citizens’ conceptions of democracy...conceptions of democracy and political behavior we use a...

CITIZENS’ CONCEPTIONS OF DEMOCRACY

AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IN GERMANY

Sergiu Gherghina

Institute of Political Science

Goethe University Frankfurt

Brigitte Geissel

Institute of Political Science

Goethe University Frankfurt

Paper prepared for delivery at the Joint Sessions of Workshops

European Consortium for Political Research

29 March – 2 April 2015, Warsaw,

1

Introduction

The recent spread of representative democratic regimes across the world coincides with an

increase in citizens’ discontent towards representative institutions and actors. Over the last

three decades electoral turnout has been in decline, party membership shrank, and the

amount of loyal voters decreased in many contemporary democracies. A large body of

literature discusses the disaffection of citizens with representative democracy (Dalton &

Wattenberg 2000; Norris 2011). One of the solutions to address this “democratic malaise”

has been the adoption of alternative forms of democracy that give citizen more say in

political will‐formation and decision‐making (Scarrow 2001; Zittel & Fuchs 2007; Geissel &

Newton 2012).

At the same time, studies revealed that citizens’ preferences for different forms of

democracy are not uniform. People have different conceptions regarding (the functioning of)

democracy (Hibbing & Theiss‐Morse 2001; Font & Alarcón 2011; Bengtsson 2012). However,

only isolated studies have paid attention to the connection between citizens’ preferences for

democratic alternatives and their desire to get involved in (new) participatory procedures

(Bengtsson & Christensen 2014). To fill this gap and to advance the understanding of such a

linkage, our paper aims to investigate how preferences of German citizens for types of

democracy influence their retrospective as well as prospective involvement in political will‐

formation and decision‐making. Germany is the appropriate setting to investigate this

linkage for two main reasons. At institutional level, there are provisions for direct and

participatory democracy (at regional and local level) that allow citizens to engage in non‐

electoral forms of participation. At behavioral level, German citizens make use of various

ways to get involved in politics and the public participation reaches significant levels across

events (e.g. Stuttgart 21).

Our study is guided by the following research question: How do citizens’ conceptions

of democracy correlate with their retrospective and prospective political participation? To

provide an answer this paper presents the conceptions of democracy preferred by citizens

living in Germany and discusses the effects produced by these preferences on types of

political participation (voting, protests, referenda, deliberative procedures). In other words,

we investigate the way in which attitudes towards forms of democracy are linked to political

behavior. We seek to explain if people who, for example, prefer citizen‐oriented democracy

over other conceptions of democracy (i.e. representative or expert) are consistently willing

2

to get involved in referenda and deliberation practices. To identify the relation between

conceptions of democracy and political behavior we use a combination of political science

theories and modified approaches from social psychology. In this sense, we apply several

models that have been elaborated with respect to what citizens prefer when it comes to

(alternative) processes for political decision making (representative, citizen‐oriented, expert)

(Hibbing & Theiss‐Morse 2001; Esaiasson et al. 2012; Bengtsson & Christensen 2014). Our

study draws on data from a survey conducted in autumn 2014 on a probability

representative sample at national level in Germany.

The paper starts with a review of the literature, i.e. theoretical approaches and state

of the art, and a formulation of six testable hypotheses. Among these, three are related to

conceptions of democracy and the other three refer to classic determinants of political

participation. The second section briefly describes the research design and data. Next, we

analyze and interpret our findings on the basis of descriptive and inferential statistics. The

conclusion summarizes the key findings, discusses the major theoretical implications, and

reflects on avenues for further research.

Theoretical approaches

In this paper we examine whether citizens’ conceptions of democracy are related to their

(willingness towards) involvement in politics, i.e. political participation. Since conceptual

work on this relationship is scarce we turn our attention to theoretical approaches form

other sub‐fields that conceptualize the relation between normative disposition (perception

of what is good democracy) and behavior (political participation).

Earlier research on behavior has indicated that normative dispositions do not

necessarily go hand in hand with the willingness to act according to these dispositions

(Darley & Batson 1973; Seligman & Katz 1996; McCarty & Shrum 2000; Sniderman et al.

2001). In this sense, research on environmental sociology is the most advanced and revealed

large differences between attitudes and actions. Many people are convinced that it is

necessary to protect the environment but this does not necessary lead to an increased

willingness to take specific actions in favor of environmental protection. The correlation

between the general normative disposition and the readiness to act is low (de Haan &

Kuckartz 1996, p.107) and the correlation between normative disposition and actual action is

even lower (Diekmann & Preisendoerfer 1998). In the remainder of this chapter we discuss

3

the different factors to be taken into account when examining the relationship between

normative disposition and action.

Various studies have shown the importance of availability, i.e. whether devices

needed to act according to one’s normative disposition are provided. Someone with a

normative disposition for sustainability might, for example, be willing to separate waste, but

since waste separation is not provided in her country she cannot act according to her

disposition. Also research on the availability of sport facilities and activities showed a strong

correlation between availability and behavior: sport intention was “more strongly associated

with sports participation when sports facilities were more readily available” (Prins et al.

2010). Local‐area availability of physical activity‐related facilities and physical activity

correlate clearly with sport behavior (Powell et al. 2007). In the context of our paper these

findings reflect that normative dispositions go more often hand in hand with prospective

participation than with retrospective participation, because most likely not all forms of

political activity (referenda, deliberative procedure) have been available within a polity or

municipality. Citizens might be willing to participate in these forms of participation, but they

do not have the opportunity, i.e. no available provisions. In the German case there is

empirical evidence to strengthen this perspective: the absence of any direct democratic tool

at national level reduces the availability of means for involvement.

One reason for which citizens are willing to take action according to their normative

disposition are considerations on low‐ and high‐costs. Citizens might be more willing to act

when costs are low, e.g., if not much time is needed and if money or other resources are not

involved. If political participation is very time‐consuming the willingness to get involved is

quite likely low even if citizens consider this form of participation in line with their ideal

conception of democracy. From this perspective, voting – which requires small costs – will

most likely be the most important activity no matter which conception of democracy a

citizen might have. Looking comparatively at participation in referendums and deliberative

procedures through the lenses of costs, the former is expected to be more likely.

The Theory of Reasoned Action (e.g. Miller 2005) might be useful to understand the

relationship between normative disposition, behavioral intentions, and activity. Normative

dispositions do never “stand‐alone” but they are surrounded by a variety of other

convictions and attitudes. A citizen might, for example, favor a more direct democratic form

of democracy. At the same time she is convinced that political participation is meaningless

4

and without any effect, i.e. her external efficacy is very low. Weighting these two convictions

she might come to the conclusion that even if her normative concept of democracy includes

extensive participation she might come to the conclusion that based on the other conviction

(“participation is useless”, i.e. low external efficacy) her own willingness to participate is

around zero. Finally, individual resources and skills will most likely have an effect on activity.

A high level of individual resources and skills will make it more likely to transform normative

dispositions into intentions and to translate intentions into activity. Resources and skills are

mostly measured via educational level, but also experiences with civic engagement, political

interest or media consumption can be regarded as a means to acquire political information

(Figure 1).

Figure 1: The model explaining relations between normative dispositions, intentions, and activities

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Not included in the paper

Main hypotheses

In the paper we scrutinize the relationship between the preferences for conceptions of

democracy (representative, citizen driven, and expert) and types of political participation

(voting, use of referenda, deliberations etc.). Three conceptions of democracy are of interest

to this paper. The representative model of democracy seems to be in a crisis and new

models are rising at the horizon. In the wake of the proliferation of democratic innovations

Normative disposition Intention Activity/Participation

Resources and skills Availability of participation option

Internal and external efficacy High‐low‐cost considerations

5

leading to multifaceted forms of democracy (e.g. Geissel et al. 2014), variations of citizens’

perceptions of democracy emerged. We refer in a parsimonious way to three models:

representative, citizen driven and expert driven concepts of democracy (Bengtsson &

Christensen 2014). Our expectation is that citizens’ conceptions of the democracy are linked

to their willingness to get politically involved and to their actual political involvement.

Bengtsson and Christensen (2014) showed that in Finland there is “a distinct association

between citizens’ ideals and the actions they take”. Another body of research has also

shown that in the world of politics normative political dispositions and political behavior are

linked. Geissel (2008), for example, argued that citizens with a normative disposition of

attentiveness (“monitoring politicians as civic duty”) show more intention to participate and

they also participate more often. Based on these findings, we expect normative dispositions

do have an impact on political behavior.

Based on these consideration and as a replication of the work of Bengtsson and

Christiansen (2014) we expect that a preference for the representative model of democracy

is most likely at odds with direct political participation. Citizens with this preference are most

likely willing to elect their representatives, but then they respect the “division of labor”

between them and the political elite and do not try to interfere. Voting is probably their

preferred and only form of political participation. In contrast, citizens favoring a citizen‐

oriented form of democracy mostly also prefer comprehensive political engagement in a

variety of different forms of participation. Finally, citizens with a preference for an expert

democracy might be more oriented towards representative forms of participation than

towards citizen‐oriented. Using the theories from the previous section and the debate about

the linkages between conceptions of democracy and participation in this section, we

formulate three general hypotheses:

H1: Citizens preferring a representative conception of democracy engage mainly in electoral

political participation (i.e. voting) and hardly in participatory forms.

H2: Citizens preferring citizen‐oriented conceptions of democracy (direct or dialog‐oriented)

engage in voting as well as in non‐electoral forms of political participation..

H3: Citizens preferring a conception of expert democracy engage in electoral participation

and are unlikely to engage in non‐electoral forms of participation.

6

Secondary hypotheses and control variables

In addition to the main effects highlighted in H1‐H3, we test for the impact of three factors

revealed in the literature as important determinants for participation: civic engagement,

political interest, and media consumption. Among these, civic engagement has been often

considered a valid explanation for political participation (Verba & Nie 1972; Rosenstone &

Hansen 1993; Verba et al. 1995; Putnam 2000). There are at least three mechanisms at

work: 1) the development of skills necessary for participation; 2) the provision of alternatives

for deprived citizens and 3) a reflection of a general activism. First, the membership in

organizations (political or non‐political) can enhance the political education and develop the

communication abilities necessary for the involvement in politics. People can be socialized

with the pro‐participatory values and to learn specific skills that may lead to further

participation (Leighley 1996). Although the organizations to which citizens belong do not

have (many) political activities, the discussions with other members may have a political

dimension. At the same time, various organizations encourage their members to get

politically involved in one way or another. Second, membership in organizations partly

compensates for scarce socio‐economic resources (Verba et al. 1978). This favors the

political participation though the use of organizational resources, thus making it

independent from the individual resources. As a result, the membership in voluntary

organizations increases the individual level of political participation (Verba & Nie 1972).

Third, following the core argument of Putnam (1993), citizens who get involved in

organizations are likely to be more interested in the societal problems. Consequently, their

propensity towards political participation is higher than that of their fellow citizens.

An extensive body of literature indicates that political interest is one of the most

powerful predictors of political participation (Verba et al. 1995; Norris 2000). The argument

is straightforward: individuals who are already interested in politics are more likely to

participate than the rest of the public. This hypothesis follows the general idea outlined for

H1‐H3 that attitudes stimulate behavior and thus an increased attention paid to politics can

be translated into actions.

Media is the primary source for information in general and political information in

particular. Referring to the latter, the role of media becomes prominent during electoral

campaigns to inform citizens about political programs, ideologies, and issues promoted by

candidates. So far, an extensive body of literature has shown a positive impact of media use

7

on political knowledge (Scheufele 2002; Drew & Weaver 2006). In turn, knowledge

influences involvement: empirical evidence has shown that individuals who closely follow

the development of the public affairs are more involved in comparison to the rest of the

citizens (McLeod et al. 1999). On the basis of these mechanisms, there is no surprise that

earlier findings pointed to a strong correlation between political participation and news

interest and consumption (Putnam 2000). In light of these arguments, we hypothesize that:

H4: Members of voluntary organizations are likely to participate more than the rest.

H5: Citizens with an interest in politics are likely to participate more than the rest

H6: Heavy media consumers are likely to participate more than their peers.

Unlike the hypothesized relationships H1‐H3, in H4‐H6 we cannot formulate different effects

for types of political participation. The arguments behind the relationships indicate that

individuals who consume more media, are engaged in civic activities and bear an interest in

politics will participate more than the others; there are no strong theoretical reasons to

differentiate between effects for types. In addition to the variables from H1‐H6, we control

for three variables associated to the socio‐economic status (SES) – income, education, and

age – that was considered important drivers for political participation (Millbrath & Goel

1978; Dalton 1988; Conway 1991; Verba et al. 1995).

Research design and data

To test these hypotheses we use individual level data from a national survey conducted in

August‐September 2014 by the GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. The GESIS

Panel is a mixed‐mode (online and mail) omnibus access panel representative for the

German speaking population residing in Germany and aged between 18 and 70 years. The

survey carried out in 2014 included a specific one‐wave battery of questions about

conceptions of democracy and types of political participation, proposed by the authors of

this paper. A total number of 3,983 respondents answered the questions used to

operationalize the variables of this study. The “do not know” and “no answer” options were

treated as missing values and excluded from analysis.

We refer to three different models of democracy: representative, citizen‐ or expert‐

oriented. In our survey we asked citizens what kind of democracy they prefer using a

8

continuum scale. That means that interviewees could choose on a continuum whether they

prefer a full representative democracy, a full direct democracy, where citizens make all

decisions or a model in between more inclined to the one or the other side. The same survey

structure was applied for model between representative and expert democracy. The

conception of democracy (representative vs. citizen oriented vs. expert oriented) is

measured as the answer to the following question: “Who should make important policy

decisions? Please indicate the number on the scale from 1 to 6 that is closest to your

opinion”. This was a matrix question that asked respondents to make three choices between

a) 1. Citizens and 6. Elected politicians; b) 1. Elected politicians and 6. Politically independent

experts; c) 1. Politically independent experts and 6. Citizens.

We are interested in four types of political participation: voting as a feature of

representative democracy, protest as a type associated to both representative and citizen

democracy, and referendums and deliberative processes associated with citizen democracy.

The use of different forms of political participation (retrospective) is measured through the

answers given to the following question: “So far, using a scale from 1 to 6 (where 1 = never,

6 = very often), which of the following activities did you undertake: a) Voting b) Participate in

referendum, c) Participate in protest/demonstrate and d) Participate in participatory

budgeting or other kinds of political consultations?”. The order of these forms was not

random and they were arranged to avoid a clear distinction between representative and

citizen democracy (from perspective of the interviewees), on the one hand, and to begin

with the most popular type of participation on the other hand. Similarly, the desire to use

political participation (prospective) is measured through the answers provided to the

question: “Using a scale from 1 to 6 (where 1 = never, 6 = very often), which of the following

activities would you be willing to undertake: a) Voting b) Participate in referendum, c)

Participate in protest/demonstrate and d) Participate in participatory budgeting or other

kinds of political consultations?”.

Media consumption is a four‐point cumulative index of three dummy variables:

watching TV, listening to the radio, and reading newspapers. Each of the variables was coded

0 when the respondent allocated less than one hour per day to media, and 1 when the

respondent spent more than one hour per day. Civic engagement is a five‐point cumulative

index of four dummy variables that measure the involvement (coded as 1) of respondents

into religious, social, union, and charity organizations. Interest in politics is an ordinal

9

variable measured as the answers provided to the question about how much interest

respondents have in politics. The possible answers varied from “not at all” (coded 0) to “very

interested” (coded 4).

Among the control variables, income was coded on a four‐point ordinal scale with 1

corresponding to a gross revenue of maximum 900 €, 2 when the revenue was between 900

and 1,700 €, 3 to income between 1,700 and 3,200 €, and 4 above 3,200 €. Age has been

recoded into four categories with the respondents up to 30 years old in the first group, those

between 31 and 45 in the second, those aged 46‐60 in the third and Germans above 61 in

the last one. Education is a four‐point ordinal variable that ranges from basic/primary (1)

studies to university (4).

Analysis and Main Results

First we present in detail the distribution of respondents on the two macro‐variables

(conception of democracy and political participation), while the second section presents the

results of bivariate analysis (correlation and cross‐tabs).

Descriptive Statistics

The distribution of the respondents’ answers on their conceptions of democracy is

summarized in percentages in Table 1. It indicates a fairly limited amount of respondents

choosing the extreme points of the provided continuum with a minimum of 5% of those

choosing politicians (when opposing experts) and experts (when opposing citizens) to 9% of

those choosing citizens (when opposing politicians).

Table 1: The Distribution of Respondents according to their perception of democracy (%)

Citizens vs. Representatives Representatives vs. Experts Experts vs. Citizens

Citizens 9 Politicians 5 Experts 5

14 12 17

25 28 34

28 28 26

18 20 11

Politicians 6 Experts 7 Citizens 7

N 3,811 3,758 3,722

10

To have a better representation of citizens’ preferences we have plotted their answers into

three area graphs. Figure 2 presents the answers to the question if citizens or elected

politicians should take decisions, Figure 3 depicts the different answers on the elected

politicians‐experts continuum, while Figure 4 refers to the opinions on the expert‐citizens

continuum. The distributions indicate that most answers are clustered in the middle

categories (between 50% and 60% of respondents) indicating a moderate tendency of seeing

policies as a function of any of the three categories of decision‐makers.

Figure 2: The Distribution of Respondents on the Citizens‐Politicians continuum

Figure 3: The Distribution of Respondents on the Politicians‐Experts continuum

11

Figure 4: The Distribution of Respondents on the Experts‐Citizens continuum

In spite of these nuances, the preferences for one decision‐maker against the other potential

decision‐makers allow the identification of conceptions of democracy. For example, one

respondent is considered to be a supporter of citizen democracy when preferring citizens

over both politicians and politically independent experts. To measure the three conceptions

of democracy, we recoded the respondents – according to the answers they provided – in

three categories. First, respondents with a conception of citizen democracy were considered

all those who chose 1, 2, or 3 at the question about citizens or elected politicians and those

who chose 4, 5, or 6 at the question about experts or citizens. Respondents who made these

two choices give consistent priority to citizenry both against elected politicians and experts.

All other respondents who were either inconsistent (e.g. priority against politicians but not

against experts) or who favored other types of democracy (e.g. politicians or experts).

Second, respondents with a conception of representative democracy were considered all

those who chose 4, 5, or 6 at the question about citizens or elected politicians and those

who chose 1, 2, or 3 at the question about elected politicians or experts. Third, respondents

with a conception of expert democracy were considered all those who chose 4, 5, or 6 at the

question about elected politicians or experts and those who chose 1, 2, or 3 at the question

about experts or citizens.

The three conceptions are mutually exclusive, i.e. a respondent cannot belong to

more than one. A graphical representation of their distribution is depicted in Figure 5 where

we have also included the percentage of citizens who do not belong to any of the three

categories and gave mixed answers.

12

Figure 5: Conceptions of democracy among respondents

The distribution of respondents on the types of political participation is depicted in Figures 5

(retrospective) and 6 (prospective). The vertical axis indicates the percentage of

respondents, while the horizontal axis presents the degree of participation on a six‐point

ordinal scale that ranges from “never” (coded 1) to “very often” (coded 6). Referring to

Figure 6, it is not surprising to observe that voting is the most popular type of political

participation with almost 75% of the respondents doing this activity very often. At the other

extreme, participation in deliberative processes has been never done by 63% of respondents

and only 2% did it very often. The participation in referendum is the second most popular

form of retrospective political participation with approximately one quarter of the German

respondents being engaged on a regular basis; this confirms our initial theoretical

expectation regarding high participation in the two types associated to relatively reduced

costs. Since referendums are allowed only at local level (and not at national) it is quite likely

that some respondents never had the opportunity to participate in a referendum if they

were not organized in the area where they live. The same reasoning applies to deliberative

tools that are exclusively implemented at local level and take place even less than

referendums. With the exception of referendums where the distribution is relatively

balanced, the other three forms of participation do not have great variation. A large share of

the population clusters into one category: very often for voting or never for deliberation or

protests.

13

Figure 6: The Types of Retrospective Political Participation

Note: N differs across types of participation between 3,286 and 3,897.

The distribution of prospective political participation (Figure 7) is quite similar to the one

about retrospective participation. Voting and referendums are again the most popular forms

of participation with more than 70% of the German respondents declaring that they will vote

very often in the future and almost 50% declaring that they will participate in referendums

very often. However, there are also some noticeable differences. The comparison between

referendum percentages ‐ involvement so far with the willingness to participate in the future

– reveals an optimistic attitude towards this form of participation. For example, 30% of the

respondents declare that they never participated in a referendum but only 7% answer that

they will never do that in the future. The positive attitudes towards prospective political

participation can be also observed in the case of deliberation where 63% of the respondents

have never participated but only 23% reject the possibility to participate for the future.

These observations strengthen the idea that the existence of referendums or deliberative

processes in the areas of respondents may have an influence on the distribution of

retrospective forms. Accordingly, there appear to be several instances in which respondents

wanted to participate but some forms were not available to them. In light of this evidence

we expect the hypothesized relationships to be stronger for prospective participation.

14

Figure 7: The Types of Prospective Political Participation

Note: N differs across types of participation between 3,287 and 3,888.

The analysis presented in the following section was organized in two phases. First, we use

correlations to identify bivariate relationships between the three conceptions of democracy

and types of political participation. The empirical evidence may indicate to what extent there

is preliminary support for the three main hypotheses. In a second phase we run an ordinal

regression analysis with the types of political participation as dependent variables to indicate

the extent to which conceptions of democracy have explanatory power when included in a

model with the variables from the secondary hypotheses and with control variables.

Analysis (Correlations and regressions)

Each of the three conceptions of democracy were correlated with types of political

participation, both retrospective and prospective. Partly as a result of the small variation

(see the previous section), the correlations are quite weak but empirical evidence goes in the

hypothesized directions. The coefficients in Table 2 indicate that people with a conception of

representative democracy voted more than the others (0.08, statistically significant at 0.01)

and were less likely to be involved in types of political participation oriented towards

citizens: ‐0.05, statistically significant at 0.05 with respect to the participation in

referendums and ‐0.07, statistically significant at 0.0 regarding deliberations. Among the

forms that involve citizens the least rejected was the protest where politicians were partly

targeted and citizens have limited decision‐making power (‐0.02). The values of the

15

correlation coefficients between conceptions of democracy and prospective political

participation are fairly similar. The only exception is the loss of statistical significance and

lower coefficient (‐0.02) for referendums, but it is still negative and support the

hypothesized relationship.

Respondents with a conception of citizen democracy are more likely to participate in

citizen oriented types of political participation (referendums, protests, deliberation) and less

likely to participate in voting (‐0.04, statistically significant at 0.05). It is important to note

that the correlations become stronger for prospective political participation for all the citizen

oriented types of participation. For example, the coefficient for referendums increases from

0.03 (no significant) to 0.05 (significant at 0.01), while the most spectacular increase is

observed in the case of deliberations where the coefficient is 0.06 for retrospective

participation and 0.11 for prospective, both significant at 0.01.

Table 2: Correlations between conceptions of democracy and political participation

Representative democracy Citizen democracy Expert democracy

Retrospective

Voting 0.08** ‐0.04* 0.01

Referendum ‐0.05* 0.03 ‐0.04*

Protests ‐0.02 0.07** ‐0.04*

Deliberations ‐0.07** 0.06** ‐0.07**

Prospective

Voting 0.07** ‐0.04* 0.07**

Referendum ‐0.02 0.05** 0.05**

Protests ‐0.03 0.08** ‐0.01

Deliberations ‐0.07** 0.11** ‐0.03

Note: The number of respondents for correlations is between 3,014 and 3,604.

** Significant at p > 0.01, * Significant at p > 0.05

The empirical evidence for people with a conception of expert democracy indicates a

mixture between the representative and the citizen conceptions. More precisely, these

respondents have a similar reaction to those favoring representative democracy in rejecting

the citizen‐oriented forms of participation: ‐0.04 for referendums and protests and ‐0.07 for

deliberations. At the same time, their participatory behavior does not appear to favor voting

16

since the correlation is almost inexistent (0.01, not significant). These mixed attitudes can be

also observed when referring to prospective participation where they are more likely to

participate in voting and some types that involve citizens (referendum, public decision), but

not in others (deliberation, protest). This may be explained by the fact that they consider

elections and referendums to have experts behind the citizens’ actions and citizens do not

have the last word to say about policy. As expected, there is a nuanced negative attitude

towards citizen‐oriented types of participation in the prospective question. In particular, it

must be noted the turn taken by these respondents when asked about previous

participation (negative) and willingness to participate in referendums (positive).

These results provide weak empirical evidence in favor of the hypothesized

relationships. Given the low variation on most types of participation, the coefficients

indicate that there is a consistent relationship between the conceptions of democracy and

types of participation, both retrospective and prospective. On the one hand, respondents

who favor representative democracy engage in voting and reject forms in which citizens

have a word to say (H1). On the other hand, respondents who embrace a citizen conception

of democracy are oriented to participate in direct, deliberative, or protest forms and less in

voting (H2). The respondents favoring expert democracy display mixed attitudes towards

forms of participation (H3) being closer to the representative conception in retrospective

and somewhat closer to citizens in prospective participation.

Let us now include the conceptions of democracy in a regression model next to other

variables.1 The four models in Table 3 present the results of the ordered logistic regression

for the retrospective forms of participation. The values of Pseudo R2 indicate a relatively

weak fit of the model to the presented data with best estimation for voting (also with the

higher number of respondents). The odds‐ratios indicate support for H1: respondents with a

conception of representative democracy are 1.36 times more likely to vote than the other

respondents and 0.63 times, 0.84 times, and 0.57 times less likely to have participated in

referendums, protests, respectively deliberations. The multivariate analysis strengthens the

conclusions of the bivariate relationships and indicates that respondents with a conception

of expert democracy have mixed feelings and there is no effect on voting and protests but

1 We ran a collinearity test among the predictor variables. The results indicate there is no strong correlation between any of the independent variables. In addition, when running the ordered logistic regression we have asked STATA to drop collinear variables during analysis and they were all included.

17

strongly oppose referendums and deliberations (H3). In three out of the four models

presented there is almost no empirical support for H2. The citizen conception of democracy

has no effect on referendums and deliberations – the most obvious forms of citizen

involvement. Instead, these respondents are 1.21 times more likely to engage in protests

compared to the others (not statistically significant) and this contrasts sharply with the

attitudes of respondents with representative democracy.2

Table 3: Ordered Logistic Regression for retrospective political participation

Voting Referendum Protests Deliberations

Representative democracy 1.36*

(0.19)

0.63**

(0.07)

0.84

(0.09)

0.57**

(0.07)

Citizen democracy 1.06

(0.14)

0.98

(0.11)

1.21

(0.14)

1.01

(0.12)

Expert democracy 1.01

(0.13)

0.78*

(0.08)

0.95

(0.10)

0.70**

(0.08)

Civic engagement 1.41**

(0.11)

1.25**

(0.07)

1.71**

(0.09)

1.60**

(0.09)

Interest in politics 2.26**

(0.14)

1.32**

(0.06)

1.55**

(0.07)

1.43**

(0.07)

Media consumption 1.05

(0.04)

1.03

(0.03)

0.93*

(0.03)

0.97

(0.04)

Income 1.40**

(0.07)

1.14**

(0.04)

1.12**

(0.04)

1.07

(0.05)

Age 2.03**

(0.11)

1.21**

(0.05)

1.11*

(0.05)

1.12*

(0.05)

Education 1.75**

(0.12)

0.95

(0.05)

1.39**

(0.07)

0.79**

(0.05)

N 2,920 2,436 2,753 2,486

LR Chi2 777.94 172.72 413.79 211.16

Pseudo R2 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.04

Note: Coefficients are odds‐ratios (standard errors in brackets)


2 In interpreting the results of the ordered logistic regression we refer both to the strength and the statistical significance of coefficients. In spite of arguments in favor of interpretations limited strictly to statistical significance, we consider that the strength of effects provides important insights for our arguments.

18

All other variables – with the exception of media consumption (H6) – have a relatively

strong and consistent effect across all four types of political participation; there is strong

empirical support for the secondary hypotheses H4 and H5. For example, individuals with

interest in politics are 2.26 times more likely to vote, 1.32 times more likely to participate in

referendums, 1.55 times to be engaged in protests, and 1.43 times to participate in

deliberative processes; all coefficients are statistically significant at the 0.01 level. In the

context of this paper it is relevant to note that most of the supplementary and control

variables have a similar effect on the types of participation. As illustrated in the example

above, people who bear interest in politics are more likely to participate, irrespective of the

type. This holds for civically engaged individuals, those with higher income, and older

people. It is true that the strength of effect varies but all effects go in the same direction.3

The consistency of effects across types of political participation increases the value of the

observation related to the conceptions of democracy where effects – although weak –

clearly differ.

The results in Table 4 refer to prospective political participation and tell a similar

story to the one above. There is empirical support for the hypotheses formulated about

conceptions of representative and expert democracy and only partial support when it comes

to citizen democracy. The individuals with such a conception have a consistent positive

attitude towards all types of political participation. While there is strong and statistically

significant at 0.01 on the willingness to participate in referendums and in deliberations, such

a conception of democracy also has positive effects on the likelihood of voting and

protesting (both significant at 0.05).

Similarly to retrospective participation, there is no empirical support for H5 as media

consumption appears to make a small difference only in the case of protests. Instead, there

is strong and robust empirical evidence to support H5 and H6. Income and age do no longer

have a consistent effect across all types of political participation and appear to make no

difference in protests and deliberations. Education is also somewhat different compared

with the retrospective models: it has no effect on deliberations and strong positive effects

on the remaining three types.

3 Education is an outlier and indicates that less educated people are likely to particiate in deliberations, more educated people in voting and protests and has almost no effect in referendums.

19

Table 4: Ordered Logistic Regression for prospective political participation

Voting Referendum Protests Deliberations

Retrospective

Representative democracy 1.74**

(0.23)

0.87

(0.09)

0.87

(0.09)

0.70**

(0.08)

Citizen democracy 1.33*

(0.17)

1.57**

(0.17)

1.29*

(0.14)

1.33**

(1.15)

Expert democracy 1.60**

(0.20)

1.32**

(0.14)

1.02

(0.10)

0.86

(0.09)

Civic engagement 1.30**

(0.10)

1.11*

(0.06)

1.56**

(0.08)

1.45**

(0.08)

Interest in politics 2.00**

(0.12)

1.78**

(0.08)

1.50**

(0.06)

1.62**

(0.07)

Media consumption 0.98

(0.04)

0.99

(0.03)

0.94*

(0.03)

0.94

(0.03)

Income 1.24**

(0.06)

1.09*

(0.04)

1.04

(0.04)

1.01

(0.04)

Age 1.39**

(0.07)

1.15**

(0.05)

0.97

(0.04)

1.02

(0.04)

Education 1.71**

(0.11)

1.50**

(0.08)

1.40**

(0.07)

1.04

(0.05)

N 2,918 2,779 2,774 2,474

LR Chi2 511.28 387.39 346.85 266.99

Pseudo R2 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.03

Note: Coefficients are odds‐ratios (standard errors in brackets)


Conclusions

This paper aimed to identify the way in which preferences of German citizens for types of

democracy influence their retrospective and prospective involvement in politics. Similar to

previous results for the Finish population (Bengtsson & Christensen 2014) we found that

citizens have different ideas about how a democracy should look like. Most citizens prefer a

mixture of representative, citizen‐oriented, and expert democracy with different

prioritizations. More important, there is a correlation between citizens’ perception of

20

democracy and their intentions for political behavior. We found empirical evidence for most

of our (primary) hypotheses. Citizens favoring representative democracy are less inclined to

take part in participatory devices, whereas citizens favoring a citizen‐oriented concept of

democracy are more willing to get involved in them. Those citizens who favor a more expert

oriented democracy, show mixed participation intentions. Looking at our regression analyses

these findings hold. However, not all of our secondary hypotheses and control variables

turned out to be explanatory. The SES was kind of a “mixed bag” and did not show clear

patterns; furthermore, there is no empirical support for the hypothesis about media

consumption. The other two factors (civic engagement and interest in politics) turned out to

have an effect on participation. There is a difference between retrospective and prospective

participation that can be interpreted in the light of availability of tools.

Our findings bear theoretical and empirical implications that move beyond the

investigated single‐case study. First, in the German case, the correlation between

conceptions of democracy and political participation was stronger for prospective intentions

then for retrospective behavior. Respondents favoring citizen‐oriented democracy are more

inclined to participate in the future than they did up to now. Accounting for theoretical

approaches aimed at understanding the relation between normative disposition, intention

and activity, our findings suggest, that availability is an important dimension. If participatory

devices are available citizens use them; if they are not available citizen can just formulate

their intention to apply them. However, this implication is preliminary. Since we have no

information about whether forms of participation were available within the respondents’

areas/municipalities the implication can be more regarded as a hunch. Further research is

necessary to show whether this assumption can be grounded empirically.

The second implication refers to the concept of democracy and the self‐conception of

citizens. In particular, the concept of expert democracy is relevant. Citizens favoring an

expert democracy do not necessarily want to rely on professional experts. Quite on the

contrary and they show an intention to be more involved in political matters at least in the

future. We might conclude that their preference for expert democracy does not necessarily

mean they favor professional experts. At least partly they consider themselves as experts

and want to be taken into account in political will formation and decision making.

Our study has shown that research on the linkage between citizens’ conception of

democracy and participation is fruitful and will probably be even more fruitful in the

21

following period because new models of democracy proliferate around the world with

citizens asking for more say in political will formation and decision making. This development

has to be accompanied by empirical research in at least two directions. On the one hand, it

will be instructive to empirically assess our idea about the importance of availability. To test

our assumption whether the availability of participatory options plays a role for political

involvement and how big this role is, options for political participation and participation at

local level should be correlated. While this is not easy due to scarce data about participation

provisions, research in this field would contribute significantly to our knowledge about

participation and democracy. On the other hand, we need in‐depth research to identify the

determinants of the relationship between conceptions and participation, i.e. a broader

framework with several explanatory factors. While we have shown the existence of a linkage

between normative beliefs and activity, the causal mechanisms require careful investigation.

22

List of references:

Bengtsson, Å., 2012. Citizens’ perceptions of political processes. A Critical evaluation of

preference consistency and survey items. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 70(2),

pp.45–64.

Bengtsson, Å. & Christensen, H., 2014. Ideals and Actions: Do Citizens’ Patterns of Political

Participation Correspond to their Conceptions of Democracy? Government and

Opposition, online first.

Conway, M., 1991. Political Participation in the United States, Washington DC: CQ Press.

Dalton, R.J., 1988. Citizen Politics in Western Democracies, Chatham: Chatham House.

Dalton, R.J. & Wattenberg, M.P., 2000. Unthinkable Democracy. Political Change in

Advanced Industrial Democracies. In R. J. Dalton & M. P. Wattenberg, eds. Parties

Without Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, pp. 3–16.

Darley, J.M. & Batson, C.D., 1973. From Jerusalem to Jericho": A Study of Situational and

Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 27(1), pp.100–108.

Diekmann, A. & Preisendoerfer, P., 1998. Umweltbewußtsein und Umweltverhalten in Low‐

und High‐Cost‐Situationen (Environmental Awareness and Environmental Behavior in

Low‐ and High‐Cost Situations). Zeitschrift fuer Soziologie, 27(6), pp.438–453.

Drew, D. & Weaver, D., 2006. Voter Learning in the 2004 Presidential Election: Did the Media

Matter? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(1), pp.25–42.

Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M. & Persson, M., 2012. Which decision‐making arrangements

generate the strongest legitimacy beliefs? Evidence from a randomized field

experiment. European Journal of Political Research, 51(6), pp.785–808.

Font, J. & Alarcón, P., 2011. The role of personality in the explanation of preferences for

democratic processes, Paper presented at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the

International Society of Political Psychology, Istanbul.

Geissel, B., 2008. Democratic Resource or Democratic Threat? Profiles of Critical and

Uncritical Citizens in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Sociology, 7(1), pp.4–27.

Geissel, B. et al., 2014. Partizipation und Demokratie im Wandel ‐ Wie unsere Demokratie

durch neue Verfahren und Kombinationen repräsentativer, deliberativer und direkter

Beteiligung gestärkt wird (Participation and Democracy in Transition ‐ How our

23

democracy is strengthened by n. In Partizipation im Wandel (Participation in

Transition). Guetersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, pp. 489–504.

Geissel, B. & Newton, K. eds., 2012. Evaluating Democratic Innovations: Curing the

Democratic Malaise?, London: Routledge.

De Haan, G. & Kuckartz, U., 1996. Umweltbewusstsein. Denken und Handeln in Umweltkrisen

(Environmental Awareness. Thinking and Acting in Environmental crises), Opladen:

Westdeutscher Verlag.

Hibbing, J.R. & Theiss‐Morse, E., 2001. Process Preferences and American Politics: What the

People Want Government to Be. American Political Science Review, 95(1), pp.145–153.

Leighley, J., 1996. Group Membership and the Mobilization of Political Participation. Journal

of Politics, 58(2), pp.447–463.

McCarty, J.A. & Shrum, L.J., 2000. The Measurement of Personal Values in Survey Research.

A Test of Alternative Rating Procedures. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), pp.271–298.

McLeod, J.M., Scheufele, D.A. & Moy, P., 1999. Community, Communication, and

Participation: The Role of Mass Media and Interpersonal Discussion in Local Political

Participation. Political Communication, 16(3), pp.315–336.

Millbrath, L.W. & Goel, M.L., 1978. Political Participation: How and Why Do People Get

Involved in Politics? American Political Science Review, 72(4), pp.1482–1484.

Miller, K., 2005. Communications theories: perspectives, processes, and contexts, New York:

McGraw‐Hill.

Norris, P., 2000. A virtuous circle: Political communications in postindustrial societies, New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Norris, P., 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Powell, L.M. et al., 2007. The Availability of Local‐Area Commercial Physical Activity–Related

Facilities and Physical Activity Among Adolescents. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine, 33(4), pp.292–300.

Prins, R.G. et al., 2010. Availability of sports facilities as moderator of the intention–sports

participation relationship among adolescents. Health Education Research, 25(3),

pp.489–497.

Putnam, R.D., 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community, New

York: Simon & Schuster.

24

Putnam, R.D., 1993. Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

Rosenstone, S.J. & Hansen, J.M., 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in

America, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Scarrow, S., 2001. Direct democracy and institutional change. A comparative investigation.

Comparative Political Studies, 34(6), pp.651–665.

Scheufele, D.A., 2002. Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications

for participatory behavior. Communication Research, 29(1), pp.46–65.

Seligman, C. & Katz, A.N., 1996. The Dynamics of Value Systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson,

& M. P. Zanna, eds. The Psychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium. Mahwah:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 53–75.

Sniderman, P.M., Tetlock, P.E. & Elms, L., 2001. Public Opinion and Democratic Politics: The

Problem of Non‐Attitudes and Social Construction of Political Judgment. In J. H.

Kuklinski, ed. Citizens and Politics. Perspectives from Political Psychology. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, pp. 254–288.

Verba, S. & Nie, N., 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality,

New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Verba, S., Nie, N.H. & Kim, J., 1978. Participation and Political Equality: A Seven Nation

Comparison, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L. & Brady, H., 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in

American Politics, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Zittel, T. & Fuchs, D. eds., 2007. Participatory Democracy and Political Participation – Can

Participatory Engineering bring Citizens Back In?, London: Routledge.

citizens’ conceptions of democracy...conceptions of democracy and political behavior we use a...

Documents