prof. dr. hans rattinger dipl.-pol. markus steinbrecher fp6 civicactive voter turnout and civic...
Post on 20-Dec-2015
218 views
TRANSCRIPT
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Voter turnout and civic participation in the EU
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Overview
1. Relevance of participation2. Turnout in EP elections
- Development since 1979- Comparison with NP elections- Types of voters- Multivariate analysis
3. Non-electoral participation in Europe- Frequencies- Dimensions of non-electoral participation- Multivariate analysis
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Relevance of participation• Two important approaches in theories of democracy:
– Input-oriented approaches:aim: maximum of turnout/participationlow turnout/participation: declining support, symptom for a crisis
– Output-oriented approaches:elections as an instrument for the allocation of power and legitimation of the political systemlow turnout/participation: satisfaction and consent with the political system
General evaluation of turnout/participation level is quite difficult.
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
90.889.0
82.4
73.171.2
63.4
58.8
48.4 47.945.1
43.0 42.8 42.4 41.339.4 39.3 38.8 38.6 38.5 37.8
28.3 28.3 26.8
20.917.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
BE LU MT IT CY EL IE LT DK ES DE FR AT LV FI NL UK PT HU SE CZ SI EE PL SK
Turnout in EP election 2004
compulsory voting
EU-turnout: 45.7%
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Development of EPE turnout (selected countries)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004
BE NL DE IT IE UK ES FI EU
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Comparison of EPE and NPE turnout
LT
LU IEBE
ITEL MT
CYPL
LV FR UK
PT HU
CZ FI EE ES SIDE
AT DK SKNL
SE
-50.0
-40.0
-30.0
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
Difference EPE 04-closest NPE
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Database for analysis of turnout
• Mass survey from Intune-projecthttp://www.intune.it/
• Timing: March-April 2007
• 17 European countries: AT, BE, BG, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HU, IT, PL, PT, SI, SK, SR, UK
• Turnout: last EPE, last NPE
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Logistic regression: Turnout EPE
• Nagelkerke‘s R2= 0.252• Most important predictors:
– Perceived duty to vote (EU/Nat.) +– Strength of party identification +– Media consumption +– EU support +– Internal efficacy +– EU identity +– Trust in EU institutions -
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Voter types
12.9
26.6
14.9
31.7
23.7
18.0
15.9
15.8
16.0
16.4
8.7
11.7
15.2
13.1
7.8
7.4
13.0
9.9
2.8
3.7
2.9
3.1
4.9
2.8
4.2
3.3
3.0
3.5
2.0
2.3
5.5
2.5
3.5
1.9
15.7
17.6
16.0
19.9
22.1
24.1
16.3
16.3
14.5
12.2
20.5
17.0
9.3
13.9
18.6
14.2
6.2
68.5
52.0
66.2
45.2
49.3
55.0
63.6
64.6
66.6
67.9
68.8
69.0
69.9
70.5
72.5
74.9
78.8
86.81.5
1.1
1.8
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
West
East
Europe
PL
EE
UK
SK
PT
SI
FR
AT
DE
HU
ES
DK
IT
EL
BE
EPE-/NPE- EPE+/NPE- EPE-/NPE+ EPE+/NPE+
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Logistic regression: EPE-only (1)versus NPE-only (0) voters
• Nagelkerke‘s R2= 0.103• Most important predictors:
– Strength of party identification -– EU Identity +– Satisfaction with democracy EU -– EU Benefit +– Class +– Perceived economic situation -– Urbanisation -
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Logistic regression: EPE- and NPE-voters (1) vs. NPE-only (0) voters
• Nagelkerke‘s R2= 0.134• Most important predictors:
– Perceived duty to vote (EU/nat.) +– Media consumption +– Strength of party identification +– EU Identity +– EU Support +– Perceived economic situation -– Internal efficacy +
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Conclusions turnout EPE
• Important variables for turnout in EPE:– Perceived duty to vote– Strength of party identification– EU Identity/Support/Trust
• Possibilities to boost turnout in EPE:– Raise perceived importance of European
level– Emphasise duty to vote
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Database for analysis of civic participation
• ESS, Round 1, 2002/03• 17 EU member states: AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK,
ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI
• 11 forms of non-electoral participation: contact politician, work in party, work in organisation, display badge, sign petition, public demonstration, boycott product, buy product, donate money, illegal protest, party member
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Rel. frequencies of non-electoralactivities in the EU
25.524.2
16.9
14.513.5
9.37.4
6.6
4.0 3.3
1.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
sig
n p
etit
ion
bu
y p
rod
uc
t
bo
yco
ttp
rod
uc
t
con
tact
po
liti
cia
n
wo
rk i
no
rgan
isa
tio
n
pu
bli
cd
emo
nst
rati
on
dis
pla
y b
adg
e
do
nat
e m
on
ey
wo
rk i
n p
arty
par
ty m
emb
er
ille
gal
pro
test
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Number of non-electoralactivities in EU countries
74.4
68.3
72.4
76.7
72.5
66.8
46.2
46.7
58.3
49.0
45.1
37.8
34.2
31.4
35.2
36.5
39.7
37.2
27.1
22.4
15.3
17.0
13.9
10.1
14.2
14.8
24.9
23.1
15.7
19.4
21.2
23.3
26.3
26.0
26.2
21.1
18.4
21.1
24.3
22.7
5.0
8.6
7.2
5.2
5.1
7.4
13.2
13.5
8.6
12.2
13.2
15.1
14.9
17.6
13.6
16.3
15.0
14.6
19.0
20.2
5.3
6.1
6.5
8.0
8.2
11.0
15.7
16.7
17.4
19.4
20.5
23.8
24.6
25.0
25.0
26.1
26.9
27.1
29.6
34.7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
HU
SI
PL
PT
GR
IT
CZ
NL
ES
EU
IE
BE
LU
DK
GB
DE
AT
FR
FI
SE
0 modes 1 mode 2 modes more than 2 modes
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Dimensions of non-electoral participation in the EU
Variable 1: Conventional 2: Consumerism 3: Protest Party member 0.761 Work in party 0.731 Donate money 0.597 Contact politician 0.497 Work in organisation 0.414 Buy product 0.816 Boycott product 0.794 Sign petition 0.568 Illegal protest 0.734 Public demonstration 0.707 Display badge 0.530 Eigenvalue 2.06 1.87 1.58 Explained variance (%)
18.8 17.0 14.4
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Multivariate regression: conventional participation
• R2= 0.143• Most important predictors:
– Strength of party identification +– Internal efficacy +– Social participation +– Perceived duty to participate +– Interest in politics +– Woman -– Age +
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Multivariate regression: consumerism
• R2= 0.199• Most important predictors:
– Social participation +– Woman +– Interest in politics +– Education +– Income +– Internal efficacy +– Left-right-scale -
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Multivariate regression:protest activities
• R2= 0.034• Most important predictors:
– Social participation +– Left-right-scale -– Age -– Strength of party identification +– Income -– Internal efficacy +– Religious attendance -– Perceived duty to participate +
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Multivariate regression:participation index
• R2= 0.289• Most important predictors:
– Social participation +– Internal efficacy +– Strength of party identification +– Interest in politics +– Left-right-scale -– Education +– Income +
FP6 CivicActive
Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher
Conclusions non-electoral participation
• Only minorities participate in non-electoral participation
• Social participation as important predictor for all non-electoral forms of participation
• Besides social participation: very heterogeneous explanations