Symbols of Integrity: A Semiotic Study of "Transparency, Accountability, Justice, and Fairness" in Government Discourse

Authors

  • Dennis B. Anduyan {"en_US":"Provincial Governor’s Office\/Public Employment Services Office Provincial Government of Davao de Oro 8108, Philippines"}

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.07.08.24

Keywords:

Accountability, Education, Fairness, Justice, Philippines, Qualitative, Semiotics, Transparency

Abstract

Governments say a great deal about themselves before a single policy is implemented — through seals, portals, posted budgets, and program names that promise transparency, accountability, justice, and fairness. This qualitative study asked what those promises are actually built from. Using semiotic analysis, it examined the signs Davao de Oro's provincial government uses on its official online portal to convey the four values, then asked what those signs imply about governance legitimacy once matched against the wider empirical record. Transparency surfaced most often in the business and investment climate, trade and commerce, public participation, information and communication technology, climate adaptation, fiscal budget disclosure, the policy and regulatory framework, and disaster risk communication. Accountability was carried mainly by education and skills reporting, fiscal and revenue management, audit and infrastructure disclosure, watershed and forest stewardship, solid waste control, and inter-agency collaboration. Justice appeared through peace-and-order messaging, rural electrification, livelihood generation, skills certification, and land-use compliance. Fairness was expressed through social welfare services, disaster risk reduction, agriculture and fisheries support, health access, housing, and water and sanitation programming. Reading these symbols against the broader literature produced two organizing dimensions: Structural Integrity, concerning how governance is worded and represented, and Performative Legitimacy, concerning whether the symbol is actually enacted. The two do not always move together, and where they diverge, the study argues, is where public trust is most at risk.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Blair, G., Weinstein, J. M., Christia, F., Arias, E., Badran, E., Blair, R. A., ... Wilke, A. M. (2021). Community policing does not build citizen trust in police or reduce crime in the Global South. Science, 374(6571), eabd3446. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd3446

Culler, J. (1976). Saussure. Fontana Modern Masters / Harvester Press.

Devereux, S., Masset, E., Sabates-Wheeler, R., Samson, M., Rivas, A.-M., & te Lintelo, D. (2015). Evaluating the targeting effec-tiveness of social transfers: A literature review (IDS Working Paper 460). Insti-tute of Development Studies.

Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and com-munity partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Westview Press.

Generalao, et al. (2025). Examining the effects of technical vocational education and training on employment outcomes. Sec-ond Congressional Commission on Educa-tion (EDCOM II).

Globerman, S., & Shapiro, D. (2002). Global for-eign direct investment flows: The role of governance infrastructure. World Devel-opment, 30(11), 1899–1919. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00110-9

Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Meijer, A. (2014). Ef-fects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organi-zation: Evidence from an online experi-ment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus048

Jones, N., & Williams, M. F. (2017). The social justice impact of plain language: A critical approach to plain-language analysis. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communi-cation, 61(4), 350–374.

Jordan, L., Gulati, G., Dunne, C., Kelly, B., & Don-nelly, M. (2025). “Hidden” voices: Mar-ginalised community perspectives on po-licing and community safety; an interna-tional scoping systematic review. Euro-pean Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.804

Mesa, D. (2023). Digital divide, e-government and trust in public service: The key role of education. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, 1140416. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1140416

Oraiz, K. R., & Oraiz, E. J. (2025). Disability in-clusive disaster risk reduction and man-agement: Assessing vulnerabilities and lo-cal responses in Maasin City, Philippines. ASEAN Social Work Journal, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.58671/aswj.v13i1.117

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

Talandron, M. M. P., et al. (2016). Investigating the digital divide in a rural community in the Philippines. CMU Journal of Science, 20(1), 35–45.

Downloads

Published

24-08-2026

How to Cite

Anduyan, D. B. (2026). Symbols of Integrity: A Semiotic Study of "Transparency, Accountability, Justice, and Fairness" in Government Discourse . International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 7(8), 3595–3606. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.07.08.24