სსიპ-ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტი
Teaching Course Syllabus
Course title (Georgian/English)
Author(s) of the course
Lecturer(s) of the course
Code of the Course
Status of the course
(ECTS) and hours
Prerequisites
Goal of the teaching course
Learning Outcomes according
to the qualification chart
Course Content
გამჭვირვალობა, ანგარიშვალდებულება და მოქალაქეთა ჩართულობა
Transparency, Accountability and Public Participation
Nino Zedelashvili, Invited Lecturer
Nino Zedelashvili, Invited Lecturer
Contact Information: E-mail: zedelashvilin@gmail.com, Room 2.7
Office hours: Office hours are determined in coordination with the Academic
Affairs Department, with a schedule agreed in advance with the lecturer, the
exact schedule will be available on moodle.
1. International School of Economics at TSU (ISET)
2. Level: Bachelor’s Degree
3. Elective
5 ECTS - 125 hours
Interactive work (lecture/seminar) – 15 hours;
Student’s individual work – 110 hours, among them:
*preparation for the midterm exam - 30 hours
* preparation for the midterm exam - 30 hours
*preparation for lecture – 15 hours
*consultations – 5 hours
*Preparation for the final exam – 30 hours.
Without Prerequisites
The goal of the course is to summarise and evaluate theories of democratic
representation and accountability, and different models of the role of
information and technology in political institutions. Also, to define and
compare different information- and technology-based policy tools and types
of governance reform, and propose appropriate applications to real-world
cases. Student will critically assess different arguments about transparency,
participation, and accountability.
Knowledge and understanding:
The students can:
*evaluate current initiatives
* engage meaningfully in the fast-moving contemporary policy debates.
*critically assess the theories of transparency, accountability and public
participation, and information-based policy initiatives.
Skill: The students can compare various information and technology-based
policy tools.
Responsibility and Autonomy: The students can define mitigations for the
challenges governments encounter in practice.
One of the primary topics in current debates on public policy is whether
information can empower citizens to hold their governments accountable.
1
 სსიპ-ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტი
Teaching and learning methods
Assessment and grading
Through this course, students will learn the theory and practice of
transparency, accountability in government, and public participation in
decision-making. This course will address the following questions: How do
transparency, participation, accountability, and corruption affect each other?
Can disclosed information hold the government accountable? How do
information technologies enhance civic participation and deliberation?
This course has a global scope. It focuses on policy initiatives in developing
and developed countries. During the course, policy types including freedom
of information and open data, information-based regulation, participatory
policymaking, and civic tech will be discussed.
See Annex #1
The lectures will cover essential information, theoretical perspectives, and
important debates. Students will collaborate in seminars to reflect on and
deepen their understanding of lectures and readings, discuss topics outlined
in readings, apply theories and concepts in real-life situations, and engage in
important discussions.
Students are evaluated based on a 100-point system:
Weekly activity - 30 points
The weekly activity involves lecture involvement (10 points), midterm
presentation – (20 points).
Evaluation criteria:
1. 16-20 points. The presentation is complete.
2. 9-15 points - the presentation is complete but briefly;
3. 1-8 points - The presentation is incomplete. Only a separate
fragment of the material relevant to the question is presented.
4. 0 points - The presentation does not correspond to the question or is
not given at all.
Midterm exam - 30 points
The midterm exam is a written test format and includes 6 open questions.
Each is rated with a maximum of 5 points.
Evaluation criteria:
1. 4,1–5 points - The answer is complete, delivered accurately and perfectly,
special terminology is protected, the student completely knows the
2
სსიპ-ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტი

obligatory and additional literature, has no mistakes. Discussing is at a high

level.
2. 3,1–4 points - The answer is complete but concise, the terminology is used
correctly, there are no significant mistakes, the student completely knows the
program materials. Knows obligatory literature. The reasoning is good.
3. 2,1–3 points - the answer is incomplete, special terminology is insufficient,
the student knows the program material, but there are some errors. The
substantiation is fragmentary.
4. 1,1–2 points - The answer is incomplete. Errors were made in the
terminology, the relevant material on the issue was covered partially, the
student could not fully knows the literature. Significant errors were noted.
5. 0.1–1 points - The answer is incomplete. Special terminology is not used.
The answer is fundamentally incorrect, only certain fragments of the
question are presented.
6. 0 points - the answer does not match the question, or does not exist.

Final exam – 40 points

A student must have accumulated at least 11 points in order to take the final
exam.
The final exam is rated at 10 points. It consists of four 10-point open
questions.

Evaluation criteria:
1. 9-10 points - The answer is complete, delivered accurately and perfectly,
special terminology is protected, the student completely knows the
obligatory and additional literature, has no mistakes. Analyzing is as
fundamentally.
2. 7-8 points: The answer is complete, accurately delivered, special
terminology is preserved, there are no essential errors, the student is well
prepared and knows the obligatory literature of the course.
3. 5-6 points: The answer is incomplete, it is presented satisfactorily, the
special terminology is wrong, the student knows the program material.
4. 3-4 points: The answer is incomplete, the terminology is not preserved, the
relevant material of the question is presented particularly, the basic material
is not sufficiently. Substantial errors are presented.
5 .1-2 Points: The answer is incomplete, special terminology is either
incorrect or does not meet the requirements. The answer is essentially
incorrect, only separate fragments of the relevant questions of the material
are given.
6. 0 points: The answer does not match the task or does not exist.

The final exam is considered as passed if the student received at least 20

points on the exam.

Scores Evaluation Letter Grade

91-100 Excellent A
81-90 Very good B
71-80 Good C

3
 სსიპ-ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტი

61-70 Satisfactory D
51-60 Sufficient E
41-50 Marginal Fail FX
0- 40 Fail F
In case of FX assessment student is allowed to take an additional exam. In
case of FX assessment in educational program component the institution of
higher education is obliged to organize final exam at least in 5 days after the
announcement of the results of final exam. Given obligation is not valid for
the dissertation, graduate project/work, creative/performance work or other
scientific project/work. The points received at final assessment is not added
to the additional exam assessment received by student. Assessment received
at additional exam is final assessment and is depicted in total assessment of.
In case of receiving 0-50 points in total assessment of educational component
considering additional exam assessment student assessment is finalized as F-
0 point. In case of F-assessment student must retake the credit.
Compulsory readings  Meijer, Albert J., Deirdre Curtin, and Maarten Hillebrandt. (2012)
“Open government: connecting vision and voice.” International
Review of Administrative Sciences 78(1): 10-29.

 De Fine Licht, Jenny, Daniel Naurin, Peter Esaiasson, and Mikael

Gilljam. 2014. “When does transparency generate legitimacy?
Experimenting on a context‐bound relationship.” Governance 27(1):
111-134.

 Fox, Jonathan A. "Social accountability: what does the evidence

really say?" World Development 72 (2015): 346-361.

 Grossman, Guy, and Kristin Michelitch. 2018. “Information

dissemination, competitive pressure, and politician performance
between elections: A field experiment in Uganda.” American
Political Science Review 112(2): 280-301.

 Michener, Gregory, and Ben Worthy. 2018 “The information-

gathering matrix: A framework for conceptualizing the use of
Freedom of Information laws.” Administration & Society 50(4): 476-
500.

 Worthy, Ben. 2015. “The impact of open data in the UK: Complex,
unpredictable, and political.” Public Administration, 93(3), 788-805.

 Pyo, Sunyoung, Luigi Reggi, and Erika G. Martin. 2020. “The

Potential Role Of Open Data In Mitigating The COVID-19
Pandemic: Challenges And Opportunities.” Health Affairs Blog.
November 2, 2020.

 Parthasarathy, Ramya, Vijayendra Rao, and Nethra Palaniswamy.

2019. “Deliberative Democracy in an Unequal World: A Text-As-
Data Study of South India’s Village Assemblies.” American Political
Science Review 113(3): 623-640.
4
 სსიპ-ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტი

 Sunstein, Cass Robert, George Loewenstein, and Russell Golman.

2018. "Disclosure: Psychology Changes Everything." Annual Review
of Economics.

 Mitchell, Ronald B. 2011. “Transparency for governance: The

mechanisms and effectiveness of disclosure-based and education-
based transparency policies.” Ecological Economics 70(11): 1882-
1890.

 He, Baogang, and Mark E. Warren. 2011. “Authoritarian

deliberation: The deliberative turn in Chinese political
development.” Perspectives on Politics 9(2): 269-289.

 Batory, Agnes, and Sara Svensson. 2019. “The use and abuse of
participatory governance by populist governments.” Policy &
Politics 47(2): 227-244.

Additional readings Additional literatures are available on Moodle/learning management system

Additional information

Academic honesty Academic honesty is defined by the Code of Ethics and Conducts of
ISET/TSU https://iset.tsu.ge/images/Documents/Code-of-Ethics-and-
Conduct.pdf

Appendix
Course Outline

Topic (lecture/working group/ practical work, Laboratory work and Materials (including the page
№ etc.) numbers)

1 Introduction of basic concepts Schedler, Andreas. 1999.

“Conceptualizing
● What is transparency? accountability.” In The self-
● What is accountability? restraining state:
● Why should we care about them? Power and accountability in
new democracies, Schedler,
Andreas, Larry Diamond, and
Marc

5
 სსიპ-ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტი

F. Plattner, eds. Boulder: Lynne

Rienner Publishers.

Manin, Bernard, Adam

Przeworski, and Sustan Stokes.
1999. “Introduction” and
“Elections
and Representation” in
Przeworski, Stokes and Manin,
Democracy, Accountability,
and
Representation, p.1-54.

2 Transparency for decision making Stasavage, David. 2004. “Open-

door or closed-door?
● Can transparency lead to more reasoned or legitimate Transparency in domestic and
decisions by politicians? international bargaining.”
● What negative consequences might transparency have? International Organization
58(4): 667-703.

Hansen, Stephen, Michael

McMahon, and Andrea Prat.
2018. “Transparency and
deliberation
within the FOMC: a
computational linguistics
approach.” Quarterly Journal of
Economics
133(2): 801-870.

3 Accountability Ferraz, Claudio, and Frederico

Finan. 2008. Exposing Corrupt
● Is there a link between disclosed information and Politicians: The Effects of
accountability? Brazil’s Publicly Released
Audits on Electoral Outcomes.”
Quarterly Journal of Economics
123(2): 703-745.

Kosack, Stephen, and Archon

Fung. 2014. “Does transparency
improve governance?” Annual
Review of Political Science 17:
65-87.

4 Freedom of Information Worthy, Ben, and Robert

Hazell. 2017. “Disruptive,
● Who uses freedom of information? dynamic and democratic? Ten
● What effect do they have on politicians? years of

6
 სსიპ-ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტი

FOI in the UK.” Parliamentary

Affairs 70(1): 22-42.

Relly, Jeannine E., Md. Fazle

Rabbi, Meghna Sabharwal,
Rajdeep Pakanati, and Ethan H.
Schwalbe. 2020. “More than a
decade in the making: A study
of the implementation of
India’s Right to Information
Act.” World Development.

5 Open Data O’Reilly, Tim. 2011.

“Government as a Platform.”
● What is open data and what have been the effects of it in Innovations: Technology,
different settings? Governance,
Globalization 6(1): 13-40.

Yu, Harlan, and David G.

Robinson. 2011. “The New
Ambiguity of Open
Government.”
UCLA Law Review Discourse
59: 178.

6 Public Participation (Part 1) Fung, Archon, and Erik Olin

Wright. 2001. “Deepening
● How have participatory initiatives been applied in democracy: Innovations in
policymaking? empowered participatory
● What are the challenges of these approaches? governance.” Politics & Society
29(1): 5-41.

7 Public Participation (Part 2) Gonçalves, Sónia. “The effects

of participatory budgeting on
● How have participatory initiatives been applied in municipal expenditures and
policymaking? infant mortality in Brazil.”
● What are the challenges of these approaches? World Development 53 (2014):
94-110.

8 Midterm - Presentations
9 Midterm - Presentations
10 Deliberative democracy Curato, Nicole, John S. Dryzek,
Selen A. Ercan, Carolyn M.
● What is deliberative democracy and how have deliberative Hendriks, and Simon
initiatives been applied in politics and policymaking? Niemeyer.
2017. “Twelve key findings in
deliberative democracy
research.” Daedalus 146(3): 28-
38.

7
 სსიპ-ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტი

Warren, Mark E., and John

Gastil. (2015) “Can deliberative
minipublics address the
cognitive challenges of
democratic citizenship?” The
Journal of Politics 77(2 ): 562-
574.

11 Transparency for regulation Fung, Archon. 2013. “Infotopia:

Unleashing the democratic
● How is disclosure used as a tool of information-based power of transparency.” Politics
regulation, or to shape consumer and/or firm behaviour in & Society 41, no. 2 (2013): 183-
other ways? 212.

Weil, David, Archon Fung,

Mary Graham, and Elena
Fagotto. 2006. “The
effectiveness of
regulatory disclosure policies.”
Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management. 25(1): 155-181.

12 Governance Innovations across Democratic and Authoritarian Berliner, Daniel. 2014 “The
Regimes political origins of
transparency.” The Journal of
● What impacts might transparency or participation have in Politics 76(2),
authoritarian regimes? 479-491.

Distelhorst, Greg. 2017. “The

power of empty promises:
Quasi-democratic institutions
and
activism in China.”
Comparative Political Studies
50(4): 464-498.

13 Transparency in Global Governance (Part 1) Hale, Thomas. 2008.

“Transparency, accountability,
 What are the goals of different transparency applications in and global governance.” Global
global governance? Governance 14: 73.
 What conditions are necessary for them to achieve these
goals? Haufler, Virginia. "Disclosure as
 Is transparency a more, or less, promising tool for tackling governance: The Extractive
global policy problems? Industries Transparency
Initiative and resource
management in the developing
world." Global Environmental

8
 სსიპ-ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტი

Politics 10, no. 3 (2010): 53-73.

14 Transparency in Global Governance (Part 2) Kelley, Judith G. and Beth A.

Simmons. 2019. “Introduction:
 What are the goals of different transparency applications in The Power of Global
global governance? Performance Indicators.”
 What conditions are necessary for them to achieve these International Organization.
goals? 73(3): 491-510.
 Is transparency a more, or less, promising tool for tackling
global policy problems? Milewicz, Karolina M., and
Robert E. Goodin. 2018.
“Deliberative Capacity Building
through International
Organizations: The Case of the
Universal Periodic Review of
Human Rights.” British Journal
of Political Science 48(2): 513-
533.

15 Wrap up;
Preparation for the final exam.

16-18 Sessional period

Final Exam -

Note: The midterm exam will be held in the week of 8th, 9th
The final exam will be held in the weeks of 16th-18th
The make-up exam will be held in the week of 19th