GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Literature reviews
    • Professional development packs
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • About us
    • Staff profiles
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»GSDRC Publications»Impact of election assistance

Impact of election assistance

Helpdesk Report
  • Sumedh Rao
March 2013

Question

Please summarise the number, type and headline findings from any impact evaluations completed in the last 10 years on election assistance (programme specific or broader). Restrict evaluations to those that have used rigorous evaluation processes, summarise impact evidence and not lessons learned, and try to identify planned evaluations as well as existing evaluations.

Summary

Key findings: There is a large body of evaluation literature relating to election assistance and it is difficult to accurately quantify the number of studies available. This report identifies a sample of impact evaluations undertaken in the last 10 years that apply a rigorous methodology. ‘Rigour’ is taken here to mean any approach that uses systematic, transparent and empirical research to investigate the impacts of an intervention. This includes a range of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods designs.

Evaluations undertaken by, or for, bilateral and multilateral donors have primarily used rigorous qualitative or mixed methods designs. These evaluations suggest the following main impacts.

  • UK Department for International Development (DFID): Electoral assistance through UNDP has contributed to successful elections and a reduction in conflict, though this assistance has been less successful in building sustainable capacity.
  • European Union (EU): Perceptions in southern Africa are that the EU is particularly effective in terms of electoral assistance as they put pressure on authoritarian regimes, push for higher democratic standards, have improved a number of key organisations and institutions, and improved voter education.
  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): UNDP has made significant contributions to strengthening electoral systems and, with the help of donors and partners, allowed elections to happen where they otherwise would not have been possible. The UNDP is strong at technical assistance, but has been inconsistent in promoting normative values which would have improved programme effectiveness.
  • USAID: A quantitative analysis has shown a significant positive impact on democratic change of USAID assistance, and in particular of USAID electoral assistance.

A smaller number of evaluations of electoral interventions have applied an experimental or quasi-experimental methodology, some of them randomised-control trials. These demonstrate impacts in:

  • informing voters about candidates
  • informing voters about corruption
  • election-monitoring technology
  • social networks
  • village committees
  • international observers
  • voting training.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Donor Support to Electoral Cycles
Helpdesk Report
2021
Donor support for post-conflict elections
Helpdesk Report
2017
Religious leaders and the prevention of electoral violence
Helpdesk Report
2016
Voluntary voter registration
Helpdesk Report
2015

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2025; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2025; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2025

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".