Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:42:36.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direct Democracy and Local Public Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2010

BENJAMIN A. OLKEN
BENJAMIN A. OLKEN*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and National Bureau of Economic Research
*
Benjamin A. Olken is Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 50 Memorial Drive E52-252A, Cambridge, MA, 02142 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents an experiment in which 49 Indonesian villages were randomly assigned to choose development projects through either representative-based meetings or direct election-based plebiscites. Plebiscites resulted in dramatically higher satisfaction among villagers, increased knowledge about the project, greater perceived benefits, and higher reported willingness to contribute. Changing the political mechanism had much smaller effects on the actual projects selected, with some evidence that plebiscites resulted in projects chosen by women being located in poorer areas. The results suggest that direct participation in political decision making can substantially increase satisfaction and legitimacy.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 104 , Issue 2 , May 2010 , pp. 243 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

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

REFERENCES

Acemoglu, D. 2003. “Why Not a Political Coase Theorem? Social Conflict, Commitment, and Politics.” Journal of Comparative Economics 31 (4): 620–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, B. A., and Fishkin, J. S.. 2004. Deliberation Day. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., and Rubin, D. B.. 1996. “Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 91 (434): 444–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, S., Gerber, A., and Snyder, J.. 2003. “Equal Votes, Equal Money: Court-Ordered Redistricting and Public Expenditures in the American States.” American Political Science Review 96 (4): 767–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antlov, H. 2000. “Village Governance in Indonesia—Past, Present and Future Challenges.” Presented at the PERCIK Conference “Dynamics of Local Politics in Indonesia,” Yogyakarta.Google Scholar
Antlov, H., and Cederroth, S., eds. 2004. Elections in Indonesia: The New Order and Beyond, New York: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Bardhan, P. 2002. “Decentralization of Governance and Development.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (4): 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardhan, P., and Mookherjee, D.. 2006. “Decentralization and Accountability in Infrastructure Delivery in Developing Countries.” Economic Journal 116: 101–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, S. 1996. “Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy”. In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, ed. Benhabib, S.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, M., and Mullainathan, S.. 2001. “Do People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data.” American Economic Review 91 (2): 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chattopadhyay, R., and Duflo, E.. 2004. “Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India.” Econometrica 72 (5): 1409–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., and Lupia, A.. 2006. “The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 100 (4): 627–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldersveld, S. J. 1956. “Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior.” American Political Science Review 50 (1): 154–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evers, P. J. 2000. “Resourceful Villagers, Powerless Communities: Rural Village Government in Indonesia.” The World Bank. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Feld, L. P., and Matsusaka, J. G.. 2003. “Budget Referendums and Government Spending: Evidence from Swiss Cantons.” Journal of Public Economics 87 (12): 2703–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, J. S. 1991. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Frey, B. S., and Stutzer, A.. 2005. “Beyond Outcomes: Measuring Procedural Utility.” Oxford Economic Papers 57 (1): 90–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, P., and Gathmann, C.. 2007. “Does Direct Democracy Reduce the Size of Government? New Evidence from Historical Data, 1890–2000.” Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Economics Working Paper 1123.Google Scholar
Gerber, A. S., and Green, D. P.. 2000. “The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 94 (3): 653–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government of Indonesia. 1979. “Law on the Village Government (Undang-undang tentang pemerintahan desa).” Law Number 5.Google Scholar
Green, D. P., and Shapiro, I.. 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Guggenheim, S. 2004. “Crises and Contradictions: Understanding the Origins of a Community Development Project in Indonesia.” The World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/Resources/Social/KDP-Crises.pdf (March 7, 2010).Google Scholar
Guggenheim, S., Wiranto, T., Prasta, Y., and Wong, S.. 2004. “Indonesia's Kecamatan Development Program: A Large-Scale Use of Community Development to Reduce Poverty.” Scaling Up Poverty Reduction: A Global Learning Process and Conference. Shanghai, May 25–27.Google Scholar
Humphreys, M., Masters, W., and Sandbu, M. E.. 2006. “The Role of Leaders in Democratic Deliberations: Results from a Field Experiment in Sao Tome and Principe.” World Politics 58: 583–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayachandran, S. 2006. “Selling Labor Low: How Workers Respond to Productivity Shocks in Developing Countries.” Journal of Political Economy 114 (3): 538–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, D. Y. 2003. Half-Hearted Reform: Electoral Institutions and the Struggle for Democracy in Indonesia, Westport, CT: Praeger.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E. A., and Tyler, T. R.. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J. J. 1983. Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Martinez-Bravo, M. 2009. “Appointed Officials and Consolidation of New Democracies.” MIT.Google Scholar
Matsusaka, J. G. 1995. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative: Evidence from the Last 30 Years.” Journal of Political Economy 103 (3): 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, J. G. 2004. For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, J. G. 2005a. “Direct Democracy Works.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (2): 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, J. G. 2005b. “The Eclipse of Legislatures: Direct Democracy in the 21st Century.” Public Choice 124 (1): 157–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D. 1974. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In Frontiers in Econometrics, ed. Zarembka, P.. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ministry of Home Affairs. 1981. “Instruction Number 6.”Google Scholar
Mutiarin, D. 2006. “The Transformation of Local Governance and Public Participation: A Study of Four Villages in Java after the Reformasi.” Ph.D. diss. University Sains Malaysia.Google Scholar
Olken, B. A. 2007. “Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia.” Journal of Political Economy 115 (2): 200–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olken, B. A. 2008. “Direct Democracy and Local Public Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 14123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olken, B. A., and Singhal, M.. 2009. “Informal Taxation.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 15221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettersson-Lidbom, P., and Tyrefors, B.. 2007. “The Policy Consequences of Direct versus Representative Democracy: A Regression-Discontinuity Approach.” Stockholm University. October 25. http://people.su.se/~pepet/directdem.pdf (March 7, 2010).Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J. E. 2002. “Participation and Development: Perspectives from the Comprehensive Development Paradigm.” Review of Development Economics 6 (2): 163–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wantchekon, L. 2003. “Clientelism and Voting Behavior: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Benin.” World Politics 55 (3): 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank. 2004. World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
Wright, G. C. 1990. “Misreports of Vote Choice in the 1988 NES Senate Election Study.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 15 (4): 543–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.