National and Regional Variations in Electoral Participation in Europe: Evidence from The European Social Survey Ed Fieldhouse and Mark Tranmer Cathie Marsh.

National and Regional Variations in Electoral Participation in Europe: Evidence from The European Social Survey

Ed Fieldhouse and Mark Tranmer

Cathie Marsh Centre for Census and Survey Research

University of Manchester

Young people and reported Turnout (MORI, 2001)

0102030405060708090

Reported Vote Reported No Vote

25+ (n=1033)

18-24 (n=129)

Modelling Turnout: all voters (BES, 2001)

Ethnic Minority

Age 18-24

Age 25-39

Age 40-59

Strong Party Id

Distrust score

Dissillusionment score

Political Influence scale

Civic Duty score

0.1 1 10

Odds ratio (log scale)

Further research….

Is the U.K. unusual? Falling turnout in ‘mature democracies’ What factors affect turnout in European

democracies? Is low turnout a similar feature of young

people in Europe? Can we explain cross national differences in

turnout by universal theories? Do individual, regional and country level

factors make a difference?

Testing competing theories using microdata

Pattie et al, 2003 (Political Studies, vol 51, 443-468): Citizenship and Civic Engagement

Rational Choice Social Capital Civic Voluntarism

The European Social Survey

Methodological quality and consistency Survey data from 22 European nations Context and event data Fieldwork Autumn 2002 – Spring 2003 Weights: design weight and country

(population) weight Data on-line/download at

http://ess.nsd.uib.no/ Information/documentation:

http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org

Core topics round 1

Socio-political attitudesTrust in institutionsPolitical interest & participationSocio-political orientationsMulti-level governance

Values and quality of life Socio-demographic background

variables

Participating countries (round 1)CNTRY Country

2257 5.5 5.5 5.5

1899 4.6 4.6 10.2

2040 5.0 5.0 15.2

1360 3.3 3.3 18.5

2919 7.1 7.1 25.6

1506 3.7 3.7 29.3

1729 4.2 4.2 33.6

2000 4.9 4.9 38.5

2052 5.0 5.0 43.5

2566 6.3 6.3 49.8

1685 4.1 4.1 53.9

2046 5.0 5.0 58.9

2499 6.1 6.1 65.0

1207 3.0 3.0 68.0

1552 3.8 3.8 71.8

2364 5.8 5.8 77.5

2036 5.0 5.0 82.5

2110 5.2 5.2 87.7

1511 3.7 3.7 91.4

1999 4.9 4.9 96.3

1519 3.7 3.7 100.0

40856 100.0 100.0

Austria

Belgium

Switzerland

Czech Republic

Germany

Denmark

Spain

Finland

United Kingdom

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Sweden

Slovenia

Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

ESS Round 1 response rates

0102030405060708090

Country

Re

sp

on

se

ra

te (

%)

From Bryson, C, Seminar on ‘The European Social Survey: the potential for research and teaching’

Wednesday 22 October 2003, RSS, 12 Errol Street, London

Comparison of ESS estimate of turnout and official estimate

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

Austri

a

Belgiu

m

Switzer

land

Czech

Ger

man

y

Denm

ark

Spain

Finlan

dU.K

.

Gre

ece

Hunga

ry

Irelan

d

Isra

el (pa

rl)Ita

ly

Luxe

mbo

urg

Nethe

rland

s

Norway

Polan

d

Portu

gal (

parl)

Sweden

Slove

nia

Vote/Reg ESS estimate turnout

Reported turnout by young people (all countries)

0

20

40

60

80

100

18 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 59 60 andover

Age group

% v

oti

ng

Young people and turnout by country

0102030405060708090

100

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Sw

itzer

land

Cze

ch R

epu

blic

Ger

man

y

De

nmar

k

Spa

in

Fin

land

Gre

at B

ritai

n

Gre

ece

Hu

ngar

y

Irel

and

Isra

el

Italy

Luxe

mbo

urg

Ho

lland

No

rwa

y

Pol

and

Por

tuga

l

Sw

eden

Slo

veni

a

25+

18-24

Multilevel analysis

Data hierarchically structured Individual Region Country

Complex heterogeneity Model individual and area data simultaneously Examine how different factors can have

different effects in different places (using random effects)

MLWin

Variance component modelv1k is country level variance component, u1jk is region level variance component.

Adding age group to the model

Adding in actual country level turnout (and interaction with age 18-24)

Add in covariates for rational choice, civic voluntarism and social capital (significant fixed effects)

Female (+) Partner (++) Ethnic minority (-) Belong to religion (+) Citizen of country (+++) Born in country (++) Political efficacy scale (+) Personal economic sit (+) Trust in institutions (+) Social activity (+) Meets socially (-) Group membership (+) Years at address (++)?

Politics on radio (+) Watches pol on tv (+) Discusses politics (+) Interest in politics (++) Party identification (+++) Party membership (++) Civic duty scale (+++) Education years (+) Student (-) Unemployed (-) Manual occ (-) Actual turnout (+++)

Variance components for alternative models.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

YP (slope+2*cov)

Country -Intercept

Region

Modelling young people

Adding actual turnout

Add in covariates for rational choice, civic voluntarism and social capital (significant fixed effects)

Female (+) Partner (++) Ethnic minority (-) Belong to religion (+) Citizen of country (+++) Born in country (++) Political efficacy scale (+) Personal economic sit (+) Trust in institutions (+) Social activity (+) Meets socially (-) Group membership (+) Years at address (++)

Politics on radio (+) Watches pol on tv (+) Discusses politics (+) Interest in politics (++) Party identification (+++) Party membership (++) Civic duty scale (+++) Education years (+) Student (-) Unemployed (-) Manual occ (-) Actual turnout (+++)

Add actual turnout back in

Variance components for alternative models.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Country -Intercept

Region

Conclusions

Substantial country level variation Direction of age effects constant across

countries Significant variation in age effects by country Variations in turnout amongst YP partially

accounted for by the overall level of turnout in the country.

Support for civic voluntarism model, especially importance of civic duty and interest in politics as explanations of YP participation