Upload
yuri-nikishin
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSITY OF LATVIA
JURIJS ŅIKIŠINS
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IN EUROPE:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY OF DOCTORAL THESIS
Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Sociology
Subfield of Political Sociology
Riga, 2016
2
The doctoral thesis was carried out at the Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University
of Latvia from 2010 to 2016.
The thesis has been elaborated with the support from the European Social Fund project “Support for
Doctoral Studies at the University of Latvia” and the ESF project “Elaboration of Innovative Instruments
for Regional Development Diagnostics” Activity 1.1.1.2. (contract No.
2013/0057/1DP/1.1.1.2.0/13/APIA/VIAA/065).
The thesis contains introduction, eight chapters and list of references.
Form of the thesis: dissertation in sociology, subfield of political sociology.
Scientific Adviser: Brigita Zepa, Dr.sc.soc., Professor, University of Latvia
Reviewers:
Anda Laķe, Dr.sc.soc., Associate Professor, Latvian Academy of Culture, Latvia
Vladimirs Meņšikovs, Dr.sc.soc., Professor, Daugavpils University, Latvia
Tālis Tisenkopfs, Dr.sc.soc., Professor, University of Latvia
Kateřina Vráblíková, PhD, University of Mannheim, Germany
The defence of the doctoral thesis will be held at the open session of the Sociology, Political Science, and
Communication Science Promotion Council of the University of Latvia, in Rīga, Lomonosova Str. 1A,
Room 210 on March 18, 2016 at 13.00.
The doctoral thesis and its summary are available at the library of the University of Latvia, Raiņa
Boulevard 19, Rīga.
Sociology, Political Science, and Communication Science Promotion Council of the University of Latvia
chairperson: ___________________________ /Dr. sc.pol., Associate Professor Iveta Reinholde/
secretary: ___________________________ /Anete Zasa/
© University of Latvia, 2016
© Jurijs Ņikišins, 2016
Eiropas Sociālā fonda projekts „Atbalsts doktora studijām Latvijas
Universitātē ” Nr.2009/0138/ 1DP/1.1.2.1.2./ 09/IPIA/ VIAA/004.
3
Contents
Contents .................................................................................................................................... 3
Thesis summary ........................................................................................................................ 4
General thesis description ......................................................................................................... 5
Approbation of research results ................................................................................................ 8
1.Thesis structure and content .................................................................................................. 9
2.Theoretical foundations of the research ............................................................................... 10
3.Research methodology description and justification ........................................................... 10
4.Research results and discussion ........................................................................................... 16
5.Conclusion and theses for defence ...................................................................................... 18
References ............................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix – logitistic regression analysis results .................................................................... 21
4
Thesis summary
The objective of this PhD thesis is comparative research of political participation and its factors in
countries participating in the European Social Survey.
Chapters 1 – 5 examine the conceptualization of political participation and its problems, main
empirical approaches to studying participation, review major studies on the topic and discusses each study’s
contribution to the field, analyse four theories explaining participation and research hypotheses derived from
them, as well as review and assess existing typologies of participation.
Chapter 6 describes the PhD study’s methodology (including sample characteristics and logistic
regression as the primary analytic technique). Chapter 7 deals with empirical data analysis, whereas Chapter
8 concludes the thesis by integrating theoretical foundations with empirical findings.
Keywords: political participation, Post-Communism, values, logistic regression
5
General thesis description
The thesis deals with comparative analysis of political participation, its levels and influencing factors.
European Social Survey 4th Round data are used as empirical basis of the research.
The author identifies five reasons for considering comparative political participation important and of
great current interest.
Firstly, political participation is an inherent element of modern democracy (cf. Forbrig 2005, 20).
Authors of British Political Participation Study refer to literal translation and interpretation of the word
democracy as “government by the people”, which in turn implies the people’s participation (Parry et al.
1992, 3)
Secondly, political participation is seen as a prerequisite of efficient democracy, without which
democracy cannot exist. Arguments for that are as follows:
1) inclusion of various and broad social groups and their interests in decision-making process not only
compels government to listen for the citizens, but strengthens the legitimacy of the decisions, ensuring that
they are accepted and acknowledged in the society;
2) democracy implies not merely the people’s opportunity to select government personnel which takes
decisions in citizens’ name and interests but also empowers them to actively engage in formulation of public
policies (Warren, 2002, 693, as cited in Pietrzyk-Reeves, 2008, 75);
3) citizens should remain politically active also in between elections, for instance, contacting public
officials, signing petitions, taking part in a political or social association (Reisinger et al., 1995, 944), as
well as influencing policies in other ways.
Thirdly, Latvia is under-represented in political participation comparative studies. There is little
participation research focusing on specific political actions (as opposed to political attitudes and
orientations) carried out in Latvia, and most of it is descriptive rather than analytical. Few studies compare
Latvian situation to that of foreign countries. This lack of research stipulates the necessity of conducting
detailed multifactor analysis of political participation in Latvia placing in in international context and
comparing it with countries with both similar and different political legacies.
Fourthly, the problem of political legacy and its impact on development and embeddedness of
democratic norms is currently important and worth studying. Of 30 countries included in the analysis, 13
had experienced authoritarian communism that could have potentially affected the political culture of
citizens of post-communist countries. Current research suggests negative impact of communist legacy on
political participation (Barnes, 2006; Howard, 2003; Karklins & Zepa, 2001; Pop-Eleches & Tucker, 2013;
Zepa, 1999). Comparative studies’ data show profound and statistically significant differences in all three
political participation types’ rates - voting, elite-directed and elite-challenging participation (including
petition signing, demonstrations, and boycotts). Thus, insights from theories and previous research on
international differences and their reasons should be reconsidered and participation rates and their factors
in postcommunist and non-communist countries should be analysed.
Fifthly, while impact of political attitudes and orientations on political participation has been much
studied, little is known about the relation between political participation as an example of social action
(Weber, 2006) and fundamental human value orientations. At present, the most commonly used instrument
of studying human values is Shalom Schwartz values inventory (Schwartz, 1992) which proved its
applicability and reliability in a number of studies in different countries. Thus, one can assume it is well
suited for analysis of values, comparing different cultures, history periods, and political contexts (cf.
Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz, 2006; Schwartz, Caprara, and Vecchione, 2010).
The research question of the thesis stems from the topicality of political participation research and is
stated as follows:
How do different country and individual level factors affect individuals’ decision to engage
in political participation or abstain from it, and what is the importance and direction of
individual level factors in countries with different political legacies?
6
The thesis analyses four groups of factors potentially influencing political participation. First group
includes factors related to country’s political legacy, specifically if a country experienced authoritarian
communist regime in its recent history. The second factor group includes basic human values as
conceptualized and empirically verified by Schwartz (1992). They belong to individual level factors. The
third group consists of political engagement factors containing more specific orientations and attitudes
towards politics (as conceptualized by Verba et al., 1995); these as well are individual level factors. The
fourth group includes factors related to individuals’ sociodemographic characteristics but also having
impact on their placement in social structure, such as education, income, gender and age. This last group,
however, is not seen as having a direct causal influence on participation; still, they could possibly matter
and for this reason are included in the analysis.
The main research goal of the thesis is to explore the types of political participation in the countries
included in the analysis, what are most and least substantive factors of participation and their impact in
countries with different political legacies, identify country groups with similar and different participation
rates and explain the findings in the context of political participation theories.
The research goal is specified by the following tasks:
1) To feature the problem of defining political participation and its solutions in the framework of
different theoretical approaches;
2) To describe and analyse three main approaches to studying participation – political actions
approach, institutions approach and problem-solving approach;
3) To review the major political participation studies and research projects – both national based on
one country’s data and international comparative ones, identifying the contribution of each to research
methodology and empirical findings;
4) To outline theories explaining participation and the derived insights on causes and factors of
participation;
5) To review and compare early and modern typologies of political participation, identifying strong
and weak sides of each;
6) To develop methodology of participation analysis grounded in theories and recent research;
7) To conduct empirical data analysis with a special focus on differences between country groups
with different political legacies;
8) To integrate analysis results with theories and recent research results, generating conclusions on
determinants of political participation.
7
The thesis suggests a number of hypotheses to be verified in the course of data analysis:
A. Hypotheses on political legacy influence political participation
1. Political participation rates of all three types, especially non-electoral ones, will be lower in
postcommunist countries.
2. The more early socialization years an individual lived under communism, the lower the
probability of his/her political participation.
B. Hypotheses on basic human values influence political participation
3. Conservation values will show a positive correlation with voting and negative correlation with
elite-challenging participation. The higher the respondents’ scores on these values, the higher the probability
of them voting and the lower the probability of them protesting.
4. Values manifesting openness to change will correlate positively with elite-challenging
participation. Respondents with higher scores on openness values will have higher probability of taking part
in protests.
5. Self-transcendence values will correlate positively with non-electoral participation types, namely,
both elite-directed and elite-challenging participation.
6. Self-enhancement values will correlate positively with elite-directed participation. The higher the
respondents’ scores on these values, the higher their probability of engaging in elite-directed participation.
C. Hypotheses on political engagement influence political participation
7. Trust in political institutions will correlate positively with voting and elite-directed participation,
but negatively with elite-challenging participation.
8. The direction and strength of the trust factor will be similar in all country groups.
9. Subjective political competence will correlate positively with any type of political participation,
especially with non-electoral ones.
10. Correlation of subjective political competence with political participation will be weaker in post-
communist countries than in non-communist ones.
11. Membership in an association (party or trade union) will correlate positively with all types of
political participation.
12. Correlation of membership in an association with political participation will be weaker in
postcommunist countries and stronger in noncommunist ones.
8
Approbation of research results
Research results have been published in the following sources:
Articles in reviewed issues:
1. Ņikišins Jurijs, Rozenvalds Juris, Zepa Brigita. Political culture and democracy. Published in: How
Democratic is Latvia? : Audit of Democracy 2005–2014. Scientific editor Juris Rozenvalds. Riga:
University of Latvia Advanced Social and Political Research Institute. 2014, 304 pg. ISBN 978-9984-45-
966-0.
2. Ņikišins Jurijs. Politiskā līdzdalība Latvijā nacionālajā un vietējā līmenī (Political Participation
in Latvia at the National and Local Level) Published in: Latvijas Universitātes Raksti; 769. sēj., Socioloģija,
2011. Ed. Baiba Bela. Rīga: Latvijas Universitāte, 2011, 131 p. ISBN 978-9984-45-385-9.
Articles in monographs:
1. Ņikišins Jurijs. Protekcionisms kā nacionālās identitātes dimensija un imigrantu izslēgšana Latvijā
(Protectionism as a Dimension of National Identity and Exclusion of Immigrants in Latvia). Published in:
„Latvijas iedzīvotāju identitātes un vienlīdzības vērtības” (collective monograph). Ed. Aivars Tabuns and
Feliciana Rajevska. Rīga: Latvijas Universitāte, 2014. 162 p. ISBN 978-9984-45-880-9.
2. Ņikišins Jurijs. Politiskā rīcībspēja un līdzdalība: teorētiskie un metodoloģiskie aspekti (Political
participation and efficacy: theoretical and methodological aspects). Published in: Ad locum: vieta,
identitāte un rīcībspēja. Ed. Aija Zobena. Rīga, LU Sociālo un politisko pētījumu institūts, 2014. 311 p.
ISBN 978-9984-45-817-5.
3. Zobena Aija, Grīviņš Miķelis, Ņikišins Jurijs. Published in: Ad locum: vieta, identitāte un
rīcībspēja (Ad locum: place, identity, and capability). Ed. Aija Zobena. Rīga, LU Sociālo un politisko
pētījumu institūts, 2014. 311 lpp. ISBN 978-9984-45-817-5.
Reports of research findings at international conferences
1. Ņikišins Jurijs. Referāts „Impact of political attitudes on political participation in Europe”.
European Social Survey conference, Cyprus, November 22nd – 25th, 2012
2. Zepa Brigita, Ņikišins Jurijs. Abstract „Latviešu un krievu jauniešu nacionālā identitāte:
pilsoniskā un etniskā piederība” (National Identity of Ethnic Latvian and Ethnic Russian Youth: Civic and
Ethnic Belonging). International conference “Youth in Latvia, Europe, and the world: opportunities and
risks”, July 1 – 2, 2012. Conference programme and abstracts can be accessed:
http://www.fsi.lu.lv/userfiles/Youth2012_conference_abstracts.pdf
3. Ņikišins Jurijs. Abstract „Differences in Political Participation and Attitudes between Linguistic
Communities in Latvia and Estonia”. PIDOP Consortium conference at the University of Surrey, United
Kingdom, April 15 – 18, 2012.
4. Ņikišins Jurijs. Abstract „Modernization and institutional factors of political participation in the
Baltic States”. European Values Study workshop in Vilnius, Lithuania, June 30 – July 1, 2011.
Reports of research findings at Latvian conferences 1. Ņikišins Jurijs. Abstract „ Protectionism as a Dimemnsion of National Identity and Exclusion of
Immigrants in Latvia”. Presented at the University of Latvia 72nd annual conference on February 7th, 2014.
2. Ņikišins Jurijs. Referāts „ Political participation and efficacy: theoretical and methodological
aspects” Presented at the University of Latvia 69th annual conference on February 17th, 2011.
9
1.Thesis structure and content
In the introduction, the author justifies the choice of the research theme and its topicality, outlines
the limitations of prior research and unsolved problems in the field, poses the research question, specifies
the research object and topic, formulates the research goal and tasks as well hypotheses to be verified, as
well as provides a brief description of research methodology. In addition, information on the previous
approbation of the research findings, both in the form of published articles and conference abstracts, is
provided.
Chapter 1 provides a detailed discussion of the problem of defining political participation and
justifies the selection of definition by Henry Brady (1999) – political participation as actions of private
citizens directed towards influencing political outcomes. This is a restrictive definition, which separates
actions from attitudes and action plans, private citizens’ actions from those of professional politicians and
public servants, influence attempts from actions oriented towards achievement of some other goal and,
finally, political outcomes from non-political ones. Other researchers striving to define political
participation in detail, often providing some examples of what they consider it to include, define political
participation as attempts by individuals to influence government’s decisions (Bernhagen & Marsh, 2007,
46; Kourvetaris, 1997, 136; Milbrath and Goel, 1977, 1-2; Verba et al., 1978, 46, 48; Parry et al., 1992, 16),
as well as government personnel selection in the process of elections (Conway, 1985, 1-2), whereas these
actions can take place individually or collectively, at the national or local level (Conway, 1985, 1-2).
Chapter 2 reviews three main approaches to studying political participation – political actions
approach, institutions approach and problem-solving approach. The chapter introduces strategy, features,
research capacity, and shortcomings of each approach, as well as ways of mitigating the shortcomings by
combining strengths of several approaches.
Chapter 3 deals with history of political participation empirical research. It chronologically lists and
outlines ten major unique (e.g. 1967 Participation in America) and repeated (e.g. American National
Election Studies, European Social Survey) studies indicating each study’s innovative contribution to
political participation theory, research methodology, and empirical findings. Chapter 3 logically follows the
previous one, showing how three research approaches were used and combined to make political
participation research fuller and more informative.
Chapter 4 discusses main theories explaining political participation, which serve as sources and
insights for the empirical hypotheses. Sequential subchapters review features of participation in
postcommunist countries, comparing them with stable democracies; justify the inclusion of basic human
values in the analysis of participation factors; define and describe political engagement as set of factors
impacting participation; as well as review sociodemographic and socio-structural variables traditionally
included as covariates in the research of participation determinants, exploring differences in participation
rates among groups defined by gender, age, education and income.
In Chapter 5, typologies of political participation are critically reviewed. As a rule, typologies are
developed as combinations of elementary political actions that have something in common according to
specific criteria. Among these criteria, one can mention complexity of an action and cost that should be
carried to engage in it; affinity of political actions, based on which actions most often are carried out
together; and orientation of the action towards the existing political system. In this chapter, the author of the
thesis also justifies the usage of participation typology suggested by Inglehart (1997).
Chapter 6 describes and justifies research methodology used in the thesis. In is based on the
secondary analysis of European Social Survey Round 4 data (2008). Therefore, the chapter includes
information on ESS Round 4 geography, sample size and type, as well as variables selected for the analysis
and representing political participation as an outcome of interest and factors potentially influencing
participation. The chapter also illustrates and grounds the use of logistic regression as the appropriate
analysis technique and explains how to interpret the analysis results. Chapter 7 logically follows the
methodology section and deals with actual analysis of empirical data and interpretation of the gained results
based on the hypotheses and in the context of political participation factors.
10
Chapter 8 concludes the thesis with a critical summing-up of theoretical foundations and empirical
findings, as well as stresses the novelty, contribution, and limitations of the research, as well as suggests
direction for forthcoming studies in the field of political participation.
2.Theoretical foundations of the research
Conceptualization of political participation and overview of the definition problem: Milbrath, 1965;
Huntington & Nelson, 1976; Milbrath & Goel, 1977; Verba, Nie, & Kim, 1978; Conway, 1985; Parry et al.,
1992; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995; Brady, 1999; Rosenstone & Hansen, 2003; Nyckowiak, 2009.
Definition of political participation used in the thesis is borrowed from Brady (1999): political participation
is understood as action by ordinary citizens directed toward influencing some political outcomes.
Main approaches to studying political participation and their use in comparative international
research: American National Election Studies (ANES), Political Participation and Equality Surveys
(PPES), Eight Nation Political Actions Studies (PAS), British Political Participation Study (BPPS), Citizen
Participation Studies (CPS), Roper Centre for Public Opinion Research, General Social Survey (GSS),
International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), European Values Study (EVS), European Social Survey
(ESS). Summary of approaches and their aspects is based on the review by Brady (1999).
Theoretical conceptualization of political participation factors: Holmes, 1997, Zepa, 1999, Karklins
& Zepa, 2001, Howard, 2002, Barnes, 2006, Bernhagen & Marsh, 2007, Bernhard & Karakoç, 2007,
Kostadinova & Power, 2007, Pop-Eleches, 2007, Pietrzyk-Reeves, 2008, Pop-Eleches & Tucker, 2013
(political legacy and communism impact on participation); Weber, 2006, Feldman, 2003, Schwartz, 1992,
Halman, 2007, Almond & Verba, 1989, Inglehart & Klingemann, 1979, Schwartz et al., 2010, Schwartz
2006, Pacheco & Owen, 2015, McCann, 1997, (Caprara et al., 2012, Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Zimbardo,
1999; Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Zimbardo, 2002, Caprara et al. 2006 (human values and their role in
determining political participation); Verba et al., 1995, Lenard, 2008, Catterberg&Moreno, 2005, Rahn &
Rudolph, 2005, Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2010, Dimitrova-Grajzl & Simon, 2010, Mishler & Rose, 2001, Easton,
1965, Hetherington, 1992, Uslaner, 2002, Cook&Gronke, 2005, Slomczynski & Janicka, 2009, Uslaner &
Brown, 2005, Almond & Verba, 1989, Levi & Stoker, 2000, Nyćkowiak, 2009, Topf, 1995, Valentino et
al., 2009; Kim et al., 2002; Iyengar, 1980; Seligson, 1980, Easton & Dennis, 1967, Muller, 1970, Abravanel
& Busch, 1975, Paige, 1971, Stolle, 2007, Coleman, 1990, Lin, 2001, Putnam, 1993, Putnam, 2000 (political
engagement factors); Verba et al., 1995, Milbrath & Goel, 1977, Conway, 1985, Kourvetaris, 1997,
Quintelier, 2007, Crittenden, 1963, Nie et al., 1974, Cicognani et al., 2011 (impact of social structure and
demographic characteristics on political participation).
Outline of political participation typologies: Milbrath, 1965, Milbrath & Goel, 1977, Imbrasaite,
2010, Verba et al., 1978, Ņikišins, 2011, Inglehart, 1977, Bernhagen & Marsh, 2007, Muller, 1982, Bourne,
2010, Lamprianou, 2013, Teorell et al., 2006, Hirschman, 1970, Rucht, 2007.
3.Research methodology description and justification
Thesis research from the methodological point of view can be described as international, comparative,
secondary and quantitative.
The study’s international and comparative character is recognizable by its topic, goal, and research
tasks. It is deemed secondary because of use of European Social Survey questionnaire and earlier collected
data, adapting them for the study’s empirical needs (e.g. recoding original variables, computing indices etc.)
Research sample contains 56752 respondents from 30 countries (including Israel and former East Germany
as if it were a separate country). The study is quantitative to secure standardized comparisons between
countries and the ability to generalize the findings of the analysis to the whole population of countries
included in the analysis. Data were analysed with Stata 13 statistical data analysis program. Logistic
regression was used as primary analysis technique as the outcome variables (engagement in either type of
political participation) is dichotomous.
11
Empirical data analysis was carried out using European Social Survey, Round 4 data. Data are
deposited and published by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services.
Round 4 of the European Social Survey includes 31 countries, of which 29 were selected for the
analysis (see Table 1). Austria and Lithuania were not included in the analysis due to deviations in question
wording and weighting procedures. At the same time, Germany was divided in what previously had been
East Germany and West Germany to account for postcommunist legacy impact in the GDR. Thus, the
number of countries in the analysis reached 30.
The research object is political participation, which manifests itself through observable actions
(Brady, 1999). European Social Survey questionnaire askes respondents whether they participated in last
national elections and in a number of other political activities during the last 12 months: contacted a
politician, government or local government official; worked in a political party or action group; worked in
another organisation or association; worn or displayed a campaign badge/sticker; signed a petition; taken
part in a lawful public demonstration; boycotted certain products.
The vast majority of the respondents indicated participation in last national elections (77,5%). At the
same time, participation rates in other activities are much lower (for signing petitions, 17,4%; for contacting
a politician or an official, 11,4%; for working in a party or action group, 3,3%). Very low rates in three out
of seven non-electoral activities (working in a party, display of a badge, and taking part in a demonstration)
can seriously hamper the analysis. For this reason, participation types rather than separate political actions
were analysed, and the typology based on distinction between elite-directed and elite-challenging
participation is borrowed from Inglehart (1997). According to Inglehart, contacting, working in a party or
association, and displaying campaign symbols would count as elite-directed participation, while protest
activities including petitioning, demonstrating, and boycotting, would be classified as elite-challenging
participation.
Independent variables or political participation factors are listed as following:
1. Country political legacy factors:
1.1. Country’s belonging to any of three postcommunist country groups (Balkans,
East/Central Europe, former USSR);
1.2. Number of formative (in other words, socialization) years lived under communism.
This variable is included in the comparisons of postcommunist countries only
2. Basic human values according to Schwartz (1992) theory and inventory:
2.1. Self-realization;
2.2. Stimulation;
2.3. Hedonism;
2.4. Achievement;
2.5. Power;
2.6. Security;
2.7. Conformity;
2.8. Tradition;
2.9. Benevolence;
2.10. Universalism.
3. Political engagement:
3.1. Index of trust in political institutions
3.2. Subjective political competence;
3.3. Interest in politics;
3.4. Membership in a political party;
3.5. Membership in a trade union.
4. Social structure and resources:
4.1. Gender;
4.2. Age;
12
4.3. Education;
4.4. Subjective income. Picture 1.
Political participation and its factor groups
First group of factors relates to living in a country that experienced authoritarian communism in the
20th century, as well as number of formative years (age 6 – 17) lived under communism. Chapter 4 of the
thesis outlines the classification of post-communist countries proposed by Holmes (1997) and Pop-Eleches
(2007) that takes into account differences in postcommunist countries’’ socio-political regime. This
theoretical classification serves also as a methodological foundation for assigning each country in the
analysis to one of four political legacy groups.
Table 1.
Countries by group according to their political legacy
Group Countries included Subsample size
Countries without
communist
experience (non-
communist)
Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey, United Kingdom
33650
Postcommunist,
Balkans Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Slovenia 7146
Postcommunist,
Central and Eastern
Europe
Czech Republic, East Germany, Hungary, Poland,
Slovakia 7958
Postcommunist,
former USSR Estonia, Latvia, Russian Federation, Ukraine 7998
Source: European Social Survey.
Apart from country category as grouping variable for political legacy, the author includes also
formative years of a respondent lived under communism, derived from Pop-Eleches and Tucker (2013).
They stipulate that human behaviour and values are formed in childhood and adolescence, mainly through
adoption of views articulated by parents and socialization institutions such as kindergarten, school, youth
associations etc. Another important point in this reasoning is that as an individual grows up, views and
values previously internalized during childhood and adolescence remain largely unchanged. Pop-Eleches
and Tucker consider age 6 to 17 years as formative in terms of values and attitudes. It follows that range of
formative years under communism runs from 0 to 11 years.
Political participation
Country's political legacy
Basic human values
Political engagement
Social structure and
resources
13
Second factor group includes ten basic human values, which are thought of as universal and
independent of a certain country and its dominating culture (Schwartz, 1992). Due to values’ universality,
value scores are not compared across country groups in the analysis. Still, it may be one of possible
interesting field of future research on political participation.
To measure each value’s score, Schwartz used two or, in the case of some values, three statements,
which together form an indexed, score for the respective value. Each statement presented an imagined
person indicating what he/she likes to do in his/her life. The respondent had to answer how similar the
presented person was to him/her. Answer options ranged from 1 (very much like me) to 6 (not at all like
me). Each value’s indexed score was calculated using average score of each elementary indicator
(statement) corresponding to the value.
14
Table 2.
Elements of Schwartz value scale
No. Statement Corresponding
value
A Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to him. He likes to do things
in his own original way. Self-direction
B It is important to him to be rich. He wants to have a lot of money and expensive
things. Power
C He thinks it is important that every person in the world should be treated equally.
He believes everyone should have equal opportunities in life. Universalism
D It's important to him to show his abilities. He wants people to admire what he does. Achievement
E It is important to him to live in secure surroundings. He avoids anything that might
endanger his safety. Security
F He likes surprises and is always looking for new things to do. He thinks it is
important to do lots of different things in life. Stimulation
G He believes that people should do what they're told. He thinks people should follow
rules at all times, even when no-one is watching. Conformity
H It is important to him to listen to people who are different from him. Even when he
disagrees with them, he still wants to understand them. Universalism
I It is important to him to be humble and modest. He tries not to draw attention to
himself. Tradition
J Having a good time is important to him. He likes to “spoil” himself. Hedonism
K It is important to him to make his own decisions about what he does. He likes to be
free and not depend on others. Self-direction
L It's very important to him to help the people around him. He wants to care for their
well-being. Benevolence
M Being very successful is important to him. He hopes people will recognise his
achievements. Achievement
N It is important to him that the government ensures his safety against all threats. He
wants the state to be strong so it can defend its citizens. Security
O He looks for adventures and likes to take risks. He wants to have an exciting life. Stimulation
P It is important to him always to behave properly. He wants to avoid doing anything
people would say is wrong. Conformity
Q It is important to him to get respect from others. He wants people to do what he
says. Power
R It is important to him to be loyal to his friends. He wants to devote himself to people
close to him. Benevolence
S He strongly believes that people should care for nature. Looking after the
environment is important to him. Universalism
T Tradition is important to him. He tries to follow the customs handed down by his
religion or his family. Tradition
U He seeks every chance he can to have fun. It is important to him to do things that
give him pleasure. Hedonism
Source: European Social Survey.
15
Third group of factors pertains to measures of psychological engagement with politics. It includes
both subjective (namely, trust in political institutions, political competence, and interest about politics) and
objective indicators (membership in a party or trade union).
Political trust is measured by an index containing questions on trust in the country’s legislative body,
politicians, and political parties, each measured on a 0 – 10 scale (0 denoting no trust at all and 10 denoting
complete trust). Cronbach’s alpha was calculated in order to estimate the reliability of the index as a
composite measure (Cronbach, 1951). For three trust questions, alpha equalled 0.90, which denotes high
scale reliability and applicability (author’s calculations).
Political competence rates were measured by answers to the question “How difficult or easy do you
find it to make your mind up about political issues?” on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (very difficult) to
5 (very easy).
In addition to trust and competence, political interest was included as another measure of political
engagement: “How interested would you say you are in politics – are you very interested, quite interested,
hardly interested, or not at all interested?” The author believes that political interest, although a very
subjective measure could be a substantial covariate among other political engagement group factors so its
inclusion in the analysis is justified.
Finally, the author included questions on checkbook membership in a party and trade union. Both are
dichotomous with “yes/no” answer alternative. The original wording of the question on trade union
membership also provided the opportunity to indicate that respondent had been previously a trade union
member but terminated his/her membership since then.
Fourth group of factors contains demographic characteristics (gender and age) used mainly as control
variables. In addition, indicators of education and subjective income are included to account for social status
of the respondent. The latter two variables can also be viewed as measures of resources crucial for engaging
in political participation.
Apart from effect of individual factors reviewed above, the author considered interactions of each
political engagement variable with country group indicator pertaining to political legacy. The necessity of
this development is justified by the nature of hypotheses 2 and 7 – 12. Also, interaction of political legacy
nominal variable with formative years lived under communism is included in the comparisons of
postcommunist countries.
As noted above, outcome variables of the political participation study are dichotomous, assuming
values 0 or 1 only. To determine the impact of numerous factors on one outcome variable, logistic regression
technique should be applied. Unlike ordinary least-squares linear regression assuming a direct linear
relationship between factors and outcome variable, the logistic regression curve is S-shaped, not linear.
Logistic regression belongs to a family of generalized linear models, in which the original linear function is
transformed in order to account for non-linearity of a relationship (Kühnel & Krebs, 2006, 605-609). The
general formula for logistic regression can be written as
Y = 1
1+ 𝑒−(𝑏0+𝑏1𝑋1+𝑏𝑛𝑋𝑛+𝜀)
where e ≈ 2,71828... is the natural logarithm base and (b0+b1X1+bnXn+ε) is the original linear function
subject to log-linear transformation. Y is the outcome variable assuming values ranging from 0 to 1 and
referring to the probability of the event (from 0% to 100%). A simplified version of the formula can be
written as
Y = logistic (b0 + b1X1 + bn Xn ).
Logistic regression results are interpreted in terms of probabilities and odds ratios. For instance, a
dichotomous variable, Y, signifies voting in last parliamentary elections, having two possible answer
alternatives – yes (1) and no (0). µ, the average value of Y, would be equal to the proportion of people who
indicated they voted in the elections. If 77% of people voted, then µ = 0,77. It is also the probability than a
randomly selected individual from the general population actually took part in voting. The opposite
16
probability of abstaining from voting, then, would equal 1 – 0,77 = 0,23, or 23%. The odds of voting, then,
is the ratio of probability of voting to that of non-voting:
Voting odds = 𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑛𝑜𝑛−𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 =
𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
(1− 𝑛𝑜𝑛−𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦) =
0,77
0,23 = 3,35.
That means that there are 3,35 times more voters than non-voters.
Finally, odds ratio refers to the ratio of odds of an event in one group compared to another. It is been
calculated in the process of obtaining logistic regression results. Belonging to a group in comparison can be
signified by either categorical variable (e.g. gender) or quantitative (e.g. age). If the odds ratio exceeds 1,
the conclusion is that the odds of the event of interest grow as the value of the factor variable grows. If the
odds ratio is below 1, then that the odds of the event of interest diminishes as the value of the factor variable
grows. Finally, if the odds ratio is 1 or close to it, then the factor has virtually no or very little impact on the
outcome variable.
4.Research results and discussion
Data used for empirical research of the thesis allowed testing the impact of four groups of factors on
political participation. The factors included both traditionally studied sociodemographic and structural
variables (gender, age, education, income) and political engagement (trust, competence, interest in politics
and membership in a party of trade union) and factors that gained attention in more recent times (such as
communist legacy and human values impact). Analysis of factors’ impact was put in the framework of the
formulated research hypotheses.
Data provide strong evidence for confirmation of Hypothesis 1. All three types of political
participation demonstrate higher rates in non-communist countries, followed by Central/Eastern Europe,
Balkans, and, finally, the former Soviet Union. Specifically, former Soviet republics show lowest rates for
voting and elite-challenging participation whereas the Balkans are lowest on elite-directed participation. All
differences found are statistically significant at 0,05 level, including differences between postcommunist
countries only. These findings can also be interpreted as confirmation of reliability of postcommunist
country typology suggested by Holmes (1997) and Pop-Eleches (2007). Hypothesis 2 tested the assumption of impeding impact of formative years under communism on
political participation. It follows from the nature of the hypothesis that it can be confirmed or rejected
comparing postcommunist countries only. Data analysis lead to rejection of the hypothesis for all three
participation types. The conclusion is that formative years lived under communism do not have an impeding
effect on political participation, somewhat contrary to what previous findings and theory suggested (Pop-
Eleches & Tucker, 2013; Pop-Eleches, 2013).
Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive correlation of conservation values with voting and negative
correlation with protest participation and was confirmed by the data analysis. Conformity and tradition
values show positive impact on voting but negative impact, alongside security value, on elite-challenging
participation.
Hypothesis 4 predicted a positive association between elite-challenging participation and self-
direction and stimulation values that manifest acceptance of change and innovations. Self-direction value
does indeed show a positive association with protest participation, and this finding is logical taking into
account the “spirit” of this value. This association remains positive comparing both noncommunist to
postcommunist countries and just postcommunist countries’ groups with each other. Stimulation shows no
significant relationship with protest participation. Hypothesis 4 can be deemed partly confirmed.
Hypothesis 5 assumed that self-transcendence values (benevolence and universalism) would show a
positive association with relatively costly non-electoral participation types (elite-directed and elite-
challenging participation). Both values pertain to achievement and maintenance of well-being and justice;
however, benevolence is related mainly to individuals’ primary groups (family, relatives, friends, local
community etc.), while universalism refers to a broader context. Self-transcendence values were expected
to show positive association with the probability of political participation. In all four country groups
17
benevolence and universalism do indeed show a positive and significant impact on non-electoral
participation; however, in postcommunist countries benevolence seized to remain statistically significant.
Hypothesis 6 assumed a positive association between elite-directed participation and self-
enhancement values (achievement, hedonism and power). However, the data did not support this assumption
as the only significant relationship with participation was that of achievement value, but it turned out to be
negative. Although it leads to rejection of the hypothesis, it still seems logical in the light of Schwartz values
theory as self-enhancement values contradict self-transcendence values which primary concern is the well-
being of others as opposed to the individual.
Hypothesis 7 predicted a positive association between political trust and voting and elite-directed
participation, but a negative one – with protest participation. Data analysis show that this assumption was
confirmed in the case of voting and elite-directed participation but disconfirmed regarding elite-challenging
type of participation, where the association is not statistically significant. It cast doubt on the conclusion of
Levi & Stoker (2000) that lack of trust triggers protest, but agrees with earlier findings on positive
correlation between trust and conventional forms of participation (Almond & Verba, 1989).
At the same time, Hypothesis 8 postulating uniformity of trust-participation association in all country
groups was confirmed for voting and elite-directed participation. For elite-challenging participation,
association differs between country groups but remains non-significant. Thus, it is possible to deem
Hypothesis 8 confirmed.
Hypothesis 9 was aimed at testing the effect of subjective political competence on participation,
presuming it should be positive and significant. However, results suggest the rejection of the hypothesis in
overall, because the positive effect is observed only in Central Eastern Europe for voting and elite-directed
participation.
Rejected is also Hypothesis 10 that predicted the competence-participation correlation to be relatively
weaker in postcommunist countries and stronger in noncommunist societies. No significant differences in
association between post-communist and non-communist countries were found.
Hypothesis 11 was aimed at testing relationship between party or trade union membership and
political participation. On the whole, results suggest a stable, positive, statistically significant relationship
between membership and every type of political participation. The only exception is voting in
postcommunist countries showing a negative but non-significant relationship.
Hypothesis 12 postulating that the membership effect on participation would be lower in
postcommunist countries should be rejected, as most associations are not statistically significant. In some
cases party and trade union membership has even a stronger effect on participation than in non-communist
societies.
Three political engagement factors – party membership, trade union membership and interest
in politics – show the strongest positive effect on political participation. Thus, it can be concluded that
of all analysed factors, taking part in political actions is triggered primarily by conscious interest in
political outcomes and motivation to influence them.
18
5.Conclusion and theses for defence
Conceptualization and selection of appropriate definition for political participation was influenced
largely by empirical concerns - on one side, by limited opportunities to research specific political
participation acts, especially in nondemocratic countries, on the other side, by academic interest in
comparatively new participation types and forms that had not been subject to thorough research before (e.g.
protest participation since the 1970s). This is the reason why no single definition of political participation
is ideal or comprehensive, or one with clearly defined boundaries. One can notice two principal traditions
of understanding what political participation actually includes, the first one being more restrictive and the
second one more inclusive or liberal. Followers of the restrictive tradition attempt to set clear boundaries of
political participation. They share a common understanding of participation as acts aimed at influencing
decisions made by politicians and officials. The inclusive tradition omits the provision about the
“personified” targets of participation; in fact, it means that any kind of human interaction that includes
disagreements, conflict and attempts to solve it somehow, can be designated political; sometimes even
conflict is not necessary. One could see the inclusive approach’s links with social capital theories. Despite
the opportunity of a broader view on participation and its justifications, empirical application of the inclusive
approach remains problematic, especially in comparative research that requires standardization of concepts
and measurement. In addition, it seems to ignore different motives standing behind different goal and modes
of action (Uslaner & Brown, 2005).
Postcommunist country typology derived from Holmes (1997) and Pop-Eleches (2007) proved its
empirical applicability. It is supported by results showing statistically significant differences between
country groups, drawing comparisons not only between non-communist and post-communist societies but
also between different post-communist groups. Still, one cannot think of it as the only possible way to
classify postcommunist countries until other typologies have not been elaborated and tested empirically.
For instance, one could include Romania and Bulgaria not in the Balkans category but rather in the
Central/Eastern Europe group alongside Poland, Hungary and other satellites of the Soviet Union in the
framework of the Warsaw Pact. As for the Baltic countries, they, too, could be analysed separately from
Russia and Ukraine as the former came under Soviet rule later than the latter. It is possible that re-
classification of postcommunist countries could have led to somewhat different research results.
Findings on association between political participation and basic human values are another significant
contribution of the thesis. To date, the topic remains underresearched and calling for new contributions.
Values play a crucial role in determining priorities in individual’s life regardless of specific situations
(Schwartz, 1992). They serve as determinants of behaviour in general and of political participation
specifically. Analysis of European Social Survey data shows that values oriented towards change and self-
transcendence correlate positively with non-electoral participation types, especially to elite-challenging
participation. These two value groups are oriented towards changing status quo. Conservation values are
positively related to voting as a conservative, conventional participation type and show a negative
association with probability of protest participation. Self-enhancement values to not show any positive and
significant relationship with any of participation types; on the contrary, achievement and power are
negatively associated with non-electoral types of participation. As values were analysed in an aggregated
way, that is, without comparisons between country groups, conclusion on their impact is subject to certain
limitations. Such comparisons could be investigated in further research.
Findings on two political engagement factors, namely, trust and competence, are somewhat
controversial. Results support the classical assumption that trust increases the probability of conventional
participation forms, rejecting at the same time the assumption that lower trust would lead to higher
probability of protest participation. Results may be significantly influenced by the conceptualization and
measurement of trust, namely, whether a lack of trust should be understood as distrust or rather mistrust
and vigilant scepticism towards the regime and its political institutions. In the latter case, low levels of trust
is not something that immediately lead to distrust and the accompanying dissent (Cook & Gronke, 2005),
thus, measuring trust would require a more refined and complicated approach in future research.
19
Conceptualization and measurement problems are even more evident for political competence.
Contrary to the initial assumptions, competence showed a positive and significant relationship only with
elite-directed participation. This is not unexpected, taking into account the fact that this participation type
is more intellectually demanding tan the other two. At the same time, it should be admitted that measurement
of political competence in this thesis employs only one question and therefore lacks multidimensionality.
Using additional questions on political competence of efficacy may have led to different results showing a
more convincing and significant association between competence and participation.
Checkbook membership in a party or trade union is an objective measure of political engagement. In
overall, it is positively and significantly associated with all three types of political participation. Its effect
across countries is almost a uniform one, except for relatively stronger party effect on non-electoral
participation in the former Soviet Union countries and somewhat weaker effect of trade union membership
on voting in the Balkans and on elite-directed participation in the former USSR. Parties retain their ability
to mobilize people for participation, although the quantitative outcome may not be that large because only
a tiny fraction of citizens ever joins parties. In future research, it would be advisable to specify the modes
and activities associated with membership, as well as its frequency and regularity. In this regard, the British
Political Participation Study and the U.S. General Social Survey may be excellent sources of inspiration.
Although overall participation rates are lower in postcommunist than in non-communist countries,
elite-challenging participation being the most notable example, communist legacy, as seen from the analysis
of interaction terms in the regression, does not always diminish the probability of political participation.
Moreover, formative years under communism do not seem to have a mitigating effect on political
participation. Further research could venture theorizing and empirically identifying other factors explaining
actual differences in political participation rates between countries with different political legacies.
However, such a goal is very ambitious and would require a new research with the appropriate research
question, questionnaire, sample, and data analysis procedure.
Since its first developments in the 1940s, political participation research made a great stride forward.
Both substantial theoretical traditions and methodological approaches emerged, each providing both its own
unique contribution and the ability to be combined with the other. A bulk of knowledge and insights on the
forms of political participation, factors that foster or hinder it, as well as consequences and outcomes of
participation has been accumulated. As with any other social phenomenon, the subject of political
participation will never be exhausted, and its will always provide new, competing definitions and
interpretations, theories, methodological approaches and new results as well. The ever-intensifying
interaction and mobility of both individuals and social groups in a global context will make politics as the
authoritative allocation of values in a society (Easton, 1953) even more complex, which in turn would mean
profound new developments in its processes, outcomes, and people’s reactions to them. The demand for
research in the field of political participation will endure and even increase from all involved sides, including
decision-makers, academics, and the society at large.
20
References
1) Almond, Gabriel A., Verba, Sidney (1989). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations.
Newbury Park; London; New Delhi: SAGE Publications. 379 p.
2) Barnes, Samuel H. (2006). The Changing Political Participation of Postcommunist Citizens. International Journal
of Sociology, Summer2006, Vol. 36 Issue 2, p76-98, 23p.
3) Bernhagen, Patrick, Marsh, Michael (2007). Voting and Protesting: Explaining Citizen Participation in Old and
New European Democracies. Democratization, Vol.14, No.1, February 2007, pp.44-72.
4) Brady, Henry. (1999). Political participation. In Measures of Political Attitudes, ed. John P. Robinson, Phillip R.
Shaver, and Lawrence S. Wrightsman. San Diego: Academic Press.
5) Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 22:3, 1951, pp. 297-334.
6) Forbrig, Joerg (ed.) (2005). Revisiting Youth Political Participation. Council of Europe. 193 p.
7) Holmes, L. (1997). Post-communism: An introduction. Durham, N.C: Duke University Press.
8) Howard, Marc Morje (2002). Postcommunist Civil Society in Comparative Perspective. Demokratizatsiya,
Summer2002, Vol. 10 Issue 3, p285, 21p.
9) Inglehart, Roland (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43
Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 453 p.
10) Karklins, Rasma, Zepa, Brigita (2001). Political Participation in Latvia 1987-2001. Journal of Baltic Studies,
Vol.32, No.4, Winter 2001, pp.334-346.
11) Kourvetaris, George Andrew (1997). Political Sociology: Structure and Process. Boston (etc.): Allyn and Bacon.
285 p.
12) Kuhnel, S., & Krebs, D. (2006). Statistik fur die Sozialwissenschaften: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen.
Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verl.
13) Levi, Margaret; Stoker, Laura. (2000). Political Trust and Trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science,
Vol. 3 Issue 1, p475, 33p.
14) Milbrath, Lester W., Goel, M.L. (1977) Political Participation : How and Why Do People Get Involved in
Politics? 2nd ed. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company. 223 p.
15) Parry, Geraint, Moyser, George and Day, Neil (1992). Political Participation and Democracy in Britain.
Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press. 509 p.
16) Pietrzyk-Reeves, Dorota (2008). Weak Civil Engagement? Post-Communist Participation and Democratic
Consolidation. Polish Sociological Review 1(161)’08.
17) Pop-Eleches, G. (2007). Historical Legacies and Post-Communist Regime Change. The Journal of Politics
69(4):908- 926.
18) Pop-Eleches, G., and Tucker, J. A. (2013) Associated with the Past?: Communist Legacies and Civic
Participation in Post-Communist Countries. East European Politics and Societies, February 2013 vol. 27 no. 1 45-68.
19) Reisinger, William M., Miller, Arthur H., Hesli, Vicki L. (1995). Public Behaviour and Political Change in Post-
Soviet States. The Journal of Politics, Volume 57, No. 4, November 1995, pp. 941 – 970.
20) Schwartz, S. H. (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests
in 20 countries, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, Zanna, M. P. (Ed), Academic Press, New
York, pp. 1–65.
21) Schwartz, S. H. (2006) Basic human values: theory, measurement, and applications. Revue Francaise de
Sociologie, 47, 249–288.
22) Schwartz, S., Caprara, G. and Vecchione, M. (2010) Basic personal values, core political values, and voting: a
longitudinal analysis, Political Psychology, 31, 421–452.
23) Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Brady, Henry (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in
American Politics. Harvard University Press.
24) Weber, M. (2006). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Paderborn: Voltmedia.
25) Zepa, Brigita (1999). Politiskā līdzdalība Latvijā. Rīga: Baltijas Sociālo zinātņu institūts. Available on the web
(04.05.2008): http://www.bszi.lv/downloads/resources/politLidzdaliba/politLidzdaliba1999.pdf
21
Appendix – logitistic regression analysis results
Table 3.
Logistic regression results for voting, all countries
VOTING FACTORS Odds ratio St.Error
Country group: Balkans 0,637* 0,159
Country group: Central Eastern Europe 0,354** 0,147
Country group: Former USSR 0,717 0,253
Political trust 1,088*** 0,029
Interest for politics 1,574*** 0,062
Political competence 1,074 0,055
Party membership (1=yes) 4,111*** 0,821
Trade union membership (1=yes) 1,575*** 0,209
Security 0,978 0,026
Conformity 1,089*** 0,034
Tradition 1,126*** 0,022
Benevolence 1,039 0,030
Universalism 0,993 0,044
Self-enhancement 0,996 0,021
Stimulation 0,949** 0,025
Hedonism 1,019 0,029
Achievement 1,021 0,021
Power 1,007 0,028
Gender: female 1,131*** 0,039
Age 1,099*** 0,014
Age squared 0,999*** 0,000
Education 1,125*** 0,036
Subjective income 1,085** 0,041
Party member, Balkans 0,777 0,216
Party member, Central Eastern Europe 1,143 0,333
Party member, former USSR 0,432*** 0,133
Trade union member, Balkans 0,623*** 0,088
Trade union member, Central Eastern Europe 0,834 0,159
Trade union member, former USSR 1,069 0,161
Political trust, Balkans 1,084* 0,049
Political trust, Central Eastern Europe 1,043 0,047
Political trust, former USSR 1,010 0,063
Political competence, Balkans 0,954 0,065
Political competence, Central Eastern Europe 1,200** 0,101
Political competence, former USSR 0,957 0,073
Constant 0,015*** 0,005
N
McFadden Pseudo-R2
Model specification test (p-value)
Correctly classified cases, %
46463
0,1256
0,01 (0,379)
80,06
P-value legend: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
Data clustered by country.
22
Table 4.
Logistic regression results for voting, postcommunist countries
VOTING FACTORS Odds ratio St.Error
Country group: Central Eastern Europe
0,656
0,274
Country group: Former USSR 0,950 0,343
Formative years under communism (FYUC) 1,014 0,014
FYUC in Central Eastern Europe 0,983** 0,008
FYUC in former USSR 1,013 0,012
Political trust 1,182*** 0,042
Interest for politics 1,720*** 0,096
Political competence 0,982 0,045
Party membership (1=yes) 3,121*** 0,611
Trade union membership (1=yes) 0,966 0,081
Security 0,989 0,034
Conformity 1,047 0,043
Tradition 1,095*** 0,031
Benevolence 1,071*** 0,027
Universalism 1,013 0,040
Self-direction 0,997 0,035
Stimulation 0,968 0,031
Hedonism 0,971 0,036
Achievement 1,034 0,027
Power 0,957 0,029
Gender: female 1,178*** 0,052
Age 1,056*** 0,021
Age squared 0,999** 0,000
Education 1,198*** 0,069
Subjective income 1,053 0,048
Party member, Central Eastern Europe 1,574 0,445
Party member, former USSR 0,539** 0,162
Trade union member, Central Eastern Europe 1,393** 0,220
Trade union member, former USSR 1,651*** 0,167
Political trust, Central Eastern Europe 0,953 0,049
Political trust, former USSR 0,924 0,058
Political competence, Central Eastern Europe 1,257*** 0,103
Political competence, former USSR 1,008 0,071
Constant 0,025*** 0,012
N
McFadden Pseudo-R2
Model specification test (p-value)
Correctly classified cases, %
18753
0,11
-0,039 (0,05)
75,36
P-value legend: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
Data clustered by country.
23
Table 5.
Logistic regression results for elite-directed participation, all countries
ELITE-DIRECTED PARTICIPATION FACTORS Odds ratio St.Error
Country group: Balkans 0.414** 0.170
Country group: Central Eastern Europe 0.732 0.253
Country group: Former USSR 0.688 0.222
Political trust 1.051** 0.020
Interest for politics 1.496*** 0.045
Political competence 1.086*** 0.028
Party membership (1=yes) 4.558*** 0.493
Trade union membership (1=yes) 1.675*** 0.142
Security 0.862*** 0.025
Conformity 0.990 0.030
Tradition 0.899*** 0.024
Benevolence 1.208*** 0.038
Universalism 1.067* 0.038
Self-enhancement 1.086*** 0.029
Stimulation 1.087*** 0.025
Hedonism 0.994 0.025
Achievement 0.939** 0.026
Power 0.909*** 0.031
Gender: female 0.874*** 0.030
Age 1.016*** 0.006
Age squared 1.000*** 0.000
Education 1.153*** 0.030
Subjective income 1.151*** 0.043
Party member, Balkans 1.655 0.526
Party member, Central Eastern Europe 1.469 0.503
Party member, former USSR 1.774*** 0.304
Trade union member, Balkans 0.903 0.163
Trade union member, Central Eastern Europe 1.128 0.255
Trade union member, former USSR 0.823* 0.095
Political trust, Balkans 1.050 0.041
Political trust, Central Eastern Europe 1.004 0.026
Political trust, former USSR 0.978 0.040
Political competence, Balkans 1.010 0.051
Political competence, Central Eastern Europe 1.057 0.068
Political competence, former USSR 1.014 0.065
Constant 0.018*** 0.007
N
McFadden Pseudo-R2
Model specification test (p-value)
Correctly classified cases, %
46656
0,14
0,0005 (0,959)
79,04
P-value legend: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
Data clustered by country.
24
Table 6.
Logistic regression results for elite-directed participation, post-communist countries
ELITE-DIRECTED PARTICIPATION FACTORS Odds ratio St.Error
Country group: Central Eastern Europe 1,331 0,690
Country group: Former USSR 1,523 0,687
Formative years under communism (FYUC) 0,986 0,017
FYUC in Central Eastern Europe 1,042*** 0,014
FYUC in former USSR 1,009 0,020
Political trust 1,100*** 0,034
Interest for politics 1,526*** 0,051
Political competence 1,088** 0,045
Party membership (1=yes) 7,686*** 2,256
Trade union membership (1=yes) 1,485** 0,240
Security 0,884** 0,043
Conformity 0,974 0,048
Tradition 0,925** 0,034
Benevolence 1,123*** 0,050
Universalism 1,118** 0,051
Self-direction 1,182*** 0,040
Stimulation 1,067* 0,036
Hedonism 1,028 0,040
Achievement 0,935** 0,031
Power 0,956 0,044
Gender: female 0,850** 0,061
Age 1,015 0,018
Age squared 1,000 0,000
Education 1,174*** 0,045
Subjective income 1,113** 0,060
Party member, Central Eastern Europe 0,877 0,375
Party member, former USSR 1,044 0,343
Trade union member, Central Eastern Europe 1,202 0,321
Trade union member, former USSR 0,917 0,166
Political trust, Central Eastern Europe 0,963 0,035
Political trust, former USSR 0,939 0,046
Political competence, Central Eastern Europe 1,019 0,079
Political competence, former USSR 0,991 0,075
Constant 0,005*** 0,003
N
McFadden Pseudo-R2
Model specification test (p-value)
Correctly classified cases, %
19623
0,1187
0,063 (0,000)
85,37
P-value legend: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
Data clustered by country.
25
Table 7.
Logistic regression results for elite-challenging participation, all countries
ELITE-CHALLENGING PARTICIPATION FACTORS Odds ratio St.Error
Country group: Balkans 0,444* 0,208
Country group: Central Eastern Europe 0,476 0,217
Country group: Former USSR 0,227*** 0,066
Political trust 0,996 0,021
Interest for politics 1,524*** 0,041
Political competence 1,045 0,044
Party membership (1=yes) 1,604*** 0,171
Trade union membership (1=yes) 1,515*** 0,132
Security 0,842*** 0,027
Conformity 0,876*** 0,024
Tradition 0,833*** 0,023
Benevolence 1,187*** 0,041
Universalism 1,291*** 0,049
Self-enhancement 1,133*** 0,035
Stimulation 1,023 0,022
Hedonism 1,053 0,035
Achievement 0,873*** 0,033
Power 0,886*** 0,027
Gender: female 1,159*** 0,046
Age 1,013* 0,008
Age squared 1,000*** 0,000
Education 1,203*** 0,037
Subjective income 1,156*** 0,046
Party member, Balkans 1,687* 0,464
Party member, Central Eastern Europe 1,190 0,383
Party member, former USSR 1,512** 0,295
Trade union member, Balkans 1,015 0,149
Trade union member, Central Eastern Europe 1,133 0,179
Trade union member, former USSR 0,848 0,178
Political trust, Balkans 0,952 0,040
Political trust, Central Eastern Europe 1,055* 0,033
Political trust, former USSR 1,034 0,050
Political competence, Balkans 1,024 0,071
Political competence, Central Eastern Europe 1,069 0,093
Political competence, former USSR 1,107 0,107
Constant 0,047*** 0,023
N
McFadden Pseudo-R2
Model specification test (p-value)
Correctly classified cases, %
49555
0,1592
0,002 (0,793)
76,51
P-value legend: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
Data clustered by country.
26
Table 8.
Logistic regression results for elite-challenging participation, postcommunist countries
ELITE-CHALLENGING PARTICIPATION FACTORS Odds ratio St.Error
Country group: Central Eastern Europe 0,922 0,647
Country group: Former USSR 0,525 0,282
Formative years under communism (FYUC) 0,993 0,024
FYUC in Central Eastern Europe 1,039** 0,019
FYUC in former USSR 1,012 0,014
Political trust 0,963 0,030
Interest for politics 1,550*** 0,072
Political competence 1,052 0,067
Party membership (1=yes) 2,708*** 0,637
Trade union membership (1=yes) 1,598*** 0,170
Security 0,872*** 0,042
Conformity 0,923 0,048
Tradition 0,889** 0,043
Benevolence 1,055 0,057
Universalism 1,203** 0,092
Self-direction 1,231*** 0,036
Stimulation 0,997 0,039
Hedonism 1,049 0,057
Achievement 0,939 0,049
Power 0,904* 0,048
Gender: female 1,065 0,050
Age 1,015 0,025
Age squared 1,000 0,000
Education 1,243*** 0,059
Subjective income 1,095** 0,044
Party member, Central Eastern Europe 0,653 0,241
Party member, former USSR 0,887 0,247
Trade union member, Central Eastern Europe 1,001 0,186
Trade union member, former USSR 0,777 0,152
Political trust, Central Eastern Europe 1,096** 0,044
Political trust, former USSR 1,086* 0,053
Political competence, Central Eastern Europe 1,030 0,100
Political competence, former USSR 1,051 0,098
Constant 0,015*** 0,009
N
McFadden Pseudo-R2
Model specification test (p-value)
Correctly classified cases, %
19530
0,1007
0,02 (0,305)
84,69
P-value legend: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
Data clustered by country.