Bolzen Dahl 2013

bs_bs_banner
P O L I T I C A L S T U D I E S : 2 0 1 3 VO L 6 1 ( S 1 ) , 4 5 6 5
doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12010
Are Good Citizens Good Participants? Testing

Citizenship Norms and Political Participation
across 25 Nations
Catherine Bolzendahl Hilde Coff

University of California, Irvine Victoria University of Wellington
Whereas research on political participation typically investigates a variety of socio-economic and attitudinal charac-
teristics, this cross-national study focuses on the relevance of norms when explaining political participation. We
examine respondents normative beliefs about the importance of various measures of good citizenship, and their
relationship to three modes of political engagement (activism, party membership and voting).We find assigning higher
importance to paying taxes/obeying the law is negatively linked to all forms of participation, whereas the opposite is
true for norms about the importance of voting and being active in associations. Greater emphasis on norms about
understanding others and shopping politically is positively associated with political activism but not with more
institutional forms of participation.The relationship between norms and participation differs somewhat across nations,
with the most differences between Eastern European respondents and those from Western European and Western
non-European respondents. In line with theories on democratic learning, we find that the relationship between
citizenship norms and participation is often weakest among Eastern Europeans. Conclusions about the subjective and
variable nature of democratic citizenship are discussed.
Keywords: political behavior; citizenship; voting; public opinion; comparative
A participatory citizenry is crucial for democratic responsiveness and is an intrinsic

democratic good (Arendt, 1958; Lijphart, 1997; Verba, 1996). Given the importance of
participation, it is understandable that the question of why citizens participate in democratic
politics has motivated years of research across several fields of social science. In addition to
a variety of socio-economic and attitudinal characteristics, some scholars have suggested
that the norms citizens hold about good citizenship may be as, if not more, important
(Dalton, 2009; Denters et al., 2007; Jasso and Opp, 1997; Raney and Berdahl, 2009). Norms
are strong predictors of political behavior (Blais et al., 2000; Jasso and Opp, 1997), though
scholars also suggest that the effect of norms may vary by situation (Jasso and Opp, 1997),
making it unclear how and to what extent different norms of citizenship relate to
participation and how this may vary across democratic contexts.
Here, we study meanings and practices of citizenship across an array of democratic
nations where participation and norms of good citizenship may represent a number of
relevant behaviors and beliefs (e.g. voting, fund-raising, obeying the law and/or helping
others), making it necessary to consider substantive variations in both.We ask two related
questions: first, (how) are citizenship norms linked to various types of political participation? Second,
do relationships between citizenship norms and political participation vary cross-nationally? To
address these questions we utilize data from the 2004 International Social Survey Program
(ISSP) for 25 industrialized democratic nations/regions, assessing possible differences
between newer democracies (formerly communist countries) and older democracies
2013 The Authors. Political Studies 2013 Political Studies Association
46 C A T H E R I N E B O L ZE N D A H L A N D H I L D E C O F F
(including Western European countries, the US, Canada,Australia and New Zealand). Even
though political theorists have examined the qualities of good citizenship in depth,
empirical scholarship has produced only a handful of studies focusing only on a few
Western European countries and the US that analyze the publics understanding of this
concept (Almond and Verba, 1963; Conover et al., 1991; 2004; Dalton, 2008; Denters et al.,
2007;Theiss-Morse, 1993), and none has investigated the link between various citizenship
norms and different modes of political behavior in detail. Here a comprehensive, compara-
tive approach builds insights from theories of the importance of democratic norms (Dalton,
2008; Denters et al., 2007; Jasso and Opp, 1997) and investigates the relevance of democratic
learning theory for cross-national variation in normbehavior linkages (Gurin and Crte,
2004; Peffley and Rohrschneider, 2003).
Linking Citizenship Norms and Political Participation

Explanations of why people participate typically center on the broad categories of structure,
agency and culture (Norris, 2002). Social cleavages of age, gender, race and class are all
structural factors that matter for the ways they influence access to resources such as money,
time, knowledge and skills.Agency is shaped by how one is embedded in organizations and
social networks (e.g. trade unions) influencing involvement. Attitudes and values regarding
politics (e.g. political interest) are cultural factors that may be linked to structural factors but
are also seen as independent influences.Yet prior studies focusing on such cultural factors
tend only passively and generically to link attitudes to participation, for example by looking
at the effect of political interest (Andersen and Hoff, 2001; Martin and van Deth, 2007),
(dis)incentives (Pattie et al., 2003) or beliefs of efficacy (Stolle et al., 2005).While important,
such approaches cannot tell us the extent to which citizens may see different types of
participation as a more or less normative aspect of citizenship, despite convincing evidence
from prior research that norms of participation are highly influential (Blais et al., 2000;
Dalton, 2009; Opp, 1986; Raney and Berdahl, 2009).Thus, in this article, we investigate the
extent to which norms about good citizenship are cultural factors influencing political
participation. Before considering in more detail how norms may be linked to participation,
we briefly introduce the concept of citizenship norms and the variety in such norms.
Citizenship Norms
As cultural phenomena, norms can prescribe or proscribe behavior and are arguably
important regulators of social behavior (Hechter and Opp, 2001). A basic definition of
citizenship norms is a shared set of expectations about the citizens role in politics (Dalton,
2008, p. 78).Yet the extent and structure of such consensus may vary (Jasso and Opp, 1997;
Rossi and Berk, 1985).This opens the possibility that citizenship norms vary across nations
in strength and form, and in their relationship to participation. Moreover, different catego-
ries or dimensions of citizenship norms have been presented across literatures.Theoretical
approaches to the meaning of citizenship have vacillated between an emphasis on rights
(e.g. Marshall, 1950) and responsibilities (e.g. Sandel, 1998). The focus on norms of what
citizens should do explicitly taps into responsibility framings, and among these responsi-
bilities scholars have identified various dimensions. Many theoretical approaches emphasize
three principal themes political activity, civic duty and social responsibility (Janoski, 1998;
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013, 61(S1)
C I T I ZE N S H I P N O R M S A N D PA R T I C I P A T I O N 47
Lister, 2003; Marshall, 1950), which have been substantiated by a limited body of empirical
research (Bolzendahl and Coff, 2009; Denters et al., 2007). Empirically, a political dimen-
sion combines beliefs in the importance of voting, being active in social and political
associations and keeping a watch on government; a civil dimension includes the importance
of paying taxes and obeying the law; and a social dimension has included the importance
of understanding the opinions of others, shopping for political reasons and helping those
worse off (e.g. Bolzendahl and Coff, 2009).Yet other studies have varied in their defini-
tions. For example, Jan Van Deth (2007) refers to a Swedish citizenship study that distin-
guishes four dimensions: solidarity, participation, law obeying and autonomy. In the US,
Russell Dalton (2008; 2009) empirically distinguishes two faces of citizenship norms:
engaged citizenship norms and duty-based citizenship norms.Whereas duty-based citizenship
primarily involves norms of social order, including the obligation to vote and pay taxes,
engaged citizenship incorporates participation in non-electoral activities and the need to try
to understand the opinion of others and help those who are worse off. Daltons studies have
been highly influential and formed the basis of a few studies linking norms to participation
(Dalton, 2008, 2009; Raney and Berdahl, 2009), as we describe below. Given the lack of
consensus in approaches to dimensions of citizenship norms, we will forgo a priori defini-
tions of dimensions, exploring potential patterns in similarities across norms and how they
are related to various forms of participation.
Citizenship Norms and Political Behavior

Why, to what extent, and how would citizenship norms be related to political behavior?
Whereas this research question has been highlighted as an important one to consider
(Dalton, 2009), hitherto it has received little attention. In general, political cultural research
stresses that beliefs and values have an effect on behavior independent from other structural
factors (Inglehart, 2008; Inglehart and Baker, 2000; Lipset, 1996). However, it is also
important to note that norms are a specific case of beliefs or attitudes, namely that norms
are directly linked to particular behaviors, and backed by sanctions (internal or external)
that produce accountability (Hechter and Opp, 2001; Horne, 2003; Knack, 1992; Liefbroer
and Billari, 2010). For example, in Australia and Belgium, citizenship norms about the
importance of voting are backed by legal and economic sanctions (Ashworth et al., 2006;
Panagopoulos, 2008), but in most industrialized democracies norms about voting are
sanctioned by internalized feelings of guilt or shame or fear of external judgments levied by
friends, family or community members (Horne, 2003; Knack, 1992; Raney and Berdahl,
2009).The greater the internalization of the norm, the stronger the effect of norms on the
associated behavior (Blais et al., 2000; Horne, 2003; Pattie et al., 2003). Thus, norms about
the behavior of good citizens are different from more abstract attitudes about political
tolerance or efficacy, which some research has conflated (Gurin and Crte, 2004).
Much of the relatively limited previous work linking citizenship norms to participation
frames norms as soft incentives toward participation (Olson, 1965; Opp, 1986), highlighting
the rational utility of participation in the face of internalized or external sanctions (Horne,
2003; Knack, 1992; Liefbroer and Billari, 2010).This approach was seen as improving more
limited resource-based rational accounts of participation, which could not fully address
seemingly irrational decisions to participate (Leighley, 1995).Yet the relationship between
norms and behavior is complex. Rational choice theories and theories of self-selectivity
would argue that norms of citizenship and participation relate highly and positively with a
strong sense of civic duty producing high levels of participation (Armingeon, 2007).
Socialization arguments would also favor the causal impact of norms on behavior; for
example, being raised to believe voting is an important aspect of good citizenship should
encourage voting when a person becomes of age (Alwin et al., 1991).
Although some research argues that it is participation that produces democratic values
(though norms have not been examined) (Gurin and Crte, 2004; Peffley and Rohr-
schneider, 2003), the literature generally treats norms as motivations for behavior (and not
vice versa) (Andersen and Hoff, 2001; Blais et al., 2000; Dalton, 2008; Horne, 2003; Schwartz
and Bardi, 1997; Theiss-Morse, 1993).Van Deth (2007, p. 403) highlights that people will
engage in politics and public affairs in ways consistent with their norms of citizenship.
Dalton (2009) makes a strong case for how changing norms between generations have
influenced the repertoire of political activities citizens engage in nowadays.Yet regardless of
the mechanism, research suggests that the link between norms and behavior is not always
straightforward. Especially if norms are not strongly internalized, a slippage between norms
and actual behavior may exist where behavior lags behind a more principled stance, as some
related research would suggest (Peffley and Rohrschneider, 2003). Further, given that norms
and forms of participation vary, the links between them may also be different.1
Literature studying single nations or regions suggests that a few potential patterns
between different types of norm and political behavior may be found. In the US, Dalton
(2008; 2009) proposes that his two dimensions of citizenship norms relate differently to
electoral and non-electoral participation. Norms involving engaged citizenship (e.g. the
importance of forming your own opinions, helping those worse off, being active politically
and in voluntary groups) are positively linked to all forms of participation but voting. In
contrast, duty-based norms (e.g. the importance of voting, obeying the law, serving on a
jury) positively influence voting, but do not matter for more activist types of participation.
In Western Canada,Tracey Raney and Loleen Berdahl (2009) came to a similar conclusion.
They found that a strong sense of duty to vote does not affect participation in what they
call non-traditional forms of participation (protests, petitions and boycotts), though it
positively impacts voting. Conversely, norms of volunteering in the community are posi-
tively related to non-traditional participation and negatively related to voting. Both Dalton
(2008; 2009) and Raney and Berdahl (2009) thus suggest that the most institutionalized
forms of participation are most affected by norms of voting and general norms of official
political engagement, while the most activist types of participation are more strongly
impacted by social/voluntaristic norms. More directly, a number of studies have shown that
norms about voting positively influence voting behavior (Armingeon, 2007; Blais et al.,
2000; Knack, 1992; Muller, 1982; Raney and Berdahl, 2009), and other research shows that
norms of participation influence engagement in protests and even illegal/aggressive
political behavior (Muller, 1982; Opp, 1986; 1994; Opp et al., 1981).
Based on the findings from this prior research and on common notions, we would expect
that norms about more formal citizenship duties, such as voting, paying taxes and obeying
the law, would be positively linked to the more formal and institutionalized forms of
participation (e.g. voting and political party membership), but not linked (or negatively
related) to less formal types of participation. However, norms that are related to more
individual and informal types of citizenship should be positively linked to less formal types
of participation, and not related (or negatively related) to the more formal and institution-
alized types of participation.
Citizenship Norms and Political Participation Cross-Nationally

A social context perspective highlights the importance of understanding how citizenship
norms may vary across democratic political contexts and the ways in which differing norms
may influence a range of behaviors (Ajzen, 1988; Horne, 2003). Beyond this common
notion, however, our knowledge concerning cross-national differences in the link between
citizenship norms and different types of political behavior is limited, as previous studies have
been restricted to one nation or region.
An obvious source of cross-national differences in the link between citizenship norms
and participation is the contrasting political histories of established (e.g.Western European
and non-European nations) versus newly consolidated (or formerly authoritarian) democ-
racies (e.g. Eastern European nations). Not only did life under communist regimes have a
fundamental influence on citizens norms (Schwartz and Bardi, 1997), but theories on
democratic learning may serve as a theoretical backdrop for why the link between norms
and participation is also likely to differ between newer and older democracies (Peffley and
Rohrschneider, 2003).This perspective suggests that the application of more abstract norms
in actual behavior will be more likely when citizens are exposed to democratic politics, have
experiences that encourage the application of norms and have opportunities to translate
their norms into actual behavior (Peffley and Rohrschneider, 2003). Citizens in more stable
democracies have more experience with the freedom and opportunities to express their
views whereas citizens in newer democracies are afforded fewer opportunities to practice
and view the application of citizenship norms.They lived under a regime where ideology
was often disconnected from practice, thus the values surrounding good citizenship may be
less internalized or normative to behavior (Marquart-Pyatt and Paxton, 2007). Moreover,
continuing higher levels of institutional instability and distrust in organizations may dis-
courage citizens in less mature democracies from translating norms into actual behavior
(Howard, 2002; Hutcheson and Korosteleva, 2006). Finally, opportunities to participate in
non-state political activities were historically restricted by the authoritarian regime
(Howard, 2002; Kluegel and Mason, 1999), thus these newer democracies lag in the
development of less institutional forms of participation such as signing petitions or con-
tacting the media (Mishler and Rose, 2002), effectively limiting outlets for translating norms
into practice. Previous research has found that norms about the duty to vote, duties of
solidarity and the duty to form ones own opinion in general influence political partici-
pation more in Western Europe compared to Eastern Europe (Armingeon, 2007).
Along these lines, we expect that the main cleavage among nations will be between the
oldest and newest democracies where, in the formerly communist nations, relationships
between citizenship norms and participation may be more weakly established.While some
variation is likely among the more established democracies, cross-national research on
participation typically treats these nations as a similar type (Norris, 2002), suggesting that
patterns may be quite comparable.
Data, Measures and Methods

We utilize data from the 2004 International Social Survey Program (ISSP) module on
citizenship. The ISSP is a cross-national collaboration of surveys, each of which is fielded
by a scientific organization within the member nation. Surveys are administered in face-
to-face interviews and/or in a self-completion format. Detailed information about the
sampling procedures across the nations and any deviations are available in the study
report (Scholz et al., 2008). Comparable response rates are difficult to calculate given
different definitions across the nations. The raw figures for eligible samples and final
outcomes indicate, nevertheless, that the range in the ISSP is considerable from
about 15 per cent to over 95 per cent for the module. Given our interest in differ-
ences between the newer democracies of Eastern Europe and older Western industrial-
ized democracies, the nations/regions included in our study are: Australia, Austria,
Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Flanders,2 France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland,
Latvia, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United
States. Our sample thus includes a total of 25 countries/regions.3 The final pooled sample
size is 25,177.4 Given the cross-sectional nature of these data, we cannot directly
test causal relationships between norms and participation, but we are able to explore
important relationships which can be further examined with longitudinal data in future
research.
Dependent Variables: Political Activism, Political Party Membership and Voting

Political activism represents the more informal and individualistic types of participation
discussed in prior literature. It is a scale of items asking respondents if they have done eight
types of political action with possible responses of: (1) have not done it and would never do
it; (2) have not done it but might do it; (3) have done it in the more distant past; (4) have
done it in the past year.The actions are: sign a petition; take part in demonstration; attend
political meeting or rally; contact a politician; donate money or raise funds; buy or boycott
goods for political/ethical/environmental reasons; contact media; join an internet political
forum.All items were recoded into binary variables where (1) indicated they had done the
action and (0) indicated they had not. These items load on to one scale (a = 0.72) where
higher values indicate a higher level of activism.5 In this summary scale values were dropped
only for respondents missing on more than five of the items. Due to the skewed distribution
of the scale, where many respondents had performed between one and four of these actions,
but few had engaged in more than four, respondents reporting engaging in more than four
activities were grouped together.6 The resulting scale is ordinal ranging from no participa-
tion (0) to participation in five or more activities (5), and has been rescaled to range
between zero and one. We also analyze two more institutionalized/formal methods of
political participation: party membership and voting. Based on an analysis of predicted
probabilities, political party membership is coded as a binary variable where zero is never a
member and one is some kind of membership, past or present.7 Respondents were asked if
they voted in the last election, with possible responses of (1) yes or (0) no.8 Missing values
for both were dropped.
Independent Variables: Citizenship Norms

This article examines the relationship between citizenship norms and actual citizenship
behavior, focusing on a variety of measures starting with the phrase:To be a good citizen,
how important is it for a person to ....Thus they directly imply a normative standard about
what a good citizen ought to do.There are nine items that respondents rank as (1) not at all
important to (7) very important: (a) never try to evade taxes; (b) obey laws; (c) try to
understand the reasoning of people with other opinions; (d) buy or boycott goods for
political/ethical/environmental reasons; (e) help people in your country who are worse off
than yourself; (f) help people in the world who are worse off than yourself; (g) always vote in
elections; (h) be active in social and political associations; (i) keep a watch on the actions of
government. According to research on the US (Dalton, 2009),engaged citizenship norms
would include (c), (d), (e), (f) and (h); and duty-based citizenship norms would include (a),
(b), (g) and (i).Yet explorative factor analyses did not reveal this pattern among our wide
sample of nations. Hence, we consider the different norms separately.This also allows us to
provide a detailed picture of possible dimensions among citizenship norms (and possible
cross-national differences therein). However, given very high correlations, we combined
responses for (a) paying taxes and (b) obeying the law into one scale; and we combined (e)
helping those in your country and (f) helping those in the world into a second scale. Missing
values were dropped.All norms have been recoded to range between zero and one.
Control Variables
We also control for a variety of characteristics traditionally related to political participation,
dropping missing values.9 Results for control variables are not presented below due to space
limitations. We include controls for gender, age, age-squared, employment status, occupa-
tion, education, marital status, urban residence, religious attendance, political trust, political
efficacy and social trust.Their operationalization is described in the Appendix and all results
for control variables are listed in Appendix Table A1.
Analytical Strategy
To study the link between citizenship norms and political participation, we explore pooled
and country-specific regressions including all controls for the relationship between citizen-
ship norms and political participation. Pooled models allow us to establish a general baseline
set of expectations. Country-specific regressions highlight the extent to which individual
nations conform to the baseline patterns or form other sub-national groups. Pooled models
include country fixed effects and robust standard errors clustered by nation.The ordinal scale
of political activism is analyzed using ordered logit regression, and binary logistic regressions
are used to investigate political party membership and voting behavior. We caution that
because effect size is confounded with the variance of the errors in each model, neither
coefficients nor odds ratios can be compared across models (i.e. across nations) (Long, 2007).
Citizenship Norms and Political Participation

Descriptive Patterns
Before testing the relationship between citizenship norms and participation, we examine
patterns in both sets of variables in Table 1. Here we investigate the extent to which nations
52
Table 1: Means/Proportions for All Measures of Citizenship Norms and Political Participation
Citizenship norms Political participation
Pay taxes/ Be active Keep watch Understand Buy/ Help others in Political Party
obey law Vote in assn on govt reasoning boycott country/world activism member Voted
Australia 0.88 0.86 0.55 0.84 0.82 0.69 0.72 0.56 0.04
Austria 0.80 0.78 0.55 0.74 0.78 0.68 0.74 0.63 0.18 0.83
Bulgaria 0.91 0.72 0.44 0.57 0.75 0.27 0.68 0.22 0.07 0.72
Canada 0.90 0.90 0.60 0.89 0.84 0.66 0.72 0.62 0.18 0.91
Czech Republic 0.78 0.60 0.40 0.53 0.63 0.43 0.57 0.25 0.08 0.43
Denmark 0.84 0.92 0.48 0.73 0.80 0.61 0.72 0.60 0.08 0.92
Finland 0.82 0.74 0.34 0.61 0.75 0.54 0.61 0.49 0.10 0.80
Flanders 0.73 0.73 0.40 0.66 0.76 0.53 0.64 0.42 0.11
France 0.79 0.88 0.56 0.70 0.78 0.61 0.67 0.63 0.05 0.86
Germany 0.81 0.69 0.46 0.71 0.76 0.55 0.68 0.55 0.05 0.90
Hungary 0.85 0.74 0.37 0.63 0.71 0.55 0.55 0.12 0.01 0.82
Ireland 0.87 0.86 0.53 0.82 0.81 0.64 0.81 0.45 0.10 0.84
Latvia 0.81 0.71 0.43 0.59 0.70 0.45 0.63 0.32 0.02 0.69
Netherlands 0.77 0.83 0.52 0.78 0.82 0.56 0.71 0.60 0.12 0.94
Norway 0.80 0.86 0.53 0.76 0.79 0.53 0.69 0.56 0.17 0.88
New Zealand 0.86 0.85 0.46 0.75 0.78 0.57 0.61 0.60 0.11 0.92
Poland 0.87 0.77 0.55 0.78 0.77 0.48 0.77 0.14 0.01 0.69
Portugal 0.88 0.84 0.65 0.81 0.83 0.75 0.82 0.38 0.06 0.76
Slovenia 0.80 0.68 0.44 0.66 0.76 0.65 0.72 0.27 0.06 0.76
Spain 0.85 0.80 0.58 0.71 0.80 0.73 0.82 0.43 0.06 0.84
Slovakia 0.88 0.71 0.42 0.63 0.76 0.54 0.73 0.41 0.08 0.82
Sweden 0.79 0.89 0.41 0.82 0.79 0.60 0.65 0.54 0.10 0.92
Switzerland 0.77 0.74 0.54 0.67 0.80 0.66 0.73 0.54 0.10 0.63
UK 0.89 0.72 0.41 0.71 0.78 0.55 0.65 0.46 0.10 0.74
US 0.91 0.87 0.61 0.86 0.81 0.64 0.74 0.51 0.43 0.64
Average 0.83 0.79 0.49 0.72 0.78 0.58 0.70 0.46 0.10 0.79
Notes: Descriptive statistics shown based on missing values dropped for political activism and party membership. Missing values for voting behavior are dropped separately. Shaded cells are formerly communist nations.

C A T H E R I N E B O L ZE N D A H L A N D H I L D E C O F F

Source: ISSP 2004.
vary in their overall patterns of norms and behavior, which may ultimately also influence
the relationship between the two.
Respondents in all the nations feel that paying taxes and obeying the law is very
important, and there is little cross-national variation.The same is true with regard to voting,
with no clear patterns of cross-national difference. Being active in associations is less
important overall, and members of the formerly communist nations tend to place less
importance than average on this, but the pattern does not appear particularly strong. This
weak pattern of difference is also seen with regard to the importance of keeping a watch
on government, understanding the reasoning of others and helping others who are worse
off. The only clear pattern seems to be with regard to political consumerism as a norm,
where most of the newer democracies feel it is much less important than average to buy or
boycott goods for political/ethical/environmental reasons. Overall it does appear that the
political system in a country influences support for normative aspects of citizenship, with
the newest democracies tending to assign less importance than average to engaged types of
norm, but the patterns are not stark or consistent.
The main differences are found with regard to political participation where the formerly
communist nations have the lowest levels of activism and party membership. The pattern
does not extend to voting, where the Czech Republic reports the lowest level of voting (43
per cent), while other former Eastern European countries such as Hungary and Slovakia
have high levels (82 per cent). Thus, looking at the descriptive patterns, we see some
evidence that democracy as represented by norms and participation is weaker in the
newest democracies, but any patterns depend on the measure examined, and similarities
among nations are common.
Pooled Multivariate Analyses

Next we turn to our multivariate regressions based on our pooled data.Table 2 presents the
relationships between the different measures of citizenship norms and the three types of
political participation.
Our first model examines an ordered logit regression of political activism. As we
expected based on previous country studies, the various types of engaged citizenship norm
are strongly and positively related to activism. Those who believe in being active in
associations, understanding the reasoning of others, engaging in political consumerism and
helping others who are worse off are significantly more likely to participate in informal
types of participation. Results are mixed with regard to duty-based norms of citizenship.
The most extreme forms of citizenship duty paying taxes and obeying the law are
negatively and strongly related to activism.While nearly all people think it is important to
fulfill these duties (Table 1), these norms are not the basis of more informal types of
participation.Yet those who stress the importance of voting are significantly more likely to
engage in political activism.This suggests that, with regard to citizenship and participation,
voting is quite different from other types of duty (i.e. pay tax/obey law and watch
government).
As we saw in Table 1, few respondents are political party members (10 per cent on
average), but a variety of norms are found to influence such membership. Again, norms
about paying taxes and obeying the law are negatively linked to membership, but norms
Table 2: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients,a Robust Standard Errors and Odds Ratios
for the Relationship between Citizenship Norms and Political Participation
Party Voted in last

Political activismb membershipc electionc,d
To be a good citizen,
how important is it for a b b b
person to: (s.e.) eb (s.e.) eb (s.e.) eb
Pay taxes and obey the law -1.09*** 0.34 -0.63*** 0.53 -0.88*** 0.41
(0.15) (0.16) (0.16)
Vote in elections 0.36*** 1.43 1.23*** 3.43 2.75*** 15.63
(0.07) (0.16) (0.18)
Be active in social and 0.78*** 2.18 1.76*** 5.82 -0.05 0.95
political associations (0.11) (0.24) (.11)
Keep a watch on the actions 0.09 1.10 0.33* 1.39 -0.03 0.97
of government (0.10) (0.16) (0.12)
Understand reasoning of 0.61*** 1.84 -0.26 0.77 -0.11 0.89
people with other opinions (0.11) (0.22) (0.13)
Buy or boycott goods for 0.60*** 1.83 -0.03 0.97 0.09 1.10
political/ethical reasons (0.10) (0.12) (0.08)
Help those worse off in your 0.21* 1.23 -0.25 0.78 -0.28 0.75
country and the world (0.09) (0.15) (0.16)
Cut-points/constant 0.03/1.09/2.04/2.90/3.77 -3.06 -3.39
(0.16/0.14/0.14/0.14/0.14) (0.25) (0.23)
Observations 25,177 25,177 21,518
Pseudo R2 0.11 0.18 0.25
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; two-tailed tests. a Models include all control variables as well as nation fixed effects and
utilize robust standard errors clustered by nation. b Ordered logit regression; c Binary logit regression; d Models for voting exclude
Australia and Flanders, which have compulsory voting.
Source: ISSP 2004.
about voting, being active in associations and keeping a watch on government are positive
influences on membership.Thus, those who value political aspects of citizenship are more
likely to be party members.
Finally, looking at electoral participation, we find, perhaps surprisingly, that those who
most value the duties of paying taxes and obeying the law are not more likely to vote, again
supporting the conclusion that if these are all duties, in the minds of respondents they are
very different types of duty. As expected, stronger voting norms are related to a greater
likelihood of having voted (Blais et al., 2000; Dalton, 2008; Jasso and Opp, 1997; Raney and
Berdahl, 2009).
In sum,voting emerged as a somewhat distinct norm and mode of participation.Those most
likely to vote are those who view voting as most important,and those who view voting as most
important are also more likely to engage in a variety of forms of participation beyond voting.
In this way, norms of voting may be the most influential citizenship norm in democracies.
Country-Specific Multivariate Analyses

In order to discover the extent to which the findings from the pooled sample are valid in
individual nations,we now turn to the results from country-specific regressions inTables 35
for each type of political participation. Nations are presented alphabetically, with formerly
communist nations, which we anticipate will differ most from the general pattern, shaded.
Here we are interested primarily in potential patterns across nations in the effects of norms,
thus we present indicators of whether there was a significant (p < 0.05) positive (+) or
negative (-) relationship in the cell. Blank cells indicate that no significant relationship was
found.The first results we consider are those for political activism in Table 3.
Across the sample of nations, the pooled results compare favorably. In most nations the
negative relationships between paying taxes/obeying the law and positive relationships
between being active in associations and shopping politically are present, with the exception
of Portugal, where shopping norms have a negative effect. Three of the significant rela-
tionships found in the pooled analysis are weaker across nations, suggesting that relation-
ships are only teased out when sample sizes are larger. In particular, voting is always positive
when significant, but only significant in eight nations. The strength of norms regarding
trying to understand the reasoning of others is positive and significant in nine nations, while
helping norms are only positively related to activism in four nations. Interestingly, in France,
norms of understanding the reasoning of others are negatively related to activism, perhaps
indicating a preference for working outside the system. Notably, helping norms were only
weakly related to political activism in the pooled models as well.There is some evidence for
discernible patterns in the relationships between norms and activism in our sample of
nations. Many of the newest democracies have the lowest degree of ties between norms and
activism, especially Latvia, where none of the norms is significant. Interestingly, in all former
Eastern European nations, except Slovenia and Slovakia, there is no significant negative tie
between tax/law norms and activism, suggesting that citizens of these countries are less
likely to separate legal duties from activism, in comparison to respondents in most other
nations. In general, lower support for norms and lower levels of informal/activist partici-
pation, as was indicated in Table 1, are mirrored by similarly weak ties between norms and
activism. Indeed, in the majority of the older democracies, we do find a link between
different norms and actual behavior, indicating that the norms are internalized and trans-
lated into actual behavior. Ireland is an exception, where the norm to pay taxes or obey the
law is the only one that affects political activism significantly and it does so in a negative
way. Interesting to note is the case of the United States where all norms, except helping
others, relate substantially to engagement in political activism. This suggests that among
American citizens citizenship norms seem well internalized and translated into actual
behavior.
Ultimately, while some variation in the link between norms and political activism is clear,
the overall conclusion that engaged citizen norms are linked to more informal participa-
tion holds up in most countries.Yet this does not hold across the board for all norms of
engaged citizenship. It only holds for those norms most concretely linked to actions/
decisions (i.e. being active and shopping politically).
Next, we look at patterns in the relationship between citizenship norms and political
party membership in Table 4. Here, only one effect matters consistently believing it is
56
Table 3: Country-Specific Ordered Logit Regression Resultsa for the Relationship between Citizenship Norms and Participation in
Political Activism
Pay tax/ Active Watch Understand Shop Help Psuedo

obey law* Vote* in assn* govt others* politically* others* N R2
Australia - + + + + 1,470 0.07

Austria - + - + + 779 0.09
Bulgaria + - + 660 0.09
Canada - + + 818 0.06
Czech Rep. + - + 1,060 0.05
Denmark - + + + + 912 0.10
Finland - + + + + 812 0.09
Flanders + + + 1,022 0.06
France - + - + + 872 0.06
Germany - + + + + 965 0.10
Hungary + + + 856 0.09
Ireland - 870 0.04
Latvia 810 0.04
Netherlands - + + 1,381 0.07
Norway - + + + 1,084 0.06
New Zealand - + + + 1,066 0.06
Poland + 952 0.07
Portugal + + - 1,336 0.05
Slovenia - + + 877 0.06
Spain - + + 1,888 0.05
Slovakia - + + 785 0.06
Sweden - + + 913 0.06
Switzerland - + + + + 967 0.10
UK - + + 642 0.07
US - + + + + + 1,380 0.08
Notes: * indicates that this norm was significantly related to activism in the pooled model. Shaded cells are formerly communist nations. Positive (+) or negative (-) relationships significant at p < 0.05, two-tailed tests;
a Models include all control variables.
Source: ISSP 2004.


Table 4: Country-Specific Logit Regression Resultsa for the Relationship between Citizenship Norms and Membership in Political
Parties

obey law* Vote* in assn* govt* others politically others N R2
Australia + - 1,470 0.11

Austria - + 779 0.13
Bulgaria - + + 660 19
Canada + 818 0.11
Czech Rep. + + 1,060 0.18
Denmark + 912 0.21
Finland + + - 812 0.26
Flanders + + - 1,022 0.13

France - + + 872 0.23
Germany + 965 0.19
Hungary + 856 0.35
Ireland + 870 0.07
Latvia - + 810 0.33
C I T I ZE N S H I P N O R M S A N D PA R T I C I P A T I O N
Netherlands + + 1,381 0.19

Norway + + 1,084 0.12
New Zealand + - + 1,066 0.15
Poland + 952 0.46
Portugal - + + 1,336 0.12
Slovenia - + - 877 0.16
Spain - + + 1,888 0.08
Slovakia + 785 0.22
Sweden + - 913 0.22
Switzerland + 967 0.19
UK + + - 642 0.18
US + + - 1,380 0.13
Notes: * indicates that this norm was significantly related to activism in the pooled model. Shaded cells are formerly communist nations. Positive (+) or negative (-) relationships significant at p < 0.05, two-tailed tests;
a Models include all control variables.
Source: ISSP 2004.

57
58
Table 5: Country-Specific Logit Regression Resultsa for the Relationship between Citizenship Norms and Having Voted in the
Last Electionb

obey law* Vote* in assn govt others politically others N R2
Austria - + 614 0.25

Bulgaria + 654 0.18
Canada + 817 0.25
Czech Rep. + 1,067 0.16
Denmark - + 915 0.28
Finland - + 823 0.42
France + - 884 0.25
Germany - + + + 905 0.30
Hungary + - 857 0.20
Ireland + 871 0.33
Latvia + 675 0.22
Netherlands + + - 1,385 0.21
Norway - + 1,024 0.26
New Zealand + + 948 0.32
Poland - + - 912 0.21
Portugal - + + 1,314 0.21
Slovenia + 687 0.27
Spain + + 1,601 0.12
Slovakia + + 760 0.16
Sweden + 918 0.29
Switzerland - + 868 0.21
UK + 649 0.28
US - + - 1,370 0.30
Notes: * indicates that this norm was significantly related to activism in the pooled model. Shaded cells are formerly communist nations. Positive (+) or negative (-) relationships significant
at p < 0.05, two-tailed tests; a Models include all control variables; b We did not perform analyses for voting for Australia and Flanders, which have compulsory voting.
Source: ISSP 2004.


important to be active in political and social associations.The US is an exception, but the

US two-party system membership is less formalized and respondents likely conflate iden-
tification or primary election registration with membership (Scarrow, 2002).10 Voting
norms are significantly and positively related to party membership in nine nations, and a
negative effect of tax/law norms is present in seven nations.The weak positive relationship
between norms of keeping a watch on government and party membership almost disap-
pears and is actually negative in Finland and Sweden. Across the sample, there are no
indicators that newer or older democracies use norms to motivate party membership in
patterned ways.
Finally, we look at country-specific results for the effect of citizenship norms on voting
behavior in Table 5. Again, only one norm matters decisively voting. In every nation
believing it is important for citizens to vote means that a respondent is substantially more
likely to have voted in the last election. Several nations mirror the negative relationship
between norms of paying taxes/obeying the law and voting that was found in the pooled
results, supporting the conclusion that these are often viewed as quite different types of
duty. Otherwise, no patterns emerge across the different nations or geopolitical regions.
Discussion
The meaning of democracy has always been a vital area of debate.While scholars agree on
the importance of participation and shared values, there is little consensus regarding what
types of participation and values matter most or how these relate. However, some work
suggests that the best way to understand why people participate is related to the norms they
have about good citizenship (Blais et al., 2000; Dalton, 2008; 2009; Knack, 1992; Opp, 1986;
Raney and Berdahl, 2009). Here we tested that premise cross-nationally across different
types of participation and allowed for the presence of a variety of citizenship norms, which
represent viable and meaningful differences in core aspects of democracy (Theiss-Morse,
1993).
The findings provide key insights into two main questions. First, on average, do norms
vary in their impact on types of participation? Yes, and not always in ways found by prior
research. Had we followed previous research (e.g., Blais et al., 2000; Dalton, 2008; Knack,
1992; Raney and Berdahl, 2009) and collapsed norms into engaged and duty-based
citizenship, we would have missed important variation in their effects. Duties such as paying
taxes and obeying the law are widely regarded as important but are negatively related to all
types of participation, a finding that is often mirrored in country-specific analyses. Con-
versely, the duty to vote is positively linked to all forms of participation.The effect of the
duty to watch government is weak for most types of participation and among the majority
of the countries.
Thus, our results suggest that the characterization of different duty-based citizenship
norms as one overall dimension of norms may be too broad an approach.Voting emerges
as a distinct activity, apparently valued as an independent democratic good and not as part
of a larger framework of citizenship duties. Respondents agree that citizens should pay their
taxes and obey the law but this provides no impetus to participate. In fact those who value
such norms most may participate less than others. Perhaps those most supportive of the tax
and legal system see no reason to engage beyond such realms.
Further, more engaged types of citizenship norms are also not unidimensional. Some
aspects matter for political activism, but not with regard to party membership, and none for
voting. This variation in the effect of engaged citizenship norms suggests the need for
multiple dimensions of normative citizenship beliefs and that social and political citizen-
ship norms do not entirely overlap as engaged citizenship (Dalton, 2009). Ultimately, if the
relationships between citizenship norms and participation reflect some level of internaliza-
tion (and fear of sanction), we find that tax/law (i.e. civic) citizenship norms are not
internalized participation norms, but voting and association activity (i.e. political) citizen-
ship norms are strongly internalized participation norms in general. Norms such as
shopping politically and understanding the reasoning of others (i.e. social) citizenship
norms are internalized for activism, but not more institutional forms of participation.As we
suggested earlier, theorists have often pointed to three dimensions of citizenship (e.g.
Marshall, 1950), with some empirical work supporting that distinction (Bolzendahl and
Coff, 2009; Denters et al., 2007). It may be possible for future work to focus on these
theoretical categories in detail and understand how they are, or whether they are, present
in all democracies.
The second question is: how well do the general findings describe patterns in individual
nations? Here results are mixed. Political activism findings for each nation correspond most
closely to pooled results, with the exception of Eastern Europe. In line with theories on
democratic learning, patterns are suggestive of some moderate Eastern European differences
when it comes to the least formal type of participation. In particular, the extent to which
citizenship norms are related to such participation is generally weaker among newer
democracies.This finding suggests that a lack of experience in democratic participation may
have reduced the opportunity to associate citizenship norms with political behavior, with
the result that the translation of norms into actual behavior is smaller as compared to
citizens from older democracies. Otherwise, there is a great deal of similarity across the
nations.
Conclusion
Despite variation, one conclusion is clear: norms about good citizenship matter for
political participation, and particularly so for the least institutionalized type of political
participation (political activism). For participation researchers, the findings suggest that
measures of citizenship norms are central to explaining variation in participation. Our more
direct measures of the norms of good citizenship (in effect, what a citizen ought to do) are
consistently related to a variety of political behaviors, regardless of controls for such political
attitudes. Hence, norms matter substantially and in addition to general political attitudes.
Simultaneously, our findings indicate that norms matter differently for a variety of types
of participation. Different modes of participation may not be competing forms of repre-
sentation in the political system (Saward, 2006), per se, but our findings indicate that they
are based on competing notions of norms associated with good citizenship. For those
concerned with increasing participation, this suggests that finding ways to boost the
importance with which citizens imbue political and social responsibilities may be a
necessary step, whereas more legalistic, civic duty-based norms tend to undermine an active
citizenry.
In terms of scholarship on democratization and democratic learning, our findings show

that uniform support for democratic norms and their impact on behavior cannot be
assumed.While prior research suggests that political tolerance lags behind the acceptance of
democratic norms (Peffley and Rohrschneider, 2003), our results indicate that norms about
good citizenship themselves must also be learned and applied. If findings regarding political
tolerance translate to norms, as Eastern European nations gain more democratic experience,
this may itself strengthen ties between norms and participation (Gurin and Crte, 2004).
Ultimately, this suggests that simply learning democratic beliefs about good citizenship is
not sufficient. Beliefs matter, but how and where these beliefs are mobilized may be as
crucial. Hence, norms of good citizenship, while highly desirable, are only a first step toward
a full democracy.
Appendix: Operationalization and Results for All Control Variables

We control for a variety of characteristics traditionally related to political participation,
dropping missing values. All variables were recoded to range from zero to one. Gender is
dichotomous, with men coded as zero and women as one. Age is continuous, and we
introduce a squared value for age to control for life-course-related non-linearities. Employ-
ment status is represented by three categories: full-time employment, part-time employ-
ment and those not in the labor force. Using 1988 ISCO codes, occupation is represented
by four groups: (1) managers, professionals, technicians and associate professionals; (2) clerks,
service workers, shop and market sales workers and armed forces; (3) skilled agriculture
workers, craft workers, plant and machine operators, assemblers and elementary occupa-
tions; and (4) no occupation. Education is dichotomous indicating attainment of a univer-
sity degree. Marital status includes: (1) respondents who are married, are living together as
married or who are widowed; (2) respondents who are divorced or separated; and (3)
respondents who are single and have never been married.The place of residence is coded
as 0 for rural and 1 for urban. Religious attendance ranges from (0) never to (7) several times
a week.
We introduce four attitudinal variables found to be important corollaries of democratic
values and participation. Political trust asks if most of the time we can trust people in
government to do what is right. Political efficacy scales two items (r = 0.60): People like
me dont have any say about what the government does, and I dont think the gov-
ernment cares much what people like me think. Higher scores represent more political
efficacy. Values were deleted if responses were missing for both questions. Social trust is:
Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you cant
be too careful in dealing with people? Higher values refer to more trust, ranging from
(0) You almost always cant be too careful in dealing with people, to (1) People can
almost always be trusted. All results for control variables are presented in Appendix
Table A1.

Table A1: Results for Control Variables for Pooled Models
Political Party Voted in

activisma membershipb last electionb,c
Political efficacy 0.64*** 0.56*** 0.61***

0.07 (0.12) (0.10)
Trust in government -0.10*** 0.05 0.01
0.02 (0.02) (0.03)
Social trust 0.77*** 0.30** 0.48***
0.08 (0.11) (0.10)
Church attendance 0.07 0.49*** 0.51***
0.08 (0.14) (0.12)
Female -0.18*** -0.36*** 0.01
0.04 (0.08) (0.05)
University degree 0.61*** 0.17 0.24**
0.04 (0.11) (0.09)
Age 2.91*** 2.17*** 6.64***
0.37 (0.58) (0.63)
Age2 -3.65*** -0.57 -5.16***
0.45 (0.72) (0.66)
Married/widowed -0.08** -0.02 0.22**
0.03 (0.08) (0.08)
Divorced/separated 0.01 -0.04 -0.29***
0.04 (0.13) (0.07)
Employed full-time -0.03 0.11 0.29***
0.05 (0.07) (0.07)
Employed part-time 0.13* 0.12 0.21*
0.06 (0.10) (0.09)
Professional occup. 0.40*** 0.09 0.44***
0.10 (0.16) (0.11)
Service occup. 0.06 0.05 0.23
0.10 (0.17) (0.12)
Agriculture/craft occup. -0.22* -0.06 -0.02
0.11 (0.20) (0.09)
Urban resident 0.13** -0.19** -0.23*
0.04 (0.06) (0.10)
Cut-points/constant 0.01/1.07/2.02/2.88/3.73 -3.06 -3.39
(0.16/0.14/0.14/0.14/0.14) (0.25) (0.23)
Observations 25,177 25,094 21,518
Pseudo R2 0.11 0.18 0.25
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; two-tailed tests. All models include nation fixed effects and utilize robust standard errors
clustered by nation. a Ordered logit regression; b Binary logit regression; c Models for voting exclude Australia and Flanders, which
have compulsory voting.
Source: ISSP 2004.
(Accepted: 11 June 2012)

About the Authors

Catherine Bolzendahl is an Associate Professor of Sociology at UC-Irvine. In addition to her work with Hilde Coff
on citizenship and political participation (for example, in the British Journal of Sociology and Social Science Quarterly) she
publishes on the comparative relationship between womens political power and social policy outcomes (for example,
in Social Politics, Politics & Gender, Social Forces and European Sociological Review), patterns in support for gender equality
(for example, in Social Forces and Social Science Research) and she is a co-author of Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and
Americans Definitions of Family (Russell Sage Foundation, 2010), which examines definitions of family. Catherine
Bolzendahl, Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine, 3151 Social Science Plaza, Irvine, CA 92617,
USA; email: cbolzend@uci.edu
Hilde Coff is a Senior Lecturer in Political Science at the Political Science and International Relations Programme
of Victoria University of Wellington. Her research largely focuses on public opinion, political participation and
representation, and voting behavior. Some of her recent work has been published in Electoral Studies, Party Politics,
European Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Indicators Research, Acta Politica, Social Science Quarterly, Sex
Roles and Womens Studies International Forum. Hilde Coff, Political Science and International Relations Programme,
Victoria University of Wellington, Murphy Building, Kelburn Parade, PO Box 600,Wellington 6140, New Zealand;
email: hilde.coffe@vuw.ac.nz
Notes
This research was financially supported by the University of California and Utrecht University Collaborative Grant Program.We thank
the Utrecht University Department of Sociology and the University of California, Irvine, Department of Sociology and Center for
the Study of Democracy for instrumental support. We also thank Nina Bandelj, Cynthia Feliciano, Matt Huffman, Andrew Penner,
Brea Perry, Joy Pixley, Shawna Smith and Laura Stoker, as well as the participants of the Citizenship Session at the 2009 Dutch/
Flemish Conference of Sociology for helpful comments on previous drafts.
1 To understand political participation, studies have often focused on voting and political party membership, but increasingly include
other types of participation in order to provide a more complete picture of participation. For example, some scholars have focused
on political consumerism as a new type of political behavior and distinguished more private and individual types of political behavior
from more collective modes of political participation such as attending meetings and participation in demonstrations (e.g.Andersen
and Tobiasen, 2004; Pattie et al., 2003; Stolle et al., 2005). It is also increasingly common to distinguish between electoral or more
institutional forms of participation (e.g. voting and party membership) as compared to more voluntaristic or activism-oriented
types of participation (e.g. Marien et al., 2010; Raney and Berdahl, 2009; Teorell et al., 2007).
2 The ISSP only includes data for the Belgian Dutch-speaking region Flanders. Flanders was also excluded from the analysis on
voting, since the question on voting behavior was not included in the Flemish survey.
3 The sample includes 24 nations as a whole, and one nation measured as a region (Flanders). In Austria, Australia, the Czech
Republic, Spain and Flanders the sample refers to citizens of the nation. In all other nations the sample was random and may
include non-citizens.The data do not provide a way of controlling for whether the respondents citizenship matched the nation
of interview, and we avoid referring to respondents as citizens per se.
4 Due to high numbers of missing values on voting, and the fact that the item was not asked in Flanders, missing values were dropped
separately for this item, with a final pooled N of 25,306.
5 The inter-item correlation was strong across nations with a > 0.6. Because the items are dichotomous, a Mokken scale procedure
(Van Schuur, 2011) conducted in Stata (v 11.2) revealed one scale with Loevinger H coefficients between 0.35 and 0.63 (root pair)
(Hardouin, 2004). All items significantly integrate with the root pair (petitions and political/ethical consumerism).
6 Respondents in the Western democracies were highly likely to have engaged in two or more of the activities, while those in the
formerly communist nations were more likely to have performed none of these actions, as reflected by the mean values presented
in Table 1.
7 Results are consistent with ordinal logistic regressions of the original four-outcome coding, further indicating that the ordinal
model mainly explained this dichotomous relationship. Ordinal logistic results and predicted probabilities are available upon
request.
8 Because Australia has compulsory voting, all voting models were run excluding it.This did not change any of the findings (other
than strengthening some already significant relationships).
9 Religious denomination and political ideology had to be excluded because these are not available as consistent measures across
the nations. Models run where their inclusion was possible indicate no significant differences in the results.
10 A more accurate figure for US party membership is between 4 and 14 per cent.Throughout the twentieth century parties in the
US (and Canada) did not focus on developing centrally coordinated membership organizations, which also explains why
respondents may view membership differently than in other nations (Scarrow, 2002).
References
Ajzen, I. (1988) Atttitudes, Personality and Behavior. Chicago IL: Dorsey.
Almond, G.A. and Verba, S. (1963) The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Alwin, D. F., Cohen, R. L. and Newcomb, T. M. (1991) Political Attitudes over the Life Span:The Bennington Women after 50Years.
Madison WI: Wisconsin University Press.
Andersen, J. G. and Hoff, J. (2001) Democracy and Citizenship in Scandinavia. New York: Palgrave.
Andersen, J. G. and Tobiasen, M. (2004) Who are these Political Consumers Anyway? Survey Evidence from Denmark, in
M. Micheletti, A. Fllesdal and D. Stolle (eds), Politics, Products and Markets: Exploring Political Consumerism Past and Present.
New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 20321.
Arendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Armingeon, K. (2007) Political Participation and Associational Involvement, in J. van Deth, J. R. Montero and A. Westholm
(eds), Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies: A Comparative Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 35883.
Ashworth, J., Geys, B. and Heyndels, B. (2006) Everyone Likes a Winner: An Empirical Test of the Effect of Electoral
Closeness on Turnout in a Context of Expressive Voting, Public Choice, 128, 383405.
Blais, A., Young, R. and Lapp, M. (2000) The Calculus of Voting: An Empirical Test, European Journal of Political Research,
37 (2), 181201.
Bolzendahl, C. and Coff, H. (2009) Citizenship beyond Politics: The Importance of Political, Civil and Social Rights and
Responsibilities among Women and Men, British Journal of Sociology, 60 (4), 76391.
Conover, P. J., Crewe, I. M. and Searing, D. D. (1991) The Nature of Citizenship in the United States and Great Britain:
Empirical Comments on Theoretical Themes, Journal of Politics, 53 (3), 80032.
Conover, P. J., Searing, D. D. and Crewe, I. (2004) The Elusive Ideal of Equal Citizenship: Political Theory and Political
Psychology in the United States and Great Britain, Journal of Politics, 66 (4), 103668.
Dalton, R. J. (2008) Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation, Political Studies, 56 (1), 7698.
Dalton, R. J. (2009) The Good Citizen: How aYounger Generation is Reshaping American Politics, revised edition. Washington DC:
CQ Press.
Denters, B., Gabriel, O. and Torcal, M. (2007) Norms of Good Citizenship, in J.W. van Deth, J. R. Montero and A. Westholm
(eds), Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies: A Comparative Analysis. New York: Routledge, pp. 88108.
Gurin, D. and Crte, F. P. J. (2004) Tolerance, Protest and Democratic Transition: Survey Evidence from 13 Post-communist
Countries, European Journal of Political Research, 43 (3), 37195.
Hardouin, J.-B. (2004) Manual for the SAS Macro-program %MSP and the Stata Module MSP, sixth edition. Available from:
http://www.camri.uqam.ca/camri/app/statistics/IRT/SAS_IRT/msp.pdf [Accessed 20 April 2012].
Hechter, M. and Opp, K.-D. (2001) Introduction, in M. Hechter and K.-D. Opp (eds), Social Norms. NewYork: Russell Sage
Foundation, pp. xixx.
Horne, C. (2003) The Internal Enforcement of Norms, European Sociological Review, 19 (4), 33543.
Howard, M. M. (2002) The Weakness of Postcommunist Civil Society, Journal of Democracy, 13 (1), 15769.
Hutcheson, D. S. and Korosteleva, E.A. (2006) Patterns of Participation in Post-Soviet Politics, Comparative European Politics,
4 (1), 2346.
Inglehart, R. (2008) Changing Values among Western Publics from 1970 to 2006, West European Politics, 31 (1), 13046.
Inglehart, R. and Baker, W. E. (2000) Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values, American
Sociological Review, 65 (1), 1951.
Janoski, T. (1998) Citizenship and Civil Society:A Framework of Rights and Obligations in Liberal,Traditional, and Social Democratic
Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jasso, G. and Opp, K.-D. (1997) Probing the Character of Norms: A Factorial Survey Analysis of the Norms of Political
Action, American Sociological Review, 62 (6), 94764.
Kluegel, J. R. and Mason, D. S. (1999) Political Involvement in Transition:Who Participated in Central and Eastern Europe?,
International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 40 (1), 4160.
Knack, S. (1992) Civic Norms, Social Sanctions, and Voter Turnout, Rationality and Society, 4 (2), 13356.
Leighley, J. E. (1995) Attitudes, Opportunities and Incentives: A Field Essay on Political Participation, Political Research
Quarterly, 48 (1), 181209.
Liefbroer, A. C. and Billari, F. C. (2010) Bringing Norms Back In: A Theoretical and Empirical Discussion of Their
Importance for Understanding Demographic Behaviour, Population, Space and Place, 16 (4), 287305.
Lijphart, A. (1997) Unequal Participation: Democracys Unresolved Dilemma, American Political Science Review, 91 (1), 114.
Lipset, S. M. (1996) American Exceptionalism: A Double Edged Sword. New York: W. W. Norton.
Lister, R. (2003) Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Long, J. S. (2007) Comparing Group Effects in Nonlinear Models: Statistical Problems and Substantive Insights. Research talk
given at the University of Notre Dame. Available from: http://www.indiana.edu/~jslsoc/research.htm [Accessed 16
March 2012].
Marien, S., Hooghe, M. and Quintelier, E. (2010) Inequalities in Non-institutionalised Forms of Political Participation: A
Multi-level Analysis of 25 Countries, Political Studies, 58 (1), 187213.
Marquart-Pyatt, S. and Paxton, P. (2007) In Principle and in Practice: Learning Political Tolerance in Eastern and Western
Europe, Political Behavior, 29 (1), 89113.
Marshall, T. H. (1950) Citizenship and Social Class, and Other Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, I. and van Deth, J. W. (2007) Political Involvement, in J. W. van Deth, J. R. Montero and A. Westholm (eds),
Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies. New York: Routledge, pp. 30333.
Mishler, W. and Rose, R. (2002) Learning and Re-learning Regime Support:The Dynamics of Post-communist Regimes,
European Journal of Political Research, 41 (1), 536.

Muller, E. N. (1982) An Explanatory Model for Differing Types of Participation, European Journal of Political Research, 10 (1),
116.
Norris, P. (2002) Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olson, M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Opp, K.-D. (1986) Soft Incentives and Collective Action: Participation in the Anti-nuclear Movement, British Journal of
Political Science, 16 (1), 87112.
Opp, K.-D. (1994) Repression and Revolutionary Action: East Germany in 1989, Rationality and Society, 6 (1), 10138.
Opp, K.-D., Burow-Auffarth, K. and Heinrichs, U. (1981) Conditions for Conventional and Unconventional Political
Participation: An Empirical Test of Economic and Sociological Hypotheses, European Journal of Political Research, 9 (2),
14768.
Panagopoulos, C. (2008) The Calculus of Voting in Compulsory Voting Systems, Political Behavior, 30 (4), 45567.
Pattie, C., Seyd, P. and Whiteley, P. (2003) Citizenship and Civic Engagement: Attitudes and Behaviour in Britain, Political
Studies, 51 (3), 44368.
Peffley, M. and Rohrschneider, R. (2003) Democratization and Political Tolerance in Seventeen Countries: A Multi-level
Model of Democratic Learning, Political Research Quarterly, 56 (3), 24357.
Raney, T. and Berdahl, L. (2009) Birds of a Feather? Citizenship Norms, Group Identity, and Political Participation in Western
Canada, Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 42 (1), 187209.
Rossi, P. H. and Berk, R. A. (1985) Varieties of Normative Consensus, American Sociological Review, 50 (3), 33347.
Sandel, M. J. (1998) Democracys Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Saward, M. (2006) Democacy and Citizenship: Expanding Domains, in J. S. Dryzek, B. Honig and A. Phillips (eds), The
Oxford Handbook of Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 40021.
Scarrow, S. E. (2002) Parties without Members?, in R. Dalton and M. Wattenberg (eds), Parties without Partisans: Political
Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 79101.
Scholz, E., Harkness, J. and Faa, T. (2008) ISSP Study Monitoring 2004. Report to the ISSP General Assembly on monitoring
work undertaken for the ISSP by GESIS-ZUMA. GESIS (Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences), Mannheim: Germany.
Schwartz, S. H. and Bardi, A. (1997) Influences of Adaptation to Communist Rule on Value Priorities in Eastern Europe,
Political Psychology, 18 (2), 385410.
Stolle, D., Hooghe, M. and Micheletti, M. (2005) Politics in the Supermarket: Political Consumerism as a Form of Political
Participation, International Political Science Review, 26 (3), 24569.
Teorell, J., Torcal, M. and Montero, J. R. (2007) Political Participation: Mapping the Terrain, in J. van Deth, J. R. Montero
and A. Westholm (eds), Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies:A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge,
pp. 33457.
Theiss-Morse, E. (1993) Conceptualizations of Good Citizenship and Political Participation, Political Behavior, 15 (4), 35580.
Van Deth, J. (2007) Norms of Citizenship, in R. J. Dalton and H.-D. Klingemann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political
Behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 40217.
Van Schuur, W. H. (2011) Ordinal Item Response Theory: Mokken Scale Analysis. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Verba, S. (1996) The Citizen as Respondent: Sample Surveys and American Democracy Presidential Address, American
Political Science Association, 1995, American Political Science Review, 90 (1), 17.


Bolzen Dahl 2013

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bolzen Dahl 2013

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

bs_bs_banner

Are Good Citizens Good Participants? Testing

Catherine Bolzendahl Hilde Coff

Keywords: political behavior; citizenship; voting; public opinion; comparative

A participatory citizenry is crucial for democratic responsiveness and is an intrinsic

Linking Citizenship Norms and Political Participation

Citizenship Norms and Political Behavior

Citizenship Norms and Political Participation Cross-Nationally

Data, Measures and Methods

Dependent Variables: Political Activism, Political Party Membership and Voting

Independent Variables: Citizenship Norms

Citizenship Norms and Political Participation

Citizenship norms Political participation

POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013, 61(S1)

2013 The Authors. Political Studies 2013 Political Studies Association

Pooled Multivariate Analyses

Party Voted in last

Country-Specific Multivariate Analyses

Pay tax/ Active Watch Understand Shop Help Psuedo

Australia - + + + + 1,470 0.07

Source: ISSP 2004.

POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013, 61(S1)

2013 The Authors. Political Studies 2013 Political Studies Association

Pay tax/ Active Watch Understand Shop Help Psuedo

Australia + - 1,470 0.11

POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013, 61(S1)

2013 The Authors. Political Studies 2013 Political Studies Association

Netherlands + + 1,381 0.19

Source: ISSP 2004.

Pay tax/ Active Watch Understand Shop Help Psuedo

Austria - + 614 0.25

POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013, 61(S1)

2013 The Authors. Political Studies 2013 Political Studies Association

important to be active in political and social associations.The US is an exception, but the

In terms of scholarship on democratization and democratic learning, our findings show

Appendix: Operationalization and Results for All Control Variables

2013 The Authors. Political Studies 2013 Political Studies Association

Table A1: Results for Control Variables for Pooled Models

Political Party Voted in

Political efficacy 0.64*** 0.56*** 0.61***

(Accepted: 11 June 2012)

About the Authors

2013 The Authors. Political Studies 2013 Political Studies Association

2013 The Authors. Political Studies 2013 Political Studies Association

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

Political efficacy 0.64* 0.56* 0.61***