Abstract:This paper uses several ols models to evaluate the impact of sociological, institutional, and spatial approaches to turnout across the 330 municipalities of Guatemala. It shows that economic development and geographic location (urban vs. rural) have little discernible impact on turnout. Turnout, however, varies positively with the share of registered voters who are female, even if fewer women are registered to vote and, as a result, actually cast ballots. As turnout has fallen through time, the share of registered voters who are literate and the share of the population that is indigenous have become negatively associated with turnout. Larger number of citizens turn out to vote as municipal size decreases and as the ratio of registered voters to voting stations falls. That these factors are significant suggests that, even in a research design that privileges socioeconomic variation, spatial-institutional differences help explain voter turnout rates. Keywords: Voter turnout; Political participation; Democratization; Guatemala Artice: IntroductionIn the study of voter turnout rates, we know two sets of facts. One is sociological: numerous survey researchers show that, at the individual level, turnout varies positively with wealth and education (see Lijphart, 1997, for a review). The other is institutional: the more competitive and accountable the political systems are, the larger the turnout rate is (Cox, 1999;Jackman, 1987;Jackman and Miller, 1995). These are findings largely drawn from national-level studies of industrial democracies. How both sets of factors interact in the developing world, however, is largely unknown.We use a subnational research design to uncover the social and institutional underpinnings of voter turnout in Guatemala. By analyzing turnout at the municipal level, we can vary the social conditions that are held constant in most cross-national research on voter turnout rates while nevertheless employing the institutional variation necessary to evaluate the consequences of electoral laws. We also pioneer the use of three new spatial-institutional variables that measure the effects of location, distance, and jurisdiction on turnout rates-factors that geographers claim are as important as any other on a whole host of political and social outcomes (Agnew, 1996;Dorling et al., 1996;Hodge and Staeheli, 1992). In this paper, we also present novel estimates of the size of the electorate-all adults 18 or older-at the municipal level with easily replicable demographic techniques.

No abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. American Geographical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Geographical Review. ABSTRACT.When the Sandinistas came to power in Nicaragua in 1979, one implicit goal was to redress the spatial inequalities of development. It was widely believed that the Sandinistas had an alternative model of development that emphasized a grass-roots approach. Although much blame for the economic failings of the Sandinistas has been placed on the United States-financed contra insurgency, the economic policies enacted by the Sandinistas did not incorporate a grass-roots approach and thus did not address the underlying factors that had originally produced spatial inequalities. THE spatial distribution of the Nicaraguan people and economy has beenan explicit concern of geographers, economists, and planners since the earthquake of December 1972 that completely destroyed downtown Managua. The Nicaraguan population and economy are generally viewed as excessively concentrated in Managua, while the rest of the country is underdeveloped or even undeveloped. Before and after the overthrow of the forty-five-year-old Somoza family dictatorship by the Frente Sandinista de Liberaci6n Nacional (FSLN), or Sandinista Front for National Liberation, its political rhetoric emphasized three implicit and explicit spatial commitments. The goals were to diminish the overall importance of Managua, to equalize development among the three principal regions, and to reduce inequalities between urban and rural dwellers (Brundenius 1985(Brundenius , 1987Fonseca 1985;Slater 1986). This article examines the efforts of the Sandinista government to address spatial inequalities, through investments in the productive sector of the economy.It has been argued that Nicaragua represented a socialist revolution that differed from previous ones (Vilas 1984;Zwerling and Martin 1985). President Daniel Ortega in 1989 argued "that socialism should be applied and advanced in accordance with the specific conditions of each society" (Zamora and Garcia 1989, 2). The Sandinista leaders thus maintained that they were applying socialist principles in the light of Nicaraguan realities. To many observers the Sandinista revolution held out the possibility for exciting approaches to * DR. WALL is an assistant professor of geography at