Understanding political participation in West Africa: the relationship between good governance and local citizen engagement

Abstract

Strengthening citizen participation in West Africa is an increasingly important aspect of democratic development – especially in mitigating setbacks arising from poor governance. This article uses Round 4 Afrobarometer data to explore what stimulates local-level participation by examining determinants against the backdrop of eight West African nations: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, and Senegal. Using a negative binomial regression model, our results are evaluated within the framework of good governance, and show that local context, specifically relative to citizens’ perceptions of and attitudes about the performance of local government, matters when it comes to local political participation.

Points for practitioners

This study provides public administrators with a framework for understanding what drives local-level, non-electoral citizen participation in West Africa, and helps them understand how to increase local citizen engagement and build a more democratic society through the pursuit of good governance principles. In addition, this study highlights the critical importance of local government performance, and the role of citizens’ attitudes and evaluations, in local civic engagement.

Keywords

citizen attitudes citizen engagement citizen evaluations good governance local political participation West Africa

Introduction

As democracies have been established in Africa, an emphasis on increasing citizen participation in decision-making has developed (Krishna, 2002; Lowndes et al., 2006). Local citizen engagement is especially important in West Africa, which struggles with issues of poor governance, undermining governmental legitimacy, institutional capacity, and ethics. To combat this, enhanced citizen participation in this region is viewed as an increasingly important aspect of democratic development. Citizen participation in local governance can improve the management of public resources, reduce corruption by increasing the accountability of public servants and political leaders, and have a positive impact on democracy by supporting the inclusion of marginalized groups, building civic skills and conceptions of democratic citizenship, and contributing to policy feedback and improved policy outcomes (Avritzer, 2002; Haque, 2003; Michels and De Graaf, 2010).

Despite these benefits, opportunities for citizens in West Africa to participate are minimal. Even when opportunities exist, citizens often fail to participate much beyond voting. Without this engagement in the local political system, local governments remain unaccountable and unresponsive. How do we strengthen citizenship and encourage West Africans to demand accountability by interacting with the political system between elections? Our study explores this question by providing a theoretical and empirical assessment of individual-level factors impacting local-level, non-electoral citizen engagement in West Africa.

Our model measures the effects of individual socio-economic and attitudinal characteristics on local political participation, as well as how citizens’ perceptions and evaluations of local government impact local participation. We offer three main contributions to the research on local participation in West Africa. First, we seek a better understanding of what socio-economic and attitudinal characteristics increase the probability of citizens engaging more deeply in the local political system. Most research on African participation focuses on national-level voting behavior (Bratton et al., 2005; Kuenzi and Lambright, 2007, 2011). Other forms of political participation are less studied, especially at the local level. Evidence from existing studies often does not fit with traditional models of participation that emphasize socio-economic and attitudinal determinants (Almond and Verba, 1963; Verba and Nie 1972; Verba et al., 1995). These factors do not seem to be as important in the African context, where the poor and other marginalized groups often participate more than those with higher levels of resources (Inman and Andrews, 2009; Mattes, 2008). Moving beyond voting behavior, we focus on individual-level determinants of other forms of local engagement in West Africa. This contributes to theory-building surrounding local participation.

Second, we move beyond traditional models by assessing the effects of the local institutional environment on local participation in West Africa. There is an emerging literature which indicates that citizens’ attitudes and perceptions about government, their evaluations of government performance, and their experiences with institutions of government affect whether or not citizens participate in the political system (Bratton, 2013; Hiskey and Seligson, 2003; Holzner, 2010).

Third, we place our analysis in the context of ‘good governance'. The term ‘good governance’ was coined by aid agencies in the late 1980s and early 1990s and used as a condition for aid. While it is criticized as normative, value-laden, and nebulous (Caluser and Salagean, 2007; Kofele-Kale, 1999; Masermule and Gutto, 2008), it is nonetheless ‘the reform that underpins all other reforms’, especially in Africa (Hussein, 2003: 80). Good governance emphasizes well-functioning market mechanisms and efficient resource management, positioning the relationship between the state and market at the core of economic growth and development (Abrahamsen, 2000). Critics of this neoclassical economic conception of good governance argue that there is a lack of supportive evidence (Gray and Khan, 2010) and that it ignores the ‘people-centered’ aspect of good governance, as well as the social and political context (Bendana, 2004; Masermule and Gutto, 2008). Amuwo (2002) emphasizes the role that participatory government must play (see also Omyia, 2000). While it is clear that there is not consensus on the meaning of good governance, and critiques exist, this does not render the concept useless (Frederickson, 2005).

Broader conceptions of good governance focus on citizen participation as central to the concept. Gaventa (2002) notes that we have attempted to strengthen participation while separately trying to strengthen good governance principles. He argues that we must work both sides of the equation simultaneously. Therefore, we utilize the good governance framework to explore links between citizen participation and other aspects of good governance.

Given the lack of an agreed-upon definition of ‘good governance’, the focus shifts to principles that strengthen good governance (Caluser and Salagean, 2007). Good governance principles common in the literature, and in normative discussions, include: citizen participation; transparency and accountability; equity; ethical behavior; responsiveness; effectiveness; and efficiency (Kim et al., 2005). Bovaird and Loffler (2002) argue for a ‘local governance’ model that emphasizes citizen engagement. Their conception of ‘good local governance’ uses, as measures, the principles of transparency, accountability, citizen engagement, trust, and equity. We utilize these principles as measures in our model in order to examine the relationship between citizen engagement and good governance.

An implicit assumption is that good governance creates conditions that result in positive interactions between citizens and the political system, and participation is enhanced since citizens who have positive experiences with government are more likely to engage in the political system (Hiskey and Bowler, 2005). We test this assumption by measuring the impact of three core principles of good governance – a transparent government, a responsive government that delivers effective and efficient services, and a government with low levels of corruption – on local citizen participation. To accomplish this, we ask: (1) ‘Are citizens who perceive local government to be more transparent more likely to engage in the local political system?’; (2) ‘Are citizens who are more satisfied with local service delivery more likely to participate in local politics?’; and (3) ‘Are citizens who have less experience with corruption more engaged in the local political system?’ These core principles of good governance are all emphasized in the quest for improved governance in West Africa, and are thought to lead to more involved citizens. Yet, there is little empirical work in this area.

Our study makes three core contributions by answering the following research questions:

Do traditional models of political participation, emphasizing an individual’s socio-economic and attitudinal characteristics, help explain local political participation in West Africa?

Do citizens’ attitudes and perceptions about local government, and citizens’ interactions with local government, help explain local political participation in West Africa?

Do good governance principles impact local political participation in West Africa, specifically through citizens’ evaluation of local governmental transparency, assessment of local service delivery, and experience with corruption?

To address these questions empirically, we use Round 4 Afrobarometer data from eight West African countries. The model we develop includes not only individual-level socio-economic and attitudinal measures, but also measures of citizens’ perceptions of – and interactions with – the local political environment. This allows us to evaluate the individual-level determinants of local political participation and to assess whether citizens’ attitudes and evaluations related to the good governance principles of transparency, accountability, and low levels of corruption influence local participation.

We first discuss participation in the context of the developing world, with a focus on the impact of local context. Next, we discuss the specific measures of good governance included in our model of local political participation: citizens’ attitudes about local government transparency and service delivery, and citizens’ experience with corruption. We discuss why they matter and how we expect that they will impact participation. We conclude with a discussion of major findings relative to efforts to increase local political participation and enhance local democratic governance.

Local political participation: citizens’ attitudes and experiences with the political system

Traditional scholarship on political participation emphasizes the role of an individual’s socio-economic and attitudinal characteristics, and an individual’s access to resources such as money, education, and civic skills (Almond and Verba, 1963; Verba and Nie, 1972; Verba et al., 1995). Yet, once socio-economic factors are established, they are fairly static and may not explain changes in individual participation over time. Additionally, while attitudes are often assumed to develop independently of experiences with the political system, in many developing countries, marginalized groups (e.g. the poor) participate at higher levels than those with more resources (Bratton et al., 2005; Holzner, 2010; Inman and Andrews, 2009; Mattes, 2008).

If conventional explanations cannot fully explain citizen participation, what are other considerations? Some scholars argue that the influence of political institutions is crucial since political activity occurs within an institutional environment that either facilitates or impedes citizens’ participation. Participation is influenced by citizens’ direct experiences with the institutions of this system (Holzner, 2010; Huckfeldt, 1986). Since they are more visible, local political institutions have the potential to alter how citizens view the system (Cornelius, 1999; Diamond, 1999; Grindle, 2000; Roderiguez, 1997). Indeed, there is a growing body of scholarship examining participation in the developing world which suggests that citizen engagement is, in part, a function of the performance of local institutions (e.g. Holzner, 2010). Hiskey and Seligson (2003) find that local institutions of decentralization in Mexico, if implemented well, have a positive effect on citizens’ views of the political system. Conversely, poorly executed decentralization contributes to negative views. Hiskey and Bowler (2005) use public opinion data collected prior to Mexican elections to demonstrate that citizens are more willing to participate if they think that the political system and its processes and institutions are ethical and fair. However, if citizens see the political system as corrupt, they may be less inclined to participate.

Limited evidence from Africa also supports the idea that the local environment influences participation. Bratton et al. (2005) use pooled data from 12 African countries, moving beyond a traditional model of participation by considering how political institutions shape participation. In fact, Bratton (2013) further argues that when it comes to political behavior, perceptions matter just as much as reality, and judgments about the quality and performance of government motivate political behavior.

Other African scholarship explores what shapes citizens’ perceptions of local government, including experiences with local officials and perceptions of and experiences with corruption (Bratton, 2010; Bratton and Sibanyoni, 2006; Konold, 2007). However, this work stops short of examining how citizens’ perceptions and experiences may affect citizens’ propensity to participate.

It is becoming increasingly clear that ‘local context, perceptions of the system, and political behavior are intimately connected’ (Hiskey and Bowler, 2005: 2). Political participation is a function not just of an individual’s level of resources and access to mobilization networks, but also of interactions with the local political system. Furthermore, views of the local political environment are impacted by citizens’ interactions and experiences with the institutions of the political system, and these experiences shape future political behavior (March and Olsen, 1995; Wildavsky, 1987).

The role of good governance in local political participation

There is an assumption that good governance has the potential to enhance participation, yet the relationship is under-researched. The impact of increased transparency, effective and efficient service delivery, and reduced corruption on citizen engagement – despite the significance to democratic and legitimate governance – has not been thoroughly explored.

Government transparency, the open flow of information from government to citizens, is increasingly important in the discourse on good governance (Park and Blenkinsopp, 2011) as it may have the potential to increase levels of citizen trust (Heald, 2006) and lead to a more engaged citizenry (Welch, 2012). Krawczyk et al. (2013) provide evidence to support this idea in West Africa. Using Round 4 Afrobarometer survey data from Liberia, they find that citizens who perceive local government to be more transparent are more likely to participate in local politics.

There is an abundant literature on citizens’ satisfaction with service delivery, especially on the potential role of citizens in service delivery (Whitaker, 1980). There has also been a marked increase in the measurement and analysis of indicators of citizen satisfaction with service delivery (Boukaert and Van de Walle, 2003; Park and Blenkinsopp, 2011).¹ However, the relationship between citizens’ satisfaction with service delivery and political participation remains under-studied, particularly in Africa. If citizens’ evaluations of the local political system impact their level of engagement (Holzner, 2010), we may surmise that citizens’ evaluations of local service delivery will impact how frequently they participate. Positive evaluations should lead to higher levels of engagement, and negative evaluations should result in lower levels of engagement.

Corruption can be defined as ‘misuse of public office for private gain’ (Rose-Ackerman, 2008: 551). While corruption is viewed as an important factor affecting political participation in Africa (Mbaku, 2007), how it affects participation is deliberated. Some research reveals that negative experiences with the political system lead to decreased interaction in that system (Hiskey and Bowler, 2005; Hiskey and Seligson, 2003; Holzner, 2010). Others find that corruption can act as an impetus for citizens to act, possibly in an effort to demand accountability from leaders (Bratton and Van de Walle, 1992; Inman and Andrews, 2009; Krawczyk et al., 2013).

Data and methods

Our analyses utilize individual-level data from the 2008 Round 4 Afrobarometer 20-country merged survey. The Afrobarometer is a nationally representative, random, stratified sample of 1200 respondents from each country and is conducted using face-to-face interviews (Afrobarometer, 2013). In addition to basic demographic information, Afrobarometer collects data about individuals’ attitudes and behavior. From this data set, we extracted the eight countries in West Africa where Round 4 surveys were conducted.² These countries – Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, and Senegal – represent half of the region’s countries and over 79% of the population (calculated from UN, 2013).

We utilize a negative binomial regression model (NBRM) as our estimation strategy. This method is conceptually appropriate given the nature of the dependent variable, which is comprised of a series of local participatory acts, in which we measure the change in estimated count. An NBRM also accounts for over-dispersion of the dependent variable, which is a common issue in many count measures.

Variables and measures

The dependent variable in our model, local political participation, is a count variable that measures how engaged West Africans are in political activities in their local communities. The six acts of participation included in the response variable are specific to the local environment.³ Table 1 provides a list of the six local acts of political participation that comprise local political participation, and Table 2 is a frequency distribution of the measure.⁴

Table 1.

Response measure used in model of local political participation.

Response measure	Question wording	Coding/scale
Local participation	If you yourself have seen problems in how local government is run in the past year, how often, if any, did you do any of the following: Discuss problem(s) with other people in the community; Join with others to address the problem; Discuss problem(s) with community, traditional, or religious leaders; Write a letter to a newspaper or call a radio show; Make a complaint to local officials in person or via letter; Make a complaint to other government officials in person or via letter.	Count variable ranging from 0 (participated in no activities) to 6 acts of local participation

Table 2.

Frequency distribution of the dependent variable.

Count value	N	Valid percent
0	1074	26.0
1	530	12.8
2	656	15.9
3	985	23.8
4	326	7.9
5	265	6.4
6	298	7.2
Total	4134	100.0

Table 3 lists the 12 individual-level explanatory measures used in our model and explains their coding. The Afrobarometer questions that are operationalized as variables in our model are listed in Appendix 1.

Table 3.

Individual-level explanatory measures used in models.

Type	Variable name and description	Coding/scale
Demographic	Rural/urban – whether a respondent lives in a rural or urban location	Coded 0 if respondent lives in a rural location, 1 if respondent lives in an urban location
	Gender – whether a respondent is male or female	Coded 0 if respondent is male, 1 if respondent is female
	Age – actual age of respondent in years	Ranges from 18 to 99 years old
	Education – educational level attained by respondent	Ranges from 0 to 9, where 0 is no formal schooling and 9 is postgraduate degree
Attitudinal	Interest in public life – how interested a respondent is in public affairs	Four-point scale, ranges from not at all interested to very interested
Attitudinal	Local efficacy – how much a respondent feels he or she can do to improve how local government is run	Four-point scale, ranges from nothing to a great deal
Institutional	Voluntary association membership – whether a respondent is a member of a voluntary association and the strength of membership in an association	Four-point scale measuring strength of membership, includes not a member, inactive member, active member, and official leader
	Electoral cleanliness – how a respondent rates the freeness and fairness of the most recent national election	Four-point scale, ranges from not free and fair to completely free and fair
	Party attachment – whether or not a respondent feels close to a political party	Coded 0 if respondent does not feel close to a party, 1 if respondent feels close to a party
	Experience with corruption – how many times over the past year a respondent has actually experienced payments of bribes/gifts/favors	Nine-point index, ranges from 0 to 9, comprised of three corrupt activities, each assessed on a four-point scale from never to often
	Local service delivery assessment – how well a respondent thinks local government is doing in the delivery of local services	Twenty-four point index, ranges from 0 to 24, comprised of six local service areas, each assessed on a four-point scale from very badly to very well
	Local transparency assessment – how transparently a respondent thinks local government practices the procedures of local government	Twenty-four point index, ranges from 0 to 24, comprised of six local procedures, each assessed on a four-point scale from very badly to very well

Table 4 provides descriptive statistics for the independent variables used in our model. Our demographic variables include gender, age, and education – all of which have been found to have a relationship with political participation (Verba and Nie, 1972; Verba et al., 1995). We also incorporate a dummy variable for whether a respondent lives in a rural or urban area. Although rural life in West Africa offers fewer chances to participate politically and less exposure to the political process and government-provided services, studies have found that those who reside in rural environments are actually more apt to participate than those who live in urban locales (Bratton et al., 2005). We also include individual-level attitudinal measures in our model: a respondent’s interest in public affairs and local political efficacy.

Table 4.

Descriptive statistics for model variables.

Variables	Mean	Std Dev.	Min.	Max.
Rural/urban	.436	.496	0	1
Gender	.501	.500	0	1
Age	36.178	14.355	18	110
Education	2.726	2.276	0	9
Interest in public affairs	1.753	1.124	0	3
Local efficacy	2.207	1.112	1	4
Voluntary association membership	.819	.990	0	3
Electoral cleanliness	2.956	1.110	1	4
Party attachment	.552	.497	0	1
Experience with corruption index	.754	1.633	0	9
Local service delivery index	13.258	4.513	6	24
Local government transparency index	12.081	5.088	6	24

Three variables in our model measure the effects of an individual's interaction with institutions, including voluntary association membership, party attachment, and perceptions of electoral cleanliness. These variables have been linked to political participation in previous studies, including African studies (Bratton et al., 2005).

Finally, we include three variables to measure the effects of local institutional context, specifically relative to good governance principles: a citizen’s: recent experience with corruption, assessment of local service delivery, and assessment of local governmental transparency. The indexed variable, experience with corruption, combines three Afrobarometer survey items that asked how frequently during the past year a respondent had to offer bribes, gifts, and/or favors to a government official to complete routine government business.

Local service delivery assessment is measured using a survey question asking respondents how well they think local government provides the delivery of basic services in six areas, including maintaining local roads, maintaining local marketplaces, maintaining health standards in public restaurants and food stalls, keeping the community clean, collecting license fees on bicycles, carts, and barrows, and collecting rates on privately owned houses.

Local transparency assessment is measured using an Afrobarometer survey question that asked respondents how well government officials follow practices such as making the local government’s program of work known, providing citizens with information about the local budget, allowing citizens to participate in local government decisions, consulting others before making decisions, effectively handling complaints, and guaranteeing the proper use of public funds.

We also include country fixed effects in our model to help control for the unique environment of the eight countries in our study.⁵ We acknowledge that this cannot fully account for the variation across the countries in our sample. While these eight countries share some of the characteristics that mark the context of political, social, and economic life in this region, in other ways they are very different. There is much variation in population, governance, and human development indicators. For instance, Cape Verde, with a population of just over half a million, is among the most democratic nations in the world (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2012), and ranks highly on human development indicators (Ibrahim Index, 2013). Liberia, on the other hand, is recovering after a long civil war and is in the bottom third for governance in African nations (Ibrahim Index, 2011).

Results

Table 5 reports raw coefficients, standard errors, and Z-scores for each independent variable in the model. The percentage change in expected count is also included to provide additional interpretation of the results of the NBRM.

Table 5.

Count equation: estimates and percentage change in expected count for the dependent variable local political participation.

	b	SE	Z	%
Rural/urban	–.143	.032	–4.424	–13.3
Gender	–.147	.033	–4.424	–13.6
Age	.003	.001	2.992	0.3
Education	.026	.008	3.328	2.6
Interest in public affairs	.035	.014	2.432	3.6
Local efficacy	.064	.014	4.448	6.6
Voluntary association membership	.132	.014	9.113	14.1
Electoral cleanliness	–.020	.016	–1.282	–2.0
Party attachment	.149	.032	4.586	16.0
Experience with corruption index	.057	.007	8.069	5.8
Local service delivery index	.002	.004	0.469	0.2
Local goverment transparency index	.014	.004	4.001	1.5
Country dummy: Burkina Faso	–.432	.156	–2.763	–35.1
Country dummy: Cape Verde	–.253	.107	–2.362	–22.3
Country dummy: Ghana	–.335	.077	–4.341	–28.4
Country dummy: Liberia	.126	.075	1.668	13.5
Country dummy: Mali	–.343	.098	–3.493	–29.0
Country dummy: Nigeria	–.090	.077	–1.173	–8.6
County dummy: Senegal	–.166	.136	–1.219	–15.3
Constant	.267	.110
N (observations)	1969
Pseudo R-squared	0.0660
Log likelihood	–3720.5498
LR chi² (19)	525.43
Prob > chi²	0.0000
Alpha	.0359199

The first goal of our study was to contribute to the research on determinants of local-level political participation in West Africa. We find evidence to support the idea that socio-economic and attitudinal characteristics impact local participation. Living in an urban environment reduces the expected count of local acts of participation by 13.3%, and being a woman reduces the expected count of local participatory acts by 13.6%. Respondents who are more educated or older are more likely to participate in local politics. Attitudinal variables also matter as those with higher levels of both interest in public affairs and local political efficacy are also more likely to participate.

Consistent with previous research, we find that voluntary association membership increases the propensity of a respondent to participate, as does party attachment. Voluntary association membership increases the expected count by 14.1%, and strong party attachment results in a 16.0% increase in the expected count of acts of local participation.

The second objective of this study was to provide evidence of the impact of local context on local-level political participation. We find concrete evidence that this is the case. A citizen’s recent experience with corruption stimulates participation in the local political system, and leads to a 5.8% increase in the expected count in the outcome variable local political participation. This offers support for the idea that corruption moves citizens to act, perhaps in an effort to elicit accountability from local officials. Figure 1 offers additional interpretation of the effects of this variable. As a respondent’s experience with corruption increases, the probability of not participating at all in the local political system decreases, and the probability of participating in three local acts increases, when all other values are held at their means.

Figure 1.

Probability of local political participation as respondent’s experience with corruption varies.

Respondents who view local government as more transparent are more likely to engage in the local system. Figure 2 illustrates that as perceptions of local transparency increase, so does the probability of participating in local politics. The probability of a zero count (no acts of participation) decreases, and the probability of three and six acts of local participation increases, when all other values are held at their means.

Figure 2.

Probability of local political participation as a respondent’s perception of local government transparency varies.

These findings help gauge the impact of good governance on citizen engagement, the third objective of this study. Two of the three principles of good governance that we tested – experience with corruption and local transparency – had a positive impact on local participation. Our findings support the contention that corruption drives citizens to act. Lower levels of corruption may pose a risk of apathy, however, as citizens may not feel the need to engage in local politics.

Implications and conclusions

While there are a number of studies that examine voting behavior in Africa, few studies focus on other forms of participation at the local level. There is also a lack of work that incorporates the effects of citizens’ perceptions of, and interactions with, the institutions of local government. Our study provides new evidence that addresses these gaps and is the first to include empirical examination of good governance principles relative to local participation.

We find support for the impact of an individual’s socio-economic and attitudinal characteristics on local political participation in West Africa. Men and rural dwellers were more likely to participate, as were individuals with an interest in public affairs and greater political efficacy. Citizens’ interactions with institutions also matter when it comes to local political participation as individuals that were members of voluntary organizations or with strong attachments to political parties were more likely to participate.

The findings also suggest that local context matters when it comes to citizen engagement in the local political system in West Africa. Citizens who view local government as transparent are more likely to engage in the local political system, as are citizens who are recent victims of corruption. These findings suggest that the current emphasis on good governance, with its goals of increased transparency and reduced corruption, can contribute to more engaged citizens who exhibit deeper levels of democratic citizenship.

It is important to understand what drives local engagement, particularly in light of the emphasis placed upon it as a crucial part of local capacity-building and development in Africa. Our findings have important practical implications for public administrators in West Africa who seek ways to increase local citizen engagement, build local capacity, and create a more democratic society through the implementation of good governance principles. Our study helps public administrators understand what propels citizens to engage in the local political system.

Our study also offers evidence for development partners, illustrating that good governance can have a positive impact on democratic society. This offers a rationale for the continued support of programs that seek to improve governance. This study also has important implications for democratic citizenship: public administrators and development partners in West Africa are concerned with creating citizens who have a deeper understanding of the rights and duties of citizenship. This is partly accomplished through citizens’ interactions with the political system, especially activities beyond voting. Evidence that local institutions affect levels of citizen interaction in the local system allows practitioners to use this knowledge as a platform for building democratic citizenship.

It is important to acknowledge that given the wide range of political, social, and economic conditions present in the eight countries in this study, it would be prudent to examine patterns specific to each country. Also, while our study assumes citizens’ attitudes and perceptions affect local political behavior, there is difficulty in determining the causal nature of this relationship, as is often the case in research on political behavior and in research that relies on survey data. Future research exploring the possibility of reciprocal causation and interaction effects would be valuable. Finally, global public administration research should compare across cultures to examine contextual factors that influence the success of institutional practices (Fitzpatrick et al., 2011). It will be important to conduct this sort of multi-level analyses in the future in West Africa.

Our study contributes to the development of improved institutions that provide impetus for deeper national democratic citizenship through increased access to political institutions (Holzner, 2010), building political interest, engagement, and efficacy that supports future political activity. This ultimately leads to greater legitimacy in government and deeper democratic citizenship, and contributes to achieving the goals of good governance. We can utilize the findings of this study to help create an environment in West Africa that reflects the principles associated with good governance. Reaching these goals will depend not only on the strength, capacity, and influence of local governmental institutions in West Africa, but also on the perceptions and attitudes of citizens, and on the ability of public administrators to improve citizen–government interactions by using what we learn about the structure and significance of local institutions.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

Dr Kelly Ann Krawczyk is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Auburn University, USA, teaching in their Masters of Public Administration program. She has applied experience in US-based non-profits and international non-governmental organizations, and has published her research in Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, the International Journal of Public Administration, and Local Government Studies. Her research interests include civil society, citizen engagement, and democratic local governance.

Dr Jennie Sweet-Cushman is the Assistant Director of the Pennsylvania Center for Women and Politics and Assistant Professor of Political Science at Chatham University, USA. She earned her PhD in Political Science from Wayne State University. Her research focuses on gender differences in political participation at both the mass and elite levels in both the US and West Africa.

Appendix 1: Afrobarometer survey questions

References

Abrahamsen

(2000) Disciplining Democracy. Development Discourse and Good Governance in Africa, London: Zed Books Ltd.

Afrobarometer (2013) Round 4 data. Available at: http://www.afrobarometer.org/ (accessed January 2013).

Almond

Verba

(1963) Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, New York: Little Brown.

Amuwo

(2002) Globalisation, NEPAD and the governance question in Africa. African Studies Quarterly (The Online Journal for African Studies) 6(3): Available at: http://asq.africa.ufl.edu/files/Amuwo-Vol6-Issue3.pdf.

Avritzer

(2002) Democracy and the Public Space in Latin America, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bendana A (2004) ‘Good Governance’ and the MDGS: Contradictory or Complementary? Paper presented at the Institute for Global Network, Information, and Studies (IGNIS) Conference, Oslo, Norway, 20 September. Available at: http://focusweb.org/node/518.

Boukaert

Van de Walle

(2003) Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of ‘good governance’: Difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences 69(3): 329–343.

Bovaird

Loffler

(2002) Moving from excellence models of local service delivery to benchmarking ‘good local governance’.. International Review of Administrative Sciences 68(1): 9–24.

Bratton M (2010) Citizens’ perceptions of local government responsiveness in sub-Saharan Africa. Afrobarometer Working Paper 119.

10.

Bratton

(2013) Voting and democratic citizenship in Africa: Where next? In: Bratton

(ed.) Voting and Democratic Citizenship in Africa, Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.

11.

Bratton M and Sibanyoni M (2006) Delivery or responsiveness? A popular scorecard of local government performance in South Africa. Afrobarometer Working Paper 62.

12.

Bratton

Van de Walle

(1992) Popular protest and political reform in Africa. Comparative Politics 24(4): 419–442.

13.

Bratton

Mattes

Gyimah-Boadi

(2005) Public Opinion, Democracy, and Market Reform in Africa, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Caluser M and Salagean M (eds) (2007) Good governance in multi-ethnic communities: Conditions, instruments, best practices, ways to achieve and measure good governance at the local level. King Baudouin Foundation and Ethnocultural Diversity Resource Center.

15.

Cornelius

(1999) Subnational politics and democratization: Tensions between center and periphery in the Mexican political system. In: Cornelius

Eisenstadt

Hindley

(eds) Subnational Politics and Democratization in Mexico, San Diego, CA: University of California, pp. 3–16.

16.

Diamond

(1999) Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

17.

Economist Intelligence Unit (2012) The Democracy Index. Available at: http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=Democracy0814 (accessed August 2014).

18.

Fitzpatrick J, Goggin M and Heikkila T (2011) A new look at comparative public administration: Trends in research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review. November/December: 821–830.

19.

Frederickson

(2005) Whatever happened to public administration? Governance, governance everywhere. In: Ferlie

Lynn

Pollitt

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 282–304.

20.

Gaventa

(2002) Introduction: Exploring citizenship, participation, and accountability. IDS Bulletin 33(20): 1–11.

21.

Gray

Khan

(2010) Good governance and growth in Africa: What can we learn from Tanzania? In: Padayachee

(ed.) The Political Economy of Africa, London: Routledge, pp. 339–356.

22.

Grindle

(2000) Audacious Reforms: Institutional Invention and Democracy in Latin America, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

23.

Haque

(2003) Citizen participation in governance through representation: Issue of gender in East Asia. International Journal of Public Administration 26(5): 569–590.

24.

Heald

(2006) Varieties of transparency. In: Hood

Heald

(eds) Transparency: The Key to Better Governance?, New York: Oxford University Press.

25.

Hiskey

Bowler

(2005) Local context and democratization in Mexico. American Journal of Political Science 49(1): 57–71.

26.

Hiskey

Seligson

(2003) Pitfalls of power to the people: Decentralisation, local government performance, and system support in Bolivia. Studies in Comparative International Development 37(4): 64–88.

27.

Holzner

(2010) Poverty of Democracy: The Institutional Roots of Political Participation in Mexico, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

28.

Huckfeldt

(1986) Politics in Context: Assimilation and Conflict in Urban Neighborhoods, New York: Agathon Press.

29.

Hussein

(2003) Good governance and decentralisation at the local level: The case of Malawi. Journal of Political Sciences and Public Administration (POLITEIA) 22(2): 78–93.

30.

Ibrahim Index of African Governance (2011). Available at: http://www.moibrahimfoundation.org/iiag/ (accessed June 2013).

31.

Ibrahim Index of African Governance (2013). Available at: http://www.moibrahimfoundation.org/iiag/ (accessed June 2013).

32.

Inman K and Andrews J (2009) Corruption and political participation in Africa: Evidence from survey and experimental research. Paper presented at the 2008 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, 3–6 April, Chicago, IL.

33.

Kim

Halligan

Cho

(2005) Toward participatory and transparent governance: Report on the Sixth Global Forum on Government. Public Administration Review 65(6): 646–653.

34.

Kofele-Kale N (2001) Good governance as political conditionality. The African Anthropologist 8(1): 20–38.

35.

Konold C (2007) Perceived corruption, public opinion, and social influence in Senegal. Afrobarometer Working Paper 85.

36.

Krawczyk

Muhula

Sweet-Cushman

(2013) The road to good governance: Via the path less accountable? The effectiveness of fiscal accountability mechanisms in Liberia. International Journal of Public Administration 36(8): 532–543.

37.

Krishna

(2002) Enhancing political participation in democracies: What is the role of social capital? Comparative Political Studies 35(4): 437–460.

38.

Kuenzi

Lambright

GMS

(2007) Voter turnout in Africa’s multiparty regimes. Comparative Political Studies 40: 665–690.

39.

Kuenzi

Lambright

GMS

(2011) Who votes in Africa? An examination of electoral participation in ten African countries. Party Politics 17(6): 767–799.

40.

Lowndes

Pratchett

Stoker

(2006) Local political participation: The impact of rules-in-use. Public Administration 84(3): 539–561.

41.

March

Olsen

(1995) Democratic Governance, New York: Free Press.

42.

Masermule

Gutto

SBO

(2008) A critical understanding of good governance and leadership concepts written in the context of New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and the challenges of contextual discourse on Africa’s development paradigms. International Journal of African Renaissance Studies 3(2): 63–101.

43.

Mattes

(2008) South Africans’ participation in local politics and government. Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa 66/67: 116–141.

44.

Mbaku

(2007) Corruption in Africa: Causes, Consequences, and Cleanups, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

45.

Michels

De Graaf

(2010) Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies 36(4): 477–491.

46.

Omiya S (2000) Citizen participation in Kenya. In: Decentralisation and Citizen Participation in Africa, Regional Development Dialogue, (RDD). Vol. 21(1). Nayoga, Japan: United Nations.

47.

Park

Blenkinsopp

(2011) The roles of transparency and trust in the relationship between corruption and citizen satisfaction. International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(2): 254–274.

48.

Roderiguez

(1997) Decentralisation in Mexico: From Reforma Municipal to Solidaridad to Nuevo Federalismo, Boudler, CO: Westview Press.

49.

Rose-Ackerman

(2008) Corruption. In: Rowley

Schneider

(eds) Readings in Public Choice and Constitutional Political Economy, New York: Springer.

50.

UN (United Nations) (2013) Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings. 11 February. Available at: http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm.

51.

Verba

Nie

(1987) Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

52.

Verba

Scholzman

Brady

(1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Volunteerism in American Politics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

53.

Welch

(2012) The relationship between transparent and participative government: A study of local governments in the United States. International Review of Administrative Sciences 78(1): 93–115.

54.

Whitaker

(1980) Coproduction: Citizen participation in service delivery. Public Administration Review 40(3): 240–246.

55.

Wildavsky

(1987) Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: A cultural theory of preference formation. American Political Science Review 81(1): 3–22.