In the networked information and knowledge-based economy and society, the notions of ‘open’ and ‘openness’ are used in a variety of contexts; open source, open access, open economy, open government, open innovation – just to name a few. This paper aims at discussing openness and developing a taxonomy that may be used to analyse the concept of openness. Are there different qualities of openness? How are these qualities interrelated? What analytical tools may be used to understand openness? In this paper four qualities of openness recurrent in literature and debate are explored: accessibility, transparency, participation and sharing. To further analyse openness new institutional theory as interpreted by Williamson (2000) is used, encompassing four different institutional levels; cultural embeddedness, institutional environment, governance structure and resource allocations. At what institutional levels is openness supported and/or constrained?Accessibility as a quality of openness seems to have a particularly strong relation to the other qualities of openness, whereas the notions of sharing and collaborative economics seem to be the most complex and contested quality of openness in the knowledge-based economy. This research contributes to academia, policy and governance, as handling of challenges with regard to openness vs. closure in different contexts, territorial, institutional and/or organizational, demand not only a better understanding of the concept, but also tools for analysis.

In the networked information and knowledge society, we see a frequent use of the notions of “open” and “openness”; open source, open region, open economy, open government, open innovation. In parallel we can also observe changes of practises relating to how we produce and exchange products, information, knowledge and culture, enabled by the knowledge society, information technology and the Internet. This is the point of depar-ture when this article examines how openness is interpreted and discussed in the three metropolitan regions of Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö in Sweden. Accessibility as a quality of openness is found to play a particu-larly important role. From an institutional perspective openness is mainly discussed in relation to governance and policy, although openness may also be related to norms and culture.

Openness and transparency, i.e. free and fair elections and the idea of enlightened citizens that can hold governments accountable, are cornerstones in modern democratic thinking. However, the aspirations of openness and transparency also inherit challenges, also in Sweden considered being one of the most open countries in the world. This is also the case in a regional context, characterized by collaborative planning, multi-level governance and network governance. In this qualitative empirical study based on interviews with political leaders from the Stockholm region, it is explored how openness and transparency is interpreted in regional political decision making. An institutional framework of four levels of social analysis (Williamson, 2000) and theories relating to democratic ideal, governance and the public sphere are used to understand and explain the mechanisms operating when dealing with openness and transparency in political decision making.

In the wake of globalization and digitalization, openness has become a buzzword, facilitated by technology, mobility, new ways of interacting and novel concepts such as open source, open innovation, open science, and open government. From a planning and policy making perspective the long-term implications of this development cannot not be neglected. However, in recent years, openness in different respects has become increasingly challenged, including in Sweden, one of the most open countries in the world. In order to explore current understandings of openness, this paper focuses on how openness is interpreted in Swedish political parties. Political manifestos from eight political parties from 2006, 2010, and 2014, along with 23 interviews are analysed using an institutional framework of  four levels of social analysis (Williamson, 2000; Lundgren & Westlund, 2016) and comparative analysis based on saliency theory (Budge & Farlie, 1983; Budge, 2015). The results show that political parties discuss openness in two senses: ‘openness to people’ and ‘openness to information, knowledge and ideas’. Openness is discussed at different institutional levels, and no political party holds ‘issue ownership’ over openness.