Cinzia Albanesi, Elvira Cicognani,Bruna Zani,

Department of Sciences of Education “G.M. Bertin”University of Bologna (Italy)

YOUTH CIVIC AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION THROUGH THE LENS OF

GENDER: THE ITALIAN CASE

Paper presented at the Surrey PIDOP Conference on “Political and Civic Participation”, April 16th-17th, 2012, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

The empirical research upon which this paper is based was supported by a grant received from the European Commission 7th Framework Programme, FP7- SSH-2007-1, Grant Agreement no: 225282, Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation (PIDOP) awarded to the University of Surrey (UK), University of Liege (Belgium), Masaryk University (Czech Republic), University of Jena (Germany), University of Bologna (Italy), University of Porto (Portugal), Orebro University (Sweden), Ankara University (Turkey) and Queen’s University Belfast (UK).

The Italian “gap” Italian girls are expected to earn less, to have less important positions in the job market and to be less represented in politics compared to their male peers (Istat, 2010).

“juvenile ageism” (Westman, 1991) institutional, interactional, and individual discrimination against young people perpetuated by adults in powerful positions

THE GENDER GAP INDEX (TRENDS)

Aims and hypotheses • “Traditional” differences

– more male traditional political manifest participation (H1), – more girls and young women’s involvement in civic engagement and

consumerism (H2)• “ Reduced gap”

– We expected similar levels of net participation and vote across genders (H3)– What about gender gap in political interest and knowledge? a small or non

significant disadvantage for girls (“the web effect”) (H4),

• Parental support/modelling for participation should have a different impact on boys and girls (H5), being higher for females

– Does family influences (through education and support for participation) in a gendered way the concept of citizenship?

– What about public citizenship conceptions? Do they predict political interest, civic engagement and political participation?

– What about private citizenship? (any relationship with women’s absence in the public sphere?)

Participants

When you were under 14 years old. about how many books were there in your home? voting vs non voting age Mean S. D.

16-17 years old 3.07 1.310

18 and older 3.81 1.459

male

Total 3.62 1.457 16-17 years old 3.52 1.200 18 and older 3.94 1.342

female

Total 3.88 1.329 16-17 years old 3.23 1.286 18 and older 3.88 1.397

Total

Total 3.75 1.399

Research Instruments

Results

Results

Results gender x age group interactions

2,00

2,10

2,20

2,30

2,40

2,50

2,60

2,70

2,80

2,90

3,00

Non Voting Voting

Political interest Male

Political interestFemale

2,00

2,10

2,20

2,30

2,40

2,50

2,60

2,70

2,80

Non Voting Voting

Political attentivenessMale

Political attentivenessFemale

1,00

1,20

1,40

1,60

1,80

2,00

2,20

Non Voting Voting

Political knowledgeMale

Political knowledgeFemale

F(1) = 6,752 p = .01

F(1) = 7,126 p = .008

F(1) = 5,149 p = .024

The process of participation

Which differences for which forms of participation (cf. Ekman & Amna, 2010)?

Results from a set of Multiple Regression Analysis

Individual latent forms of participation

Individual manifest forms of participation

Vote Consumerism Male Female Male Female

Family education .14* * Cultural capital .20* * * .13* * .30* * * .29* * * Parental support .17* * * Private citizenship .11* * .14* * Law- abiding citizen .11* * Active citizen .14* .11* R2 .16 .08 .14 .16 F 11.915 5.676 10.248 13.061 DF 6, 390 6,399 6,390 6, 402 Sign .000 .000 .000 .000

Collective latent forms of participation

Net participation Civic engagement Male Female Male Female Family education .16* * .12* * Cultural capital .15* * .25* * * .13* Parental support .17* * * .28* * * Private citizenship Law- abiding citizen

Active citizen .17* * * .14* * R2 .20 .20 .07 .02 F 16.842 16.987 4.700 2.786 DF 6,394 6,404 6,392 3,406 Sign .000 .000 .000 .001

Collective manifest forms of participation Manifest political

participation Participation to a public

meeting Male Female Male Female Family education .15* * Cultural capital .12* Parental support .13* .18* * * .23* * * Private citizenship

Law- abiding citizen

-.19* * *

Active citizen .14* .16* * R2 .05 .14 .10 F 5.549 10.207 7.407 DF 6,390 6, 394 6,404 Sign .000 n.s. .000 .000

Conclusions

• Differences across gender on civic engagement and “radical” manifest political participation have been confirmed (H1; H2)

• Similarities on vote and net participation across gender have been confirmed (H3; H4)

• The role of family education and support for youth participation have been “partially” confirmed (H5)

Some critical remarksIs citizenship still a

male issue?

The web: new political platform, new (female) faces in politics?

Parents: obstacles, catalysts or both?

thanks

cinzia.albanesi@unibo.it