The 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference

Conference photos available

Conference photos available

In the conference participated 317 participants

Conference programme published

Almost 250 conference participants from 36 countries participated

Conference Report

The 28th NISPAcee Annual Conference cancelled

The 29th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia, October 21 - October 23, 2021

The 2020 NISPAcee On-line Conference

The 30th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Bucharest, Romania, June 2 - June 4, 2022

An opportunity to learn from other researchers and other countries' experiences on certain topics.

G.A.C., Hungary, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Very well organised, excellent programme and fruitful discussions.

M.M.S., Slovakia, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

The NISPAcee conference remains a very interesting conference.

M.D.V., Netherlands, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Thank you for the opportunity to be there, and for the work of the organisers.

D.Z., Hungary, 24th Conference 2016, Zagreb

Well organized, as always. Excellent conference topic and paper selection.

M.S., Serbia, 23rd Conference 2015, Georgia

Perfect conference. Well organised. Very informative.

M.deV., Netherlands, 22nd Conference 2014, Hungary

Excellent conference. Congratulations!

S. C., United States, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

Thanks for organising the pre-conference activity. I benefited significantly!

R. U., Uzbekistan, 19th Conference, Varna 2011

Each information I got, was received perfectly in time!

L. S., Latvia, 21st Conference 2013, Serbia

The Conference was very academically fruitful!

M. K., Republic of Macedonia, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

 :: Anonymous user Login / Register 

Optimised for Tablet | Smartphone

 Paper/Speech Details of Conference Program  

for the  26th NISPAcee Annual Conference
  Program Overview
I. Working Group on Local Government
Author(s)  Matus Sloboda 
  Comenius University
Bratislava  Slovakia
Cernenko Tomas,  
 
 Title  Determinants of Competitiveness in Mayoral Elections in Slovakia
File   Paper files are available only for conference participants, please login first. 
Presenter  Matus Sloboda
Abstract  
  
Slovakia is one of the most administrative fragmented countries in Europe, the average size of one municipality is 17 square kilometres and 1 700 inhabitants (Swianiewicz 2003). Due to the strong decentralization (fiscal, political), the number of mayors in Slovakia 3.5 times exceeds the average of European countries (IFP, 2017). This inevitably puts the pressure on the number of candidates in elections. Only one candidate run for mayoral office in one out of five municipalities, and only two candidates run for the office in thirds of municipalities in 2014 mayoral election in Slovakia. The competitiveness in elections can lead to better performance in office. Gordon and Huber (2007) analysed elections in Kansas and found out that higher competitiveness in elections (more candidates) increased the performance in office. There is also positive relationship between tight elections and turnout (Riker a Ordeshook, 1968). However, the size of the municipality explains competition only negligibly. Levit and Wolfram (1997) state that incumbents, who run for re-election, generally deters potential challengers from running in elections. Lawless (2012) confirmed that incumbency advantage inhibits electoral opportunities for previously excluded groups from politics like women and racial minorities. Systematic investigation of incumbent effects in mayoral election can help to understand the competitiveness in election. Other variables i.e. economic health of municipality, demography, or level of unemployment can also have a potential to increase explanatory strength of competitiveness analysis.
In our paper, we will use regression models and methods of spatial analysis to try to explain the behaviour of candidates in mayoral elections. Questions we would like to answer are: Do the above-mentioned factors (such as economic health, effectiveness of the administration, social indicators) affect the number of candidates in elections? And are there any spatial dependencies?