Strategic Transparency in the Digital Age: An Empirical Analysis of Bureaucratic Responsiveness to Citizen-Initiated Data Requests in Taiwan

Digital transformation has reshaped the political connection between the state and its citizens. While open government data is often celebrated as a tool for transparency, the discretionary dynamics governing how administrative officials respond to citizen-initiated data requests remain underexamined. This study provides an empirical test of government responsiveness by analyzing the gap between expressed citizen demand and actual government supply. By deconstructing this interaction, the research offers a nuanced, evidence-based portrait of political leadership and administrative reality in a high-tech democracy. Using a dataset of 1,363 request records from Taiwan’s national open data portal (2020–2025), this research employs logistic regression to evaluate factors influencing disclosure outcomes across four dimensions: request-level attributes, institutional hierarchy, societal engagement, and political dynamics. Findings reveal a technocratic-bureaucratic leadership logic that prioritizes risk management over democratic responsiveness. High privacy sensitivity and contentious policy domains significantly hinder data release, reflecting a "safety-first" survival strategy among administrative elites. Institutionally, central agencies demonstrate superior responsiveness compared to local governments, underscored by standardized mandates that suggest a more centralized, hierarchical control over digital transparency. In addition, this study also highlights the intersection of societal bottom-up demand. The findings reveal that persistent civic engagement acts as a catalyst for data acquisition. Notably, sustained citizen interest significantly improves the probability of disclosure. Furthermore, political factors introduce significant strategic volatility: national election years trigger "opportunistic signaling" to boost data disclosure, yet intensified political competition unexpectedly suppresses release by amplifying bureaucratic risk aversion. These results suggest that in the digital age, political leadership performance is not merely about expertise but about navigating the tension between institutional control and public demands for transparency. By analyzing how digital tools facilitate or obstruct the flow of information, this study offers critical insights into the shifting nature of democratic accountability and leadership legitimacy in a polarized digital landscape.