Electoral management bodies (EMBs) perform many functions crucial to promoting electoral integrity, from registering voters to resolving post-election disputes. The capacity of an EMB to perform its tasks, however, is difficult to measure in cross-national perspective. Data on resources and personnel provide only a partial picture of EMB capacity and expert surveys are limited in their comparability. This article presents a new proxy for measuring EMB capacity. It employs a content analysis of EMB websites in 99 countries to measure the presence of indicators of their major functions. It assesses the measurement validity of this new measure of capacity and conducts a small-scale test to determine whether EMBs that score highly do actively communicate with their citizens. An application of this new measure of EMB capacity demonstrates its importance in predicting overall electoral integrity, indicating its importance for future scholarly and policy research.
AdcockRobertCollierDavid (2001) Measurement Validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. The American Political Science Review95(3): 529–546.
2.
AtkesonLonna RaeAlvarezR MichaelHallThad E (2015) Voter Confidence: How to measure it and how it differs from government support. Election Law Journal14(3): 207–219.
3.
BirchSarah (2008) Electoral Institutions and Popular Confidence in Electoral Processes: A cross–national analysis. Electoral Studies27(2): 305–320.
4.
BollenKenneth A (1980) Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Political Democracy. American Sociological Review45(3): 370–390.
5.
CarminesEdward GZellerRichard A (1979) Reliability and Validity Assessment, Vol. 17. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
6.
CattHelenaEllisAndrewMaleyMichaelWallAlanWolfPeter (2014) Electoral Management Design. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
7.
ChristensenRobert KGazleyBeth (2008) Capacity for Public Administration: Analysis of meaning and measurement. Public Administration and Development28(4): 265–279.
8.
ClarkAlistair (2014) Investing in Electoral Management. In FrankRichard WNorrisPippai ComaFerran Martinez (eds), Advancing Electoral Integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
ClarkAlistair (2016) Identifying the Determinants of Electoral Integrity and Administration in Advanced Democracies: The case of Britain. European Political Science Review9(3): 471–492.
10.
CollierDavidSeawrightJasonLaPorteJody (2012) Putting Typologies to Work: Concept formation, measurement, and analytic rigor. Political Research Quarterly65(1): 217–232.
DowneyEdEkstromandCarl DJonesMatthew A (eds) (2011) E–Government Website Development: Future Trends and Strategic Models. Hershy: IGI Global.
13.
EisingerPeter (2002) Organizational Capacity and Organizational Effectiveness among Street-Level Food Assistance Programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly31(1): 115–130.
14.
ElkinsZachary (2000) Gradations of Democracy? Empirical Tests of Alternative Conceptualizations. American Journal of Political Science44(2): 293–300.
15.
GarnettHolly Ann (2017) Electoral Management Roles and Responsibilities in Comparative Perspective, Paper presented at the Australian Political Studies Association Annual Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
16.
HardouinJean-BenoitBonnaud-AntignacAngeliqueSebilleVeronique (2011) Nonparametric Item Response Theory Using Stata. The Stata Journal11(1): 30–51.
17.
HartlynJonathanMcCoyJenniferMustilloThomas M (2008) Electoral Governance Matters: Explaining the Quality of Elections in Contemporary Latin America. Comparative Political Studies41(1): 73–98.
18.
HerronErik SBoykoNazarThunbergMichael E (2017) Serving Two Masters: Professionalization versus corruption in Ukraine’s Election Administration. Governance30(4): 601–619.
19.
HillKim QuaileHannaStephenShafqatSahar (1997) The Liberal–Conservative Ideology of U.S. Senators: A new measure. American Journal of Political Science41(4): 1395–1413.
20.
HollyerJames RRosendorffB PeterVreelandJames Raymond (2014) Measuring Transparency. Political Analysis22: 413–434.
KingGaryKeohaneRobert OVerbaSidney (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
25.
LipsetSeymour Martin (1959) Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review53(1): 69–105.
26.
MaestasCherie (2016) Expert Surveys as a Measurement Tool: Challenges and New Frontiers. In AtkesonLonna RaeAlvarezR Michael (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Polling and Polling Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Martinez i ComaFerranvan HamCarolien (2015) Can Experts Judge Elections? Testing the Validity of Expert Judgments for Measuring Election Integrity. European Journal of Political Research52(2): 305–325.
28.
NorrisPippa (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
NorrisPippa (2015) Why Elections Fail. New York: Cambridge University Press.
NorrisPippaFrankRichard Wi ComaFerran Martinez (2014) Measuring Electoral Integrity around the World: A new dataset. PS: Political Science and Politics47(4): 789–798
32.
O’LoughlinMichael G (1990) What is Bureaucratic Accountability and How can We Measure It?Administration and Society22: 275–302.
33.
ThomasPaul EJLoewenPeter JohnMackenzieMichael K (2013) Fair Isn’t Always Equal: Constituency population and the quality of representation in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science46(2): 273–293.
van AakenAnne (2009) Independent Electoral Management Bodies and International Election Observer Missions: Any impact on the observed level of democracy? A conceptual framework. Constitutional Political Economy20: 296–322.
36.
van HamCarolienLindbergStaffan (2015) When Guardians Matter Most: Exploring the conditions under which electoral management body institutional design affects election integrity. Irish Political Studies30(4): 454–481.
37.
van SchuurWH (2003) Mokken Scale Analysis: Between the Guttman scale and parametric item response theory. Political Analysis11(2): 139–163.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
