associative democracy: citizens involvement in a post ... · associative democracy – citizens’...
TRANSCRIPT
Associative Democracy –
Citizens‘ Involvement in a Post-Tocquevillean World
Sigrid Roßteutscher
Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES)
University of Mannheim
March 1999
Paper prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the
European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR)
Joint Sessions of Workshops
Workshop 20: Innovation in Democratic Theory
Mannheim, Germany, 26-31 March 1999
2
Associative Democracy –
Citizens’ Involvement in a Post-Tocquevillean World
Abstract
The paper’s starting-point is the observation that associations and
associations’ democratic role are highly fashionable topics in very
different contexts, ranging from the debates about Social Capital, Civil
Society and Communitarianism to both explicit contributions to
political theory and public-political discussions about the future of the
welfare state. This paper critically examines different theoretical
accounts of ‘associative democracy’. It shows that these accounts are
(i) strictly insulated from each other, (ii) highly incompatible and
contradictory, and (iii) hardly inspired by available empirical evidence.
As a result, the conclusion is that the project of ‘associative
democracy’ is questionable and requires serious reformulation, both
in theoretical and empirical terms.
Introduction
Associations and voluntary work are fashionable buzzwords in public discourse. In fact,
‘associative democracy’ is suggested as an efficient prescription for a renitent patient:
contemporary democracy. The diagnosis seems clear and is shared by a wide range of
politicians, intellectuals and essayists: Citizens are alienated from politics and thus
submissively dependent upon populist propaganda. Permanently high rates of
unemployment and subsequent struggles about re-distribution endanger both political order
3
and social peace. Politics, indeed, has become an elite discourse, less and less accessible
to ordinary citizens. Citizens, in response, turn their backs on politics and have become
super-egoists who use the benefits of the welfare state in an increasingly instrumental
manner, whilst saying farewell to the notion of civic duties and political obligation. What
should be done? The fashionable answer is simply to strengthen the role of intermediary
associations, because associations will naturally and inevitably heal modern democracy from
its most urgent problems. Ever since Tocqueville, this healing power is an inherent feature of
associational life: people learn how to trust, they develop a stronger sense of community,
interests are mediated in a more reliable manner, higher rates of political participation follow
smoothly, civic virtues are taught, and, as a result, social integration is, once again, assured.
In the last two decades, political theory (re-) invented the Tocquevillean concept of
associative democracy, i.e. a democracy that is basically and principally founded upon its
associational life. Its protagonists display a similar confidence in the potential benefits of
associations as their contemporaries in public and political life. The crucial question is,
however, whether – and if so, what - associations specifically contribute to democracy. The
typical answer is definitively affirmative: associations main impact being “the overcoming of
the opposing areas of individual and state, private and public, state and society” (Schuppert
1997: 146). As a result, it is hardly surprising that different perspectives such as the concept
of ‚strong‘ participatory democracy (Barber 1984), of neo-corporatism (Schmitter 1994), or of
moral theory (MacIntyre 1981) all agree in a common claim for an associative revival of
modern democracy. Communitarians as well as protagonists of Social Capital and Civil
Society direct their arguments explicitly towards the presumed democratic function of
associations.1 Indeed the most elaborate formulations of ‚associative democracy‘
(Cohen/Rogers 1992 and 1994; Schmitter 1994) are based upon the idea that active state
intervention provides the space and equal opportunity for the development of a vivid
associational life, which in turn encourages more widespread citizen participation, whilst
1 See, for instance, Etzioni (1993, 1996), Bellah (1985), Sandel (1988), Walzer (1995), Cohen/Arato (1992), Michalski (1991), Seligman (1992), Hirst (1997), Putnam (1993, 1995a/b), Fukuyama (1995).
4
associations are engaged in a deliberative process of democratic discourse and decision-
making. In short, ‚associative democracy‘ is a synonym for a democratic system that is
‚organised‘ and participatory, steered by the state and based upon ‚grassroots‘ mobilisation,
representative and deliberative at the same time.
The starting-point of this paper, however, is the presumption that an assessment of
associations’ impact is not that easy. Firstly, I will outline the many potential contradictions
and inconsistencies inherent in the theoretical concept ‘associative democracy’. In particular,
I will demonstrate why and how the presumed impacts of associations - all of which are
thought to be highly welcome - mutually impede each other’s realisation. I will, furthermore,
show that theoretical contributions are of a highly diverging nature, concentrating upon a host
of aspects which are literally incompatible with each other.
In the second part of this paper, I will tackle the concept of ‘associative democracy’ from an
empirical point of view, focusing on research on citizen participation in highly developed
representative democracies. Moreover, I will show that ‘associative democracy’s’ underlying
assumption of modern man as an ‚organised man‘ (Schuppert 1997: 120) stands in
contradiction to both empirical evidence and to the theory of individualisation (Giddens 1995,
Beck 1986). Empirical and theoretical arguments, finally, provide the basis for an
assessment of the concept’s adequacy for a democratic revival of contemporary modern
society.
The Discourse on ‘Associative Democracy’
At the core of the concept of ‘associative democracy’ is the assumption that democracy is
functionally and/or normatively dependent upon a vibrant associational life; indeed
associations being an inevitable, if not sufficient, pre-condition of functioning democracy. In
fact, it is this crucial linkage between associations and democracy which provides the
substantial coherence between otherwise highly diverging theoretical accounts. In short,
theories of Social Capital, of pluralist interest mediation, of communitarian society, or of
participatory democracy have very little in common but the strong belief that associations
5
chiefly contribute to the ‘functioning’ of democracy. According to the very different nature of
these theories, the ‘functions’ are defined in very different terms.
Obviously, neither Communitarians nor the protagonists of Social Capital, nor of Civil Society
have invented the concept of associative democracy. In juxtaposition, intermediary
organisations are a crucial element in a wide variety of intellectual thinking: “Writers as
diverse as Simmel, Lipset, Tönnies, Laski, Parsons, Mill, Arendt, Cole, Dahrendorf, and
Riesman agree that groups are in fact, or could be in theory, vital in maintaining stability,
bringing about peaceful change, protecting democracy, reducing the intensity and violence of
conflicts, acting as channels of communication, and bringing about a host of other processes
which are essential to the political and social health of any large-scale society” (Newton
1976: 31). Concisely, four different functions can be found in the literature: social integration,
mediation of interest, source of political legitimisation, and preparation or pre-school for
political participation. These functions do not exist independent of each other. Social
integration seems to be associations’ most basic contribution. If people are not integrated
into social organisations, interest mediation cannot take place and, as a result, state
legitimacy might be endangered. If people are not integrated into associations, they do not
‘learn’ to trust each other and similar civic skills and, as a result, will not become competent
and politically active citizens. Hypothetically, the relationships between associations and their
derivatives - social integration, mediation, legitimisation, and ‘school of democracy’ - is
causal and positive in nature. As I will show, however, most theories concentrate upon single
functions in a very selective manner, pluralist and corporatist macro theories being
exclusively concerned about associations’ impact on interest mediation and representation,
whilst micro theories of trust and civicness emphasis individual, almost (socio-) psychological
effects of associability. As a result, there is hardly any substantial overlap between different
theory constructions. In other words, discourse and mutual inspiration does not take place
and thus, little cumulative knowledge emerges. Even worse, this general relationship of
mutual but neutral ignorance does in fact cover highly contradictory assumptions.
6
Associations in ‘Mass’ Society: Social Pacifiers or Schools of Democracy?
As I will show, such contradictions are in fact numerous in the case of the relationship
between social and political participation, one of the very few crucial aspects acknowledged
by both macro and micro theories of ‘associative democracy’. Moreover, it is exactly this
relationship which is the cornerstone of recent debates about Communitarianism, Social
Capital, and Civil Society. With different emphases and different words, protagonists claim
that active participation in associations contributes to the acquisition of democratic skills and
virtues, being thus a necessary pre-condition for political activity. However, pluralist theory
assumes that the contrary is true: integration in organisations providing social peace and
political demobilisation. This assumption is in large parts indebted to pluralist theory’s
historical anchorage in the concept of ‘mass society’. Indeed, a certain scepticism, even
distrust, against the ‘masses’ was already a consistent theme of Tocqueville’s considerations
about American democracy (1835/1840). His celebration of American associational life
cannot, in fact, be understood without his outspoken fear of the ‘tyranny of the majority’. This
fear became the dominant theme in Kornhauser’s seminal work on the politics of mass
society (1959). For him, associations are indeed a necessary guarantee of modern
democracy’s stability and efficiency. Only through integration of previously isolated
individuals into basically apolitical communities, low levels of mass politicisation and
mobilisation can be assured: “Where people are not securely related to a plurality of
independent groups, they are available for all kinds of adventures and ‘activist modes of
intervention’ in the larger society” (Kornhauser 1959: 37). In other words, through
organisation elites control and steer the political behaviour of citizens, whilst institutional
integration protects political elites from the uncontrolled and irrational desires and demands
of non-elites. Accordingly, ‘mass’ is defined as absence of institutional integration: “... only
where we deal with people who...cannot be integrated into any organization based on
common interest, in political parties or municipal governments or professional organizations
or trade unions” (Arendt 1951: 305). These considerations establish the baseline of
traditional pluralist theory, with over-lapping memberships and resulting cross-pressures
7
leading to political passivity and thus to democratic stability (e.g. Lazarsfeld et al. 1948/1968,
Berelson et al. 1954/1966, Linz 1967, Kornhauser 1959, Shils 1956).
The counter-position is presented by the micro approaches of Putnam, and Verba and his
collaborators. According to Putnam (e.g. 1995a, 1995b), integration into associative networks
fosters the development of social trust - itself being the pre-condition of political participation
- and consequently, guarantees both functioning democracy and flourishing economic life.
The thesis of ‘Civic Voluntarism’ (Verba et al. 1995) emphasises the ‘learning’ of certain civic
skills, which in turn facilitate and thus encourage political participation: “In this way, the
institutions of civil society operate, as Tocqueville noted, as the school of democracy” (Verba
et al. 1995: 366). Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762/1977) originally, promoted the idea that
participation will create virtues, i.e. that participation is not dependent upon pre-existing
attitudes or personality features but that through participation such features can be created.
Indeed, as Evans and Boyte in a well-known re-formulation of Rousseauean ideals
suggested, social organisations create the necessary ‘free spaces’ “in which people are able
to learn a new self-respect, a deeper and more assertive group identity, public skills, and
values of co-operation and civic virtue” (1992: 17f.). To some extent, then, the majority of
participation theories formulated in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g. Verba 1961, Bachrach 1967,
Pateman 1970, Parry 1972, Mansbridge 1980) embrace a rather romantic idealisation of the
benefits of participation.2 This is also true for Benjamin Barber’s more recent re-formulation
of participatory ideals in terms of ‘strong democracy’. Explicitly, Barber attacks pluralist
theory’s concept of “thin democracy” which promotes “politics as zoo-keeping” (1984: 3).
Admittedly, ‘thin’ democracy might prevent from the tyranny of the majority, but, at the same
time, it destroys civic virtues and the willingness to participate (Barber 1984: XIV). In many
respects, Barber’s considerations are typical for this strand of thinking, being based on three
explicit principles: (i) the priority of politics over social and private concerns, (ii) a belief in the
2 By now, this is a standard criticism of participation theories (e.g. Reese-Schäfer 1994: 102, Cohen/Arato 1992: 7f.)
8
community creating impact of collective action, and, (iii) a deep conviction that people are
indeed willing and able to learn and to participate in politics.
In contrast to participatory theory’s civic optimism, Putnam’s arguments are of a quite
defensive nature, associations in fact being a bulwark against social disintegration and
deteriorating democratic and economic conditions.3 In associations individuals learn how to
trust, they develop a sense of community, and particular personality traits which will facilitate
political participation (e.g. 1995a: 67, similar Bellah et al. 1994: 68). As a result, the present
debate about Communitarianism and Social Capital implies a return to the ideals of
participation so prominent in the 1960s and 1970s. The context, however, has changed
significantly. Three decades ago, political participation was a mean for the ‘empowerment’ of
ordinary citizens; a step towards more political equality. Since then, however, social optimism
and belief in progress had been shaken seriously, participation nowadays being seen mainly
as a mean to prevent further decline in social trust, and the loss of community. In fact, the
debate demonstrates a clear “fear of social disintegration” (Dekker 1998: 9).
As a result, there is the curious and persistent problem that pluralist theory promotes social
participation to prevent political participation, whilst micro theories of trust, civic virtues, and
participation emphasis the politicising impact of social integration. In pluralist theory social
participation is a preferable substitute for political participation, and associational activity is
expected to contribute to social integration and feelings of community without having the
potential risks of political mobilisation. In short, a socially active but politically ‘pacified’
society is preferred. Protagonists of both the ‘school of democracy’ and the Social Capital
thesis, on the other hand, conceptualise social participation as a tool for higher levels of
political competence and mobilisation. Notice, it is not the function of social integration which
is contested - in fact, the integrative impact of associations being unanimously agreed upon
by a long list of theorists and theories - it is institutional integration's impact on the political
3 Similar arguments which stress associations’ role as a defence against processes of individualisation and modernisation, and against the dissolution of community had been made by Podhoretz (1979: 21), Sandel (1988: 21), MacIntyre (1987: 53), Bellah et al. (1994: 60), Berger (1977: 134).
9
behaviour of the ‘integrated’ which is contested. From both perspectives, however, a decline
in associational life is threatening, pluralists fearing the progress of social anomie and
uncontrollable mass behaviour, whilst the ‘school of democracy’ paradigm envisions a
decline in “the ability of liberal societies to function successfully” (Galston 1988: 1281).
Evidently, both strands of thought are centrally concerned with the legitimacy and
maintenance of democratic systems. Debated, however, is whether political participation as
such should be encouraged or, rather, discouraged and, in consequence, whether, and to
what extent, associations do one or the other.
The Solution? Compulsory Interest Mediation
In recent years, pluralist theory experienced both harsh criticism and radical re-formulation. It
was Cohen/Rogers’ and Schmitter’s merit to revive a highly “questionable” (Zimmer 1996:
60) concept of interest mediation and representation which, for many different reasons,
increasingly lost ground in comparison to participatory, direct or deliberative concepts of
democracy. This re-formulation was radical in the sense, that it took pluralist theory’s
premise of a plural but ‘voluntary’ system of interest mediation, and, whilst acknowledging
the problems inherent in this premise, turned it into a plural but ‘compulsory’ system of
interest mediation. As a result, ‘new‘ pluralism puts even more emphasis on associations
than did ‘old’ pluralism. Unfortunately, the gap between different theories remains entirely
intact; issues of participation, trust, or civic virtues not being discussed at all. In fact, it is
highly surprising to see how little impact the ongoing debates about Communitarianism,
Social Capital, or Civil Society have upon the new pluralist construct of ‘associative
democracy’. If it is not associations’ contribution in terms of trust, skills, or civicness, what
then justifies the enormous role of associations? The major argument is developed along
three assumptions. First, democracy depends chiefly upon the mediation and representation
of interest via associations. Second, the existing system of organised interests is deficient, as
Schmitter (1994: 160) writes, “of all the things that do not work well in contemporary
democracies, (it) must be rated among the worst”. Third, because of both interest mediation’s
10
presumed high significance for democratic systems and its deficiency in practical application,
the system should be reformed thoroughly. How should this reform look? Because group
formation is distorted by processes of inequality and lack of representation, because group
particularism undermines sovereignty and democratic deliberation, because group
characteristics might not correspond with democratic or liberal norms, the state has to
intervene. As Cohen and Rogers (1992: 426 and 1994: 145) argue, if the “right sorts of
associations do not arise naturally”, government action shall “supplement nature with
artifice”.4 In other words, whilst traditional pluralist theory assumed that existing interests will
automatically and naturally find an association to voice and mediate this interest5, Cohen and
Rogers assume that associations can and should be constructed deliberately, depending
less upon ‘natural’ interests but on certain normative criteria. How indeed should the ‘right’
associations look? According to Cohen and Rogers, proper associations resemble the
traditional ‘social partners’; they are organisations which are large and relatively
encompassing, their leaders should be accountable but powerful and they should have
significant means of sanction over their members. Moreover, there should be a centralisation
of authority in group decision making and a strong relationship between state and
association (1992: 428f.).
Evidently, the theory of ‘associative democracy’ celebrates a type of organisation that is
harshly criticised because of its authoritarian character, its high susceptibility to processes of
bureaucratisation, its decreasing potential for social integration, its lacking ability to teach
civic skills, and its low internal possibilities for participation.6 Moreover, it is a type of
organisation that is most drastically exposed to processes of individualisation and, thus, most
4 This is indeed a strange argument, to say the least. With the same right, one could argue, that the ‘right sorts’ of political parties, or politicians or, or media ‘do not arise naturally’. The final consequence of such a conception would be a society in which one authoritative agency would dictate what is the ‘right’ association, party, politician, media... Not an attractive, and not a particularly democratic idea, indeed.
5 An assumption that had been refuted bluntly. As Schattschneider demonstrated: “the flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent” (1960: 35). For a thorough criticism of pluralist assumptions, see also Newton (1976), Schmitter (1994).
6 For references on ‘large’ bureaucratic associations deficiencies, see, for instance, van Deth (1996a: 10f.), Zimmer (1996: 44ff.), Milofsky (1988b: 184f.), Heinze/Olk (1981), Eberts/Schmid (1987), Schmidt (1988).
11
significantly suffers from decreasing public acceptance and a declining ability to recruit
volunteers (Dechamps 1993: 82). Blatantly, the ‘new’ concept of associative democracy
promotes the ‘old’ concept of corporatist interest groups. This overt contradiction is no
accident. Despite its label, the theory of associative democracy is in fact not primarily a
democratic theory. To the contrary, its main interest is to “enhance government competence
and improve economic performance” (Cohen/Rogers 1992: 430). Hence, it is a theory of
‘governance’, and economic output, for which the “reconciliation” of political and economic
efficiency “with other democratic norms” is of secondary importance. Accordingly, Cohen and
Rogers devise a complex model of governance where associations are centrally involved in
national, regional, and local processes of decision making and implementation, with localised
groups’ main task being the enforcement and administration of previously deliberated policies
(1992: 438). This conception clearly reveals the functional and streamlining impetus of
‘associative democracy’. In fact, Hirst is right when he admonishes that Cohen and Rogers’
conception of the state is not particularly democratic, instead proposing a state which is no
longer “subject to citizen sovereignty and the majority principle” (Hirst 1992: 476). Although
the concept might offer the desired “serious alternative to the Keynesian welfare state”
(Cohen/Rogers1992: 430), its democratic nature being a leap in the dark. As Cohen and
Rogers admitted self-critically, “in short, it is not yet clear, on balance, how democratic our
associative proposal would be” (447). Cohen and Rogers‘ concept of ‘associative
democracy’, then, is fraught with problems, on the one hand, neglecting relevant debates
about the democratic functions of associations as put forward in discussions about
Communitarianism, Social Capital or Civil Society, whilst, on the other, being a concept of
governance, and as such of a rather authoritarian, functional character.
In a revised version both authors emphasis the civic, deliberative, and solidarity-breeding
impact of associative involvement. In other words, they, partially at least, shift attention from
a functional macro-perspective to the micro world of involved individuals (Cohen/Rogers
1994: 152ff.). However, the one-sided and uncritical presentation of alleged individual
benefits of participation nourishes the doubt whether this shift of perspective is more than a
12
lose collection of additional supportive evidence for the grand functional scheme of
associative democracy. At any rate, Cohen and Rogers move on shaky ground. There is in
fact a stark contrast between the individual functions celebrated in this later version – arenas
of deliberation and co-operation, school of democracy, competence, trust, other-
regardingness,... – and the centralised, semi-public, leadership-guided associations
promoted previously. This contrast will be very hard to reconcile.
Some of these remarks apply also to Schmitter’s concept of associative democracy, some,
however, do not. Schmitter’s project is at the same time more ambitious and less lofty than
Cohen and Rogers’ contribution. Like Cohen and Rogers he believes in the basically
democratic und thus desirable role of interest groups, and just as Cohen and Rogers he
seriously dislikes the existing system of interest representation. Unlike Cohen and Rogers
whose interest is in political and economic competence, Schmitter’s concern is mainly with
social inequality: “Whereas, in principle, freedom of association should have placed a
powerful weapon in the hands of those who, with few economic or social resources of their
own, could voluntarily join their meager individual contributions together into an enormous
collective effort; in practise, it has been the compact, ‘privileged’ groups who have best been
able to take advantage of the opportunity” (1994: 160).7 What can be done? Schmitter’s
suggestion: a realisation of ‘secondary citizenship’ which is based upon obligatory
associational involvement and a state administered system of vouchers. In fact, interest
associations would have semi-public status, they would be financed through compulsory
contributions, and funds would be re-distributed by means of citizen vouchers (Schmitter
1994: 163). Through a “coercive levy” everybody would be forced to participate - at least to
contribute financially - and the starting advantages of the privileged would disappear to a
great extent. Accordingly, Schmitter’s concept of associative democracy advocates a revision
of “weak” democracy, which is significantly less unequal than the traditional ‘thin’
democracies of pluralist or corporatist nature: “It makes no claim to return to a glorious past
7 That social activists originate from privileged strata, is an often repeated result of empirical research, see, for instance, Newton (1976), Milbrath/Goel (1977), Barnes/Kaase et al. (1979), Bennett/Bennett (1986), Conway (1991), Verba et al. (1995).
13
of direct and individual participation in public deliberations. It promotes no future with civic-
minded citizens exercising eternal vigilance over the public interest”. Far more modestly, “the
proposed reforms focus on removing much (but not all) of the inequalities rooted in wealth,
property and status that systematically discriminate between interests in our present
democracies” (Schmitter 1994: 169).
Schmitter’s proposal is clearly policy-oriented and less ambitious with regard to democratic
theory. It would, however, in practice as well as in theory, mean a substantial change in the
nature of contemporary democracy. Although Schmitter uses the term ‘secondary
citizenship’, the role of associations appears to be of prior importance. The great majority of
contemporary democracies are based upon voluntary citizen participation, certainly with
regard to party politics and voting, compulsory voting being in fact a rare exception. Hence, a
coercive system of associative interest representation might easily become traditional
politics’ ‘bigger’ brother, particularly in countries with low voting turnout and little interest in
party politics. Besides, whilst this form of associative democracy might indeed diminish ‘old’
social inequalities based on status, income, and education, at the same time it might amplify
the role of ‘new’ inequalities based on age, gender, region, and other ‘descriptive’ forms of
inequality. These interests are structurally difficult to organise and, what is more important,
certain interests deliberately opt against formal representation; New Social Movements being
ample witness to both forms of non-institutionalised interest representation. In short,
Schmitter’s policy reform suggests a substantive and qualitative change in the nature of
contemporary democracy, going far beyond the original aim of diminishing social inequalities.
The Counter-Position: Associations’ Undemocratic Nature
There is, however, one single point of criticism that applies uniformly to all recent evocations
of the concept of association, no matter whether this is done under the heading of a revival of
community, the disappearance of Social Capital, a strengthening of Civil Society, or, in terms
of governance, economic performance, or social inequality. Despite the manifold deficiencies
and problems apparent in the present system of voluntary associations, there is a strong
14
common conviction, that associations are inherently and undoubtedly democratic institutions
and that ,indeed, democracy cannot survive without them.
In juxtaposition, there is a less frequently replicated line of thought which depicts social
organisations as inherently – or at least potentially - undemocratic institutions. Its origins date
back to the French Revolution which, based upon Rousseau’s ideal of the volonté géneral,
deliberately did not promote freedom of association, claiming that mediating organisations
undermine individual freedom and favour processes of alienation. In the course of further
radicalisation, as a result, all free associations were banned officially (Sahner 1993: 22).
Many (neo-) conservative attacks on interest groups express a similar concern, arguing that
the “power of associations” (Eschenburg 1955: 87) hurts the principle of people’s rule and
disturbs the identity between rulers und ruled.8 This particular criticism is revived by Neo-
Liberals who demand a sharply limited state and attack the “domination of government by
coalitions of organized interest” (Hayek 1979: 13).9 From an entirely different nature is
Arendt’s ‘republicanism’ which, in fact, results in “one of the most challenging, and certainly
the most passionate, critiques of modern civil society” (Cohen/Arato 1992: 177). Arendt is
highly suspicious towards the intermingling between the ‘social’ and the ‘political’. In her
view, politics is endangered if political actors bring their private interests and needs into
public offices. In fact, apolitical associations threaten both the purity and rationality of politics.
If the social and the private become political, politics will deteriorate to a “rule of the
administration” (Arendt 1951: 43ff.) and public discourse retreats behind the “pull, pressure
and the tricks of cliques” (Arendt 1958: 203). To re-iterate, Arendt has a high esteem of
social organisations regarding the integration of otherwise isolated individuals. Yet, as soon
as they start to penetrate political life, their impact is undemocratic because the ‘social’
destroys political virtues and corrupts the ‘political’. This tradition of republicanism thus
8 The attack on associations and their factual power position is typically a product of conservative dissatisfaction with corporatism and the welfare state (see e.g. also Sanmann 1977, Kielmansegg 1979, Klages 1981). A left, neo-Marxist variant was particularly popular in the 1970s (Ebbighausen 1973: 26, Habermas 1973: 51, Offe 1969).
9 For similar arguments, see Buchanan 1975, Friedman 1962.
15
“proposes institutional reforms that aim to insulate arenas of collective choice from the
pressures of particular interests” (Cohen/Rogers 1992: 406).
Even the almost consensually shared conviction of associations’ integrative function has
been harshly refuted. The world of local communities and associations, as Milofsky (1988a:
20ff., similar Portes/Landolt 1996: 19) indicates, is a world in which societies degrade from
‘open’ to ‘closed’ systems, integration in fact being the expression of economic crisis, on the
one hand, increasing parochialism and social control, on the other. The communitarian quest
for more community and associational integration thus results in a stronger dependency
upon social organisation, a development with many “illiberal consequences” (Brumlik 1994:
99f.). The price of integration, thus, is less freedom and more organisational control.
In fact, even such an outspoken admirer of the American art of association as Tocqueville,
observed a strange mutual relationship between blossoming associational life, on the one
hand, and low levels of intellectual and artistic achievements, on the other, America indeed
being the country with the lowest “intellectual independence”. (1835/1959: 294ff.).10
However, Tocqueville was willing to pay this price because his fear of despotism and tyranny
of the majority forced him to accept a certain degree of illiberalism. In juxtaposition, lack of
individual freedom and intellectual inspiration through organisational integration, undoubtedly
is the core of Max Weber’s critique of associational life. Already in 1910, during the first
German meeting of sociologists, Weber characterised ‘contemporary man’ as an
“associational being to a terrifying, never anticipated extent” (1924: 442). According to
Weber, clubs and associations breed and foster the passivity of obedient subjects. No
wonder that monarchs and authoritarian governments, in general, protect and favour
associational activity (Weber 1924: 445).
Consequently, the relationship between social participation, democracy, and political
participation is anything but clear. This paper concentrates particularly on associations’
impact on political participation because this link is the most prominent in the recent debates
10 This is the cornerstone of Fach’s Tocqueville criticism: Tocqueville’s puritan community was characterised by repression, snooping into other people’s business, and quarrels (Fach 1994: 46).
16
about associational life. Yet, as we have seen, contradictions are numerous. Obviously, there
is no argument without an explicit counter-argument. If Charles Taylor (1991: 57) describes a
strong and powerful net of social organisations as ‘the’ pre-condition of democracy, then
Hannah Arendt warns of the totalitarian progress of the ‘social’. If Barber emphasises the
activating impact of associations and their contribution to grassroots-politics, then pluralist
theorists stress the de-politicising and passivity cultivating impact of intermediary
organisations. If Communitarians hope for an increase in civic virtues and sense of
community through assoctiational life, Weber turns our attention to the authoritarian and anti-
democratic effects of organisational integration. This list easily can be continued further.
Associations and Democracy: A Review of Empirical Evidence
If theory cannot agree upon the basics, maybe empirical evidence can contribute to solve the
puzzle. If the lowest common denominator of the concept of associative democracy is a
belief that the political order should be crucially linked to associations, where is the place of
the individual within such a society? In fact, the concept of associative democracy embraces
a particular image of mankind, man being an “organised man” (Schuppert 1997: 120). Having
said that, European citizens correspond to this ideal in a very different manner, making
associative democracy in some countries almost a ‘true’ description of reality, in others,
however, man is predominantly ‘unorganised’ with voluntary associations playing a marginal
role only. The Scandinavian democracies are highly associative, whilst in Southern Europe
only small minorities are involved. Considering levels of active participation - i.e. any kind of
involvement that goes beyond mere membership - differences between nations, however,
are small, associational activity reaching nowhere more than 20 percent of the population (for
comparative figures see Goul Andersen 1996, van Deth/Kreuter 1997, Gaskin/Smith 1995).
Little wonder that theorists of associative democracy operate with ideas of compulsory
involvement and claim that the state must provide adequate conditions for a vivid
associational life.
17
Associations and the Process of Individualisation
Apparently, the empirical figures clearly suggest that associative democracy is a future
project, having little in common with empirical reality. There is, moreover, some evidence that
the gap between norm and reality will increase, rather. Although Putnam’s (1995a, 1995b)
provocative theses of the decline in social capital and of people who ‘bowl alone’, rather than
in clubs, have been attacked severely11, there is ample reason to expect that ongoing
processes of individualisation will undermine the impact of associations.
In the world of individualisation and ‘reflexive modernization’ (Beck/Giddens/Lash 1994),
individuals are less and less prepared to accept the shelter of collective organisations, the
result being a “collectively individualised mode of existence” (Beck 1983: 42). What is
announced is a general retreat of institutions: “...we live in a literally ‘disorganizing’ capitalism
in the sense, not so much of institutional reflexivity but the ‘end’ or more modestly the decline
of institutions and organizations” (Lash 1994: 213f.). With regard to several previously
dominant organisations such as the unions and the churches, in particular, “institutional
decay” can be observed empirically (Jagodzinski/Dobbelaere 1995: 77). Yet, it is active union
participation that pushes Scandinavian participation rates, and participation in Southern
Europe would be much lower still if one would ignore all church related activities. It is indeed
one of the major dilemmas of the concept of associative democracy that, from an empirical
point of view, it is based upon associations which are either already in decline or felt to be
individualisation’s most probable victims.12
When Tocqueville wrote about ‘democracy in America’, voluntary clubs and associations not
based upon estates were, in Europe at least, a recent innovation, made possible in the
11 Both Broder (1997) and Lemann (1996) claim that Putnam takes change for decline, thus misinterpreting contemporary developments significantly. For Germany we know that participation figures drastically increased during the last three decades (Seißler 1998, Mohr 1984, Scheuch 1993), whilst previously the experience of “coerced volunteering” during Nazi-Germany made Germans suspicious and distant towards any kind of organisational involvement (Gaskin/Smith 1995: 7, Ministry of Social Affairs, Baden-Württemberg 1996: 55, Dechamps 1993: 87).
12 The empirical evidence on the strength of this ‘decline’ is ambivalent, and varies from country to country. What can be clearly observed, however, is that such traditional organisations experience increasing competition “from new organizations with quite different ties to their members, or ‘clients’” (van Deth 1997:1).
18
course of the breakdown of traditional monarchy. At that time, associations were the motor of
modernisation and democratisation.13 In contemporary society, this relationship is no longer
self-evident, associations, at least in their traditional shape, being less a motor but the victim
of individualisation. Moreover, the historical origin of associations in processes of
individualisation and the dissolution of traditional community contrasts sharply with the
present discussion about clubs as rescuers of community bonds. In fact two centuries ago,
associations were a clear expression of individualisation and modernisation, nowadays
associations are promoted in order to prevent from and compensate for further
individualisation and modernisation.14 In this concrete sense, we live in a thoroughly post-
Tocquevillean world.
Direct Impact: ‘School of Democracy’
But low levels of overall participation do not yet contradict associations’ impact on democracy
or political participation. Older studies did indeed find a consistently positive impact of social
organisation: Associations’ members are ‘better’ democrats, have more information about
politics, show a higher interest in public affairs and are themselves politically active to a
higher degree. Conclusions drawn from this evidence are straightforward, voluntary
organisations being “the most important foundation” of democracy (Almond/Verba 1963:
320ff., similar Kornhauser 1959: 65, Hastings 1954, Stouffer 1955). However, nowadays this
simple relationship is questioned, and the political functions of clubs, particularly of the
majority of hobby and sports clubs, seem to be “rather overrated ” (Zimmer 1996: 67, 89).
That said, quantitative research virtually unambiguously shows a persistently positive
relationship between social and political participation, i.e. socially active people tend to be
politically active as well (e.g. Dekker/van den Broek 1996, Gabriel/Kunz 1998, van
13 For references on the “revolutionary” impact of associations, see Tenbruck/Ruopp (1983: 70), Nipperdey (1972: 227), Dann (1976: 197, 1993: 121f.), Wehler (1987: 317f.)
14 For references on the defensive character of associations, see p.7f.. Empirical research, moreover, showed that during the 19
th century clubs were concentrated in big cities, and
metropolis, i.e. where processes of individualisation and modernisation were most pronounced. Today, the density of associations is highest on the country side and in smaller towns (Forsa 1988: 18).
19
Deth/Kreuter 1998, Parry et al. 1992, Dekker/Koopmans/van den Broek 1997). Unclear is,
however, which in fact are the concrete mechanisms that turn social activists into political
activists. A study of a Canadian bridge club, for instance, came to the surprising conclusion
that only one variable relates social to political participation, the frequency of political
discussions. Furthermore, even this is true only with regard to peripheral club members:
“Intense involvement in a very apolitical organization is at best irrelevant to political
participation and may even divert people from political activity” (Erickson/Nosanchuk 1990:
206). Whilst this result squares well with Hirschman’s thesis of “shifting involvement”
(1979)15, it contradicts one major assumption of social participation research: “Those who
are well-integrated into group life are, on the whole, more participatory, and, as the theory
would predict, still more involved are those who are most active within their group. Action
generates action” (Parry et al. 1992: 119). Similarly contradictory evidence originated from a
study on Civic Voluntarism (Verba et al. 1995: 339): there is hardly any difference between
nominal and active members of association, this indeed being “one of the unresolved
mysteries of voluntary activity literature” (Newton 1997: 6). Mystery or not, the modest
difference between passive and active involvement is undoubtedly a strong argument against
the assumption that through active participation in social organisations civic virtues and
participatory skills are trained.
Unclear is, moreover, whether there is a causal relationship at all. Indeed, empirical research
shows that there are certain “joiner” personalities; people who are (hyper-) active both
socially and politically (Smith 1977, Armbruster/Leisner 1975, Dunckelmann 1975), many of
which do not really differentiate between social or political activities. To the contrary, they
select modes of action depending on the specific purpose alone (van Deth/Leijenaar 1994).
As a result, it is not some generally positive relationship which is doubtful, but the issue of
causality and the concrete nature of this relationship. Besides, the generally positive
relationship between social and political participation is a rather weak relationship (van
15 Hirschman assumes that there is a competitive relationship between social and political participation because individuals have only limited time at their disposal. If this time budget is consumed by one type of participation, no time is left for the other.
20
Deth/Leijennaar 1994: 127, Mohr 1984: 171ff., van Deth 1996b: 392). It is in fact so weak,
that many studies of political participation simply ignore the potential impact of social
organisations, believing it to be too marginal in comparison to socio-economic and attitudinal
explanations (critically about this ignorance, e.g. Newton 1976: 229). Indeed, socio-economic
variables reduce the impact of social organisations significantly, but do not eliminate the
general positive relationship between both modes of involvement. Furthermore, activists are
indeed ‘better’ democrats, more tolerant and better informed. As Verba and his collaborators,
“while the process exacerbates political inequality, it may enhance the quality of political
discourse and democratic governance” (1995: 507).
Moreover, social participation’s impact seems to be limited to the area of conventional or
institutionalised patterns of political participation, concerning ‘alternative’ or non-
institutionalised modes of political action membership in associations is at best irrelevant
(e.g. van Deth 1996b: 403, Anderson 1996: 115f., Muller/Opp 1986, Opp/Gern 1993)16. As
Olsen (1972: 323) wrote: “...participation in truly voluntary associations is somewhat strongly
related to voting turnout, regardless of the nature of the organization”. The positive
relationship between membership in associations and turnout is in fact confirmed for many
different countries (Allardt/Pesonen 1960, Thomson/Knoke 1986, Abowitz 1990, van Deth
1992, Verba et al. 1995, Anderson 1996). Comparative research on the basis of micro data,
however, demonstrates that there is indeed a positive relationship between social
participation and protest activities, yet this relationship is very weak particularly in
comparison to the relationship between social and conventional political participation
(Dekker/Koopmans/van den Broek 1997: 224). On the basis of macro data, by contrast, the
same authors conclude that the relationship is reversed; organisational integration being
negatively related to both “the level and radicalness of protest” (229). Evidently, micro and
macro data speak two different languages.
16 Only Roller and Weßels (1996: 38) conclude that the involvement in “any organzational context” increases participation in legal but non-institutionalised modes of action.
21
What can be learned from this brief excursus into empirical research? To be sure,
associative democracy is a project that does not square too well with empirical evidence. In
many respects, modern ‘man’ is an ‘unorganised’ man, active participation in voluntary
associations being in fact limited to minorities in all countries of the industrialised world.
Moreover, these active minorities are no representative sample of the population. They tend
to be highly educated and economically well off. Besides, it is unclear whether there is a
causal relationship between social and political participation, and the assumption that
voluntary associations are a fertile training ground for participatory skills and civic virtues is
not supported by much evidence. Finally, voluntary associations seem to be alliance to
conventional politics, strengthening particularly party and voting related activities. As a result,
associative democracy is a project that supports the notion of ‘old’ politics, leaving almost no
traces on the many facets of ‘new’ politics. This last point, in fact, should be considered
seriously by authors who relate associative democracy to concepts of ‘green’ or ‘direct’
democracy. Empirically speaking, there is not much ground on which such a relationship
could build.
Indirect Impact: Societal Integration
There is, however, some evidence that associations’ impact on democracy is, as claimed by
Putnam and many Communitarians, indirect, rather, fostering social integration and general
trust. This integrative function of social organisations is emphasised by wide range of
different authors.17 Contested, however, is whether organisational integration and trust have
the supposed positive impact on civic virtues and political participation. Many questions
surface to which neither theory nor empirical evidence can give an adequate answer: How
does integration into one specific organisational context contribute to integration in society as
a whole? Integration into associational life probably is rather marginal compared to
integration into family contexts, work relations, local community, neighbourhood or circles of
17 Berry (1969), Smith (1966), Cutler (1973), Putnam (1993, 1995a), Bellah (1985), Fukuyama (1995), Coleman (1990: 318), Granovetter (1985: 491).
22
friends?18 Consequently, what is associations’ specific contribution to general integration in
comparison to what these alternative loci of integration contribute?19 Moreover, is integration
really conductive to political participation or is evidence on the side of pluralist theory which
envisions social integration as a pre-condition for social peace and political disinterest? Does
organisational integration lead, as Putnam suggests, to general trust? Or is trust a pre-
condition for joining social organisations? Finally, does trust promote activity or passivity?
There is only little empirical research done on these issues, hence, answers are very
tentative in nature. As an exception, there is Crenson’s (1983) seminal study on
neighbourhoods which indeed questions all aspects of Putnam’s simple formula equating
social participation with integration, integration with trust, and trust, finally, with political
participation (e.g. Putnam 1995a). As Crenson indicates, neighbourhoods with many social
conflicts - neighbourhoods which are poorly integrated internally - show a higher level of
community activities and involvement in local politics. Second, distrust between neighbours
encourages participation, trust in fact leads to passivity. “People convinced that they are
surrounded by citizens who resemble themselves can confidently leave the affairs of the
neighborhoods to others”, the opposite being true, “the more distrust, the more action”
(Crenson 1983: 170, 178). The same is true with regard to internal patterns of participation
in organisations. The more distrust there is between the members of an organisation, the
higher is the participation in meetings and events of that organisation.20 Only in one instance
do integrated neighbourhoods perform more activity than conflict-prone neighbourhoods: if
action is directed against an external ‘enemy’, such as bureaucrats in town administration, or
particular neighbourhood groups who have moved to the neighbourhood only recently and
disturb previous arrangements or behavioural codes (Crenson 1983: 254ff.). These results
18 The family is in fact the locus of integration particularly important to Communitarian thinking (e.g. Etzioni 1993: 54ff.)
19 Newton calculated for the Netherlands that citizens do spend not more than eight percent of their leisure time in clubs and associations. Accordingly, Newton concludes that family, school or work must be of much higher importance (1997: 4f.). For Germany, Schwarz (1996: 261) came to very similar results. Moreover, a German community study showed that for specific generations peer groups and life style groups function equivalently to associations and clubs (Ministry of Social Affairs, Baden-Württemberg 1996: 57f.).
20 For similar arguments from a theoretical perspective, see Sennett (1970), Jacobs (1961).
23
correspond nicely with social psychology’s old ‘truism’ that there is no integration without
exclusion, no in-group formation without definition of out-groups.21
Other studies indicate, however, that house ownership and time of living in a specific
residential area are positively related to political participation (Milbrath/Goel 1977: 113, Verba
et al. 1995: 455). Moreover, citizens who lived in an area for a long time were five times as
active in the community’s association than citizens who moved in only recently (Ministry of
Social Affairs Baden-Württemberg 1996: 71, similar Parry et al. 1992). Obviously, this is
evidence which supports Putnam’s thesis, but at the same time, it casts doubts on the
supposed causal relationship. Indeed, integration does not seem to be the result of
community activity or involvement in associations. On the contrary, integration seems to be
prior to associative engagement.
Similar scepticism prevails concerning the expansion from group-specific trust to generalised
social trust. Levi, for instance, asserts that group internal norms of reciprocity inevitably lead
to the construction of stereotypes and distrust concerning ‘out-groups’. This process, she
concludes, is particularly strong if groups define themselves through ethnic origins, religion or
shared values (1996: 48ff.). Moreover, whether an organisation teaches trust depends
largely on the features of that organisation. Frequently, as several Putnam critics indicate,
group members primarily learn conformity to organisational rules and norms and social
obedience (Levi 1996: 49ff., Gobetti 1996, Goldberg 1996, Portes 1995, Portes/Landolt
1996). Moreover, there is some evidence that the case of trust is equivalent to the case of
integration, trust not being the result of organisational activity but its pre-condition. In other
words, “the trusting join” (Newton 1997: 6). More generally speaking, trust is a “product of
democracy” (Muller/Seligson 1994: 646). If this is correct, the entire debate about “the
strange disappearance of social capital” (Putnam 1995b) would be turned upside down! Not
21 In fact, this general relationship between the social and the a-social, between community bond and community boundary had been already described by Ferdinand Tönnies (compare Deichsel 1985: 57ff.). For processes of in-group and out-group formation see, for instance, Isaacs (1975), Doob (1976), Katz (1985), Bloom (1990). From a perspective on New Social Movements, see Touraine (1981). Responding to Putnam, Portes and Landolt demonstrated, that group ties were deliberately mobilised in order to keep ‘outsiders’ out (Portes/Landolt 1996: 19).
24
a decline in social capital would endanger democracy, but the democratic ‘malaise’ results in
declining trust, thus decreasing social participation.
Finally, comparative research on trust has shown that social trust is “high and rising across
most of West Europe” (Newton 1997: 11, similar Kaase 1998: 9), despite declining or
stagnating rates of social and political participation. In short, there is little reason to assume a
very close relationship between trust and social participation. Empirical analyses
demonstrated that for three European nations there is a “statistically significant but
substantially weak association between voluntary activity and social trust”, but no association
at all could be found in four other nations (Newton 1997: 5).
To summarise, what has been said about the validity of the ‘direct impact’ thesis can be
repeated with regard to the thesis of ‘indirect impact’, the available empirical evidence
leading to highly ambivalent conclusions. Relationships are weak, and their causal nature
often being entirely unclear. As critics of the ‘trust’ paradigm indicate, we know far too little
about the impact of different types of organisations. A positive relationship between
integration, trust, and political activity might be a valid conclusion for one type of organisation
and an utterly wrong one for another. If empirical research can be criticised it should be
criticised for two basic deficiencies. First, it neglects the particular nature of associations, i.e.
the organisational context of involvement. Second, it does not provide necessary material to
illuminate the total set of comprehensive processes but concentrates on very specific
assumptions only. In this respect, empirical research is as fragmented as are theoretical
approaches.
Associative Democracy: A Contribution to Democracy?
The validity, usefulness, and fruitfulness of a concept of associative democracy depends
crucially upon the fact that it can demonstrate that associations fulfil certain democratic
functions. The fact that associations undoubtedly fulfil important social functions is not
sufficient. Social integration - no matter how important - is a pre-requisite for the health of
any political system, democratic or not. Protagonists of ‘associative democracy’ have to
25
demonstrate convincingly that associations do not only contribute to the psychological well-
being of individuals, that they do not only protect society against anomie and social
alienation, that they do not only create some sense of community, and that they are not only
functional aid to government performance and economic growth. In juxtaposition, associative
democracy is only then a legitimate project of democratic theory if it succeeds to show the
vital democratic and political functions of associations. Evidently, this is no plea for the
theoretical insignificance of social integration. But as long as democratic theory cannot
demonstrate that associational life is a substantive contribution to democracy, Max Weber’s
scepticism must prevail.
If, on the other hand, reforms even might “suggest a new form of political-constitutional
order” (Cohen/Rogers 1994: 138), then indeed a clearer presentation of evidence is required.
The problems are abundant. As I could demonstrate, the idea that associations are a vital
and inevitable aspect of modern democracy, is promoted by a wide range of theories.
However, these different theoretical discourses are sadly insulated from each other. Micro
theories address a certain type of questions and give a certain type of answers, whilst macro
theories concentrate upon issues of an entirely different nature. In other words, there is not
one discourse about the democratic function of associations, but many different sub-
discourses, which, until today, prefer to ignore each other. Considering this mutual
ignorance, it is highly surprising to see how different approaches with different methods, and
different concerns come to a very similar conclusion: associations are vital for the survival of
democracy. If one broadens the perspective and considers political and public discourses as
well, one must acknowledge even further-reaching consensus. Associations play a crucial
role in the political debate about a re- or deconstruction of the traditional welfare system, they
are central elements in local community’s efforts to integrate in and activate citizens for local
concerns, and voluntary work in associations is discussed as a substitute or complement to
26
unemployment benefits.22 Evidently, there seems to be hardly any pathology of
contemporary democracy which could not be cured by associations and the effects inherent
in associational life.
However, if one scratches the surface a bit, this apparent consensus quickly falls into pieces.
In fact, the presumption of the democratic usefulness of associations being virtually the only
common denominator of an otherwise extremely incoherent field. If one asks why
associations are that vital to democracy, a host of different and overtly contradictory answers
emerges. As I indicated, highly different perspectives with different questions explain a part
of this puzzle, lack of communication explains another. More important though, one cannot
even find a common, uncontested, understanding of what an association is, not to mention of
how a ‘proper’ democratic association should look. There are, in fact, as many definitions
and conceptions as there are authors in the field (Sahner 1993: 71). Indeed, corporatist
associations or pluralist theory’s interest groups have very little in common with the local self-
organised units promoted by Communitarians. Similarly huge is the difference between
Barber’s political grassroots organisations and Putnam’s apolitical choral societies. Even less
compatibility is there between Cohen and Rogers’ promotion of the traditional ‘social
partners’ and, for instance, Evans and Boyte’s conceptions of associations as ‘free spaces’ in
which participants ‘learn’ certain almost socio-psychological ‘habits of the heart’.
To make matters worse, there is not only this different emphasis on different types of
associations, there also is a tendency that one author generalises from his/her specific
conception, whilst depicting alternative conceptions as inherently undemocratic. The specific
democratic impetus of Barber’s grassroots associations is based upon the demonstration of
the undemocratic effects of dominant pluralist associations. Putnam’s argument is explicitly
justified by the observation that his ‘secondary’ associations provide democratic benefits
22 For example, see Tony Blair’s ‘welfare to work’ programme, and similar concepts put forwards by Claudia Nolte, Germany’s former Minister of Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (1997), or an expertise commissioned by the regions of Bavaria and Saxony (Kommission für Zukunftsfragen1997).
27
which cannot be provided by the ‘tertiary’ associations promoted by New Social Movement
literature and parts of the Communitarians.
Presumably, much of this confusion could be clarified if one explored the specific
contributions of specific types of association. However, such research is virtually non-
existent. Very little is known about specific organisations’ specific contribution to democracy.
We do not even know whether and if, to what extent and in which respect, the concrete
organisational context matters at all. Things would look less bleak if theory would at least
acknowledge existing empirical findings. As I demonstrated, there is a quite impressive body
of research concerning the micro-effects of associative activity. These findings, however, do
not always support theoretical assumptions, in juxtaposition, empirical evidence clearly
suggests that we should push the theoretical argument about associations’ contribution to
democracy not too far. With regard to macro effects, the situation is worse, not much
empirical evidence being available.23
To summarise, there is little exchange between macro and micro theoretical perspectives,
there is, moreover, little exchange between micro theories and empirical work based on
individual data, and there is a strong tradition of macro theories which has not yet shown
whether it can bear empirical scrutiny. There are, moreover, many overt contradictions
between different strands of theorising, on the one hand, and between theoretical and
empirical studies, on the other. There is, finally, no single attempt made to combine both
micro with macro, and theoretical with empirical evidence. Such a comprehensive approach,
however, is urgently required.
Considering the state of the art, the discourse on associative democracy has still to
demonstrate that it is more than a passing academic fashion. For the time being, Newton’s
statement from 1976 is as valid as ever: “In spite of the importance attached to voluntary
organisations in theories about democratic stability, relatively little empirical work has been
23 As one of the very few exceptions, there is the present Johns Hopkins project on the Third Sector which collects data on non-profit organisations in a wide range of different countries (see e.g. Salamon/Anheier 1994). One can hope that this data base will provide the material to test some of the core arguments of macro theories.
28
done on them” (Newton 1976: 31). To the contrary: the recent debate about associative
democracy and associations’ role in democracy contributed to a further inflation of theoretical
and normative arguments, a “collection of untested prejudices, at best hypotheses claiming
plausibility” (Bühler et al. 1978: 145). This situation is entirely unsatisfactory, in particularly
considering the fact, that the concept of associative democracy increasingly penetrates
public and political discourses about the future of the welfare state. Indeed, there is a certain
danger that the concept of ‘associative democracy’ is (ab-) used in public discourse in order
to justify cuts in welfare politics, social organisations thus being promoted as a cheaper
substitute for state activity. If the discourse on ‘associative democracy’ does not want to
become a fig-leaf for particularised interests in budgetary cuts and the dismantling of the
welfare state it has to provide much stronger arguments.
29
REFERENCES
Abowitz, Deborah A. (1990): Sociopolitical Participation and the Significance of Social Context: A Model of Competing Interests and Obligations, In: Social Science Quarterly 71/3, 543-566.
Allardt, Erik; Pesonen, Pertti (1960): Finland, In: International Social Science Journal 12/1, 27-39. Almond, Gabriel A.; Verba, Sidney (1963): The Civic Culture. Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five
Nations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Anderson, Cristopher J. (1996): Political Action and Social Integration, In: American Politics Quarterly
24/1, 105-124. Arendt, Hannah (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Arendt, Hannah (1958): The Human Condition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Armbruster, Bernt; Leisner, Rainer (1975): Bürgerbeteiligung in der Bundesrepublik, Göttingen:
Schwartz. Bachrach, Peter (1967): The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique, Boston: Little, Brown. Barber, Benjamin R. (1984): Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age, Berkeley:
University of California Press. Barnes, Samuel H.; Kaase, Max et al. (1979) (eds.): Political Action: Mass Participation in five Western
democracies, Beverly Hills: Sage. Beck, Ulrich (1983): Jenseits von Stand und Klasse? Soziale Ungleichheiten, gesellschaftliche
Individualisierungsprozesse und die Entstehung neuer sozialer Formationen und Identitäten, In: Kreckel, Reinhard (ed.): Soziale Ungleichheiten, Soziale Welt, Sonderband 2, Göttingen: Otto Schwartz & Co, p.35-74.
Beck, Ulrich (1986): Risikogesellschaft: auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Frankfurt a.M.:
Suhrkamp. Beck, Ulrich; Giddens, Anthony; Lash, Scott (1994): Reflexive modernization: politics, tradition and
aesthetics in the modern social order, Cambridge: Polity Press. Bellah, Robert N. (1985): Habits of the heart: individualism and commitment in American life, Berkeley:
University of California Press. Bellah, Robert N.; Madsen, Richard; Sullivan, William; Swidler, Anne; Tipton, Steven M. (1994):
Gegen die Tyrannei des Marktes, In: Zahlmann, Christel (ed.): Kommunitarismus in der Diskussion. Eine streitbare Einführung, Berlin: Rotbuch Verlag, 57-73.
Bennett, Stephen Earl; Bennett, Linda L.M. (1986): Political Participation, In: Long, Samuel (ed.):
Annual Review of Political Science, Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Berelson, Berhard; Lazarsfeld, Paul F.; McPhee, William N. (1954/1966): Voting: A Study of Opinion
Formation in a Presidential Campaign, Chicago: Chicago University Press. Berger, Peter L. (1977): Facing up to Modernity, New York: Basic Books. Berry, David (1969): Party Membership and Social Participation, In: Political Studies 17/2, 196-207. Bloom, William (1990): Personal Identity, national identity and international relations. Cambridge
Studies in International Relations 9, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Broder, David S. (1997): America’s ‘Social Capital’: Good News and Bad News, In: ‘International
Herald Tribune’, 7th
Dec. 1997.
30
Brumlik, Micha (1994): Der „Kommunitarismus“. Letzen Endes eine empirische Frage?, In: Zahlmann, Christel (ed.): Kommunitarismus in der Diskussion. Eine streitbare Einführung, Berlin: Rotbuch Verlag, 94-101.
Buchanan, James M. (1975): The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bühler, Walter; Kanitz, Horst; Siewert, Hans-Jörg (1978): Lokale Freizeitvereine. Entwicklung,
Aufgaben, Tendenzen, Werkbericht 3, St. Augustin: Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaften der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.
Cohen, Jean L; Arato, Andrew (1992): Civil Society and Political Theory, Cambridge, Mass./London:
MIT Press.
Cohen, Joshua; Rogers, Joel (1992): Secondary Associations and Democratic Governance, In: Politics & Society 20/4, 393-472.
Cohen, Joshua; Rogers, Joel (1994): Solidarity, Democracy, Association, In: Streeck, Wolfgang (ed.): Staat und Verbände, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 136-159.
Coleman, James (1990): Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge,Mass.:Belknap Pr. Conway, M. Margaret (1991): Political Participation in the United States, Washington: CQ Press. Crenson, Matthew A. (1983): Neighborhood Politics, Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University
Press. Cutler, Stephen J. (1973): Voluntary Association Membership and the Theory of Mass Society, In:
Laumand, Edward O. (ed.): Bonds of Pluralism: The form and substance of Urban Social Networks, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dann, Otto (1976): Die Anfänge politischer Vereinsbildung in Deutschland, In: Engelhardt, Ulrich;
Sellin, Volker; Stuke, Horst (eds.): Soziale Bewegung und politische Verfassung. Festschrift für Werner Conze, Stuttgart: Klett, 197-232.
Dann, Otto (1993): Vereinsbildung in Deutschland in historischer Perspektive, In: Best, Heinrich (ed):
Vereine in Deutschland. Vom Geheimbund zur freien gesellschaftlichen Organisation, Bonn: Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften, 119-142.
Dechamps, Andrea (1993): Volunteering in Germany, In: Smith, Justin Davis (ed.): Volunteering in
Europe. Opportunities and challenges for the 90s, London: The Volunteer Centre UK, 81-90. Deichsel, Alexander (1985): Das Soziale bei Ferdinand Tönnies. Begriff und Gegenstand einer
strengeren Soziologie, In: Clausen, Lars; von Borries, Volker; Dombrowsky, Wolf R.; Prahl, Hans-Werner (eds.): Tönnies heute. Zur Aktualität von Ferdinand Tönnies, Hamburg: Walter G. Mühlau, 49-66.
Dekker, Paul (1998): Freiwillige Arbeit in der niederländischen Zivilgesellschaft: Bestandsaufnahme
und Forschungsperspektiven, unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. Dekker, Paul; van den Broek, Andries (1996): Volunteering and Politics: Involvement in Voluntary
Associations from a ‘Civic Culture’ Perspective, In: Halman, Loek; Nevitte, Neil (eds): Political Value Change in Western Democracies. Integration, Values, Identification, and Participation, Tilburg: Tilburg University Press, 125-151.
Dekker, Paul; Koopmans, Ruud; van den Broek, Andries (1997): Voluntary associations, social movements and individual political behaviour in Western Europe, In: van Deth, Jan W. (ed.): Social participation, voluntary associations and political involvement in representative democracies, London/New York: Routledge, 220-239.
Doob, Leonard W. (1976): Patriotism and Nationalism. Their Psychological Foundations, Westport:
Greenwood Press Publishers.
31
Dunckelmann, Henning (1975): Lokale Öffentlichkeit. Eine gemeindesoziologische Untersuchung, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Ebbighausen, Rolf (1973): Legitimationskrise der Parteiendemokratie und Forschungssituation der
Parteiensoziologie, In: Dittberner, Jürgen.; Ebbighausen, Rolf (eds): Parteiensystem in der Legitimationskrise. Studien und Materialien zur Soziologie der Parteien in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 13-32.
Eberts, Michael; Schmid, Josef (1987): Zum Stand der Wohlfahrtsverbändeforschung.
Sozialwissenschaftliche Fragestellungen, Erkenntnisfortschritte und Defizite, In: Caritas, 289-313.
Erickson, Bonnie; Nosanchuk, T.A. (1990): How an apolitical association politicizes, In: Canadian
Review of Sociology and Anthropology 27/2, 206-219. Eschenburg, Theodor (1955): Herrschaft der Verbände?, Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt. Etzioni, Amitai (1993): The Spirit of Community. Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian
Agenda, London: Fontana Press. Etzioni, Amitai (1996): The New Golden Rule. Community and Morality in a Democratic Society, New
York: Basic Books. Evans, Sara M.; Boyte, Harry C. (1992): Free Spaces: The Sources of Democratic Change in America,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fach, Wolfgang (1994): Der Zeuge Tocqueville, In: Zahlmann, Christel (ed.): Kommunitarismus in der
Diskussion. Eine streitbare Einführung, Berlin: Rotbuch Verlag, 42-47. Forsa (ed.) (1988): Vereinsmitgliedschaft in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Ergebnisse einer
Repräsentativbefragung im Auftrag des Instituts für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung, Dortmund.
Friedman, Milton (1962): Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fukuyama, Francis (1995): Trust. The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, New York et al.:
The Free Press. Gabriel, Oscar W.; Kunz, Volker (1998): Engagement in Freiwilligenorganisationen - Produktivkapital
einer modernen Gesellschaft?, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Interne Studie Nr.?. Galston, William A. (1988): Liberal Virtues, In: American Political Science Review 88. Gaskin, Katharine; Smith, Justin Davis (1995): A New Civic Europe? A Study of the Extent and Role of
Volunteering, London: The Volunteer Centre UK. Giddens, Anthony (1995): Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the last modern age,
Cambridge: Polity Press. Gobetti, Daniela (1996): La Lega: Regularities and Innovation in Italian Politics, In: Politics and Society
24/1, 57-81. Goldberg, Elias (1996): Thinking about how Democracy works, In: Politics and Society 24/1, 7-18. Goul Andersen, Jorgen (1996): Membership and Participation in Voluntary Associations in
Scandinavia in a Comparative Perspective, Aalborg University, Department of Economics, Politics and Public Administration.
Granovetter, Mark (1985): Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness, In:
American Journal of Sociology 91, 481-510. Habermas, Jürgen (1973): Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
32
Hastings, Philip K. (1954): The Non-Voter in 1952: A Study of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, In: Journal of Psychology 38, 301-312.
Hayek, Friedrich A. (1979): The Political Order of Free People, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Heinze, Rolf G.; Olk, Thomas (1981): Die Wohlfahrtsverbände im System sozialer
Dienstleistungsproduktion. Zur Entstehung und Struktur der bundesrepublikanischen Verbändewohlfahrt, In: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 94-114.
Hirschman, Albert O. (1979): Shifting Involvements: Private Interest and Public Action, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press. Hirst, Paul Q. (1992): Comments on “Secondary Association and Democratic Governance”, In: Politics
& Society 20/4, 473-480. Hirst, Paul Q. (1997): From statism to pluralism: democracy, civil society and global politics, London:
UCL Press. Isaacs, Harold R. (1975): Basic Group Identity: the idols of the tribe, In: Glazer, Nathan; Moynihan,
Daniel P. (eds.): Ethnicity. Theory and Experience, Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press, 29-52.
Jacobs, Jane (1961): The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York: Random House. Jagodzinski, Wolfgang; Dobbelaere, Karel (1995): Secularization and Church Religiosity, In: Van Deth,
Jan W.; Scarbrough, Elinor (eds.): The Impact of Values. Beliefs in Government, Volume 4, New York: Oxford University Press, p.76-119.
Kaase, Max (1998): Trust and Participation in Contemporary Democracies, unveröffentlichtes
Manuskript, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). Katz, Daniel (1985): Nationalismus als sozialpsychologisches Problem, In: Winkler, Heinrich August
(ed.): Nationalismus, Königstein/ts.: Athenäum, 67-84. Kielmansegg, Peter Graf (1979): Politik in der Sackgasse? Umweltschutz in der
Wettbewerbsdemokratie, In: Geißler, Heiner (ed.): Optionen auf eine lebenswerte Zukunft, München: , 37-56.
Klages, Helmut (1981): Überlasteter Staat - verdrossener Bürger? Zu den Dissonanzen der
Wohlfahrtsgesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus. Kommission für Zukunftsfragen der Freistaaten Bayern und Sachsen (1997): Erwerbstätigkeit und
Arbeitslosigkeit in Deutschland. Entwicklung, Ursachen und Maßnahmen, Teil III: Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Beschäftigungslage, Bonn.
Kornhauser, William (1959): The Politics of Mass Society, Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press. Lash, Scott (1994): Expert-systems or Situated Interpretation? Culture and Institutions in Disorganized
Capitalism, In: Beck, Ulrich; Giddens, Anthony; Lash, Scott: Reflexive Modernization. Politics and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, Cambridge: Polity Press, 198-215.
Lazarsfeld, Paul F.; Berelson, Bernard; Gaudet, Hazel (1948/1968): The people’s choice: how the
voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Lemann, Nicholas (1996): Kicking in Groups, In: The Atlantic Monthly 227/4, 22-26. Levi, Margaret (1996): Social and Unsocial Capital: A Review Essay of Robert Putnam’s Making
Democracy Work, In: Politics and Society 24/1, 45-55. Linz, Juan (1967): Cleavage and Consensus in West German Politics: The Early Fifties, In: Lipset,
Seymour M.; Rokkan, Stein (eds): Party Systems and Voter Alignments, New York: Free Press, 283-321.
33
MacIntyre, Alasdair (1981): After Virtue. A Study in Moral Theory, Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.
MacIntyre, Alasdair (1987): Der Verlust der Tugend. Zur moralischen Krise der Gegenwart, Frankfurt
a.M./New York: Campus. Mansbridge, Jane J. (1980): Beyond Adversary Democracy, New York: Basic Books. Michalski, Krzysztof (ed.) (1991): Europa und die Civil Society: Castelgandolfo- Gespräche 1989,
Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Milbrath, Lester; Goel, Madan L. (1977): Political Participation: How and Why Do People Get Involved
in Politics?, Chicago: Rand McNally College Pub. Co. Milofsky, Carl (1988a): Scarcity and Community. A Resource Allocation Theory of Community and
Mass Society Organizations, In: Milofsky, Carl (ed.): Community Organizations. Studies in Resource Mobilization and Exchange, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 16-41.
Milofsky, Carl (1988b): Structure and Process in Community Self-Help Organizations, In: Milofsky, Carl
(ed.): Community Organizations. Studies in Resource Mobilization and Exchange, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 183-216.
Minstry of Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (1997): Neue Bewegung für das Ehrenamt
durch die Nationale Freiwilligenagentur, Bonn: Pressemitteilung vom 5.12.1997. Ministry of Social Affairs, Baden-Württemberg (ed.) (1996): Engagement in der Bürgergesellschaft. Die
Geislingen-Studie, Stuttgart. Mohr, Hans-Michael (1984): Politische und soziale Beteiligung, In: Glatzer, Wolfgang; Zapf, Wolfgang
(eds.): Lebensqualität in der Bundesrepublik. Objektive Lebensbedingungen und subjektives Wohlbefinden, Frankfurt a.M.: Campus, 157-173.
Muller, Edward N.; Opp, Karl-Dieter (1986): Rational choice and rebellious collective action, In:
American Political Science Review 80, 471-487. Muller, Edward N.; Seligsen, Mitchell A. (1994): Civic Culture and Democracy: The Question of Causal
Relationships, In: American Political Science Review 88/3, 635-652. Newton, Kenneth (1976): Second City Politics. Democratic Processes and Decision-Making in
Birmingham, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Newton, Kenneth (1997): Social and Political Trust, Paper prepared for the Conference on Democratic
Institutions: America in Comparative perspective, Washington 25-27 August 1997. Nipperdey, Thomas (1972): Verein als soziale Struktur in Deutschland im späten 18. Und frühen 19.
Jahrhundert, In: Bookmann, Hartmut; Esch, Arnold et al. (eds.): Geschichtswissenschaft und Vereinswesen im 19.Jahrhundert, Göttingen: 1-44.
Offe, Claus (1969): Politische Herrschaft und Klassenstrukturen. Zur Analyse spätkapitalistischer
Gesellschaften, In: Kress, Gisela; Senghaas, Dieter (eds): Politikwissenschaft, Frankfurt a.M.: Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 155-189.
Olsen, Marvin (1972): Social Participation and Voting Turnout: A Multivariate Analysis, In: American
Sociological Review 37, 317-331.
Opp, Karl-Dieter, Gern, Christiane (1993): Dissident Groups, Personal Networks, and Spontaneous Cooperation: The East German Revolution of 1989, In: American Sociological Review 58/5, 659-680.
Parry, Geraint (1972): The Idea of Political Participation, In: Parry, Geraint (ed.): Participation in
Politics, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
34
Parry, Geraint; Moyser, George; Day, Neil (1992): Political participation and democracy in Britain, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pateman, Carole (1970): Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. Portes, Alejandro (ed.) (1995): The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks,
Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Portes, Alejandro; Landolt, Patricia (1996): The Downside of Social Capital, In: The American
Prospect 94, 18-21. Putnam, Robert D. (1993): Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton:
Princeton University Press. Putnam, Robert D. (1995a): Bowling Alone. America’s Declining Social Capital, In: Journal of
Democracy 6/1, 65-78. Putnam, Robert D. (1995b): Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in
America, In: Political Science and Politics XXVIII/4, 664-683. Reese-Schäfer, Walter (1994): Was ist Kommunitarismus?, Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus. Roller, Edeltraud; Wessels, Bernhard (1996): Contexts of Political protest in Western Democracies:
Political Organization and Modernity, Arbeitspapier FS III 96-202, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1762/1977):Vom Gesellschaftsvertrag oder Grundsätze des Staatsrecht,
Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam Jun. Sahner, Heinz (1993): Vereine und Verbände in der modernen Gesellschaft, In: Best, Heinrich (ed.):
Vereine in Deutschland. Vom Geheimbund zur freien gesellschaftlichen Organisation, Bonn: Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften, 11-118.
Salamon, Lester M.; Anheier, Helmut K. (1994): The Emerging Sector: the nonprofit sector in
comparative perspective. An Overview, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies.
Sandel, Michael J. (1988): Democrats and Community. A Public Philosophy for American Liberalism,
In: The New Republic, 22.2.1988, 20-23. Sanmann, Horst (1977): Die Gewerkschaften in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Überlegungen zur
Problematik des „Gewerkschaftsstaates“, In: Hamburger Jahrbuch, 129-150. Schattschneider, Elmer E. (1960): The Semi-Sovereign People, New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston. Scheuch, Erwin K. (1993): Vereine als Teil der Privatgesellschaft, In: Best, Heinrich (ed.): Vereine in
Deutschland. Vom Geheimbund zur freien gesellschaftlichen Organisation, Bonn: Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften, 143-207.
Schmidt, Manfred G. (1988): Sozialpolitik. Historische Entwicklung und internationaler Vergleich,
Opladen: Leske und Budrich.
Schmitter, Philippe C. (1994): Interests, Associations and Intermediation in a Reformed Post-Liberal Society, In: Streeck, Wolfgang (ed.): Staat und Verbände, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 160-171.
Schuppert, Gunnar Folke (1997): Assoziative Demokratie. Zum Platz des organisierten Menschen in der Demokratietheorie, In: Klein, Ansgar; Schmalz-Bruns, Rainer (eds.): Politische Beteiligung und Bürgerengagement in Deutschland. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen, Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 114-152.
35
Schwarz, Norbert (1996): Ehrenamtliches Engagement in Deutschland. Ergebnisse der Zeitbudgeterhebung 1991/92, In: Wirtschaft und Statistk 4, 259-266.
Seißler, Renate (1998): Das Ehrenamt als Chance. Der Tatendrang geht nicht in den Ruhestand, In:
Süddeutsche Zeitung, 26th Feb. 1998, 34.
Seligman, Adam B. (1992): The idea of civil society, New York: Free Press. Sennett, Richard (1970): The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity and City Life, New York: Knopf. Shils, Edward A. (1956): The Torment of Secrecy, Glencoe: The Free Press. Smith, David Horton (1966): The importance of formal voluntary Organisations for society, In:
Sociology and Social Research 50, 483-495. Smith, David Horton (1977): Voluntary action and voluntary groups, In: Inkeles, Alex (ed.): Annual
Review of Sociology 1, 247-270. Stouffer, Samuel A. (1955): Communism, Conformity and Civil Liberties, Garden City: Doubleday. Taylor, Charles (1991): Die Beschwörung der Civil Society, In: Krzysztof, Michalski (ed.): Europa und
die Civil Society. Castelgandolfo-Gespräche 1989, Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 52-81. Tenbruck, Friedrich H.; Ruopp, Wilhelm A. (1983): Modernisierung - Vergesellschaftung -
Gruppenbildung - Vereinswesen, In: Neidhardt, Friedhelm (ed.): Gruppensoziologie. Perspektiven und Materialien, Sonderheft 25 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 65-74.
Thomson, Randall.; Knoke, David (1980): Voluntary Associations and Voting Turnout of American
Ethnoreligious Groups, In: Ethnicity 7, 56-69. Tocqueville, Alexis de (1835/1959): Über die Demokratie in Amerika, Vol. I, Stuttgart: Deutsche
Verlagsanstalt. Tocqueville, Alexis de (1840/1962): Über die Demokratie in Amerika, Vol. II, Stuttgart: Deutsche
Verlagsanstalt. Touraine, Alain (1981): The voice and the eye. An analysis of social movements, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Van Deth, Jan W. (1992): De Politieke Betekenis van Maatschappelijke Participatie, In: Acta Politica
27/4, 425-444. Van Deth, Jan W. (1996a): Intermediäre Organisationen und Wertewandel, Antrag auf Gewährung
einer Sachbeihilfe bei der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft, Mannheim: Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung.
Van Deth, Jan W. (1996b): Voluntary associations and political participation, In: Gabriel, Oskar W.;
Falter, Jürgen W. (eds): Wahlen und politische Einstellungen in Westlichen Demokratien, Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 389-411.
Van Deth, Jan W. (1997): Introduction: social involvement and democratic politics, In: van Deth, Jan W. (ed.): Social participation, voluntary associations and political involvement in representative democracies, London/New York: Routledge, 1-23.
Van Deth, Jan W.; Leijenaar, Monique (1994): Maatschappelijke participatie in een middlegrote stad.
Een exploratief onderzoek naar activiteiten, netwerken, loopbanen en achtergronden van vrijwilligers in maatschappelijke organisaties, Rijswijk: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Van Deth, Jan W.; Kreuter, Frauke (1998): Membership of Voluntary Associations, In: van Deth, Jan
W. (ed.): Comparative Politics: The Problem of Equivalence, London: Routledge, 135-155.
36
Verba, Sidney (1961): Small Groups and Political Behaviour. A Study of Leadership, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Verba, Sidney; Schlozman, Kay Lehman; Brady, Henry E. (1995): Voice and Equality. Civic
Voluntarism in American Politics, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Walzer, Michael (ed.) (1995): Toward a global civil society, Providence: Berghahn Books. Weber, Max (1924): Rede auf dem ersten Deutschen Soziologentag in Frankfurt 1910, In: Max Weber:
Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Soziologie und Sozialpolitik, hrsg. von Marianne Weber, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 431-449.
Wehler, Hans-Ulrich (1987): Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte. Vom Feudalismus des Alten Reiches
bis zur defensiven Modernisierung der Reformära: 1700-1815, München: Beck. Zimmer, Annette (1996): Vereine - Basiselemente der Demokratie. Eine Analyse aus der Dritte-Sektor-
Perspektive, Opladen: Leske & Buderich.