Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 159, Issue 3–4, pp 469–483 | Cite as

(De)Centralization and voter turnout: theory and evidence from German municipalities

  • Claus Michelsen
  • Peter Boenisch
  • Benny Geys
Article

Abstract

A vast academic literature illustrates that voter turnout is affected by the institutional design of elections (e.g., compulsory voting, electoral system, postal or Sunday voting). In this article, we exploit a simple Downsian theoretical framework to argue that the institutional framework of public good provision—and, in particular, the distribution of political and administrative competences across government levels—likewise affects voters’ turnout decisions by influencing the expected net benefit of voting. Empirically, we exploit the institutional variation across German municipalities to test this proposition, and find supportive evidence.

Keywords

Voter turnout Institutions Federalism Paradox of voting 

JEL Classification

D70 D72 H11 H40 

References

  1. Aguiar-Conraria, L., & Magalhães, P. C. (2010). Referendum design, quorum rules and turnout. Public Choice, 144(1–2), 63–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, J. J., Fiva, J. H., & Natvik, G. J. (2012). Voting when the stakes are high. Mimeo. Google Scholar
  3. Ashworth, J., Geys, B., & Heyndels, B. (2006). Everyone likes a winner: an empirical test of the effect of electoral closeness on turnout in a context of expressive voting. Public Choice, 128(3/4), 383–405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, N. (1975). A note on the probability of a tied election. Public Choice, 23(1), 75–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biehl, D. (1994). Fiscal federalism in Germany. In A. Mullins & C. Saunders (Eds.), Economic union in federal systems. Sydney: Federation Press. Google Scholar
  6. Blais, A. (2006). What affects voter turnout? Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 111–125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. M. (1980). The power to tax: analytical foundations of a fiscal constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  8. Brennan, G., & Hamlin, A. (2000). Democratic devices and desires. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brennan, G., & Lomasky, L. (1993). Democracy and decision: the pure theory of electoral preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, G. (1982). Community cohesion and space planning. In R. Frankenberg (Ed.), Custom and conflict in British society (pp. 258–285). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Google Scholar
  11. Dhillon, A., & Peralta, S. T. (2002). Review: economic theories of voter turnout. Economic Journal, 112(480), F332–F352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  13. Enderlein, H. (2009). Three worlds of fiscal federalism: solving the trilemma of multi-layered fiscal frameworks in industrialized countries. Mimeo. Google Scholar
  14. Ferrari, S., & Cribari-Neto, F. (2004). Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions. Journal of Applied Statistics, 31(7), 799–815. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geys, B. (2006a). ‘Rational’ theories of voter turnout: a review. Political Studies Review, 4(1), 16–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geys, B. (2006b). Explaining voter turnout: a review of aggregate-level research. Electoral Studies, 25(4), 637–663. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geys, B., & Heyndels, B. (2006). Disentangling the effects of political fragmentation on voter turnout: the Flemish municipal elections. Economics and Politics, 18(3), 367–387. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hajnal, Z., & Lewis, P. (2003). Municipal institutions and voter turnout in local elections. Urban Affairs Review, 38(5), 645–668. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamlin, A., & Jennings, C. (2011). Expressive political behaviour: foundations, scope and implications. British Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 645–670. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen, S., Palfrey, T. R., & Rosenthal, H. (1987). The Downsian model of electoral participation: formal theory and empirical analysis of the constituency size effect. Public Choice, 52(1), 15–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hillman, A. L. (2010). Expressive behavior in economics and politics. European Journal of Political Economy, 26, 403–418. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoffmann-Martinot, V., Rallings, C., & Thrasher, M. (1996). Comparing local electoral turnout in Great Britain and France: more similarities than differences? European Journal of Political Research, 30(2), 241–257. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kieschnick, R., & McCullough, B. (2003). Regression analysis of variates observed on (0,1): percentages, proportions and fractions. Statistical Modelling, 3(3), 193–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirchgässner, G., & Schimmelpfennig, J. (1992). Closeness counts if it matters for electoral victory: some empirical results for the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. Public Choice, 73, 283–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirchgässner, G., & Zu Himmern, A.-M. (1997). Expected closeness and turnout: an empirical analysis for the German general elections, 1983–1994. Public Choice, 91, 3–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Matsusaka, J. G. (1995). Explaining voter turnout patterns: an information theory. Public Choice, 84(1–2), 91–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKelvey, R. D., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1972). A general theory of the calculus of voting. In J. F. Herndon & J. L. Bernd (Eds.), Mathematical applications in political science VI. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Google Scholar
  28. Oates, W. E. (1972). Fiscal federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Google Scholar
  29. Oates, W. E. (1999). An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(3), 1120–1149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Olson, M. J. (1969). The principle of ‘fiscal equivalence’: the division of responsibilities among different levels of government. American Economic Review, 59(2), 479–487. Google Scholar
  31. Overbye, E. (1995). Making a case for the rational, self-regarding, ‘ethical’ voter … and solving the ‘paradox of not voting’ in the process. European Journal of Political Research, 27(3), 369–396. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Owen, G., & Grofman, B. (1984). To vote or not to vote: the paradox of nonvoting. Public Choice, 42(3), 311–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paolino, P. (2001). Maximum likelihood estimation of models with beta-distributed dependent variables. Political Analysis, 9(4), 325–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Papke, L. E., & Wooldridge, J. M. (1996). Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(K) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(6), 619–632. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pelkonen, P. (2012). Length of compulsory education and voter turnout: evidence from a staged reform. Public Choice, 150(1–2), 51–75. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ramalho, E. A., Ramalho, J. J. S., & Murteira, J. M. R. (2011). Alternative estimating and testing empirical strategies for fractional regression models. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(1), 19–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Riker, W. H., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review, 62(1), 25–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roseman, G. H., & Stephenson, E. F. (2005). The effect of voting technology on voter turnout: do computers scare the elderly? Public Choice, 123(1–2), 39–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosenfeld, M. T. W., Kluth, W., Haug, P., Heimpold, G., Michelsen, C., & Nuckelt, J. (2007). Zur Wirtschaftlichkeit gemeindlicher Verwaltungsstrukturen in Sachsen-Anhalt. Halle: Institut fuer Wirtschaftsforschung Halle. Google Scholar
  40. Tullock, G. (1965). Entry barriers in politics. Economic Journal, 55(1/2), 458–466. Google Scholar
  41. Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America. Political democracy and social inequality. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  42. Zimmer, T. (1976). Urbanization, social diversity, voter turnout, and political competition in U.S. elections: analysis of congressional districts for 1972. Social Science Quarterly, 56(4), 689–697. Google Scholar
  43. Zimmermann, H. (1999). Eine Einfuehrung in die Lehre von der oeffentlichen Finanzwirtschaft. Munich: Vahlen. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban EconomicsHalle Institute for Economic ResearchHalle (Saale)Germany
  2. 2.Faculty of Law and Economics, School of Economics and BusinessMartin-Luther-University Halle-WittenbergHalle (Saale)Germany
  3. 3.Department of Applied EconomicsVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselBelgium
  4. 4.Department of EconomicsNorwegian Business School BIOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations