FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Voter turnout and civic participation in the EU

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Overview

1. Relevance of participation2. Turnout in EP elections

- Development since 1979- Comparison with NP elections- Types of voters- Multivariate analysis

3. Non-electoral participation in Europe- Frequencies- Dimensions of non-electoral participation- Multivariate analysis

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Relevance of participation• Two important approaches in theories of democracy:

– Input-oriented approaches:aim: maximum of turnout/participationlow turnout/participation: declining support, symptom for a crisis

– Output-oriented approaches:elections as an instrument for the allocation of power and legitimation of the political systemlow turnout/participation: satisfaction and consent with the political system

General evaluation of turnout/participation level is quite difficult.

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

90.889.0

82.4

73.171.2

63.4

58.8

48.4 47.945.1

43.0 42.8 42.4 41.339.4 39.3 38.8 38.6 38.5 37.8

28.3 28.3 26.8

20.917.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

BE LU MT IT CY EL IE LT DK ES DE FR AT LV FI NL UK PT HU SE CZ SI EE PL SK

Turnout in EP election 2004

compulsory voting

EU-turnout: 45.7%

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Development of EPE turnout (selected countries)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

BE NL DE IT IE UK ES FI EU

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Comparison of EPE and NPE turnout

LT

LU IEBE

ITEL MT

CYPL

LV FR UK

PT HU

CZ FI EE ES SIDE

AT DK SKNL

SE

-50.0

-40.0

-30.0

-20.0

-10.0

0.0

10.0

Difference EPE 04-closest NPE

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Database for analysis of turnout

• Mass survey from Intune-projecthttp://www.intune.it/

• Timing: March-April 2007

• 17 European countries: AT, BE, BG, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HU, IT, PL, PT, SI, SK, SR, UK

• Turnout: last EPE, last NPE

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Logistic regression: Turnout EPE

• Nagelkerke‘s R2= 0.252• Most important predictors:

– Perceived duty to vote (EU/Nat.) +– Strength of party identification +– Media consumption +– EU support +– Internal efficacy +– EU identity +– Trust in EU institutions -

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Voter types

12.9

26.6

14.9

31.7

23.7

18.0

15.9

15.8

16.0

16.4

8.7

11.7

15.2

13.1

7.8

7.4

13.0

9.9

2.8

3.7

2.9

3.1

4.9

2.8

4.2

3.3

3.0

3.5

2.0

2.3

5.5

2.5

3.5

1.9

15.7

17.6

16.0

19.9

22.1

24.1

16.3

16.3

14.5

12.2

20.5

17.0

9.3

13.9

18.6

14.2

6.2

68.5

52.0

66.2

45.2

49.3

55.0

63.6

64.6

66.6

67.9

68.8

69.0

69.9

70.5

72.5

74.9

78.8

86.81.5

1.1

1.8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

West

East

Europe

PL

EE

UK

SK

PT

SI

FR

AT

DE

HU

ES

DK

IT

EL

BE

EPE-/NPE- EPE+/NPE- EPE-/NPE+ EPE+/NPE+

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Logistic regression: EPE-only (1)versus NPE-only (0) voters

• Nagelkerke‘s R2= 0.103• Most important predictors:

– Strength of party identification -– EU Identity +– Satisfaction with democracy EU -– EU Benefit +– Class +– Perceived economic situation -– Urbanisation -

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Logistic regression: EPE- and NPE-voters (1) vs. NPE-only (0) voters

• Nagelkerke‘s R2= 0.134• Most important predictors:

– Perceived duty to vote (EU/nat.) +– Media consumption +– Strength of party identification +– EU Identity +– EU Support +– Perceived economic situation -– Internal efficacy +

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Conclusions turnout EPE

• Important variables for turnout in EPE:– Perceived duty to vote– Strength of party identification– EU Identity/Support/Trust

• Possibilities to boost turnout in EPE:– Raise perceived importance of European

level– Emphasise duty to vote

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Database for analysis of civic participation

• ESS, Round 1, 2002/03• 17 EU member states: AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK,

ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI

• 11 forms of non-electoral participation: contact politician, work in party, work in organisation, display badge, sign petition, public demonstration, boycott product, buy product, donate money, illegal protest, party member

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Rel. frequencies of non-electoralactivities in the EU

25.524.2

16.9

14.513.5

9.37.4

6.6

4.0 3.3

1.3

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

sig

n p

etit

ion

bu

y p

rod

uc

t

bo

yco

ttp

rod

uc

t

con

tact

po

liti

cia

n

wo

rk i

no

rgan

isa

tio

n

pu

bli

cd

emo

nst

rati

on

dis

pla

y b

adg

e

do

nat

e m

on

ey

wo

rk i

n p

arty

par

ty m

emb

er

ille

gal

pro

test

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Number of non-electoralactivities in EU countries

74.4

68.3

72.4

76.7

72.5

66.8

46.2

46.7

58.3

49.0

45.1

37.8

34.2

31.4

35.2

36.5

39.7

37.2

27.1

22.4

15.3

17.0

13.9

10.1

14.2

14.8

24.9

23.1

15.7

19.4

21.2

23.3

26.3

26.0

26.2

21.1

18.4

21.1

24.3

22.7

5.0

8.6

7.2

5.2

5.1

7.4

13.2

13.5

8.6

12.2

13.2

15.1

14.9

17.6

13.6

16.3

15.0

14.6

19.0

20.2

5.3

6.1

6.5

8.0

8.2

11.0

15.7

16.7

17.4

19.4

20.5

23.8

24.6

25.0

25.0

26.1

26.9

27.1

29.6

34.7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

HU

SI

PL

PT

GR

IT

CZ

NL

ES

EU

IE

BE

LU

DK

GB

DE

AT

FR

FI

SE

0 modes 1 mode 2 modes more than 2 modes

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Dimensions of non-electoral participation in the EU

Variable 1: Conventional 2: Consumerism 3: Protest Party member 0.761 Work in party 0.731 Donate money 0.597 Contact politician 0.497 Work in organisation 0.414 Buy product 0.816 Boycott product 0.794 Sign petition 0.568 Illegal protest 0.734 Public demonstration 0.707 Display badge 0.530 Eigenvalue 2.06 1.87 1.58 Explained variance (%)

18.8 17.0 14.4

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Multivariate regression: conventional participation

• R2= 0.143• Most important predictors:

– Strength of party identification +– Internal efficacy +– Social participation +– Perceived duty to participate +– Interest in politics +– Woman -– Age +

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Multivariate regression: consumerism

• R2= 0.199• Most important predictors:

– Social participation +– Woman +– Interest in politics +– Education +– Income +– Internal efficacy +– Left-right-scale -

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Multivariate regression:protest activities

• R2= 0.034• Most important predictors:

– Social participation +– Left-right-scale -– Age -– Strength of party identification +– Income -– Internal efficacy +– Religious attendance -– Perceived duty to participate +

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Multivariate regression:participation index

• R2= 0.289• Most important predictors:

– Social participation +– Internal efficacy +– Strength of party identification +– Interest in politics +– Left-right-scale -– Education +– Income +

FP6 CivicActive

Prof. Dr. Hans RattingerDipl.-Pol. Markus Steinbrecher

Conclusions non-electoral participation

• Only minorities participate in non-electoral participation

• Social participation as important predictor for all non-electoral forms of participation

• Besides social participation: very heterogeneous explanations