Download Pidop presentation (name

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
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
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
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)
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
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
European Social Survey (2002)
European Social Survey (2002)
European Social Survey (2002)
European Social Survey (2002)
Exploring the processes
leading to participation
• 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
Measurement models – independent variables
Factor loadings
Attend
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)
B
SE
B(Std)
Attentiveness
TV watching, news/ politics/current affairs on average weekday
Radio listening, news/ politics/current affairs on average weekday
Newspaper reading, politics/current affairs on average weekday
1.00
0.96
1.06
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.47
0.40
0.70
Political engagement (interest and internal efficacy)
How interested in politics
How often discuss politics/current affairs
Politics too complicated to understand
Could take an active role in a group involved with political issues
Making mind up about political issues
1.00
1.75
0.75
0.93
0.74
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.82
0.63
0.48
0.51
0.51
External efficacy
Politicians in general care what people like respondent think
Politicians are interested in votes rather than people's opinions
1.00
0.92
0.00
0.01
0.80
0.75
Institutional trust
Trust in the police
Trust in country's parliament
Trust in the legal system
Trust in the United Nations
1.00
0.86
0.67
0.75
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.82
0.66
0.54
0.58
Social capital (trust)
Most people can be trusted or you can't be too careful
Most people try to take advantage of you, or try to be fair
Most of the time people helpful or mostly looking out for themselves
1.00
0.98
0.83
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.76
0.76
0.65
FIT
.975/.967/.032
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
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
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
Voting: SEM results based on probit estimation
Estimate
Model 1
SE
Z
Vote
Attentiveness
Political engagement
Institutional trust
Extreme ideological identity
Identity threat
0.37
0.35
0.06
0.06
-0.35
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
Opinionation
Political engagement
Social trust
External efficacy
Identity threat
Meet socially
-0.57
-0.03
-0.05
0.09
-0.07
Extreme ideological identity
Political engagement
Social trust
External efficacy
Identity threat
0.27
-0.03
-0.08
0.19
Demographics
Minority
Male
Young
FIT
.935/.966/.031
Estimate
Model 2
SE
Z
12.09
17.98
12.07
4.96
-11.35
0.23
0.44
0.07
0.07
-0.29
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
6.74
20.70
13.08
5.54
-8.84
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
-37.08
-5.84
-3.39
2.96
-4.46
-0.57
-0.03
-0.05
0.07
-0.06
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
-35.63
-5.67
-3.02
2.13
-3.90
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
16.66
-6.08
-5.57
6.28
0.28
-0.03
-0.08
0.14
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
16.49
-5.86
-5.42
4.49
-0.40
-0.17
-0.86
0.04
0.02
0.03
-9.52
-9.52
-34.08
.923/.956/.032
• 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, nonconventional, and civic engagement:
• Positive link from political attentiveness to voting and civic engagement,
no link to conventional participation, and negative link to nonconventional 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 nonconventional ways and be civically engaged, but not vote or participate
in conventional ways
• 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 nonconventional activities
• Men less likely to participate (with exception of civic
engagement)
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 nonminorities
• 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
Examining the role of the
broader socio-political
context
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
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)
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
Multilevel models in brief...
Participation
Random intercept
Standard regression
Participation
Political engagement
Participation
Political engagement
Random coefficient
• Here, we use the
logistic extension to
this approach
Political engagement
Conventional participation
Slovenia
Sweden
Portugal
Poland
Norway
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Italy
Israel
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
UK
France
Finland
Spain
Denmark
Germany
Belgium
Austria
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
European Social Survey (2002)
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)
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/nonconventional)
•
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
Identifying distinct
‘citizenship’ clusters
• 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 continuous latent
variables)
• ESS data based on 20 countries
• Restricted to participation measures (and gender, age,
minority status)
Identifying the optimal number of
classes of participation
Optimal class size
161500
161000
AIC
Model fit
160500
160000
BIC
159500
159000
Sample size
adjusted BIC
158500
158000
157500
2
3
4
Number of Classes
• Exploratory approach.
• 4 classes seems optimal
5
6
Defining the classes
Latent Class Analysis
Predicted probability
SE
Class 1 - Highly politically active
Vote
Conventional participation
Non-conventional participation
Civic engagement
0.98
0.52
0.82
0.92
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
Class 2 - Not politically active
Vote
Conventional participation
Non-conventional participation
Civic engagement
0.19
0.05
0.09
0.36
0.11
0.01
0.02
0.02
Class 3 - Non-conventional participation
Vote
Conventional participation
Non-conventional participation
Civic engagement
0.51
0.40
0.84
0.82
0.09
0.02
0.05
0.02
Class 4 - Voters only
Vote
Conventional participation
Non-conventional participation
Civic engagement
0.95
0.09
0.11
0.43
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
Who belongs to each class?
Multinomial regression (reference category: Highly politically active)
B
SE
Odds Ratio
-1.20
-0.38
2.33
1.13
0.26
0.05
0.47
0.16
0.68
10.31
3.09
Cons
Male
Young
Minority
-1.46
-0.23
2.62
0.77
0.30
0.17
0.57
0.20
0.80
13.78
2.16
Class 4 - Voters only
Cons
Male
Young
Minority
0.16
-0.35
0.34
0.05
0.09
0.05
0.63
0.14
0.71
1.40
1.05
Class 2 - Non-politically active
Cons
Male
Young
Minority
Class 3 - Non-conventional forms of participation
Relative to the highly politically active...
•
•
Young people and minorities are more likely to be non-political active, or involved in nonconventional activities
Men are less likely to be in the non-political active group or voters only
Summary
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
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
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)
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)