Comparing Political Activism Worldwide Democratic Phoenix

Comparing Political Activism Worldwide Democratic Phoenix

Structure

I. Theoretical overview: • Civic decline or evolution in political activism?

II. Evidence 1. Trends in party membership & civic activism 2. Rise of protest and cause-oriented politics3. Generational patterns of activism

III. Conclusions • Causes & consequences of trends?

Democratic Phoenix (Cambridge University Press August 2002)

Introduction: – 1.       The Rise and Fall of Political Activism?– 2.       Theories of Political Activism

I. The Puzzle of Electoral Turnout– 3.       Mapping Turnout – 4.       Do Institutions Matter?– 5.       Who Votes?

II: Political Parties– 6.       Mapping Party Activism– 7.       Who Joins?

III: Civic Activism– 8.       Social Capital & Civic Society– 9.       Traditional Mobilizing Agencies: Trade Unions & Churches– 10.   New Social Movements, the Internet & Protest Politics

Conclusions:

– 11.   Conclusions: From Loyalties to Choice?

The civic decline thesis

Half-empty ballot box? (Wattenberg)Desertion of party members? (Dalton, Mair)Partisan dealignment? Hemorrhaging union rolls?Emptying church pews?Anemic voluntary organizations? (Putnam)Rising political cynicism? (Nye et al)

Model of changeFigure 1: Typology of the evolution of political action

REPERTOIRES

Citizen-oriented

repertoires, including

voting, party work and

contact activity

Cause-oriented

repertoires, including

consumer politics,

demonstrations and

petitions

Traditional voluntary

associations, including

churches, unions and

political parties

Older generation

AG

EN

CIE

S

New social movements

and advocacy

networks, including

environmental and

humanitarian

organizations

Younger generation

If participation is changing…

Causes?– Long-term processes of societal modernization?

• Growing educational & civic skills• Decline of deferential loyalty to hierarchical institutions• Gradual ‘bottom up’ generational shift in ‘critical citizens’

– Result of changing institutions of representative democracy?• ‘Top down’ explanations• Globalization, decentralization & role of nation state• Growth of cross-cutting issues not accommodated by parties• Rational response to context of choices and channels of influence

If participation is changing…

Consequences?1. Social inequality?

» Greater civic skills, more demanding acts?» Who participates by class, income, education, gender, ethnicity

2. Quality of deliberative democracy» F-to-f interaction, on-going co-operation, social trust?» Rise of more demanding citizens?

3. For governance?» Stability and violence?» Fragmentation of policy process?

Evidence: civic activism

Trends official party membersTable 6.1 Phoenix

Party membership as a % of the electorate,

late-1990s 

% Change (i)Change in Numbers

of Members

Change in Numbers as Percentage of

Original Membership

France 1978-19991.6

- 3.48 - 1,122,128 - 64.59

Italy 1980-19984.0

- 5.61 - 2,091,887 - 51.54

US 1980-19981.9

- 2.20 - 853,156 - 50.39

Norway 1980-19977.3

- 8.04 - 218,891 - 47.49

Czech Rep 1993-19993.9

- 3.10 - 225,200 - 41.32

Finland 1980-19989.6

- 6.09 - 206,646 - 34.03

Netherlands 1980-20002.5

- 1.78 - 136,459 - 31.67

Austria 1980-199917.7

- 10.82 - 446,209 - 30.21

Switzerland 1977-19976.4

- 4.28 - 118,800 - 28.85

Sweden 1980-19985.5

- 2.87 - 142,533 - 28.05

Denmark 1980-19985.2

- 2.16 - 70,385 - 25.52

Ireland 1980-19983.1

- 1.86 - 27,856 - 24.47

Belgium 1980-19996.5

- 2.42 - 136,382 - 22.10

Germany 1980-19992.9

- 1.59 - 174,967 - 8.95

Hungary 1990-19992.1

+ 0.04 + 8,300 + 5.02

Portugal 1980-20003.9

- 0.29 + 50,381 + 17.01

Slovakia 1994-20004.1

+ 0.82 + 37,777 + 29.63

Greece 1980-19986.8

+ 3.58 + 375,000 + 166.67

Spain 1980-20003.4

+ 2.22 + 808,705 + 250.73

ALL ABOVE   

Party membership

Decline in many Western nationsBroader erosion of partisanshipYet substantial cross-national variations Does erosion of membership matter?– For party in government?– For party finance and staff? – For party or campaign activism?

Campaign Activism, US 1952-2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000

Meeting Party Work Button Money

US Turnout

US Turnout: 59.5% in 2000, 63.8% in 2004 (Vote/VAP) Source: US Census Bureau www.census.gov

US Turnout 1932-2000(Presidential Vote/ VAP)

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000

Source: U.S.Census Bureau 1932-1996.

%

Trends in Gross Union DensitySource: Bernhard Ebbinghaus and Jelle Visser. 2000. Trade Unions in Western Europe since 1945. London: Macmillan. CD-Rom.

Note: Net density I (Total union membership as a share of the gainfully employed wage and salary earners.)

20

40

60

80

R-Square = 0.31

Austria Belgium Denmark Finland

France Germany Italy Neth

Norway Switz UK

R-Square = 0.67

R-Square = 0.43R-Square = 0.89

20

40

60

80

R-Square = 0.72

R-Square = 0.41

R-Square = 0.13

R-Square = 0.77

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

20

40

60

80

R-Square = 0.53

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

R-Square = 0.93

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

R-Square = 0.02

Union Density, 1995

Belarus Sweden

Azerbaijan Russian Federation

Iceland Denmark

Finland Malta

China Cyprus

Hungary Slovakia

Norway Bulgaria

Romania Luxembourg

Belgium Austria Czech Republic Ireland

Brazil Canada Mexico Italy

Egypt Germany

Australia Taiwan

Poland Estonia United Kingdom Ghana Mauritius Argentina Guyana

Nicaragua New Zealand Israel Philippines

Namibia Turkey Senegal Netherlands South Africa

Switzerland Swaziland Portugal J apan

Tanzania Dominican Republic Nigeria Cape Verde Kenya

Bolivia Chile Greece

Venezuela Cameroon Panama Canal Zone Zimbabwe Mali Singapore Costa Rica Cote D'Ivoire United States Zambia

Uruguay Botswana Spain

Ecuador Tunisia Paraguay Korea, Republic Of

Peru El Salvador Eritrea Colombia

France Pakistan India

Morocco Honduras Guatemala Bangladesh Ethiopia Uganda

Thailand Mauritania Indonesia Guinea Gabon

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Union Density:

Table 9.1

Interpretation

No simple decline in union membership across Western EuropeSubstantial cross-national variations worldwideInstitutional explanations not secular trends

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

Belgium Den France GB

Germany Greece Ire Italy

Lux Neth NI Portugal

Spain

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

1970 1980 1990

year

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

Secularization Trends% Church attendance Eurobarometer 1970-2000

Interpretation?

Evidence of secularization in W.EuropeDevelopment is linked to secularizationPolitical implications?

Experience of Political Activism Source: WVS mid-1990s

% ‘Have done’ All

Discuss politics 70.0

Voting turnout 64.5

Civic activism 62.4

Signed a petition * 28.5

Attended demonstrations* 15.7

Joined in boycott * 8.9

Active union member 5.4

Joined unofficial strike * 5.0

Active party member 4.6

Occupied buildings * 1.6

Rise of Protest Politics% ‘Have done’ in 8 postindustrial societies: WVS

  Mid-1970s 1980s 1990 mid-1990s

Signed petition 32 46 54 60

Demonstrated 9 14 18 17

Consumer Boycott 5 8 11 15

Unofficial Strike 2 3 4 4

Occupied buildings 1 2 2 2

Source: World Values Surveys

Protest & democracy

Protest & econ development

Generational shifts?

Age differences?

Age differences?– If so three possible causes:

• Generational effects, • Period effects, and • Lifecycle effects.

European Social Survey 200215 European nations (22)

Type of acts

Citizen-oriented repertoires– Voted– Contacted a politician or official– Donated money to political organization– Party member– Worked for a political party

Cause-oriented repertoires– Bought products for political reasons– Signed a petition– Boycotted certain products – Lawfully demonstrated– Took part in illegal protest

Age profile of activists

All Younger(i)

Middle-Aged (ii)

Older(iii)

Age Gap(i-iii)

18-29 30-59 60+

Citizen-oriented repertoires

Voted 72 50 79 84 -34

Contacted a politician or official 16 12 19 14 -2

Donated money to political organization 8 7 9 8 -1

Party member 6 3 6 8 -4

Worked for a political party 5 4 5 5 -1

Cause-oriented repertoires

Bought products for political reasons 24 24 28 17 7

Signed a petition 22 23 24 15 8

Boycotted certain products 15 14 17 11 3

Lawfully demonstrated 6 9 6 3 6

Took part in illegal protest 0.9 1.4 0.8 0.6 0.8

Citizen-oriented acts

Cases weighted by DWEIGHT

Cohort

1980-1985

1970-1979

1960-1969

1950-1959

1940-1949

1930-1939

1920-1929

Me

an

Citiz

en

-ori

en

ted

activis

m s

ca

le

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

.8

.6

.4

.2

Major Region

Nordic Europe

Northern Europe

Mediterranean Europe

Postcommunist Europe

0.5

1.0

1.5

Czech Republic Finland Greece Hungary

Ireland Israel Netherlands Norway

Poland Portugal Slovenia Spain

Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Cohort

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Cohort2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Cohort

Citizen-oriented acts by cohort

Mean age of activists

40 40

44 44 4446

47 4748

50

52

35

40

45

50

55

Demonstra

ted

Protes

ted ille

gally

Boyco

tted p

roduc

ts

Bough

t pro

ducts

Signed

a pe

tition

ALL R

espo

ndents

Contacte

d a po

liticia

n

Donated

mon

ey

Worke

d for

party

Voted

Party m

embe

r

Note: Whether the respondent did these acts during the previous 12-monthsSource: The European Social Survey, 2002

Cause–oriented acts

Cases weighted by DWEIGHT

Cohort

1980-1985

1970-1979

1960-1969

1950-1959

1940-1949

1930-1939

1920-1929

Me

an

Ca

use

-ori

en

ted

act

ivis

m s

cale

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

.8

.6

.4

.2

0.0

Major Region

Nordic Europe

Northern Europe

Mediterranean Europe

Postcommunist Europe

Cause-oriented acts by cohort

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Ca

use

-ori

ente

d a

ct

Czech Republic Finland Greece Hungary

Ireland Israel Netherlands Norway

Poland Portugal Slovenia Spain

Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Ca

use

-ori

ente

d a

ct

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Ca

use

-ori

ente

d a

ct

2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Cohort

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Ca

use

-ori

ente

d a

ct

2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Cohort2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Cohort

Age of members

4243

46 46 4647 47

4849 49 49

52

54

35

40

45

50

55

Sport

Educa

tional

ALL R

espon

dents

Union

Enviro

nment

al

Hobby

Profe

ssion

al

Human

itaria

n

Consu

mer

Churc

h

Oth

erPar

ty

Social

club

Membership in associations

Cases weighted by DWEIGHT

Cohort

1980-1985

1970-1979

1960-1969

1950-1959

1940-1949

1930-1939

1920-1929

Me

an

To

t. m

em

be

rs in

vo

lun

tary

ass

oci

atio

ns

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

.5

0.0

Major Region

Nordic Europe

Northern Europe

Mediterranean Europe

Postcommunist Europe

Conclusions

From the politics of loyalties to the politics of choice?– Citizen oriented action peak in middle age– Cause-oriented acts most common among young

people – Associations: Mixed pattern– Young people not more engaged in new social

movements

Discussion Questions

1. Does this reflect your own experience?2. If so, what are the causes?

– Globalization reducing the power of the nation-state?

– Rise of more ‘critical citizens’?3. And what are the consequences?

– For democracy– For governments & policy process