Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:33:30.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

27 - Experimental Research on Democracy and Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Ana L. De La O
Affiliation:
Yale University
Leonard Wantchekon
Affiliation:
New York University
James N. Druckman
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Donald P. Greene
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
James H. Kuklinski
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Arthur Lupia
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Get access

Summary

Expectations about the role of democracy in development have changed considerably in recent years. In principle, the exercise of political rights sets democracies apart from other political regimes in that voters can pressure their representatives to respond to their needs. It has been argued that such pressure “helps voters constrain the confiscatory temptations of rulers and thereby secure property rights; increases political accountability, thus reduces corruption and waste; and improves the provision of public goods essential to development” (Boix and Stokes 2003, 538). Thus, the argument follows, democracy is development enhancing. Yet, deprivations such as malnutrition, illiteracy, and inequalities in ethnic and gender relationships have proven to be resilient, even within the nearly two thirds of the world's countries ranked as electoral democracies. The persistence of deprivations is a reminder that there is still a great deal to be learned about the relationship between democracy and development.

Not surprisingly, scholars have explored numerous ways in which democracy can be related to development, ranging from macropolitical examinations (e.g., are democracies better at producing development than are authoritarian regimes?) to microexplanations (e.g., under what circumstances can voters limit bureaucrats' rent-seeking behavior?). However, the bulk of empirical evidence in this respect is inconclusive (Przeworski and Limongi 1997; Boix and Stokes 2003; Keefer 2007).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annan, Jeannie, Blattman, Christopher, Green, Eric, and Jamison, Julian. 2010. “Uganda: Enterprises for Ultra-Poor Women after War.” Unpublished manuscript, Yale University. Retrieved from http://chrisblattman.com/projects/wings/ (November 15, 2010).
Banerjee, Abhijit, Banerji, Rukmini, Duflo, Esther, Glennerster, Rachel, and Khemani, Stuti. 2010. “Pitfalls of Participatory Programs: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Education in India.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2: 1–30.Google Scholar
Bertrand, Marianne, Djankov, Simeon, Hanna, Rema, and Mullainathan, Sendhil. 2007. “Obtaining a Driver's License in India: An Experimental Approach to Studying Corruption.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 122: 1639–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Burgess, Robin. 2002. “The Political Economy of Government Responsiveness: Theory and Evidence from India.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 1415–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorkman, Martina, and Svensson, Jakob. 2007. “Power to the People: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment of a Community-Based Monitoring Project in Uganda.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4268.
Blattman, Christopher, Fiala, Nathan, and Martinez, S.. 2008. “Post-Conflict Youth Livelihoods: An Experimental Impact Evaluation of the Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF).” Monograph. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Boix, Carles, and Stokes, Susan. 2003. “Endogenous Democratization.” World Politics 55: 517–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, Colin F. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Chattopadhyay, Raghabendra, and Duflo, Esther. 2004. “Women as Policymakers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India.” Econometrica 72: 1409–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, Paul, and Vicente, Pedro C.. 2008. “Votes and Violence: Experimental Evidence from a Nigerian Election.” Households in Conflict Network (HiCN) Working Paper No. 50.
O, Ana L. 2008. “Do Conditional Cash Transfers Affect Electoral Behavior? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Mexico.” Unpublished manuscript, Yale University.
O, Ana L., Chong, Alberto, Karlan, Dean, and Wantchekon, Leonard. 2010. “Information Dissemination and Local Governments' Electoral Returns, Evidence from a Field Experiment in Mexico.” Paper presented at the conference on Redistribution, Public Goods and Political Market Failures, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Deaton, Angus. 2009. “Instruments of Development: Randomization in the Tropics, and the Search for the Elusive Keys to Economic Development.” Unpublished manuscript, Princeton University.
Duflo, Esther, and Topalova, Petia. 2004. “Unappreciated Service: Performance, Perceptions, and Women Leaders in India.” Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Fearon, James D., Humphreys, Macarthan, and Weinstein, Jeremy. 2009. “Can Development Aid Contribute to Social Cohesion after Civil War? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Post-Conflict Liberia.” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 99: 287–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraz, Cláudio, and Finan, Frederico. 2008. “Exposing Corrupt Politicians: The Effect of Brazil's Publicly Released Audits on Electoral Outcomes.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 123: 703–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Jennifer, Banerjee, Abhijit, Green, Donald, and Pande, Rohini. 2010. “Political Mobilization in Rural India: Three Randomized Field Experiments.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
Habyarimana, James, Humphreys, Macarthan, Posner, Daniel N., and Weinstein, Jeremy. 2007. “Why Does Ethnic Diversity Undermine Public Goods Provision?” American Political Science Review 101: 709–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, Macartan, Masters, William A., and Sandbu, Martin E.. 2006. “The Role of Leaders in Democratic Deliberations: Results from a Field Experiment in São Tomé and Principe.” World Politics 58: 583–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, Macartan, and Weinstein, Jeremy. 2009. “Field Experiments and the Political Economy of Development.” Annual Review of Political Science 12: 367–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keefer, Philip. 2007. “The Poor Performance of Poor Democracies.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, eds. Boix, Carles and Stokes, Susan. New York: Oxford University Press, 886–909.Google Scholar
Levy Paluck, Elizabeth, and Green, Donald P.. 2009. “Deference, Dissent, and Dispute Resolution: An Experimental Intervention Using Mass Media to Change Norms and Behavior in Rwanda.” American Political Science Review 103: 622–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martel Garcia, Fernando, and Wantchekon, Leonard. 2010. “Theory, External Validity, and Experimental Inference: Some Conjectures.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 628: 132–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miguel, Edward, and Kremer, Michael. 2004. “Worms: Identifying Impacts on Education and Health in the Presence of Treatment Externalities.” Econometrica 72: 159–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moehler, Devra C. 2008. “Tune in to Governance: An Experimental Investigation of Radio Campaigns in Africa.” Paper presented at the conference on Field Experiments in Comparative Politics and Policy, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Moehler, Devra C. 2010. “Democracy, Governance, and Randomized Development Assistance.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 628: 30–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David, Gonzalez-Ocantos, Ezequiel, Jonge, Chad Kiewiet, Meléndez, Carlos, and Osorio, Javier. 2010. “Vote Buying and Social Desirability Bias: Experimental Evidence from Nicaragua.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Notre Dame.
Olken, Benjamin A. 2007. “Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia.” Journal of Political Economy 115: 200–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olken, Benjamin A. 2010. “Direct Democracy and Local Public Goods, Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia.” American Political Science Review 104: 243–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, and Limongi, Fernando. 1997. “Modernization: Theories and Facts.” World Politics 49: 155–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravallion, Martin. 2008. “Evaluation in the Practice of Development.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 4547. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Shepsle, K. 2006. “Old Questions and New Answers about Institutions: The Riker Objection Revisited.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy, eds. Weingast, Barry R. and Wittman, Donald A.. New York: Oxford University Press, 1031–49.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan. 2007. “Political Clientelism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, eds. Boix, Carles and Stokes, Susan. New York: Oxford University Press, 604–27.Google Scholar
Stromberg, David. 2004. “Radio's Impact on Public Spending.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 119: 189–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vicente, Pedro C. 2007. “Is Vote Buying Effective? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in West Africa.” Economics Series Working Paper No. 318. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
Wantchekon, Leonard. 2003. “Clientelism and Voting Behavior: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Benin.” World Politics 55: 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wantchekon, Leonard. 2009. “Can Informed Public Deliberation Overcome Clientelism? Experimental Evidence from Benin.” Working paper, New York University.
Wood, Elizabeth. 2007. “Field Research.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, eds. Boix, Carle and Stokes, Susan. New York: Oxford University Press, 123–46.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×