PIDOP WORK PACKAGE 5 The extent and nature of political and civic participation across Europe

1. PIDOP WORK PACKAGE 5 The extent and nature of political and civic participation across Europe Dr Ian Brunton-Smith, Department of Sociology, University of Surrey Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on “Political and Civic Participation”, April 16th-17th, 2012, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

2. Aims • Analyse existing survey data on political and civic participation: • European Social Survey, Eurobarometer, International Social Survey Programme, Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, World Values Survey • Describe patterns of political and civic participation in different EU member states, over time and across key social and demographic groupings • Identify variations in these patterns which occur within and between countries • Examine possible causes of these variations – impact of macro socio-political context, demographic factors, and psychological factors

3. Key findings MICRO • Research reveals many political, social, and psychological factors that facilitate and hinder political and civic participation • E.g. Political interest, internal efficacy, attentiveness, opinionation, ideological identity, trust in institutions, perceptions of discrimination • Differences in participation evident as a function of age, gender, and minority status (and differential contribution of political, social, and psychological factors amongst these groups) MACRO • Differences in participation evident as a function of the broader socio-political context in which people live • Partially shapes individual differences in participation

4. Approach • Exploring the processes leading to participation • Structural equation models used to link psychological and sociological processes that contribute to differences in political and civic participation • Compare processes based on gender, age, and minority status • Examining the role of the broader socio-political context • Multilevel models used to examine country differences in political and civic participation • Macro variables capturing the broader socio-political context introduced to explain these variations • Macro context linked back to individual differences • Linking together forms of participation • Latent class analysis to identify distinct groups of participation based on 4 types of participation (vote, conventional, non-conventional, civic)

5. Datasets SEM and Multilevel models • European social survey • 22 countries in Europe, multiple indicators of all concepts, high quality sampling methodology • International Social Survey Programme • 39 countries, including some beyond Europe, focus on citizenship • World Values Survey • 42 countries, limited information on participation (intention to vote only), comparatively few independent predictors Descriptive statistics • Eurobarometer • Time series data since 1970, voting only, inconsistent independent predictors • Comparative Study of Electoral Systems • Voter turnout

6. Political and Civic participation Four types of participation examined: • Voting • Intention or self report (survey specific) • Conventional political activities • Contacting a politician, being a member of a political party, donating political organisation or group, wearing a campaign badge, working for a political party • Non-conventional political activities • Taking part in illegal protest activities, lawful demonstrations, buying or boycotting certain products, signing a petition • Civic engagement • Involvement in a social club, education or teaching group, religious or church organisation, cultural or hobby group, sports or outdoor activity club, environmental or humanitarian organisation, business or professional group, or trade union

7. European Social Survey (2002)

8. European Social Survey (2002)

9. European Social Survey (2002)

10. European Social Survey (2002)

11. Exploring the processes leading to participation

12. Exploring the processes leading to participation • Structural equation models used to link psychological and sociological processes that contribute to differences in political and civic participation • Compare processes based on gender, age, and minority status • Measurement models to capture difficult to measure ‘latent’ variables – attentiveness, engagement, efficacy... • Structural models to explore (direct and indirect) pathways to participation (probit regression) • European Social Survey data (round 1) • Contained maximum number of potential explanatory variables (multiple indicators) • High quality methodology for data collection

13. Measurement models – independent variables Additional variables: • Opinionation – DK to 12 variables • Extremity of ideological identity – strong left/right position • Identity threat – member of group discriminated against • Social capital (meet people socially) Demographics • Gender • Age (under 25/25+) • Minority status (self rated) Attend

14. Towards a model of political participation • Models derived from conceptual work undertaken in work package 4 • Direct and indirect pathways to forms of political participation • Exploratory work began with simpler models, before including full range of possible explanatory measures • Final models selected based on modification indices and assessments of model fit

15. Towards a model of political participation • Models derived from conceptual work undertaken in work package 4 • Direct and indirect pathways to forms of political participation • Exploratory work began with simpler models, before including full range of possible explanatory measures • Final models selected based on modification indices and assessments of model fit

16. Towards a model of political participation • Models derived from conceptual work undertaken in work package 4 • Direct and indirect pathways to forms of political participation • Exploratory work began with simpler models, before including full range of possible explanatory measures • Final models selected based on modification indices and assessments of model fit

18. Some similarities across models for different forms of participation • Positive association with political engagement (interest and internal efficacy) • More politically engaged more opinionated and more extreme ideological identity • But also clear differences in predictors of voting, conventional, non-conventional, and civic engagement: • Positive link from political attentiveness to voting and civic engagement, no link to conventional participation, and negative link to non-conventional participation • People who feel their identity under threat are more likely to participate in conventional and non-conventional ways, but less likely to vote • More opinionated about political issues more likely to participate in non-conventional ways and be civically engaged, but not vote or participate in conventional ways

19. Demographic differences in participation evident having adjusted for structural model • Young people less likely to vote, but more likely to participate in non-conventional activities and be civically engaged • Minority groups less likely to vote or participate in non-conventional activities • Men less likely to participate (with exception of civic engagement)

20. Allowing for differential processes by demographics • Structural models also examined separately based on gender, age, and minority status • Intersectionality captured by retaining the remaining demographics in each model • Some differences in predictors of each form of participation evident between men and women, young and old, and minority and non-minorities • No strong evidence that interactions exist between demographics • But some consistent patterns also evident (e.g a positive link from engagement to all forms of political participation), even if strength of association differs

21. Examining the role of the broader socio-political context

22. How differences in the socio-political context of different countries manifest in individual variations in political participation • Individual data: • European Social Survey – excellent variable coverage, but limited countries (n=20) • International Social Survey Programme – reduced variables (and no measure of voting), but better country coverage (n=39) • World Values Survey – only includes voting (and some independent variables), but better country coverage (n=42) • Macro data: • Following initial scoping ‘Country Indicators for Foreign Policy’ (CIFP) • Parallel models examined data from ‘Economist Intelligence Unit’ (EIU) – not reported here • Number of countries still limited (max 42), restricting the complexity of the macro models. • Explore macro variables independently

23. Individual data • ESS uses same range of individual measures – but scales based on principal components analysis for simplicity • WVS uses reduced range of variables – single indicators • ISSP uses reduced range of variables (includes demographics)

24. Macro data - Country Indicators for Foreign Policy Based on administrative data held for each country including information from the world bank, polity IV, world development indicators, and CIRI human rights index • Democratic participation – party dominance, legislature fractionalisation, democracy score, proportion female parliamentarians, proportion minorities in public service, minority voting rights • Government and economic efficiency – growth and debt, economic freedom, ease of trading, unemployment, tax rates, educational attainment • Accountability – corruption, political freedom, political donations • Human rights – extent of torture, number of disappearances, freedom of speech, women’s political and social rights, civil liberties • Political stability and violence – years since regime change, size of black market, degree of dependence on external support, political fragmentation • Rule of Law – prison population and occupancy rating, property rights, juridicial independence Higher scores represent poorer performing countries

25. Multilevel models in brief... Random intercept Standard regression Participation Participation • Here, we use the logistic extension to this approach Political engagement Political engagement Participation Random coefficient Political engagement

26. European Social Survey (2002)

27. Conventional participation • Individual demographics similar to SEM analyses • Significant variation between countries (5% ESS and 10% ISSP) • Largest reduction in residual country variation for ‘rule of law’, ‘government accountability’ and ‘human rights’ • (NB. Higher scores poorer performing countries)

28. Other forms of participation • Significant differences in participation across countries • Voting (5%/15% ESS/WVS) – but no significant macro effects • Non-conventional participation (19% ESS/ISSP) • Civic engagement (>20% ESS/ISSP) • Independent effects of macro variables (CIFP) • Residents of better performing countries more likely to participate • Largest reduction in residual country variance (>50%) when looking at: • Rule of law (all), government efficiency (non-conventional/civic engagement), and government accountability (conventional/non-conventional) • And some evidence of significant links between individual differences and macro variables: • Men and politically engaged less influenced by context when considering conventional and non-conventional forms of participation • Those with higher social trust more shaped by context when considering civic engagement

29. Identifying distinct ‘citizenship’ clusters

30. Examine the extent that distinct ‘citizenship’ clusters with qualitatively different patterns of participation can be identified • LCA – Factor analysis with unobserved latent categorical variable (as opposed to series of continuouslatent variables) • ESS data based on 20 countries • Restricted to participation measures (and gender, age, minority status)

31. Identifying the optimal number of classes of participation • Exploratory approach. • 4 classes seems optimal

32. Defining the classes

33. Who belongs to each class? • Relative to the highly politically active... • Young people and minorities are more likely to be non-political active, or involved in non-conventional activities • Men are less likely to be in the non-political active group or voters only

34. Summary

35. Key findings MICRO • Research revealed many political, social, and psychological factors that facilitate and hinder political and civic participation • E.g. Political interest, internal efficacy, opinionation, ideological identity, trust in institutions, perceptions of discrimination • Differences in participation evident as a function of age, gender, and minority status MACRO • Differences in participation evident as a function of the broader socio-political context in which people live • Partially shapes individual differences in participation

36. Implications MICRO • Political engagement (political interest and internal efficacy) consistently identified as key drivers of all forms of participation • Educational interventions can be most usefully targeted here • Psychological influences on participation vary considerably depending on the type of participation concerned • Different forms of intervention may be required to enhance different forms of participation • Forms of participation vary by age, gender and minority status • Interventions aimed at enhancing participation should recognise these differences and engage with them

37. Implications MACRO • Differences in participation evident as a function of the broader socio-political context in which people live – particularly rule of law, government accountability and efficiency • Also shape individual differences in participation • National governments should ensure their own mode of operation is always fully transparent, accountable and efficient • Includes controlling corruption, disclosing financing of political parties, and ensuring freedom of the press • Ensuring their Country’s record in relation to the rule of law (e.g. guaranteeing independence of judiciary, impartiality of the courts, and legal protection of minorities)

38. The PIDOP project is supported by a grant received from the European Commission 7th Framework Programme, FP7- SSH-2007-1, Grant Agreement no: 225282, Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation (PIDOP) awarded to the University of Surrey (UK), University of Liège (Belgium), Masaryk University (Czech Republic), University of Jena (Germany), University of Bologna (Italy), University of Porto (Portugal), Örebro University (Sweden), Ankara University (Turkey) and Queen’s University Belfast (UK)