Electoral Cost Efficiency in Emerging Democracies: A Comparative Analysis of Cost Per Voter in Ghana’s 2020 and 2024 General Elections

Elections are the cornerstone of democratic legitimacy, yet they represent one of the most significant and complex financial undertakings for any state. While extensive research focuses on electoral integrity, voter turnout, and competitiveness, the critical dimension of electoral cost efficiency—how effectively resources are used to administer credible elections—remains underexplored, particularly in emerging democracies. This article provides a rigorous, data-driven examination of the cost per registered voter in Ghana’s 2020 and 2024 general elections. Using official expenditure and voter registration data, we calculate a dramatic reduction in per-voter cost for 2024 and place this achievement within a global comparative context. We analyze the drivers behind this shift, from capital expenditure cycles to currency dynamics, and discuss the crucial balance between fiscal prudence and the long-term sustainability of electoral infrastructure.

Key Points at a Glance

• Stunning Cost Reduction: Ghana’s cost per registered voter fell by approximately 72–73% from the 2020 election (~$7.77–$7.98) to the 2024 election (~$2.13–$2.19).
• Global Benchmarking: At an estimated $2.13–$2.19 per voter, Ghana’s 2024 election ranks among the most cost-efficient national elections globally, comparable only to the world’s largest electoral exercises like those in India.
• Primary Driver: The reduction is largely attributable to the capital expenditure cycle. The 2020 election included major one-time investments in biometric infrastructure and a comprehensive voter registration exercise, costs that were amortized and did not recur in 2024.
• Currency Impact: Significant Ghanaian cedi depreciation between 2020 and 2024 lowered the USD-denominated cost, though domestic fiscal pressure in local currency terms remained substantial.
• Institutional Learning: Evidence suggests improved procurement, logistics, and operational efficiency from the Electoral Commission’s accumulated experience contributed to lower recurrent costs.
• Critical Caution: Lower cost does not automatically equate to optimal electoral management. Sustainability, timely infrastructure renewal, and unwavering commitment to electoral integrity must remain paramount.

Background: Framing the Fiscal Dimension of Democracy

Elections as a Public Financial Management Challenge

Elections function as a public good: their democratic benefits are non-excludable and non-rival. Consequently, their financing falls under the purview of public financial management, where electoral management bodies (EMBs) compete with sectors like health and education for limited fiscal resources. The total cost of an election is a composite of several elements: capital expenditure (e.g., biometric verification devices, IT systems), recurrent operational costs (staffing, transportation, training), voter registration, civic education, security, and dispute resolution. True electoral cost efficiency is not about minimizing spending at all costs; it is about optimizing the allocation of resources to achieve a credible, inclusive, secure, and transparent electoral process.

The Cost-Per-Voter Metric: A Tool for Comparative Analysis

The cost per registered voter metric is the standard for cross-national electoral cost comparison. It standardizes expenditure relative to the size of the electorate, allowing for meaningful analysis beyond absolute population size. However, this metric faces methodological hurdles, including volatile exchange rates, differing national accounting practices (what expenses are included or excluded from an “election budget”), variations in administrative structure (centralized vs. federal), and the frequency of electoral cycles. Despite these challenges, it remains the most practical and widely used benchmark in comparative election studies.

Key Drivers of Global Electoral Cost Variation

Scholarly and practitioner analyses identify several determinants of why elections cost different amounts in different countries:

• Scale Economies: Larger electorates can often reduce per-unit costs through bulk procurement and logistical efficiencies.
• Technology Adoption: The introduction of biometric voter registration, electronic transmission of results, or other advanced technologies creates significant upfront capital expenditure.
• Geography and Logistics: Nations with challenging terrain, island archipelagos, or poor infrastructure face higher transportation and deployment costs.
• Institutional Architecture: Highly decentralized or federal systems, where multiple levels of government run elections, typically see higher overall supervision and coordination costs.
• Political Contestation: Nations with high levels of electoral litigation, frequent court-ordered reruns, or severe political violence incur extraordinary security and legal costs.
• Currency and Inflation: For international comparisons using USD, the trajectory of the local currency is a critical, often distorting, factor.

Ghana’s case is instructive. It is a stable, unitary republic with a centralized electoral administration, a single nationwide biometric voter register, and a history of peaceful transfers of power—making it a strong candidate for analyzing the pure operational costs of election management in an emerging democracy.

Analysis: Deconstructing Ghana’s 2020 and 2024 Election Costs

Methodology and Data Transparency

This analysis prioritizes data veracity and methodological clarity. All figures are derived from three official, publicly available sources:

1. Ministry of Finance, Ghana: Total expenditure labeled under “Use of Goods & Services” for the fiscal years containing the 2020 and 2024 elections.
2. Electoral Commission of Ghana: Official figures for the number of registered voters prior to each general election.
3. Bank of Ghana: Interbank Exchange Rates (IBER), using both the December year-end rate and the annual average rate to create a realistic USD conversion range and mitigate single-point volatility.

The formula applied is straightforward: Cost per Voter (USD) = Total Election Expenditure (GHS) / Registered Voters, with expenditure converted to USD using the dual exchange-rate approach.

Note: The 2024 voter figure is a projection based on the final voter exhibition period. All figures are estimates based on the described methodology.

The Dramatic Cost Reduction: A Closer Look

The data reveals a staggering 72–73% decline in the cost per voter between 2020 and 2024. This occurred despite a 10.3% increase in the size of the electorate (an additional 1.75 million voters) and persistent inflationary pressures within Ghana. The reduction is therefore not a function of a smaller electoral task but of a fundamentally different financial profile between the two election cycles.

Explaining the 2024 Cost Efficiency: Four Interlocking Factors

1. The Capital Expenditure Cycle and Asset Amortization

This is the most significant factor. The 2020 general election was preceded by a monumental, once-in-a-generation project: the compilation of a new, biometric-based voters’ register. This involved:

• Procurement and deployment of thousands of biometric verification devices (BVDs).
• Establishment of a national IT infrastructure for data management.
• A massive, country-wide voter registration exercise.

These were capital costs with a multi-election lifecycle. The 2024 election primarily involved the recurrent operational costs of using this existing, amortized infrastructure for voter verification and results transmission. The major capital outlay was not repeated, leading to a natural and substantial decline in the annual election budget. This highlights a key principle: the cost of elections with new biometric systems is inherently front-loaded.

2. Exchange Rate Dynamics: A Methodological Warning

Between the 2020 and 2024 election cycles, the Ghanaian cedi experienced severe depreciation. The exchange rate nearly doubled from ~5.7 GHS/USD to ~14.5 GHS/USD. While the total expenditure in GHS decreased only modestly (from ~762 million to ~588 million GHS), converting this smaller GHS figure at a much weaker exchange rate results in a dramatically lower USD-denominated cost.

Important Implication: The USD metric is excellent for international comparison but can understate the real domestic fiscal burden. For Ghanaian policymakers and citizens, the relevant figure is the cost in cedis per voter, which was ~44.7 GHS in 2020 and ~31.3 GHS in 2024—a smaller but still significant 30% reduction in local currency terms. True fiscal efficiency must be assessed in domestic currency, with USD figures serving primarily for cross-border benchmarking.

3. Procurement Rationalization and Institutional Learning

The Electoral Commission of Ghana, having executed several major electoral cycles since 2012, has accumulated substantial operational experience. This “learning curve” likely yielded efficiencies in:

• Logistics Planning: More optimized routing for personnel and materials.
• Procurement Processes: Better negotiation, reduced reliance on emergency tenders, and improved asset management