IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/ifprid/754.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Decentralization, local government elections and voter turnout in Pakistan:

Author

Listed:
  • Akramov, Kamiljon T.
  • Qureshi, Sarfraz
  • Birner, Regina
  • Khan, Bilal Hasan

Abstract

"Decentralization has the potential to improve the accountability of government and lead to a more efficient provision of public services. However, accountability requires broad groups of people to participate in local government. Thus, voter turnout at local government elections is an important component of government accountability. This study used survey data on the 2005 local government elections in Pakistan to analyze the impact of electoral mechanisms, the credibility of elections, and voters' socioeconomic characteristics on voter turnout. The rational-choice perspective is applied to develop the specifications of the empirical model. The empirical analysis is based on a series of standard and multilevel random-intercept logistic models. Our important findings reveal that (1) voter turnout is strongly associated with the personal and social gratifications people derive from voting; (2) the preference-matching ability of candidates for local government positions is marginal; and (3) the introduction of direct elections of the district nazims—a key position in local government—might improve electoral participation and thus create a precondition for better local government accountability. The findings also suggest that less educated people, farmers, and rural people are more likely to vote." Authors' Abstract

Suggested Citation

  • Akramov, Kamiljon T. & Qureshi, Sarfraz & Birner, Regina & Khan, Bilal Hasan, 2008. "Decentralization, local government elections and voter turnout in Pakistan:," IFPRI discussion papers 754, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    • Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:754
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00754.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hindriks, Jean & Lockwood, Ben, 2009. "Decentralization and electoral accountability: Incentives, separation and voter welfare," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 385-397, September.
    2. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 135-135.
    3. Jennings, M. Kent, 1997. "Political Participation in the Chinese Countryside," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(2), pages 361-372, June.
    4. Riker, William H. & Ordeshook, Peter C., 1968. "A Theory of the Calculus of Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 25-42, March.
    5. Keefer, Philip & Khemani, Stuti, 2003. "Democracy, public expenditures, and the poor," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3164, The World Bank.
    6. Riker, William H. & Ordeshook, Peter C., 1968. "A Theory of the Calculus of Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 25-42, March.
    7. Khemani, Stuti, 2004. "Political cycles in a developing economy: effect of elections in the Indian States," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 125-154, February.
    8. Pranab Bardhan & Dilip Mookherjee (ed.), 2006. "Decentralization and Local Governance in Developing Countries: A Comparative Perspective," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262524546, September.
    9. Timothy J. Feddersen, 2004. "Rational Choice Theory and the Paradox of Not Voting," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(1), pages 99-112, Winter.
    10. Keefer, Philip, 2004. "What does political economy tell us about economic development - and vice versa?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3250, The World Bank.
    11. Besley, Timothy & Coate, Stephen, 2003. "Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: a political economy approach," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(12), pages 2611-2637, December.
    12. Sophia Rabe-Hesketh & Anders Skrondal, 2012. "Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, 3rd Edition," Stata Press books, StataCorp LP, edition 3, number mimus2, April.
    13. Powell, John Duncan, 1970. "Peasant Society and Clientelist Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(2), pages 411-425, June.
    14. Seabright, Paul, 1996. "Accountability and decentralisation in government: An incomplete contracts model," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 61-89, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Clémence VERGNE, 2009. "Turnout in Developing Countries: The Effect of Mass Media on National Voter Participation," Working Papers 200929, CERDI.
    2. Regina Birner & Sarfraz Khan Qureshi & Kamiljon Akramov & Bilal Hassan Khan, 2006. "Voice and Votes—Does Political Decentralisation Work for the Poor and for Women? Empirical Evidence from the 2005 Local Government Elections in Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 45(4), pages 1345-1360.
    3. Adalbert Abraham Ghislain Melingui Bate, 2020. "The effect of education on voter's turnout in african presidential elections," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(2), pages 1607-1622.
    4. Bob Searle, 2011. "Decentralization in the Post-Conflict African Environment: Sierra Leone and Southern Sudan," Chapters, in: Jorge Martinez-Vazquez & François Vaillancourt (ed.),Decentralization in Developing Countries, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Usman Mustafa, 2011. "Fiscal Federalism in Pakistan: The 7th National Finance Commission Awardand Its Implications," PIDE-Working Papers 2011:73, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Decentralization; local government elections; political participation; voter turnout; Public service provision; Governance;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:754. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.