The public administration of elections frequently fails. Variation in the performance of electoral management boards around the world has been demonstrated, illustrated by delays in the count, inaccurate or incomplete voter registers, or severe queues at polling stations. Centralising the management of the electoral process has often been proposed as a solution. There has been little theorisation and no empirical investigations into the effects that centralising an already decentralised system would have, however. This article addresses this lacuna by conceptualising centralisation through the literature on bureaucratic control and discretion. It then empirically investigates the effects through a case study of centralisation in two UK referendums. Semi-structured interviews were used with those who devised the policy instrument and those who were subject to it. The introduction of central directions had some of the desired effects such as producing more consistent services and eliminating errors. It also had side effects, however, such as reducing economic efficiency in some areas and overlooking local knowledge. Furthermore, the reforms caused a decline of staff morale, job satisfaction and souring of relations among stakeholder organisations. The process of making organisational change therefore warrants closer attention by policy makers and future scholarship on electoral integrity. Dr. Toby S. James University of East Anglia, UK t.s.james@uea.ac.uk www.tobsjames.com Accepted manuscript to be published in Policy Studies.Improving the quality of public administration is a pressing concern for policy makers worldwide. A surprisingly fresh area of concern for national and international organisations has been the public administration of elections ( There have been no published academic studies on the effects that centralising electoral management might have, however. This article uses the literature from public administration on bureaucratic control and discretion to theorise the likely effects of centralisation. It then tests the theoretical expectations with a case study of where centralisation has occurred. In two UK referendums in 2011 the central Electoral Management Board (EMB), the Electoral Commission, gave centralised directions to local officials. Long existing systems of local management were therefore overridden. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with those officials who designed the policy mechanism as well as those who were subjected to it to identify its effects. The article finds that the introduction of 'command and control' directions from the centre enabled more consistent service provision and led to the early identification and remedy of errors by administrators. However, it also led to side-effects such as reducing efficiency in some areas and overlooking of local knowledge. Furthermore, the reforms caused a decline of staff morale, job satisfaction and soured of relations amongst stakeholder organisations. These are known to be important drivers of organisational performa...