opendatastudy

Research on Open Data and Transparency


Leave a comment

Up, Down or No Change: What Happens When You Publish Salaries?

TS-BBC-405-Colour

In a blaze of publicity, the BBC has now published the pay of its top earners (you can see the full 16 page annexe here). Given the government is also committed to opening up corporate pay across the private sector, what actually happens when you publish salaries? Does the force of terrible headlines and an outraged public help reduce out of control pay packets? Or is the result, as the BBC Director General warned, really inflationary, driving up pay?

It is, of course, quite tricky to measure this sort of effect. This study of what happened when academic pay in Canada was made public concluded that publishing had no effect on pay levels (it also said academics weren’t paid enough. I digress). However, other evidence, such as this piece on opening up German executive pay, found a so-called ‘ratchet effect’ with disclosure increasing overall salaries by creating upward pressure from colleagues who demand to be paid better. One detailed study of CEO pay from the 1930s found openness had a generally upward effect:

 …disclosure did not achieve the intended effect of broadly lowering CEO compensation. If anything, and in spite of popular outrage against compensation practices, average CEO compensation increased…The evidence suggests an upward “ratcheting” effect whereby lower paid CEOs…experienced relative gains while well paid CEOs…were not penalized (Mas 2016, 1).

It concluded that only ‘the most salient and visible wages’ were ‘restrained’-so Gary Lineker and Chris Evans could get a wage cut but everyone else could get an increase. So the evidence actually says, at the very best, publishing has no effect on driving pay downwards and could well drive it upwards. The focus on levels of pay also obscures other important issues around performance and exactly how people are paid. Perhaps the bigger story is over the BBC gender pay gap and perhaps publication could help close a pretty scandalous discrepancy (blog on its way on this).

However, this evidence only takes us so far. Pay levels in the entertainment sector may work very differently from academia (insert entertainment related joke) or ‘normal’ CEOs. The BBC is rather a unique institution and any popular judgment could be bound up in views of the BBC itself, which the public appear to love. This could account for the fact a full quarter of those asked think the pay is OK and only 53% think it’s too high. But maybe public opinion about pay is quite nuanced. Even this poll about MPs’ salaries in 2013 found 60% of Britons think Members of Parliament get paid too much but 28% felt MPs were ‘paid about the right amount’ and a full 5% ‘think Members of Parliament are paid too little’.

The difficult of measuring anything is about what to measure it against-what’s the benchmark being used? Compared with the average UK salary of £ 28,200 then the amounts are eye-watering. However, the pay of almost anyone of note in the UK is compared with the Prime Minister, whether it’s Chris Evans, 9,000 public sector workers or 24 employees at Kent and Medway council. The problem for any comparison is that the last two Prime Ministers have, bless them, taken a 5% pay cut and a self-imposed pay freeze since 2010 and so Theresa May has to scrape along with a measly £150,402  instead of the £152, 532 she could have won. For any Prime Minister there is, remember, a free central London house in a very desirable location plus weekend ‘chillin’ pad and £64,000 pension. Luckily for Theresa May, a Prime Minister is entitled to a ‘pension equal to one half of their final salary when the leave that office, regardless of…length of service’.

So, as with many eye-catching transparency reforms, it’s not clear exactly what will happen in the weeks, months and years after publication. Certainly there is a principled reason publishing such data. But the evidence suggests that there’ll be no great BBC pay cut and it could push some pay higher. Ironically, it could be worth a few days of Twitter storm each year for a nice salary boost.

 

Advertisements


Leave a comment

Friday lunchtime lecture: Brexit and open government in the UK – 11 months of May

queen 2

Come along to my talk

Friday 14 July 2017, 1:00pm – 2:00pm

Open Data Institute, 65 Clifton Street, London, EC2A 4JE

https://theodi.org/lunchtime-lectures/friday-lunchtime-lecture-brexit-and-open-government-in-the-uk-11-months-of-may

How has Brexit influenced the UK’s transparency regime and how, in turn, will openness will shape Brexit? There are three ways of looking at Brexit and open government: 1) possible changes to old policies and new ones being pushed, 2) the new Prime Minister either championing transparency or supporting secrecy, and 3) the openness of the Brexit process itself, which has so far struggled between the executive’s secretive prerogative powers and the legislature’s rights to know.

May’s government will be seen as one that prized secrecy but conceded openness, an object (and abject) lesson in how hard it is to keep government closed in the 21st century. The May administration 2016–2017 is likely to be remembered as a secretive one, headed by a Prime Minister that wished to govern through confidentiality and closed networks. There were some high-profile openness policies, but they were inherited and slow.

In this lecture, Ben Worthy will explain how Brexit shows how badly the approach misfired. The government’s plan of no ‘running commentary’ and secrecy was undermined by the Supreme Court, the UK Parliament and the EU Commission – who all forced greater transparency and greatly limited May’s room for manoeuvre and concealment. The three institutions – creating and using ‘institution friction’ to open up government – also exposed the government’s lack of preparation and undermined the UK’s credibility and leverage even before Brexit began.

You can read the paper here

 


Leave a comment

New Paper: Brexit and Open Government in the UK: 11 Months of May

Westminster Terrorist Attack Statement

This paper examines how Brexit has influenced the UK’s transparency regime and how, in turn, will openness shape the UK’s Brexit process. There are three ways of looking at Brexit and open government: through possible changes to old policies and the pushing of new ones, through the new Prime Minister championing transparency or supporting secrecy, and the openness of the Brexit process itself, which so far has seen a struggle between the executive’s secretive prerogative powers and the legislature’s rights to know.

May’s government will also be seen as one that prized secrecy but conceded openness, an object (and abject) lesson in how hard it is to keep government closed in the 21st century. The May administration 2016-2017 is likely to be remembered as a secretive one, headed by a Prime Minister that wished to govern through confidentiality and closed networks. Though there were some high profile openness policies they were inherited and proceeded slowly, if at all.

Brexit reveals how badly the approach misfired. The government’s plan of no ‘running commentary’  and secrecy was undermined by the Supreme Court, the UK Parliament and the EU Commission, who all forced greater transparency and greatly limited May’s room for manoeuvre and concealment. The three institutions, creating and using ‘institution friction’ to open up government, also exposed the government’s lack of preparation and undermined the UK’s credibility and leverage even before Brexit began.

Read the paper here https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2988952


Leave a comment

Lifting the Cloud? Donald Trump’s Secrecy Problem (part 2)

              (Cover of Time Magazine 18 May 2017)

Not all secrets are bad. Keeping secrets is part of what makes us who we are. As Sissela Bok pointed out, we want, expect and need some level of confidentiality in all sorts of areas of our life, from job interviews to juries.

Nor is the revealing of a secret necessarily bad for politicians. Revelations are not always damaging or destructive. Some can survive or even thrive after exposes. President Mitterrand shrugged of a series of damaging revelations from his past while Bill Clinton’s impeachment led to greater popularity. The danger for a politicians is when secrecy and exposure either reinforce commonly held (negative) perceptions about you (let’s call it the Cameron or Clinton effect) or makes you do stupid things (let’s call it the Nixon effect).

The Clinton/Cameron effect

In terms of the Clinton/Cameron effect, exposure hurts worst when it confirms what the public already knew rather than reveals something shocking. Bill Clinton was seen as a liar and a womaniser and the Lewinsky affair in 1996 told America probably what it knew (or should have known) already. Similarly Hilary’s email ‘scandal’ reinforced what many felt, namely that the Clinton’s were dishonest. David Cameron’s 2016 tangle over his tax affairs again reinforced the view that he was a super-rich elitist out of touch with the country-a revelation, according to Tim Shipman, that helped swing the Brexit referendum towards Leave.

For Donald Trump the latest wave of revelations about Russia and his tangled attempt to get out of it confirms a great deal that we already know. For example, what does his leaking of classified information tells us? Trump is utterly lacking in caution and possesses a truly astonishing talent for self-defeating actions. There’s an interesting side debate over how a President can simply declassify information at will but a more worrying discussion over how, in doing so, Trump may have now breached his oath of office. Taken together, his actions on the Russia scandal tell us something we know already: that Trump appears, by an objective measure, unfit to be President. And those close to him such as Jared Kuschner, are under deep suspicion. Even the T word now being bandied about.

The Nixon effect

The second effect is that the need to conceal leads to a series of mistakes that deepen the crisis. Think of David Cameron’s strange present tense denials or Clinton’s lying under oath. Even by the standards of an impulsive, inexperienced leader Trump’s response has been extraordinarily self-defeating. His every action, every tweet or comment sinks him deeper. As Nixon’s former Counsel pointed out, Trump’s actions are not those of someone innocent. Trump’s actions have probably taken him far into impeachment territory.

And now?

The question is what happens next. From one point of view the new special counsel could give Trump a respite. Perhaps a formal investigation will slow or stem the leaks that flow continually from, well, everywhere while? Could it be that the formal investigation gives everyone a break from Trump’s uncontrollably impulsive actions? For all the furore it’s unclear what power the counsel will have. More importantly for Trump the findings are secret.

In fact, though the Counsel’s investigation may be secret, its very secrecy makes it even more attractive and interesting. Any findings from the Counsel will not be leak proof and this administration has proved by far the leakiest in history. It is very unlikely any potential leaker or journalist could resist trying to get it. Nor will what the counsel discovers stay safe from Congress as their report can also be subpoenaed.

Gradually small pieces of a complex jigsaw are being gathered together. None of the small parts of the puzzle are wholly incriminating. It’s not even clear what the big secret is or if it even exists. But each is incriminating of something odd or not right. Elsewhere I wrote that Trump’s bizarre cover-up tactics meant there’d be so much smoke that the existence of any fire would become immaterial. Post-Comey it looks as though Trump is purposely starting bigger fires amid an already burning White House.

Now the talk of written evidence or captured conversations means there could be a detailed paper trail, as seen with Comey’s statement (some context here). Will Trump, a president created by virtual celebrity, fake news and ephemeral information, find his fate is sealed by formal documents and record trails? If the evidence doesn’t get him, the allegations and his impulsive responses probably will: Trump the self-incriminating president may well be Clintoned and Nixoned simultaneously.

(See part one here)


Leave a comment

Freedom of Information in the UK: Past, Present and Future

With government getting more secretive and Brexit looming, where do we stand with FOI?

Listen in to this talk by myself and the BBC’s Martin Rosenbaum at Newspeak House to find out where FOI came from and where it might go next.

FOI-Why Bother? (19 April 2017)

We ask why do governments pass FOI laws when they have no votes in them? What happens once they are passed? And how will the 2017 General Election and Brexit shape the future of openness?

You can see the slides hereFOI Newspeak and chapter one of my book here.


Leave a comment

Freedom of Information and openness- why bother? The past, present and future of transparency in the UK

 19th April 6.30pm Newspeak House, Bethnal Green

This event looks at why politicians push openness, how they try and back out of it and what happens once the policies are in place. It will look across FOI and Open Data in the UK and offer some thoughts on what may happen to the transparency agenda with Brexit.

The discussion coincides with the publication of Ben’s new book on this topic, ‘The Politics of Freedom of Information: How and Why Governments Pass Laws That Threaten Their Power’. The first chapter is available online here.

To register follow the link here https://attending.io/events/freedom-of-information-and-openness-why-bother-the-past-present-and-future-of-transparency-in-the-uk