Participation and Democracy: Dynamics, Causes ... - Jacobs University

(2) Conventional Participation
Political Action Study: “How often do you contact public officials or politicians?” and “How often do you
spend time working for a political party or a candidate?” Original answers 1=often, 2=sometimes,
3=seldom, 4=never were recoded (0=have not done; 1=have done) and combined into 0=have not done
anything, 1=have done at least one of these activities.
ESS: “There are different ways of trying to improve things in (country) or help prevent things from going
wrong. During the last 12 months, have you done any of the following?“
- worked in a political party or action group?
- contacted a politician, government or local government official?
Recoded into 0=have not done anything, 1=have done at least one of these activities.
(3) Voting
Political Action Study: “Did you vote in the last general election?” Recoded into 0=no, 1=yes.
ESS: “Some people don’t vote nowadays for one reason or another. Did you vote in the last national
election?” Recoded into 0=no, 1=yes.
(4) Education
Political Action Study: Compulsory level, middle level, higher level.
ESS: 7-point scale recoded into compulsory level, middle level, higher level.
(5) Income
Political Action Study: Different scales (all: low to high) used in the samples. Britain and Austria: 12-point
scale. Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland: 10-point scale. Finland: 18-point scale. Recoded into 1=low,
2=middle, 3=high.
ESS: 12-point scale from low to high. Recoded into 1=low, 2=middle, 3=high.
(6) Status Inconsistency
Political Action Study and ESS: Pair-wise comparison of recoded education and income scale. No status
inconsistency: low education and low income, middle education and middle income, high education and
high income. Positive status inconsistency: low or middle education and high income, low education and
middle income. Negative status inconsistency: middle or high education and low income, high education
and middle income.
Recoded into -1=positive status inconsistency, 0=no status inconsistency, 1=status inconsistency.
A first thing that becomes obvious is that the explanatory power of socio-economic
factors for all three forms of participation is weaker in 2004 than in 1974. Nagelkerke’s
R 2 was cut in half for conventional participation (from .13 in 1974 to .06 in 2004) and has
dropped by two thirds for voting (from .24 in 1974 to .08 in 2004). This is less true for
elite-challenging activities where the general model fit (Nagelkerke’s R 2 ) has been
continuously low (from .09 in 1974 to .08 in 2004). Over the past three decades, the
overall relevance of socio-economic factors for participation has weakened.
As for the predictive power of the single variables, education has become more important
for elite-challenging activities (not so for conventional participation and voting), whereas
the impact of income has diminished. The latter finding is true for all three modes of
participation. Negative status inconsistency – when income is lower than education
would predict – should have a mobilizing impact on participation in elite-challenging
activities. However, the significant effect that could be observed in 1974 disappeared in
139