D-Minus Elections: The Politics and Norms of International Election Observation
Open accessAbstract
As international election monitors have grown active worldwide, their announcements have gained influence. Sometimes, however, they endorse highly flawed elections. Because their leverage rests largely on their credibility, this is puzzling. Understanding the behavior of election monitors is important because they help the international community to evaluate the legitimacy of governments and because their assessments inform the data used by scholars to study democracy. Furthermore, election monitors are also particularly instructive to study because the variety of both intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations that observe elections makes it possible to compare them across many countries and political contexts. This study uses a new dataset of 591 international election-monitoring missions. It shows that despite their official mandate to focus on election norms, monitors do not only consider the elections' quality; their assessments also reflect the interests of their member states or donors as well as other tangential organizational norms. Thus, even when accounting as best as possible for the nature and level of irregularities in an election, monitors' concerns about democracy promotion, violent instability, and organizational politics and preferences are associated with election endorsement. The study also reveals differences in the behavior of intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations and explains why neither can pursue their core objectives single-min…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Election monitors sometimes endorse flawed elections.
“Therefore, election monitors sometimes endorse flawed elections.”
From Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding (2018) · cites this paper as Kelley (2009)
International election monitors respond to complex incentives, including credibility, democracy promotion, member state interests, preventing election-related violence, and organizational preferences.
“Kelley (2009) demonstrates that international election monitors respond to complex incentives, with concerns for their credibility and for democracy promotion sometimes jostling with concerns for the interests of their member states, the desire to prevent election-related violence, and even organizational preferences.”
From Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding (2018) · cites this paper as Kelley (2009)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding
Waldner, D., & Lust, E. (2018) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628 · Cited by 889 · see citing works
Authoritarian regime types revisited: updated data in comparative perspective
Wahman, M., Teorell, J., & Hadenius, A. (2013) · Contemporary Politics · doi:10.1080/13569775.2013.773200 · Cited by 360 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kelley, J.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kelley, Judith
- ORCID
- Kelley, Judith
- Venue
- International Organization
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2009-10
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 765-787
- ISSN
- 0020-8183 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5088
- OpenAlex
- W2127683416
- Cited by
- 153
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 46.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- papers.ssrn.com
- Locations
- International Organization (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Keywords
- international election observation, election quality, democracy promotion, organizational politics, donor interests, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, election irregularities, political legitimacy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review