Better workers, better elections? Electoral management body workforces and electoral integrity worldwide

Date01 June 2019
Published date01 June 2019
DOI10.1177/0192512119829516
Subject MatterSpecial Issue Articles
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512119829516
International Political Science Review
2019, Vol. 40(3) 370 –390
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0192512119829516
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
Better workers, better elections?
Electoral management body
workforces and electoral integrity
worldwide
Toby S James
University of East Anglia, UK
Abstract
Building better elections is a central task for the study of democracy and democratisation. Despite this,
there have been no cross-national studies on the staff who manage and implement elections: electoral
management body (EMB) workforces. This article provides the first macroscopic worldwide picture of
workforce characteristics, human resource management practices and employee outcomes, and analyses
the effects they have on electoral integrity, based on original international surveys of electoral management
bodies (EMBs) (n = 51) and electoral officials (n = 2029). Drawing from the human resource management
literature, a framework is developed to explain how these factors might interact with EMB performance.
Analysis demonstrates them to be highly related. Adding data on human resource management practices and
employee outcomes improves explanatory models designed to predict the performance of EMBs. Chiefly,
EMBs that enable greater opportunities for employees to be involved in decision-making processes perform
better. Recruitment practices, job satisfaction and levels of stress are also important.
Keywords
Democratisation, electoral integrity, electoral management, human resource management practices,
employee outcomes
Introduction
Understanding the factors that enable states to become and remain electoral democracies is a cen-
tral concern of political science (Lipset, 1959). In more recent years, the determinants of electoral
integrity have become an independent, but overlapping line of enquiry, given that holding regular,
well-run elections is a prerequisite for democracy (Birch, 2011; Norris, 2015). Despite this,
virtually nothing is known about the personnel of electoral management bodies (EMBs) – the
armies of employees who are responsible for managing the electoral process.
Corresponding author:
Toby S. James, School of Politics, Philosophy, Language and Communication Studies, University of East Anglia,
Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Email: t.s.james@uea.ac.uk
829516IPS0010.1177/0192512119829516International Political Science ReviewJames
research-article2019
Special Issue Article
James 371
This article therefore seeks to make a major contribution to these literatures by presenting and
analysing original data on workforce sizes, characteristics and motivations within EMBs around
the world. Although there have been some studies on the casual workforce employed on polling
day in individual countries, this article focuses on the core staff of the EMB with the first cross-
national surveys of EMB employees. The article reports on the human resource (HR) management
practices that are used to motivate those working in electoral management bodies and EMB staff
experiences of working within them. Moreover, drawing from ability–motivation–opportunity
(AMO) theory, a school of thought based within management studies, hypotheses are derived and
tested about how HR management practices and employee outcomes can improve EMB perfor-
mance and deliver better-run elections.
The article begins by reviewing the existing literature on electoral management and EMB work-
forces. It then introduces theory on why HR management practices and employee outcomes should
affect organisational performance, before developing the hypotheses. The article continues by
describing the methods, presenting results and finally drawing out the conclusions. It reveals that
EMB workforces are generally small, well-educated, have inbuilt gender biases, and exhibit con-
siderable variations in their level of experience across countries. Teamworking is usually strongly
encouraged, while performance-related pay is rare. Employees tend to have strong levels of belong-
ing to their organisations, are satisfied with their job, and generally do not intend to leave in the
immediate future. Inferential analysis provides evidence that employee outcomes such as stress,
work overload, a propensity to quit and declining job satisfaction are closely related. There was
evidence that EMB performance can be improved by providing opportunities for employees to be
involved in decision making. Recruitment practices, job satisfaction and levels of stress are also
important. There are therefore important lessons for policy makers and scholars concerned about
the determinants of electoral integrity, democracy and democratisation.
Existing research on EMB performance and workforces
Well-run elections are essential for the democratic credentials of any state. There has been a rapid
growth in research on the determinants of electoral integrity, with explanations focusing on the role
of structural factors such as the economic and social structure of societies; institutional factors such
as electoral systems; and actor-based factors including the strategic choices of parties and elites
(see the Introduction to this special issue for a review). A focus on the organisational determinants,
set out in this special issue, uniquely emphasises that elections are like other public services, such
as schools and hospitals, which have differing levels of performance and efficiency. Elections
involve more than just designing and passing electoral laws. They require successful management
and implementation. Electoral registers need to be drawn up and maintained; polling stations found
and organised; counting staff need to be recruited and the counting process run without error (also
see James, forthcoming). Cross-national data based on expert opinion shows variation in the qual-
ity of electoral management around the world (Coppedge et al., 2017; Norris et al., 2018) and even
within countries (Norris et al., 2016). The quality of electoral management matters immensely
because it can undermine citizens’ confidence in the electoral process in established democracies
(Claassen et al., 2012), threaten democratic consolidation or cause electoral violence in emerging
democracies (Elklit and Reynolds, 2002), or even affect the result of elections (Wand et al., 2001).
Policy makers have therefore expressed increased concern and interest in electoral management at
the highest level (Global Commission on Elections, 2012) and research has begun to examine the
determinants of electoral management quality (James, forthcoming; van Ham and Lindberg, 2015).
There has been relatively little focus on the people involved in delivering elections, with only a
handful of within-country studies undertaken in recent years. It has been noted that some countries

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT