Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Comparative Political Studies
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by O'Neill, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Decentralization as an Electoral Strategy

Kathleen O'Neill

Cornell University

The decentralization of government is one of the most significant trends in politics worldwide. Variation in the timing of reform across countries only vaguely relates to the genesis of an international consensus pushed by big lenders and development banks or the reemergence of democracy in decentralizing countries. Moreover, these reforms were enacted from the top, which appears to contradict one of political science's central tenets: that politicians seek to maximize (or at least maintain) control over political and fiscal resources. This article develops a theory linking the adoption of decentralization to the electoral concerns of political parties: Decentralization represents a desirable strategy for parties whose support at subnational levels appears more secure than their prospects in national elections. The author tests this argument using data from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela.

Key Words: decentralization • Latin America • reform • political parties • elections • Andes

Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 36, No. 9, 1068-1091 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0010414003257098
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 PubliusHome page
L. I. Gonzalez
Political Power, Fiscal Crises, and Decentralization in Latin America: Federal Countries in Comparative Perspective (and some Contrasts with Unitary Cases)
Publius, February 11, 2008; (2008) pjn001v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Comparative Political StudiesHome page
K. Andersson and F. van Laerhoven
From Local Strongman to Facilitator: Institutional Incentives for Participatory Municipal Governance in Latin America
Comparative Political Studies, September 1, 2007; 40(9): 1085 - 1111.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Comparative Political StudiesHome page
R. M. Z.
The Congressional Politics of Decentralization: The Case of Chile
Comparative Political Studies, March 1, 2007; 40(3): 333 - 358.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 PubliusHome page
J. T. Dickovick
Municipalization as Central Government Strategy: Central-Regional-Local Politics in Peru, Brazil, and South Africa
Publius, January 1, 2007; 37(1): 1 - 25.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Comparative Political StudiesHome page
K. Eaton
Designing Subnational Institutions: Regional and Municipal Reforms in Postauthoritarian Chile
Comparative Political Studies, March 1, 2004; 37(2): 218 - 244.
[Abstract] [PDF]