Municipal size and local democracy: understanding the trade-off between participation and contestation in Latin America

References

• (LAPOP) Latin American Public Opinion Project. 2020. Accessed 2 May 2020. https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/
   Google Scholar
• Abers, R. 2000. Inventing Local Democracy: Grassroots Politics in Brazil. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Alfaro-Redondo, R., and S. Gómez-Campos. 2016. “Elecciones municipales 2016 en Costa Rica: Consolidación del multipartidismo y baja concurrencia a las urnas.” Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política 25 (1): 91–114.
   Google Scholar
• Allers, M., J. de Natris, H. Rienks, and T. de Greef. 2021. “Is Small Beautiful? Transitional and Structural Effects of Municipal Amalgamation on Voter Turnout in Local and National Elections.” Electoral Studies 70: 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman, D., and A. Pérez-Liñán. 2002. “Assessing the Quality of Democracy: Freedom, Competitiveness and Participation in Eighteen Latin American Countries.” Democratization 9 (2): 85–100. doi:10.1080/714000256.
   Google Scholar
• Armijo, L. E., and C. Gervasoni. 2010. “Two Dimensions of Democracy and the Economy.” Democratization 17 (1): 143–174. doi:10.1080/13510340903453708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashworth, J., B. Geys, B. Heyndels, and F. Wille. 2014. “Competition in the Political Arena and Local Government Performance.” Applied Economics 46 (19): 2264–2276. doi:10.1080/00036846.2014.899679.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batzilis, D. 2019. “Electoral Competition and Corruption: Evidence from Municipality Audits in Greece.” International Review of Law and Economics 59: 13–20. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2019.04.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behrend, J., and L. Whitehead. 2016. Illiberal Practices. Territorial Variance within Large Federal Democracies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bland, G. 2011. “Considering Local Democratic Transition in Latin America.” Journal of Politics in Latin America 3 (1): 65–98. doi:10.1177/1866802X1100300103.
   Google Scholar
• Boulding, C. E. 2010. “NGOs and Political Participation in Weak Democracies: Subnational Evidence on Protest and Voter Turnout from Bolivia.” The Journal of Politics 72 (2): 456–468. doi:10.1017/S0022381609990922.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulding, C., and D. S. Brown. 2014. “Political Competition and Local Social Spending: Evidence from Brazil.” Studies in Comparative International Development 49 (2): 197–216. doi:10.1007/s12116-013-9145-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulding, C., and D. S. Brown. 2015. “Do Political Parties Matter for Turnout? Number of Parties, Electoral Rules and Local Elections in Brazil and Bolivia.” Party Politics 21 (3): 404–416. doi:10.1177/1354068813475496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cancela, J., and B. Geys. 2016. “Explaining Voter Turnout: A Meta-analysis of National and Subnational Elections.” Electoral Studies 42: 264–275. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2016.03.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carreras, M., and S. Bowler. 2018. “Community Size, Social Capital, and Political Participation in Latin America.” Political Behavior 41: 723–745. doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9470-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleary, M. R. 2007. “Electoral Competition, Participation, and Government Responsiveness in Mexico.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (2): 283–299. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00251.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coppedge, M., A. Alvarez, and C. Maldonado. 2008. “Two Persistent Dimensions of Democracy: Contestation and Inclusiveness.” The Journal of Politics 70 (3): 632–647. doi:10.1017/S0022381608080663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, G., and M. C. Munger. 1989. “Closeness, Expenditures, and Turnout in the 1982 US House Elections.” The American Political Science Review 83 (1): 217–231. doi:10.2307/1956441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A., and E. R. Tufte. 1973. Size and Democracy. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A. 1971. Polyarchy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dandoy, R. 2014. Las elecciones locales y provinciales de 2014 en Ecuador. Quito: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
   Google Scholar
• De Paola, M., and V. Scoppa. 2011. “Political Competition and Politician Quality: Evidence from Italian Municipalities.” Public Choice 148 (3–4): 547–559. doi:10.1007/s11127-010-9683-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Paola, M., and V. Scoppa. 2014. “The Impact of Closeness on Electoral Participation Exploiting the Italian Double Ballot System.” Public Choice 160 (3–4): 467–479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denters, B., M. Goldsmith, A. Ladner, P. E. Mouritzen, and L. E. Rose. 2014. Size and Local Democracy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, L., and S. Tsalik. 1999. “Size and Democracy: The Case for Decentralization.” In Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation, edited by L. Diamond. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 117–160.
   Google Scholar
• Dollery, B., and L. Crase. 2004. “Is Bigger Local Government Better? An Evaluation of the Case for Australian Municipal Amalgamation Programs.” Urban Policy and Research 22 (3): 265–275. doi:10.1080/0811114042000269290.
   Google Scholar
• Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Erk, J., and W. Veenendaal. 2014. “Is Small Really Beautiful?: The Microstate Mistake.” Journal of Democracy 25 (3): 135–148. doi:10.1353/jod.2014.0054.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fauvelle-Aymar, C., and A. François. 2006. “The Impact of Closeness on Turnout: An Empirical Relation Based on a Study of a Two-round Ballot.” Public Choice 127 (3–4): 461–483. doi:10.1007/s11127-005-9004-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gendzwill, A., and P. Swianiewicz. 2016. “Does Local Democracy Perform Better in Smaller Jurisdictions? Survey Evidence from Poland.” Lex Localis - Journal of Local Self-Government 14 (4): 759. doi:10.4335/14.4.759-782(2016).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerring, J., M. Palmer, J. Teorell, and D. Zarecki. 2015. “Demography and Democracy: A Global, District-level Analysis of Electoral Contestation.” American Political Science Review 109 (3): 574–591. doi:10.1017/S0003055415000234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geys, B., and W. Moesen. 2009. “Measuring Local Government Technical (In) Efficiency: An Application and Comparison of FDH, DEA, and Econometric Approaches.” Public Performance & Management Review 32 (4): 499–513. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576320401.
   Google Scholar
• Geys, B. 2006. “Explaining Voter Turnout: A Review of Aggregate-level Research.” Electoral Studies 25 (4): 637–663. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2005.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giraudy, A. 2015. Democrats and Autocrats. Pathways of Subnational Undemocratic Regime Continuity within Democratic Countries. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Global Data Lab. 2020. “Subnational Human Development Index.” Accessed 20 May 2020. https://globaldatalab.org/shdi/
   Google Scholar
• Goldfrank, B. 2011. Deepening Local Democracy in Latin America: Participation, Decentralization, and the Left. University Park: Penn State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Górecki, M. A., and A. Gendźwiłł. 2020. “Polity Size and Voter Turnout Revisited: Micro-level Evidence from 14 Countries of Central and Eastern Europe.” Local Government Studies. doi:10.1080/03003930.2020.1787165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harbers, I., J. Bartman, and E. van Wingerden. 2019. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Subnational Democracy across Indian States.” Democratization 26 (7): 1154–1175. doi:10.1080/13510347.2019.1606797.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heller, P. 2009. “Democratic Deepening in India and South Africa.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 44 (1): 123–149. doi:10.1177/0021909608098679.
   Google Scholar
• Hiskey, J. T. 2003. “Demand-based Development and Local Electoral Environments in Mexico.” Comparative Politics 36 (1): 41–59. doi:10.2307/4150159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Högström, J. 2017. “Political Competition in Sweden 1976–2014: A Comparative Analysis at the Local Level.” Comparative Sociology 16 (4): 499–522. doi:10.1163/15691330-12341435.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, J., and Y. Deng. 2017. “Jurisdiction Scale Matters: County Size and External Political Efficacy in China.” Political Studies 65 (4): 966–982. doi:10.1177/0032321717695292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International IDEA. 2020. “Compulsory Voting.” Accessed 16 April 2020. https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout/compulsory-voting
   Google Scholar
• Karlsson, D. 2013. “A Democracy of Scale. Size and Representative Democracy in Swedish Local Government.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration 17 (1): 7–28.
   Google Scholar
• Kasarda, J. D., and M. Janowitz. 1974. “Community Attachment in Mass Society.” American Sociological Review 39 (3): 328–339. doi:10.2307/2094293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelleher, C., and D. Lowery. 2004. “Political Participation and Metropolitan Institutional Contexts.” Urban Affairs Review 39 (6): 720–757. doi:10.1177/1078087404264219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knutsen, C. H., J. Gerring, and S. E. Skaaning. 2016. “Local Democracy and Economic Growth.” Working Paper Series 2016: 39. Varieties of Democracy Institute, 1–49.
   Google Scholar
• Kouba, K., J. Novák, and M. Strnad. 2021. “Explaining Voter Turnout in Local Elections: A Global Comparative Perspective.” Contemporary Politics 27 (1): 58–78. doi:10.1080/13569775.2020.1831764.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lappie, J., and M. Marschall. 2018. “Place and Participation in Local Elections.” Political Geography 64: 33–42. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2018.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassen, D. D., and S. Serritzlew. 2011. “Jurisdiction Size and Local Democracy: Evidence on Internal Political Efficacy from Large-scale Municipal Reform.” American Political Science Review 105 (2): 238–258. doi:10.1017/S000305541100013X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maleki, A., and F. Hendriks. 2016. “Contestation and Participation: Operationalizing and Mapping Democratic Models for 80 Electoral Democracies, 1990–2009.” Acta Politica 51 (2): 237–272. doi:10.1057/ap.2015.10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazzuca, S. L. 2010. “Access to Power versus Exercise of Power. Reconceptualizing the Quality of Democracy in Latin America.” Studies in Comparative International Development 45 (3): 334–357. doi:10.1007/s12116-010-9069-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonnell, J. 2019. “Municipality Size, Political Efficacy and Political Participation: A Systematic Review.” Local Government Studies 46 (3): 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMann, K. M. 2018. “Measuring Subnational Democracy: Toward Improved Regime Typologies and Theories of Regime Change.” Democratization 25 (1): 19–37. doi:10.1080/13510347.2017.1307822.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno-Jaimes, C. 2007. “Do Competitive Elections Produce Better-quality Governments?: Evidence from Mexican Municipalities, 1990–2000.” Latin American Research Review 42 (2): 136–153. doi:10.1353/lar.2007.0025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno-Jaimes, C. 2011. “Is Local Spending Responsive to the Poor? An Appraisal of Resource Allocation and Electoral Rewards in Mexico.” Politics and Policy 39 (6): 1021–1052. doi:10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00328.x.
   Google Scholar
• Munck, G. L., and J. Verkuilen. 2002. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy. Evaluating Alternative Indices.” Comparative Political Studies 35 (1): 5–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton, K. 1982. “Is Small Really so Beautiful? Is Big Really so Ugly? Size, Effectiveness, and Democracy in Local Government.” Political Studies 30 (2): 190–206. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1982.tb00532.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver, J. E. 1999. “The Effects of Metropolitan Economic Segregation on Local Civic Participation.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (1): 186–212. doi:10.2307/2991790.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver, J. E. 2000. “City Size and Civic Involvement in Metropolitan America.” American Political Science Review 94 (2): 361–373. doi:10.2307/2586017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ott, D. 2000. Small Is Democratic: An Examination of State Size and Democratic Development. New York: Garland Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Posner, P. 2003. “Local Democracy and Popular Participation: Chile and Brazil in Comparative Perspective.” Democratization 10 (3): 39–67. doi:10.1080/13510340312331293927.
   Google Scholar
• Przeworski, A., M. E. Alvarez, J. A. Cheibub, and F. Limongi. 2000. Democracy and Development. Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Przeworski, A. 1991. Democracy and the Market. Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Remmer, K. L. 2010. “Political Scale and Electoral Turnout: Evidence from the Less Industrialized World.” Comparative Political Studies 43 (3): 275–303. doi:10.1177/0010414009352638.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riker, W. H., and P. C. Ordeshook. 1968. “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” American Political Science Review 62 (1): 25–42. doi:10.1017/S000305540011562X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rysavy, D., and J. Bernard. 2013. “Size and Local Democracy: The Case of Czech Municipal Representatives.” Local Government Studies 39 (3): 833–852. doi:10.1080/03003930.2012.675329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, J. A. 1947. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.
   Google Scholar
• Skoog, L., and D. Karlsson. 2018. “Causes of Party Conflicts in Local Politics.” Politics 38 (2): 182–196. doi:10.1177/0263395716678878.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solís Delgadillo, J. M., and M. Moriconi Bezerra, Eds. 2018. Atlas de la Violencia en América Latina. San Luis Potosí: Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí.
   Google Scholar
• Swianiewicz, P. 2018. “If Territorial Fragmentation Is a Problem, Is Amalgamation a Solution? – Ten Years Later.” Local Government Studies 44 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1080/03003930.2017.1403903.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Houwelingen, P. 2017. “Political Participation and Municipal Population Size: A Meta-study.” Local Government Studies 43 (3): 408–428. doi:10.1080/03003930.2017.1300147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanhanen, T. 2000. “A New Dataset for Measuring Democracy, 1810–1998.” Journal of Peace Research 37 (2): 251–265. doi:10.1177/0022343300037002008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varieties of Democracy. 2020. Accessed 28 April 2020. https://www.v-dem.net/
   Google Scholar
• Veenendal, W. P., and J. Corbett. 2015. “Why Small States Offer Important Answers to Large Questions.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (4): 527–549. doi:10.1177/0010414014554687.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veenendal, W. P. 2019. “How Smallness Fosters Clientelism: A Case Study of Malta.” Political Studies 67 (4): 1034–1052. doi:10.1177/0032321719828275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verba, S., and N. H. Nie. 1972. Participation in America. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Voda, P., P. Svačinová, A. Smolkova, and S. Balík. 2017. “Local and More Local: Impact of Size and Organization Type of Settlement Units on Candidacy.” Political Geography 59: 24–35. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.02.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar