IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cfr/cefirw/w0192.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Direct Democracy and Resource Allocation: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Beath

    (Office of the Chief Economist for East Asia and the Pacific, World Bank)

  • Fotini Christia

    (Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

  • Ruben Enikolopov

    (Institute for Advanced Study and New Economic School)

Abstract

Direct democracy is designed to better align policy outcomes with citizen preferences. Using a randomized field experiment in 250 villages across Afghanistan, we compare outcomes of the selection of village-level development projects through secret-ballot referenda and through consultation meetings. We find that elites exert more influence over resource allocation decisions in consultation meetings as compared with referenda. Referenda also improve public satisfaction. The results indicate that the use of direct democracy in public resource allocation mitigates elite capture and results in more legitimate outcomes than those produced by less representative consultative processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Beath & Fotini Christia & Ruben Enikolopov, 2013. "Direct Democracy and Resource Allocation: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan," Working Papers w0192, Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR).
    • Handle: RePEc:cfr:cefirw:w0192
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cefir.ru/papers/WP192.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Beath & Fotini Christia & Ruben Enikolopov, 2013. "Randomized Impact Evaluation of Afghanistan's National Solidarity Programme," World Bank Publications - Reports 16637, The World Bank Group.
    2. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2005. "Beyond outcomes: measuring procedural utility," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 57(1), pages 90-111, January.
    3. Gary King & Emmanuela Gakidou & Nirmala Ravishankar & Ryan T. Moore & Jason Lakin & Manett Vargas & Martha María Téllez-Rojo & Juan Eugenio Hernández Ávila & Mauricio Hernández Ávila & Héctor Hernánde, 2007. "A “politically robust” experimental design for public policy evaluation, with application to the Mexican Universal Health Insurance program," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 479-506.
    4. Labonne, Julien & Chase, Robert S., 2009. "Who is at the Wheel When Communities Drive Development? Evidence from the Philippines," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 219-231, January.
    5. Beath,Andrew & Christia,Fotini & Enikolopov,Ruben & Beath,Andrew & Christia,Fotini & Enikolopov,Ruben, 2012. "Winning hearts and minds through development ? evidence from a field experiment in Afghanistan," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6129, The World Bank.
    6. Björn Tyrefors Hinnerich & Per Pettersson‐Lidbom, 2014. "Democracy, Redistribution, and Political Participation: Evidence From Sweden 1919–1938," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 961-993, May.
    7. Peltzman, Sam, 1984. "Constituent Interest and Congressional Voting," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(1), pages 181-210, April.
    8. Patricia Funk & Christina Gathmann, 2011. "Does Direct Democracy Reduce the Size of Government? New Evidence from Historical Data, 1890–2000," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(557), pages 1252-1280, December.
    9. Olken, Benjamin A., 2010. "Direct Democracy and Local Public Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(2), pages 243-267, May.
    10. Raghabendra Chattopadhyay & Esther Duflo, 2004. "Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(5), pages 1409-1443, September.
    11. Eric Maskin & Jean Tirole, 2004. "The Politician and the Judge: Accountability in Government," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 1034-1054, September.
    12. Pranab Bardhan & Dilip Mookherjee, 2006. "Decentralisation and Accountability in Infrastructure Delivery in Developing Countries," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(508), pages 101-127, January.
    13. Andrew Beath & Fotini Christia & Georgy Egorov & Ruben Enikolopov, 2016. "Electoral Rules and Political Selection: Theory and Evidence from a Field Experiment in Afghanistan," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 83(3), pages 932-968.
    14. Kalt, Joseph P & Zupan, Mark A, 1984. "Capture and Ideology in the Economic Theory of Politics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 279-300, June.
    15. Miriam Bruhn & David McKenzie, 2009. "In Pursuit of Balance: Randomization in Practice in Development Field Experiments," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(4), pages 200-232, October.
    16. Beath, Andrew & Christia, Fotini & Enikolopov, Ruben, 2013. "Empowering Women through Development Aid: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Afghanistan," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(3), pages 540-557, August.
    17. Kau, James B & Rubin, Paul H, 1979. "Self-Interest, Ideology, and Logrolling in Congressional Voting," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 365-384, October.
    18. Vijayendra Rao & Ana Maria Ibanez, 2005. "The Social Impact of Social Funds in Jamaica: A 'Participatory Econometric' Analysis of Targeting, Collective Action, and Participation in Community-Driven Development," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(5), pages 788-838.
    19. Ban, Radu & Jha, Saumitra & Rao, Vijayendra, 2012. "Who has voice in a deliberative democracy? Evidence from transcripts of village parliaments in south India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 428-438.
    20. Andrew Beath & Fotini Christia & Ruben Enikolopov, 2011. "Winning Hearts and Minds through Development Aid: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Afghanistan," Working Papers w0166, New Economic School (NES).
    21. Pranab Bardhan, 2002. "Decentralization of Governance and Development," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 185-205, Fall.
    22. Thomas Romer & Howard Rosenthal, 1979. "Bureaucrats Versus Voters: On the Political Economy of Resource Allocation by Direct Democracy," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 93(4), pages 563-587.
    23. Conley, T. G., 1999. "GMM estimation with cross sectional dependence," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 1-45, September.
    24. Macartan Humphreys & William Masters & Martin Sandbu, 2006. "The role of leadership in democratic deliberations: Results from a field experiment in sao tome and principe," Natural Field Experiments 00303, The Field Experiments Website.
    25. Matsusaka, John G., 2004. "For the Many or the Few," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226510811, December.
    26. Owen, Daniel & Van Domelen, Julie, 1998. "Getting an earful : a review of beneficiary assessments of social funds," Social Protection Discussion Papers and Notes 20112, The World Bank.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Funk, Patricia & Litschig, Stephan, 2020. "Policy choices in assembly versus representative democracy: Evidence from Swiss communes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    2. Geschwind, Stephan & Roesel, Felix, 2022. "Taxation under direct democracy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 536-554.
    3. Beath, A. & BenYishay, A. & d’Adda, G. & Grosjean, P. & Weber, R.A., 2018. "Can vouchers reduce elite capture of local development projects? Experimental evidence from the Solomon Islands," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 117-131.
    4. Beath, Andrew & Christia, Fotini & Enikolopov, Ruben, 2013. "Do elected councils improve governance ? experimental evidence on local institutions in Afghanistan," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6510, The World Bank.
    5. John G. Matsusaka, 2005. "Direct Democracy Works," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 185-206, Spring.
    6. Olken, Benjamin A., 2010. "Direct Democracy and Local Public Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(2), pages 243-267, May.
    7. Maarten Voors & Ty Turley & Erwin Bulte & Andreas Kontoleon & John A. List, 2018. "Chief for a Day: Elite Capture and Management Performance in a Field Experiment in Sierra Leone," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(12), pages 5855-5876, December.
    8. Ivar Kolstad & Arne Wiig & Vincent Somville, 2014. "Devolutionary delusions? The effect of decentralization on corruption," CMI Working Papers 10, CMI (Chr. Michelsen Institute), Bergen, Norway.
    9. Andrew Beath & Fotini Christia & Ruben Enikolopov, 2013. "The National Solidarity Programme: Assessing the Effects of Community-Driven Development in Afghanistan," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2013-112, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    10. Galletta, Sergio, 2021. "Form of government and voters’ preferences for public spending," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 548-561.
    11. Funk, Patricia & Gathmann, Christina, 2013. "Voter preferences, direct democracy and government spending," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 300-319.
    12. Travers Barclay Child & Elena Nikolova, 2017. "War and Social Attitudes: Revisiting Consensus Views," HiCN Working Papers 258, Households in Conflict Network.
    13. Katherine Casey & Rachel Glennerster & Edward Miguel, 2012. "Reshaping Institutions: Evidence on Aid Impacts Using a Preanalysis Plan," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(4), pages 1755-1812.
    14. Zareh Asatryan, 2016. "The indirect effects of direct democracy: local government size and non-budgetary voter initiatives in Germany," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 23(3), pages 580-601, June.
    15. Sheely, Ryan, 2015. "Mobilization, Participatory Planning Institutions, and Elite Capture: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Rural Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 251-266.
    16. Labonne, Julien & Chase, Robert S., 2009. "Who is at the Wheel When Communities Drive Development? Evidence from the Philippines," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 219-231, January.
    17. Avdeenko, Alexandra & Gilligan, Michael J., 2015. "International Interventions to Build Social Capital: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Sudan," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 109(3), pages 427-449, August.
    18. Kahsay, Goytom Abraha & Medhin, Haileselassie, 2020. "Leader turnover and forest management outcomes: Micro-level evidence from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    19. Rausser, Gordon C. & de Gorter, Harry, 1988. "Endogenizing Policy In Models Of Agricultural Markets," 1988 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Knoxville, Tennessee 270460, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. John Lott, 1987. "Political cheating," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 169-186, January.

    More about this item

    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:cfr:cefirw:w0192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Julia Babich (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cefirru.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.