) and Horizontal collaboration (14% vs. 7%).
Finally the main objective of the institutional arrange-
ments component is to measure the different organiza-
tional outcomes, agency changes and transformations as
a result of open government tasks. This component is
directly linked to the legal obligations, because both
share law as a common basis to make changes in the
public administration [57].
It is significant the variability of compliance percent-
age within the same country. In Mexico in Brazil for
example we find websites with very different maximum
and minimum compliance scores in the framework of
legal arrangements (100% vs. 0%, in both countries).
Two frameworks appear with maximum scores at least
once in both countries (legal arrangements and the inter-
face frameworks) what is not true for Open data (maxi-
mum of 90% score in both countries), Vertical collabora-
tion score (Maximum of 80% in both countries) and
Horizontal collaboration (maximum of 50% score in
Mexico and 30% in Brazil).
3.2. Sample and Instrument
This research is based on a content analysis of 59 state
government transparency websites in Brazil and Mexico,
what includes one website for each federal state in both
countries (27 cases in Brazil, and 32 in Mexico). Our
assessment is based on a presence/absence analysis of 50
variables referring to open government and transparency
activities, selected out of ten key issues referring to five
dimensions each of open government assessment: 1) le-
gal arrangements, 2) open data environment, 3) verti- cal
collaboration activities, 4) horizontal collaboration ac-
tivities and 5) interface.
The comparison of the overall score of one framework
against the other, the highest score found in Brazil refers
to the interface framework (70%) followed by Open data
and Legal arrangements (58% and 57%, respectively). In
Mexico, the highest score refers to the Legal arrange-
Our instrument of analysis was previously applied to

Benchmarking Mexico & Brazil Open Government Websites: Model and Metrics 27
Table 1. Overall percentage scores, per country and frame-
work (Min = 0, Max = 100).
Framework BRA MEX
Mean Max Min Mean MaxMin
A) Legal
arrangements 57 100 0 74 10010
B) Open data 58 90 30 45 90 10
C) Vertical
Collaboration 41 80 0 48 80 20
D) Horizontal
Collaboration 7 30 0 14 50 0
E) Interface 70 100 30 60 10010
Overall score 46 76 16 48 76 14
ments framework (74%), followed by Interface (60%)
and Vertical collaboration (48%). In both countries the
lowest score falls into the Horizontal collaboration
framework (14% in Mexico and 7% in Brazil).
Accordingly to this data we can hypothesize that in
Mexico and Brazil the design of transparency websites is
pushed forward by a concern with Legal arrangements
and Interface criteria (the highest overall scores in both
countries). This is related to the basic idea of open gov-
ernment into a one-way communication with citizens. On
the other hand the inclusion of vertical and horizontal
tools for collaboration is the lowest overall score in both
countries. Taken together, we can suggest that transpar-
ency portals in both countries are better designed in
terms of passive access to information (focusing on is-
sues such as what information to display, and how to find
it) rather than focusing on designing tools for citizens to
interact with it (either vertically, such as performing
tasks to share information in other social networks, or
horizontally, such as commenting on information in the
own transparency portal).
4.2. Overall Scores by Framework of the Model
We then analyze the overall performance of the Legal
arrangement framework we observe that Mexican web-
sites perform better than Brazilian websites. Not only the
overall score of this framework is higher in Mexico than
in Brazil (74% vs. 57% of compliance score), as much as
Mexico performs better than Brazil in 6 out of 10 ob-
served variables (A01 to A05, and A10). Mexican web-
sites perform better than Brazilian websites particularly
when presenting the transparency agency’s program
(A01, 91% vs. 37%), presenting the name of public ser-
vants working for the agency (A03, 88% vs. 33%) and
presenting information about private data access and use
(A10, 69% vs. 15%). Brazilian websites perform better
(by a narrow margin) than Mexican websites when pre-
senting auditory results of contracted goods and services
(A08, 78% vs. 69%), presenting applicable open gov-
ernment and data transparency legislation (A09, 93% vs.
84%), and presenting information about programs’ ex-
ecutive status (A07, 81% vs. 78%). Brazilian websites
however generally perform better than Mexican websites
when presenting legal objectives of the agency (59% vs.
41%).
Legal arrangements—When we compare both coun-
tries in terms of type of legal arrangements presented in
the transparency portals, we notice that Brazilian web-
sites perform better in regards of presenting government
projects information than Mexico does (see variables
A07, A08 and A09), while Mexico performs better when
presenting information about the transparency agency
itself (see variables A01 to A05).
Based on the findings of the legal arrangement frame-
work we can hypothesize that Mexican websites were
carefully designed to present information required by law
in regards of agency information: agency’s organogram
and address, administrative objectives, and public ser-
vant’s names and wages. The same cannot be said about
Brazil: the average compliance score in the country is
low in relation to presenting agency’s organogram (37%),
agency’s public servant names (33%) and unit’s objec-
tives (41%). However when it comes to presenting de-
tailed information about government projects however
the opposite happens and Brazilian websites perform
better than Mexican websites do: they present slightly
more detailed information about executive status of con-
tracted goods and services and auditory results.
Open data framework—We observe that Brazilian
websites perform better than Mexican websites. The
overall compliance score of this framework is higher in
Brazil than in Mexico (58% vs. 45% of compliance
score), but each country performs better in five of the 10
observed variables. Brazil performs better in presenting
detailed information of contracted goods (B02, 100% vs.
69%), presenting information in a searchable format
(B03, 100% vs. 63%), offering downloadable informa-
tion in an editable format (B04, 63% vs. 22%), offerings
specific tools to find information of open data documents
(B05, 96% vs. 22%), offering a repository o readable
files (B09, 96% vs. 3%); Mexico however performs bet-
ter than Brazil in presenting procedures of decision-
making (B01, 38% vs. 34%), presenting comparable in-
formation between different periods of time (B05, 66%
vs. 33%), offering catalogues of open data information
(B06, 47% vs. 30%), statistical access information of the
transparency website (B08, 66% vs. 22%), and using
external indexes of open governance (B10, 53% vs. 4%).
Two rarely found tasks in both countries refer to pre-
senting procedures of decision-making (33% BRA and
38% MEX) and presenting catalogues of open data in-
formation (30% BRA and 47% Brazil).
 A sharp difference between Brazil and Mexico in

Benchmarking Mexico & Brazil Open Government Websites: Model and Metrics 28
terms of open data can be found in offering tools to
search, present and download information related to
contracted goods and services. While in Brazil almost
every website offers such tasks (100% and 96%, re-
spectively) the same is not true in Mexico (69%, 63%
and 22%, respectively).
 Another sharp difference between countries can be
found in regards of presenting information about sta-
tistical access of websites (66% of the cases in Mex-
ico offer this task, compared to 22% of the cases in
Brazil) and offering tools to compare information
across periods of time (66% of Mexican websites of-
fer this tool, compared to 33% of the cases in Brazil).
Vertical collaboration—On this framework we observe
that Mexican websites perform better than Brazilian web-
sites by a narrow margin (48% vs. 41%, respectively). It
should be noted however that in general most variables in
this framework score low for both countries. Two vari-
ables are frequently found in both countries (C02, possi-
bility to request information online, 74% BRA and 94%
MEX; C10, directing citizens to other government insti-
tutions in case of need, 93% BRA and 81% MEX);
Also on this framework, three variables are frequently
found in at least one of the countries (C03, requesting
private information online, 26% BRA and 91% MEC;
C05, sending comments and requests about the website
online, 70% BRA and 41% MEX; and C07, hosting a
specific form or email account to receive requests from
citizens, 74% BRA and 53% MEX). And five variables
are found in less than 1/3 of the cases in both countries:
C01, hosting online surveys, 11% BRA and 31% MEX;
C04 offering online evaluation website surveys, 11%
BRA and 28% MEX; C06, filing a complain against a
public servant, 19% BRA and 31% MEX; C08, finding
information about public hearings, 33% BRA and 13%
MEC; and C09, offering specific apps to use information
in mobile and other hardware, 0% BRA an13% MEX.
Summarizing, we can argue that vertical collaboration
is implemented in a very basic level in both countries.
Although it is possible for example to request informa-
tion online in more than three out of four websites in
both countries (74% BRA and 94% MEX), the only other
tasks found in similar frequency is directing citizens to
other government institutions in case of need (93% BRA
and 81% MEX). Websites offer very infrequently tools to
evaluate the transparency website (evaluation surveys
appear only in 11% of Brazilian and 28% of Mexican
websites), or to request specific information (such as
filing a complain against a public servant, what is found
in 19% of Brazilian and 31% of Mexican websites). Also,
both countries websites rarely offer online surveys (11%
BRA and 31% MEX) or calls for public hearings (33%
BRA and 13% MEX).
Horizontal collaboration—The purpose of this frame-
work was to observe that Mexican websites perform bet-
ter than Brazilian websites by a narrow margin (14% vs.
7%, respectively). It should be noted however that in
general most variables in this framework score low or are
not found.
 In none of the observed websites information could
be commented online (D01) or wiki pages editable by
citizens were in use (D03);
 In very few of the observed websites there were
online chat tools (D02) or forums for citizens to de-
liberate amongst themselves (D04).
 In Brazil, no website observed offered pages open for
citizen’s commentary, nor wikis, forums, online chat
tools, public consultations hosted online or blogs. The
most frequent tools of horizontal collaboration found
(and even so, in less than one in five observed web-
sites) are Facebook and Twitter accounts (D05 and
D06) and sharing tools of online content (D10).
 In Mexico, no variables of horizontal collaboration
were found in more than one third of the observed
cases. The most frequent tools found refer to hosting
public consultations online (28%), having Twitter and
Facebook accounts (31% and 25%, respectively) and
hosting tools for sharing webpage information online
(19%).
 Interface—On this framework we observe that Brazil-
ian websites perform better than Mexican websites by
a narrow margin (70% vs. 60%, respectively). It
should be noted that in general most variables in this
framework score high in compliance scores.
 Four variables can be found in both countries in more
than one third of the observed websites: the use of
non-technical language (E01, 93% BRA and 97%
MEX), homepage information organized by catego-
ries (E02, 100% BRA and 84% MEX) and updated up
to 2013 (E04, 96% BRA and 72% MEX), and use of
detailed information accessible with aid of external
files or websites (E08, 96% BRA and 94% MEX);
 One variable is very infrequently found in both coun-
tries: accessibility standards or tools (E10, 33% BRA
and 22% MEX);
 The use of website maps, glossary or FAQ section is
common in Brazil, but not in Mexico (81% vs. 13%
respectively). The opposite is true in relation to cate-
gorization of home page information by access num-
ber or release date (E07, 15% BRA and 47% MEX).
4.3. Case Studies: Brazil
The highest compliance score found in the Brazilian
sample belongs to Pernambuco (BRA17), 76%, followed
by São Paulo (BRA25, 68%), Ceará (BRA06, 66%),
Espírito Santo (BRA08, 64%) and Paraná (BRA16, 64%).
The lowest scores in the country refers to the states of
Mato Grosso do Sul (BRA12) and Acre (BRA01), with a

Benchmarking Mexico & Brazil Open Government Websites: Model and Metrics 29
score of 16%, followed by the states of Mato Grosso
(BRA11), 22%, Piauí (BRA18) with 30% and Amazonas
(BRA04) with 32%. Out of the 27 observed cases, 12
present compliance scores higher than 50% (See Table
2).
When we observe the top three and bottom three web-
sites in Brazil, we notice that by far the Horizontal Col-
laboration framework is the only largely missing feature
in the top three websites (PE 10%, SP 0%, CE 10%),
what is true for the bottom websites of AC and MT (0%
each) but not applicable to the MS website (four out of
ten variables of horizontal collaboration observed were
found in this website) (See Table 3). It should be noted
that the top three websites commonly present higher
scores in the reaming observed frameworks, what is cer-
tainly not true in the bottom three websites.
Table 2. Individual compliance scores, Brazil only (Min = 0,
Max = 100).
Website (BRA) Score
BRA-17.PE 76
BRA-25.SP 68
BRA-06.CE 66
BRA-08.ES 64
BRA-16.PR 64
BRA-21.RS 62
BRA-24.SC 60
BRA-07.DF 58
BRA-13.MG 58
BRA-22.RO 58
BRA-19.RJ 54
BRA-10.MA 50
BRA-03.AP 48
BRA-23.RR 46
BRA-15.PB 44
BRA-27.TO 44
BRA-09.GO 40
BRA-02.AL 38
BRA-05.BA 38
BRA-14.PA 38
BRA-26.SE 38
BRA-20.RN 32
BRA-04.AM 30
BRA-18.PI 26
BRA-11.MT 22
BRA-01.AC 16
BRA-12.MS 16
Table 3. Top three and bottom three websites per frame-
work, Brazil only (Min = 0, Max = 100).
Framework PE SP CE MT AC MSBRA
A) Legal
arrangements 10010070 30 10 30 57
B) Open data 90 80 90 40 40 10 58
C) Vertical
Collaboration 80 60 70 10 0 0 41
D) Horizontal
Collaboration 10 0 10 0 0 40 7
E) Interface 10010090 30 30 30 70
Overall 76 68 66 22 16 16 46
4.4. Case Studies: Mexico
The highest compliance score found in the Mexican
sample belongs to Nuevo León (MEX19), 76%, followed
by Queretaro (MEX22, 74%), Distrito Federal (MEX09,
66%), Guanajuato (MEX12, 64%) and Durango (MEX10,
64%). The lowest scores in the country refers to the
states of Tlaxcala (MEX29, 14%), Coahuila (MEX07,
26%), Chiapas (MEX05, 28%), Morelos (MEX17, 32%)
and Baja California Sur (MEX03, 34%). Out of the 32
observed cases, 15 present compliance scores higher than
50% (See Table 4).
When we observe the top three and bottom three web-
sites in Mexico, we notice that the three top websites
score maximum in the legal arrangements framework,
and score high in the Interface framework, while the
lowest scores are found in the horizontal collaboration
framework. The three bottom websites have no pattern
when compared cross-framework scores: Tlaxcala scores
low in all frameworks, except Vertical collaboration;
Coahuila scores high in Legal arrangements, but low in
the remaining frameworks; Chihuahua scores mid-low
scores in all frameworks (See Table 5).
5. Conclusions & Future Research
The purpose of this paper is to implement an assess-
ment model for open government portals. The compari-
son between two countries provides good evidence to
prove the usefulness of the model. One of the main ad-
vantages is to identify strengths and weaknesses of each
framework for the countries. One of the main findings of
the model is the purpose of the open government portal,
data present that Brazilian and Mexican Governments are
focused on present information neither to provide inter-
active tools for citizens and the information.
Also the very low levels of use between horizontal and
vertical collaboration support this argument and provide
some practical suggestions for governments to imple-
ment more interaction in the open government portals.
Future research paths are as follows: open government

Benchmarking Mexico & Brazil Open Government Websites: Model and Metrics 30
Table 4. Individual compliance scores, Mexico only (Min =
0, Max = 100).
Website (MEX) Score
MEX-19.Nue 76
MEX-22.Que 74
MEX-09.Dis 66
MEX-12.Gua 64
MEX-10.Dur 60
MEX-21.Pue 60
MEX-02.Baj 58
MEX-08.Col 58
MEX-24.San 58
MEX-26.Son 58
MEX-01.Agu 54
MEX-15.Jal 54
MEX-18.Nay 54
MEX-23.Qui 52
MEX-28.Tam 50
MEX-04.Cam 48
MEX-11.Est 46
MEX-25.Sin 46
MEX-31.Yuc 46
MEX-14.Hid 44
MEX-20.Oax 44
MEX-13.Gue 42
MEX-32.Zac 42
MEX-16.Mic 40
MEX-30.Ver 38
MEX-06.hi3 36
MEX-27.Tab 36
MEX-03.Baj2 34
MEX-17.Mor 32
MEX-05.Chi 28
MEX-07.Coa 26
MEX-29.Tla 14
Table 5. Top three and bottom three websites per frame-
work, Mexico only (Min = 0, Max = 100).
Framework Nue Que DisChi Coa TlaMEX
A) Legal
arrangements 100 100 10040 70 10 74
B) Open data 70 50 80 40 20 0 45
C) Vertical
Collaboration 80 70 60 30 20 40 48
D) Horizontal
Collaboration 40 50 20 10 0 10 14
E) Interface 90 100 70 20 20 10 60
Overall 76 74 66 28 26 14 48
portals standards to present information; develop a single
platform to share data and process with citizens and pro-
vide interaction. Another important path is to test the
assessment model with other countries or within gov-
ernment agencies to provide feedback and identify prob-
lems or lacks for the portal.
Finally this assessment model in the case of Brazil and
Mexico is the first step into a new way to understand the
open government idea more focused on citizen-oriented
and less on accomplishing legal requirements.
REFERENCES
[1] R. A. Chapman and M. Hunt, “Open Government in a
Theoretical and Practical Context,” Ashgate, Aldershot,
Hants, England, Burlington, 2006.
[2] J. C. Bertot, P. T. Jaeger and J. M. Grimes, “Crowd-
Sourcing Transparency: ICTs, Social Media, and Govern-
ment Transparency Initiatives,” Digital Government So-
ciety of North America, 2010.
[3] J. C. Bertot, P. T. Jaeger and J. M. Grimes, “Promoting
Transparency and Accountably through ICTs, Social Me-
dia, and Collaborative E-Government,” Transforming
Government: People, Process and Policy, 2011.
[4] T. Nam, “New Ends, New Means, but Old Attitudes:
Citizens’ Views on Open Government and Government
2.0,” 44th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS-44), Hawaii Manoa, 2011, pp. 1-10.
[5] J. C. Bertot, P. McDermott and T. Smith, “Measurement
of Open Government: Metrics and Process,” 45th Hawaii
International Conference on System Science (HICSS),
2012, pp. 2491-2499.
[6] F. Steibel and F. Betramelli, “Policy, Research and
Online Public Consultations in Brazil and Uruguay,” In:
B. Girard and A. Lara, Eds., Impact 2.0: New Mechanism
for Linking Research and Policy, Fundación Comunica,
Montevideo, 2012, pp. 87-126.
[7] I. A. Elbadawi, “The State of Open Government Data in
GCC Countries,” 12th European Conference on eGov-
ernment (ECEG 2012), Barcelona, 2012, pp. 193-200.
[8] B. Ngwenya, S. Lubbe and R. Klopper, “Institutionalisa-
tion, Framing, and Diffusion: The Logic of Openness in
eGovernment and Implementation Decisions (a Lesson
for Developing Countries),” Proceedings of ICEG 2010:
The 6th International Conference on e-Government, Cape
Town, 2010, pp. 74-81.
[9] J. C. Bertot, P. T. Jaeger and D. Hansen, “The Impact of
Polices on Government Social Media Usage: Issues,
Challenges, and Recommendations,” Government Infor-
mation Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2012, pp. 30-40.
[10] A. Hoffman, “La Transparencia y la Opacidad de los
Gobiernos en México: Un Corte de Caja,” Politica Digi-
tal, 2010.
[11] S. Lopez Ayllon, “Medir la Transparencia: Un Impera-
tivo,” Politica Digital, Vol. 26, 2005, pp. 24-30.
[12] S. Lopez Ayllon, “La Opacidad de la Transparencia,”
Politica Digital, No. 65, 2011, pp. 24-27.

Benchmarking Mexico & Brazil Open Government Websites: Model and Metrics 31
[13] R. Sandoval-Almazan, “Midiendo la Transparencia en
Internet: Ranking de las Páginas Web de los Institutos de
Transparencia en Mexico,” In: C. Herrera, G. Lizama and
L. Morales, Eds., Federalismo Y transparencia en Mexico:
Seis Estudios de Caso, 1st Edition, Vol. 1, Alianza Civi-
ca-COmunidad Europea, Ciudad de Mexico, 2009, pp.
219-247.
[14] R. Sandoval-Almazan, “Open Government in Mexico. An
Assessment Preview 2007-2010,” Conference for E-De-
mocracy and Open Government, Vol. 1, Danube Univer-
sity, Krems, 2012, pp. 255-266.
[15] G. Cejudo, S. Lopez Ayllon and A. Cazarez, “Diganó-
stico de la Transparencia en México: lecciones de la Met-
rica de Transparencia 2010,” Revista Mexicana de Ac-
ceso a la Información y Protección de Datos Personales,
2011, pp. 58-81.
[16] R. Sandoval-Almazan, “Ranking de Portales de Trans-
parencia: La medición 2010,” Política Digital, 2010, pp.
30-37.
[17] C. Ali, “e-gov.br : A Próxima Revolução Brasileira : Efi-
ciência, Qualidade e Democracia : O Governo Eletrônico
no Brasil e no Mundo,” 1st Edition, Vol. 1, Pearson Pren-
tice Hall, São Paulo , 2004.
[18] J. A. G. de Pinho, “Investigando Portais de Governo Ele-
trônico de Estados no Brasil: Muita Tecnologia, Pouca
Democracia,” Revista de Administração Pública, Vol. 42,
No. 3, 2008, pp. 471-493.
[19] R. Sampaio, “Governança Eletrônica no Brasil: Limites e
Possibilidades Introduzidos pelo Orçamento Participativo
na Internet,” Planejamento e Políticas Públicas, Vol. 33,
2009, pp. 124-143.
[20] C. Guilherme and N. Solano, “Acesso à Informação e
Controle Social das Políticas Públicas,” Agência de
Notícias dos Direitos da Infância, Vol. 1, 2009, p. 127.
[21] C. V. José, M. R. Manuella and M. Ricardo, “Dados
Governamentais Abertos e seus Impactos Sobre os Con-
ceitos e Práticas de Transparência no Brasil,” Democracia
e Interf aces Di gitais pa ra a Partic ipaçã o Pública, Vol. 9,
2010.
[22] D. Silva, “Transparência na Esfera Pública Interconectada
e Dados Governamentais Abertos,” In: S. Silveira, Ed.,
Cidadania e Redes Digitais, Comite Gestor Da internet
no Brasil, Sao Paolo, 2010, pp. 11-135.
[23] D. Rothberg and L. Maine, “Avaliação de Informações
Sobre Políticas de Saúde em Portais,” Revista Brasileira
de Ciência, Tecnologia e Sociedade, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2011,
pp. 226-238.
[24] W. Parks, “The Open Government Principle: Applying
the Right to Know under the Constitution,” The George
Washington Law Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1957, pp. 1-22.
[25] L. W. Beer, “Freedom of Information and the Evidentiary
Use of Film in Japan: Law and Sociopolitics in an East
Asian Democracy,” The American Political Science Re-
view, Vol. 65, No. 4, 1971, p. 1119.
[26] H. C. Relyea, “The Provision of Government Information:
the Federal Freedom of Information Act Experience,”
Canadian Public Administration, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1977, pp.
317-341.
[27] D. A. Drachsler, “Freedom of Information Act and the
Right of Non-Disclosure,” The Administrative Law Re-
view, Vol. 28, 1976, p. 1.
[28] R. A. Morris, B. D. Sales and J. J. Berman, “Research and
the Freedom of Information Act,” American Psychologist,
Vol. 36, No. 8, 1981, pp. 819-826.
[29] H. Bertil Wennergren, “Freedom of Information in Nor-
dic Countries: Recent Developments,” Government Pub-
lications Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1983, pp. 11-17.
[30] Y. Okudaira, “Toward Freedom of Information: The
Japanese Case,” Government Publications Review, Vol.
10, No. 1, 1983, pp. 71-79.
[31] C. Bennett, “From the Dark to the Light: The Open Gov-
ernment Debate in Britain,” Journal of Public Policy, Vol.
5, No. 2, 1985, pp. 187-213.
[32] A. Hubbertz, “Freedom of information and Canadian
Crown Corporation,” Government Information Quarterly,
Vol. 3, No. 1, 1986, pp. 63-71.
[33] A. Hubbertz, “Crown Copyright and Privatization of
Government Information in Canada, with Comparisons to
the United States Experience,” Government Publications
Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1990, pp. 159-165.
[34] H. C. Relyea, “Access to Government Information in the
Information Age,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 46,
No. 6, 1986, p. 635.
[35] P. Birkinshaw, “Freedom of Information,” Parliamentary
Affairs, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1997, pp. 166-181.
[36] A. S. Roberts, “Less Government, More Secrecy: Rein-
vention and the Weakening of Freedom of Information
Law,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 60, No. 4,
2000, pp. 308-320.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00093
[37] A. S. Roberts, “Spin Control and Freedom of Information:
Lessons for the United Kingdom from Canada,” Public
Administration, Vol. 83, No. 1, 2005, pp. 1-23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00435.x
[38] J. A. Shuler, “Citizen-Centered Government: Information
Policy Possibilities for the 108th Congress,” Journal of
Academic Librarianship, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2003, pp. 107-
110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(02)00426-3
[39] J. A. Taylor, A. M. B. Lips and J. Organ, “Freedom with
Information: Electronic Government, Information Inten-
sity and Challenges to Citizenship,” In: R. Chapman and
M. Hun, Eds., Freedom of Information: Perspectives on
Open Government in a Theoretical and Practical Context,
Ashgate, Aldershot, 2006, pp. 125-138.
[40] K. E. Uhl, “The Freedom of Information Act Post-9/11:
Balancing the Public’s Right to Know, Critical Infrastruc-
ture Protection, and Homeland Security,” American Uni-
versity Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2003, pp. 261-311.
[41] Obama, “Transparency and Open Governmen | The White
House,” 21-ene-2009.
[42] V. Gordon, “National Security Directive Declassifica-
tion, ” Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 4,
2010, pp. 322-328.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.02.007
[43] P. McDermott, “Building Open Government,” Govern-

Benchmarking Mexico & Brazil Open Government Websites: Model and Metrics 32
ment Information Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2010, pp.
401-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.002
[44] J. C. Bertot, P. T. Jaeger and J. M. Grimes, “Using ICTs
to Create a Culture of Transparency: E-Government and
Social Media as Openness and Anti-Corruption Tools for
Societies,” Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 27,
No. 3, 2010, pp. 264-271.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001
[45] S. S. Dawes, “Stewardship and Usefulness: Policy Princi-
ples for Information-Based Transparency,” Government
Information Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2010, pp. 377-383.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.001
[46] B. S. Noveck, “Wiki Government: How Technology Can
Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and
Citizens More Powerful,” Brookings Institution Press,
Washington DC, 2009.
[47] S. Picazo-Vela, I. Gutierrez-Martinez and L. F. Luna-
Reyes, “Understanding Risks, Benefits, and Strategic Al-
ternatives of Social Media Applications in the Public Sec-
tor,” Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 4,
2012, pp. 504-511.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.07.002
[48] M. McLuhan and E. McLuhan, “Laws of Media: The
New Science,” University of Toronto Press, Scholarly
Publishing Division, Toronto, 1992.
[49] T. L. Friedman, “The World Is Flat: A Brief History of
the Twenty-First Century,” 1st Edition, Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, New York, 2005.
[50] D. Tapscott and A. D. Williams, “Wikinomics: How
Mass Collaboration Changes Everything,” Portfolio, New
York, 2006.
[51] D. West, B. S. Noveck and C. Sirianni, “Innovation in
Government: How to Make the Public Sector Faster,
Smarter and More Connected,” Brookings Institution,
Washington D.C., 2009.
[52] C. Geiger and J. von Lucke, “Open Government Data:
Free Accessible Data of the Public Sector,” Proceedings
of the International Conference for E-Democracy and
Open Government, Danube University, Krems, 2011, pp.
265-278.
[53] Open Government Working Group, “8 Principles of Open
Government Data—OpenGovData.org,” 8 Principles of
Open Government Data, 2007.
[54] W. Dutton, G. A. Guerra, D. J. Zizzo and M. Peltu, “The
Cyber Trust Tension in E-Government: Balancing Iden-
tity, Privacy, Security,” Information Polity: The Interna-
tional Journal of Government & Democracy in the In-
formation Age, Vol. 10, No. 1-2, 2005, pp. 13-24.
[55] W. H. Dutton, “The Fifth Estate Emerging through the
Network of Networks,” Prometheus, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2009,
pp. 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08109020802657453
[56] M. Castells, “Comunicación y Poder,” Alianza Editorial,
Madrid, 2009.
[57] W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio, “The New Institution-
alism in Organizational Analysis,” 1st Edition, University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1991.
[58] K. Senge, “The ‘New Institutionalism’ in Organization
Theory: Bringing Society and Culture Back In,” The
American Sociologist, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2013, pp. 76-95.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12108-012-9170-5
[59] W. Orlikowski, “Using Technology and Constituting Struc-
tures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Or-
ganizations,” Organization Science, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2000,
pp. 404-428.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600