Data

General Issues
Governance & Political Institutions
Identity & Diversity
Human Rights & Civil Rights
Specific Topics
Budget - Local
Government Corruption
Citizenship & Role of Citizens
Location
Afghanistan
Scope of Influence
Regional
Links
Direct democracy and resource allocation: Experimental evidence from Afghanistan
Start Date
End Date
Ongoing
No
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Develop the civic capacities of individuals, communities, and/or civil society organizations
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
Deliver goods & services
Approach
Social mobilization
Civil society building
Co-governance
Total Number of Participants
4000
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Random Sample
Targeted Demographics
Low-Income Earners
Men
General Types of Methods
Public budgeting
Direct democracy
Community development, organizing, and mobilization
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Facilitate decision-making
Legislation, policy, or frameworks
Manage and/or allocate money or resources
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
Yes
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
Express Opinions/Preferences Only
Informal Social Activities
Information & Learning Resources
No Information Was Provided to Participants
Decision Methods
Voting
Type of Organizer/Manager
Government-Owned Corporation
Community Based Organization
Funder
World Bank
Type of Funder
International Organization
Evidence of Impact
Yes

CASE

Direct Democracy and Resource Allocation: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan, 2015

November 24, 2021 aw2n20
General Issues
Governance & Political Institutions
Identity & Diversity
Human Rights & Civil Rights
Specific Topics
Budget - Local
Government Corruption
Citizenship & Role of Citizens
Location
Afghanistan
Scope of Influence
Regional
Links
Direct democracy and resource allocation: Experimental evidence from Afghanistan
Start Date
End Date
Ongoing
No
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Develop the civic capacities of individuals, communities, and/or civil society organizations
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
Deliver goods & services
Approach
Social mobilization
Civil society building
Co-governance
Total Number of Participants
4000
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Random Sample
Targeted Demographics
Low-Income Earners
Men
General Types of Methods
Public budgeting
Direct democracy
Community development, organizing, and mobilization
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Facilitate decision-making
Legislation, policy, or frameworks
Manage and/or allocate money or resources
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
Yes
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
Express Opinions/Preferences Only
Informal Social Activities
Information & Learning Resources
No Information Was Provided to Participants
Decision Methods
Voting
Type of Organizer/Manager
Government-Owned Corporation
Community Based Organization
Funder
World Bank
Type of Funder
International Organization
Evidence of Impact
Yes

This study compares the impact of participatory budgeting versus direct democracy at the sub-national level in Afghanistan; more specifically whether direct democracy is an effective tool in reducing elite capture over allocation of public resources.