Danielle Resnick - Are there dividends from district proliferation? The case of Ghana
Transcript of Danielle Resnick - Are there dividends from district proliferation? The case of Ghana
Are there dividends from district proliferation?
The case of Ghana (Preliminary research)
Danielle Resnick, IFPRI Washington DC11.10.2015
District Proliferation in Africa
At least 25 African countries identify decentralization as a priority in their national development strategies and focus of 10% of democracy and governance foreign aid
Administration divisions are viewed as most basic means of “implementing” decentralization policies
• Zambia (2011 until present): more than 30 new districts and 1 new province
• DRC (June 2015): increased from 11 to 26 provinces • South Sudan (Oct. 2015): increased from 10 to 28 states
Justified as bringing “development closer to the people”“One purpose of the new states is to decentralize power, placing
resources closer to the rural population while at the same time reducing the size of the national government.” (Pres. Salva Kiir, Oct. 2015)
Developmental or Political?
Potential developmental goals • Each district has more resources through inter-governmental
transfers and more expenditures on goods and services (Dollery et al. 2006; Tiebout 1956)
• Downward accountability because administrative units are closer to population
• Upward accountability because citizens can reward/sanction through elections (Brinkerhoff 2010; Rodinelli et al. 1983)
Potential political goals• Vote buying between parties and citizens (Khemani 2010)• Elite patronage (Mohammad 2015) and building majority support
within parliaments (Snyder and Samuels 2001)• Undermine influence of popularly, elected leaders or chiefs
(Lambright 2013; Resnick 2013)
Developmental or Political? Ghana Case
Drivers and consequences of district proliferation are way of looking at trade-offs with decentralization Questions Elements of Analysis
Why are some districts split and others not?
Driven by population, poverty, or politics
What are the consequences of splitting districts?
Politics Voting, Malapportionment Public finance
Revenues and expenditure allocations Public goods and services (2000-2010) Development outcomes (2000-2010)
Why Ghana?
One of most committed democratizers in Africa with extensive decentralization• Began decentralization in 1988, reinforced by 1992 Constitution• Three level structure below government:
1) Regional Coordinating Committees, 2) Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs), 3) Sub-district structures • Fiscal transfers through DACF, Common Fund, and DDF • Devolved health, agricultural, and education responsibilities
Established two-party system• NDC (1992-2000, 2008-today) and NPP (2000-2008)
DCEs are appointed by the President
From 110 to 216 Districts, 2000-2012
Ashanti Brong Ahafo
Central Eastern Greater Accra
Northern Upper East Upper West
Volta Western0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
30
27
20
26
16
26
1311
25
22
2000 2004 2008 2012
Ghana’s 2012 district creation
The President can, through executive instrument, declare an area to be a district and assign a name to a district• President directs Electoral Commission (EC) to make
recommendations, considering population, geographic contiguity and economic viability of the area • New districts inaugurated in June 2012
Concerned Citizens of Ghana took EC to court • Claimed Government attempting to gain unfair majority in
Parliament • New districts contravened Act 1993, Act 462 whereby there
should be equal representation in local government
Data Sources
Own built database of district splits since 2000
Elections• Electoral Commission of Ghana and civil society sources• Constituency level data aggregated to district level • Available for parliamentary and presidential elections
Population, Poverty, and Development Data • 2000 and 2010 Population and Housing Census • 2012/2013 Ghana Living Standards Survey
Revenues and Expenditures • Composite budgets (2011-2015) from MoFEP • Audit reports of the MMDAs (various years) • DACF allocations from Ghana’s Common Fund
Population as a criteria?
Median population of all districts before 2012 was 111,504
• Median for split vs. non-split was 131,424 and 98,046,respectively
• Statistically significant
pop2008110000
100000
1000000
10000000
Log
of p
opul
ation
Poverty as a criteria?
pov20080
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pove
rty
Rate
Median poverty of all districts before 2012 was 26%
• Median for split vs. non-split was 25 and 28 percent, respectively
• Not statistically significant
Politics as a criteria?
Results from 2008 elections
Split (%) Not split (%) Total (%)
NPP won 31 50 45.3NDC won 69 50 54.7Total percentage 100 100 100Total districts 45 125 170Chi Square 4.968****P<0.05
Drivers of District Splitting in 2012
Independent Variable
Full sample Excludes metro areas
Log of population
3.129*** 3.768***(0.679) (0.790)
Poverty rate
0.026** 0.028**(0.011) (0.012)
Vote margin favoring NDC in 2008 elections
0.017** 0.015**(0.006) (0.007)
N 170 164
***p<0.01; **p<0.05
Malapportionment
• When the votes of some citizens outweigh those of others
MAL = (1/2)
where si refers to the percentage of total parliamentary seats allocated to district i and vi is the percentage of the total population residing in district I
• Almost 16 percent of seats were allocated to districts that would not have otherwise received• Comparisons: South Africa (3%), Senegal (4%), Botswana
(9%), Malawi (14%), Tanzania (28%)
Is there a rural bias in district allocation?
Region Population (2010)
Share of pop, rural (%)
Actual number of Constituencies
Average population per constituency
Ideal number of constituencies
Change between Ideal and Actual
Ashanti 4,780,380 39.4 47 101,710.21 53 6Brong-Ahafo 2,310,983 55.4 29 79,689.07 26 -3Central 2,201,863 53.0 23 95,733.17 25 2Eastern 2,633,154 56.4 33 79,792.55 29 -4Greater Accra 4,010,054 9.3 34 117,942.76 45 11
Northern 2,479,461 69.9 31 79,982.61 28 -3Upper East 1,046,545 79.0 15 69,769.67 12 -3Upper West 702,110 83.8 11 63,828.18 8 -3Volta 2,118,252 66.5 26 81,471.23 24 -2Western 2,376,021 57.5 26 91,385.42 26 0Total 24,658,823 49.1 275 89,668.45 275 0
Malapportionment of Constituency Size due to 2012 Splits
Population quota = total population by number of constituencies
Electoral Benefits of Splitting in 2012
**p<0.05
Results from 2012 elections
Split (%) Not split (%)
Total (%)
Parent New
NPP won 37.8 21.7 42.4 100
NDC won 62.1 78.3 57.6 100Total percentage 100 100 100 100
Total districts 45 46 125 216Chi Square 6.169**
Characteristics of new districts
Indicates new district in 2012
New districts are poorer and smaller
Parent District New District Non-Split District0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
29.5
35.3
24.2
Med
ian
pove
rty
rate
Med
ian
popu
latio
n
• 67 percent of the new districts have less than 75,000 people
Preliminary Conclusions
Important political motivations for dividing districts• Targeting seems aimed at securing a parliamentary
majority and elite patronage but it’s also “rewarded” by citizens in subsequent elections
Newer districts are poorer, which maintains dependence on DACF and also violates the “economic viability” stipulation that the government is obligated to follow Possible contradiction in bringing resources closer to people even as others lose representation through malapportionment, supporting suggestions of “rural bias”
Next Steps
Examine whether the results hold up to parliamentary elections and if splitting helps ruling party “consolidate” their hold
Examine the full distribution of expenditures, including the share allocated to administration, within the composite budgets
Analyze over time to trace whether split districts have had substantially different development outcomes by using the 2000 and 2010 Censuses
Intergovernmental Transfer Changes
Years No. Districts
Total population (millions)
Average Population per district
Total DACF, real GHC Millions
DACF per district, real GHC
DACF per person, real GHC
2000 110 18.9 171,818 75.7 688,227 4.0
2001 110 19.3 175,455 70.9 644,340 3.7
2002 110 19.8 180,000 81.1 737,592 4.1
2003 110 20.3 184,545 154.1 1,401,078 7.6
2004 138 21.2 153,623 178.4 1,292,865 8.4
2005 138 21.4 154,855 126.9 919,341 5.9
2006 138 21.9 158,551 139.2 1,008,406 6.4
2007 138 22.4 162,246 149.1 1,080,264 6.7
2008 170 22.9 134,706 155.3 913,331 6.8
2009 170 23.4 137,765 115.7 680,542 4.9
2010 170 24.2 142,529 179.3 1,054,702 7.4
2011 170 24.6 144,765 183.2 1,077,596 7.4
2012 216 25.9 119,769 231.4 1,071,381 8.9
2013 216 26.5 122,593 225.4 1,043,517 8.5
Sources: Calculated from World Development Indicators, 2000 and 2010 Census, and the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF)