Document Library

Key Text Cost of Registration and Elections (CORE) Project

Author: J Fischer and R Lopez-Pintor
Date: 2005
Size: 228 pages (2 MB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

How are election budgets established, tracked and funded? What cost management practices can Election Management Bodies (EMBs) adopt? This study from the Center for Transitional and Post-Conflict Governance is based on survey research from 34 countries and in-depth case studies from ten countries. It identifies cost variables and sources of revenue, and evaluates the election budgets and cost management practices of EMBs.

There are several different kinds of costs of elections: (i) Fixed costs covering ordinary functioning of electoral administration, as opposed to variable costs covering the elections themselves. (ii) Personnel costs and operational costs. (iii) Direct costs, which can be readily identified on a budget document, and diffuse costs, which cannot be disentangled from the general budget of the agency concerned, or from the ordinary operations of agencies supporting the electoral process. (iv) An important distinction for understanding elections in post-conflict countries is between core costs of elections, and integrity costs, principally those relating to voter and ballot security.

Electoral budgets are part of the consolidated national budget on an annual cycle. In an election year the corresponding budget is funded using ordinary or extraordinary procedures depending on whether the elections could be anticipated.

Overall costs tend to be lower the longer a country's previous experience with multi-party elections. They are especially high during the peacekeeping and transition phase.
Core costs as a whole tend to increase according to the degree of democratic consolidation, especially those for advanced technology.
In continental Europe, political parties are basically funded publicly. In Anglo-Saxon countries private financing is more important. There is often a legal vacuum regarding these regulations.
Voter registration can be conducted as needed for a particular election, or on a permanent basis with periodic updating. If there is a permanent register the appropriate infrastructure is required, but this is still the cheaper option.
Voter lists should comply with standards of democratic quality such as inclusion of all eligible voters and facilitation of the voting process.

Cost management and expense processing are handled differently depending whether the elections are handled by the international community or domestically. In the first case the budget is directly managed by the international organisation and in the second it is conducted by the EMB.

Procurement policies are prescribed by government guidelines and are increasingly standardised globally. Inventory control is also conducted according to government guidelines, and unused supplies are usually stored or recycled.
Election managers tend to keep costs within anticipated limits, and covering overruns does not seem to be a problem. Expenses are usually subject to both and internal and external audit.
New technology has become more important, as a pressing necessity as well as a status symbol. Technology is not cost-effective unless it leads to long term cost reductions in the electoral operation.
The finding that duration of electoral experience reduces costs supports claims that capacity building is cost-effective in the long run. Also, establishing a permanent EMB as a repository for managerial expertise is cost-effective practice.
Expense items undergoing the greatest reductions sometimes refer to staff savings, voter education and voter registration through the establishment of a permanent registry.
Some cost effectiveness can be expected in political party finance by filling the legal vacuum prevailing in so many countries on issues such as expense limits and disclosure regulations.

Access full text: available online

Source: Lopez-Pintor, R. and Fischer, J., 2005, 'Cost of Registration and Elections (CORE) Project', Center for Transitional and Post-Conflict Governance, International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES), Washington D.C.