• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • 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
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Electoral accountability in Indonesia

Electoral accountability in Indonesia

Helpdesk Report
  • Anna Strachan
February 2014

Question

What are the constraints to electoral mechanisms of accountability? What evidence is available that certain interventions or tools impact on electoral accountability?

Summary

There are many different definitions of electoral accountability. For the purposes of this report, electoral accountability is defined as citizens’ ability to use electoral mechanisms to incentivise politicians to act in their interests.

In his literature review on electoral institutions and local government accountability Packel (2008, p. 1) notes that that “little attention has been devoted to how specific electoral mechanisms fare in delivering accountability, or even whether elections are used by voters to hold officials accountable for certain policy decisions.” Packel also notes that electoral studies tend to focus on the national level rather than looking at electoral systems at the local level (2008, p. 1). This rapid literature review has found limited evidence of interventions or tools that can impact on electoral accountability at the subnational level.

 

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • Australian Government

Related Content

Civil Society and Accountability in Rwanda
Helpdesk Report
2019
Implementation Frameworks for International Summits or Conferences
Helpdesk Report
2019
Higher education, developmental leadership and good governance
Helpdesk Report
2017
Donor support for post-conflict elections
Helpdesk Report
2017
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by FCDO are © FCDO Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

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".OkRead more