Thesis summary -- Political participation in Europe -- a comparative analysis

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.

http://www.fsi.lu.lv/userfiles/Youth2012_conference_abstracts.pdf

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

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


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





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



Power 0,957 0,029


Age 1,056*** 0,021

Age squared 0,999** 0,000

Education 1,198*** 0,069

Subjective income 1,053 0,048


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 competence, Central Eastern Europe 1,257*** 0,103


Constant 0,025*** 0,012

N

McFadden Pseudo-R2



18753

0,11

-0,039 (0,05)

75,36



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



46656

0,14

0,0005 (0,959)

79,04



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



FYUC in Central Eastern Europe 1,042*** 0,014




Political competence 1,088** 0,045


Trade union membership (1=yes) 1,485** 0,240

Security 0,884** 0,043


Tradition 0,925** 0,034


Universalism 1,118** 0,051

Self-direction 1,182*** 0,040

Stimulation 1,067* 0,036


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



Party member, former USSR 1,044 0,343





Political competence, Central Eastern Europe 1,019 0,079


Constant 0,005*** 0,003

N

McFadden Pseudo-R2



19623

0,1187

0,063 (0,000)

85,37



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: Former USSR 0,227*** 0,066

Political trust 0,996 0,021





Security 0,842*** 0,027

Conformity 0,876*** 0,024

Tradition 0,833*** 0,023


Universalism 1,291*** 0,049

Self-enhancement 1,133*** 0,035



Achievement 0,873*** 0,033

Power 0,886*** 0,027


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, former USSR 1,512** 0,295

Trade union member, Balkans 1,015 0,149



Political trust, Balkans 0,952 0,040

Political trust, Central Eastern Europe 1,055* 0,033


Political competence, Balkans 1,024 0,071



Constant 0,047*** 0,023

N

McFadden Pseudo-R2



49555

0,1592

0,002 (0,793)

76,51



26

Table 8.

Logistic regression results for elite-challenging participation, postcommunist countries

ELITE-CHALLENGING PARTICIPATION FACTORS Odds ratio St.Error




FYUC in Central Eastern Europe 1,039** 0,019


Political trust 0,963 0,030





Security 0,872*** 0,042


Tradition 0,889** 0,043

Benevolence 1,055 0,057

Universalism 1,203** 0,092

Self-direction 1,231*** 0,036




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



Party member, former USSR 0,887 0,247



Political trust, Central Eastern Europe 1,096** 0,044

Political trust, former USSR 1,086* 0,053



Constant 0,015*** 0,009

N

McFadden Pseudo-R2



19530

0,1007

0,02 (0,305)

84,69



Documents

Thesis summary -- Political participation in Europe -- a comparative analysis