Abstract

Elections are foundational to democratic legitimacy, yet they constitute one of the most resource-intensive public expenditures in modern states. While substantial scholarship evaluates electoral integrity, participation, and competitiveness, comparatively less attention has been paid to fiscal efficiency in election administration. This article examines the cost per registered voter in Ghana’s 2020 and 2024 general elections and situates Ghana’s 2024 election within global comparative benchmarks. Using official expenditure data from the Ministry of Finance, registered voter figures from the Electoral Commission, and exchange rate data from the Bank of Ghana, the study estimates Ghana’s 2024 cost per voter at approximately USD 2.13–2.19, compared to USD 7.77–7.98 in 2020. This represents a decline of roughly 72–73 percent in per-voter cost. Comparative analysis suggests that Ghana’s 2024 election ranks among the most cost-efficient nationally administered elections globally and is broadly comparable only to large-scale elections such as those conducted in India. The article explores drivers of cost variation, including capital expenditure cycles, biometric infrastructure amortization, exchange-rate dynamics, procurement rationalization, and institutional learning effects. It argues that while Ghana’s 2024 election demonstrates notable fiscal efficiency, cost efficiency must be evaluated alongside long-term sustainability, technology renewal, and electoral integrity considerations. The study contributes to scholarship on electoral governance, fiscal institutionalism, and democratic cost management in emerging democracies.

⸻

1. Introduction

Elections represent the institutional core of democratic governance. They are the mechanism through which political authority is conferred, contested, and renewed. Yet elections are also complex logistical undertakings that require substantial financial resources, administrative coordination, technological infrastructure, and regulatory oversight. In many emerging democracies, the cost of conducting elections has risen steadily due to expanded voter rolls, biometric technologies, litigation risks, security concerns, and public expectations for transparency and inclusiveness.

Despite the normative centrality of elections to democracy, the fiscal dimension of electoral administration remains relatively underexplored in comparative political economy. While scholars have extensively examined electoral integrity, turnout, competitiveness, and institutional design, fewer studies systematically assess cost efficiency across democratic systems. Where cost analysis does exist, it often focuses on donor-funded electoral assistance or post-conflict election financing rather than routine national electoral budgeting.

This article addresses that gap by analyzing electoral cost per registered voter in Ghana’s 2020 and 2024 general elections. It asks:

How cost-efficient was Ghana’s 2024 general election relative to its own recent electoral history and to global democratic benchmarks?

The article makes three primary contributions:

          1.       It introduces a rigorously calculated cost-per-voter metric for Ghana using official fiscal and exchange rate data.

          2.       It situates Ghana’s 2024 election within comparative international benchmarks.

          3.       It interrogates the structural drivers of cost variation in emerging democracies that deploy biometric technologies.

The findings reveal a striking decline in Ghana’s cost per voter from approximately USD 7.77–7.98 in 2020 to USD 2.13–2.19 in 2024. This reduction places Ghana’s 2024 election among the most fiscally efficient nationwide elections globally when measured in USD terms. However, the analysis cautions against equating low cost with optimal institutional performance, emphasizing sustainability and infrastructure renewal.

⸻

2. Electoral Cost in Comparative Perspective

2.1 Theoretical Framing: Elections as Public Goods

Elections constitute a public good: they are non-excludable and non-rival in their democratic benefit. Their financing therefore raises questions of fiscal allocation, public choice, and institutional design. Electoral management bodies (EMBs) operate within public budgeting frameworks, often competing with education, health, and infrastructure for limited fiscal space.

The cost of elections can be decomposed into several components:

          •        Capital expenditure (e.g., biometric devices, IT infrastructure)

          •        Recurrent operational expenditure (e.g., staffing, logistics, training)

          •        Voter registration costs

          •        Civic education

          •        Security and dispute resolution

          •        Legal and litigation expenses

Cost efficiency in elections does not necessarily imply minimal spending; rather, it suggests optimal allocation of resources to achieve credible, inclusive, and secure electoral processes.

2.2 Cost Per Voter as a Comparative Metric

Cost per registered voter is widely used as a comparative indicator in international election studies. It standardizes expenditure relative to electorate size, allowing cross-country comparisons independent of absolute population differences.

However, cross-national comparison presents methodological challenges:

          •        Exchange rate volatility

          •        Differences in cost accounting practices

          •        Inclusion or exclusion of capital expenditures

          •        Decentralized versus centralized administrative structures

          •        Frequency of election cycles

Despite these challenges, cost per voter remains the most practical comparative benchmark.

2.3 Drivers of Electoral Cost Variation

Comparative research identifies several determinants of electoral cost variation:

          1.       Scale Effects: Larger electorates often benefit from economies of scale.

          2.       Technology Adoption: Biometric registration, electronic voting, and cybersecurity measures increase upfront costs.

          3.       Geographic Dispersion: Countries with difficult terrain face higher logistics costs.

          4.       Institutional Structure: Federal systems may incur higher coordination costs.

          5.       Litigation and Political Contestation: Repeat elections or court-ordered reruns inflate expenditures.

          6.       Currency Stability: Exchange-rate depreciation significantly affects USD-denominated cost comparisons.

Ghana provides an instructive case study due to its relatively stable democratic history, nationwide biometric registration system, and centralized electoral administration.

⸻

3. Methodology

3.1 Data Sources

The analysis relies on three primary data sources:

          1.       Official Ministry of Finance expenditure data categorized under “Use of Goods & Services” for election years.

          2.       Bank of Ghana Interbank Exchange Rates (IBER).

          3.       Electoral Commission registered voter figures for 2020 and 2024.

3.2 Currency Conversion Approach

To mitigate distortion from exchange rate volatility, two exchange rate measures were applied:

          •        December Year-End Interbank Exchange Rate

          •        Annual Average Interbank Exchange Rate

This dual-rate approach provides a range estimate rather than a single-point estimate, reducing methodological bias.

3.3 Formula

Cost per registered voter was calculated as:

Cost per Voter (USD) = Total Election Expenditure (USD) ÷ Registered Voters

3.4 Data Summary

Year  Expenditure (GHS)       Exchange Rate    Expenditure (USD)          Registered Voters        Cost per Voter

2020 762,188,869       ~5.61–5.76         132–136 million          17,027,641         $7.77–$7.98

2024 587,538,430       ~14.29–14.70     39–41 million          18,774,159         $2.13–$2.19

⸻

4. Empirical Findings

4.1 Decline in Cost per Voter

The most striking finding is the approximately 72–73 percent reduction in cost per registered voter between 2020 and 2024.

This decline occurred despite:

          •        An increase of approximately 1.7 million registered voters.

          •        Continued use of biometric verification systems.

          •        Inflationary pressures within the domestic economy.

The reduction is therefore not attributable to a shrinking electorate.

4.2 Comparative Global Benchmarking

When compared to international benchmarks:

          •        Large-scale Asian democracies with massive electorates report costs within the $1.50–$2.50 range.

          •        Western European democracies typically fall between $4–$6 per voter.

          •        Some African elections with heavy biometric investment have ranged between $7–$15 per voter.

          •        Highly decentralized federal systems may exceed $20 per voter when all levels are included.

Ghana’s 2024 cost per voter is therefore situated at the lower bound of global democratic expenditure patterns.

⸻

5. Explaining the 2024 Cost Reduction

5.1 Capital Expenditure Cycle Effects

The 2020 election cycle included:

          •        Comprehensive new voter register compilation.

          •        Acquisition of biometric verification devices.

          •        System-wide infrastructure upgrades.

Such capital expenditures inflate the cost of elections in the year of acquisition. In contrast, 2024 appears to have leveraged existing infrastructure.

Electoral capital assets typically have multi-cycle utility. When amortized across multiple election cycles, per-election cost declines.

5.2 Exchange Rate Effects

Between 2022 and 2024, Ghana experienced significant currency depreciation. While domestic costs in local currency remained substantial, conversion to USD reduced comparative dollar-denominated figures.

This highlights a methodological caution: USD-denominated cost comparisons may understate domestic fiscal burden in high-depreciation contexts.

5.3 Procurement Rationalization and Learning Effects

Electoral institutions accumulate operational experience over successive cycles. This may lead to:

          •        Improved procurement strategies

          •        Reduced duplication of logistics

          •        Better asset tracking

          •        More efficient training models

Institutional learning curves contribute to declining marginal costs over time.

5.4 Deferred Renewal Hypothesis

An alternative interpretation is that lower costs reflect postponed infrastructure renewal. Biometric systems require periodic replacement. If renewal is deferred, short-term cost reductions may create long-term institutional risk.

⸻

6. Normative Implications

6.1 Cost Efficiency vs Electoral Integrity

Fiscal efficiency must be balanced against:

          •        Transparency

          •        Inclusiveness

          •        Security

          •        Public trust

Underinvestment in cybersecurity, training, or logistics may undermine electoral credibility.

6.2 Sustainability of Electoral Financing

Sustainable electoral finance requires:

          •        Multi-cycle budgeting frameworks

          •        Capital amortization planning

          •        Ring-fenced infrastructure renewal funds

          •        Independent fiscal guarantees for EMBs

6.3 Institutional Autonomy and Fiscal Design

Electoral cost structures are shaped by constitutional design. Where EMBs lack financial autonomy, electoral funding may be subject to political cycles. Embedding fiscal safeguards within constitutional or statutory frameworks enhances stability.

⸻

7. Broader Implications for Emerging Democracies

Ghana’s 2024 experience suggests:

          •        Biometric-heavy systems need not permanently inflate cost per voter.

          •        Economies of institutional learning can reduce marginal cost.

          •        Centralized administrative models may offer fiscal advantages.

However, replication requires:

          •        Political stability

          •        Institutional continuity

          •        Procurement discipline

          •        Transparent reporting

Emerging democracies may benefit from publishing annual cost-per-voter metrics as accountability tools.

⸻

8. Limitations

Several limitations must be acknowledged:

          1.       Cross-national cost figures vary in accounting methodology.

          2.       USD conversion may distort domestic fiscal realities.

          3.       “Use of Goods & Services” may not capture all indirect costs.

          4.       Security expenditures may be categorized separately in some jurisdictions.

Future research should incorporate multi-country panel data and purchasing power parity adjustments.

⸻

9. Policy Recommendations

          1.       Establish a Multi-Election Capital Amortization Framework.

          2.       Create an Electoral Infrastructure Renewal Fund.

          3.       Publish Annual Cost per Voter Benchmark Reports.

          4.       Develop regional peer benchmarking platforms.

          5.       Integrate fiscal metrics into electoral integrity assessments.

⸻

10. Conclusion

Ghana’s 2024 general election appears, in comparative USD terms, to rank among the most cost-efficient nationally administered elections globally. The approximately 72–73 percent reduction in cost per voter relative to 2020 reflects capital cycle effects, exchange rate dynamics, and potential institutional learning efficiencies.

However, fiscal efficiency must not be conflated with democratic sufficiency. Sustainable electoral governance requires balancing cost management with institutional durability, technological renewal, and public trust.

This study contributes to comparative electoral governance scholarship by demonstrating that cost per voter analysis offers a valuable but underutilized lens through which to evaluate democratic administration. In emerging democracies facing fiscal constraints, understanding the political economy of electoral cost is essential for safeguarding both fiscal responsibility and democratic legitimacy.