Scholar discusses how Mexico’s transparency reforms may provide a path forward to improving access to public information in the United States.
Although the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) grants a right to request public records in the United States, the system is often criticized as a “bureaucratic headache” of backlogs and compliance issues. Judicial review often falls short of deterring or remedying FOIA violations. Legislative reforms have also done little to improve the FOIA system.
With limited progress domestically, scholars have looked abroad for alternatives.
In a recent article, Margaret B. Kwoka, a leading FOIA scholar and a law professor at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, analyzes Mexico’s information transparency system.
Mexico’s information commission—known as INAI for its initials in Spanish—is considered a gold standard, ranking second in the world by the Centre for Law and Democracy. According to Kwoka, the practices and ethos behind INAI provide a counterweight during this time of agency dismantling in the United States by “documenting the unique benefits that independent administrative bodies bring” to Mexico.
Created in 2014 in response to decades of corruption in Mexico, INAI is a constitutionally autonomous body responsible for protecting the right to access public information from the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, as well as other entities, such as political parties, government contractors, and public trusts.
INAI has four key roles: facilitating information requests, adjudicating disputes, monitoring compliance, and providing education.
First, INAI facilitates requests for public information through its portal, the National Transparency Platform. According to Kwoka, the portal is like “a Swiss army knife of transparency” that adapts to its users’ different needs. Members of the public can file an information request or appeal a denial at the click of a button. Regulated entities can respond to requests and upload documents. All users may also access the portal’s online library of over 8.6 billion public records across 8,240 regulated entities.
Second, Kwoka describes INAI’s seven-person commission as an “administrative adjudication juggernaut.” Most of its workload is appeals from denied requests, although the commission also has the discretion to take on cases for initial review. The commission handles a high volume of cases, with each commissioner receiving approximately 70 new actions to review each week. Its decisions are binding, precedential, and final, with a narrow exception of appeals brought by the solicitor general for cases implicating national security.
Third, Kwoka recounts INAI’s “multipronged strategy” to monitor compliance. In addition to following public tips of non-compliance, INAI audits regulated entities and compiles detailed compliance reports. When regulated entities do not comply, INAI may turn to its enforcement mechanisms, such as official warnings, fines, and direct sanctions.
Finally, INAI conducts extensive public outreach and education. From her experience of asking everyday people about INAI, Kwoka concluded that “people knew INAI as an institution and knew of the right to information.” INAI staff spread awareness through print ads, information booths, YouTube videos, and school curriculum programs. For regulated entities, INAI provided more than 250 educational courses reaching about 300,000 public officials last year.
This four-prong approach to information transparency, according to Kwoka, has been “broadly successful.”
Studies show the INAI’s portal provides 73.1 percent of public requestors with what they needed. Of the users who received information, 94.1 percent found the information useful, and 84.4 percent were satisfied with the response they received.
Journalists also regularly rely on public information obtained from INAI when investigating misuse of public funds and other allegations of corruption. According to Kwoka, a reporter who has used INAI since 2015 shared that the system has gotten more user-friendly and efficient over time.
Beyond the high satisfaction rate for the public and journalists, Kwoka also points to a recent report by INAI noting that regulated entities’ compliance rate is over 90 percent.
Kwoka characterizes INAI as “a defender of democracy.” Despite recent presidential threats to defund or abolish the agency, INAI has remained powerful. Kwoka attributes INAI’s ability to stand its ground to its defining features, such as its operational autonomy, finality of decisions, and enforcement powers.
After noting these benefits, Kwoka identifies three key challenges for INAI.
Kwoka first discusses concerns about public engagement with the system. Although INAI designs its systems with everyday people in mind, studies show that sophisticated users submit a greater portion of requests and receive more satisfactory responses. Kwoka points out that INAI has already dedicated extensive resources and programming to bridge this participation gap.
Kwoka then cites concerns with INAI’s high volume of cases and short turnaround times. Based on her conversations with INAI staffers, Kwoka notes that many officials only keep up with the high workload by working long hours.
Lastly, Kwoka describes how one of the main goals of INAI is to harness transparency to combat corruption, but challenges around public perception remain. According to one commissioner, although considerable progress had been made, Mexicans continue to perceive themselves as a corrupt society. Kwoka notes that “corruption is a complex, seemingly intractable problem that no one tool is likely to solve.”
By analyzing INAI, Kwoka does not aim to compare it to the FOIA system or argue for its adoption in the United States. Instead, she hopes that this case study of Mexico’s independent information commission will serve as the basis for future scholarship and policy conversations about FOIA reforms.
