Young People's Political Participation in Western Europe

Continuity or Generational Change?

Kenneth A. Loparo

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137341310
• Topic: Politik & Internationale Beziehungen
• Subtopic: Politik

Are young people today politically 'apathetic'? Or are they democratically 'mature' citizens? This book examines several types of involvement to reveal changes in young people's political participation in Europe in recent decades. It uses various concepts of 'age' to compare participation across countries and over time.

1

Introduction

Young people’s political participation in Western democracies has received a great deal of attention in recent years. Judging by the amount of editorial, academic and institutional attention to the matter, there is widespread concern about how young people relate to democratic institutions. For example, the European Union announced its commitment to promoting active citizenship and recommended that member states should include civic education in schools.¹ Many initiatives have been organized by national electoral commissions, parties and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to lure first-time voters to the poll with entertaining activities like ‘Rock the Vote’ (e.g. IDEA, 1999; Ellis, Gratschew, Pammett, and Thiessen, 2006; Levine and Youniss, 2006; Dubnick, 2003). Scholarly attention is also abundant, and has produced an increasing number of studies examining young people’s participation and attitudes toward the political system. The outcomes range from a general revival of political socialization studies intended to update our understanding of the origins and development of political orientations (see, for instance, Galston, 2001; Sapiro, 2004; Keating, Benton, and Kerr, 2011; Abendschön, 2013) to much more specific examinations of the profile of young party activists (Cross and Young, 2008; Bruter and Harrison, 2009a,b) or the potential of youth organizations (see McFarland, 2006; Roholt, Hildreth, and Baizerman, 2009) and new technologies (for a review, see Boulianne, 2009) to politically mobilize young citizens.

There are several reasons to care about young people’s political participation. As with any other group in the population, the participation of young people matters in terms of equality. Every citizen should have his or her voice represented, and young people may have distinctive interests at stake in specific policy areas such as employment, cost of higher education, access to the housing market and so on (see Wattenberg, 2008, pp. 139–57). They should also have access to the individual psychological benefits of political and social membership of the community and a sense of purpose; and the development of social networks that can be particularly useful during the transition from education to the job market (Flanagan and Levine, 2010). Moreover, participation teaches democracy and creates better citizens and therefore better communities. Participation promotes civic values, develops skills and gives citizens a feeling of efficacy that helps overcome the costs of further political engagement.

However, the recent attention to young people stems mainly from the broader preoccupation with the distancing of citizens from democratic institutions in Western democracies. Paradoxically, as the consensus grows that democratic institutions are the only legitimate and desirable form of government, Western citizens increasingly retreat from the familiar forms of representative democracy. The clearest symptoms of the withdrawal from democratic institutions are the overall decline in electoral participation (Lijphart, 1997; Gray and Caul, 2000; Franklin, 2004; IDEA, 2004), the desertion of parties’ grass-roots members (Mair and van Biezen, 2001; Scarrow, 2000; Whiteley, 2010), a rising anti-party sentiment (Dalton, 2004; Hay, 2007), and the decline of associative life (Putnam, 2000).

Since each of these symptoms is clearly observable, particularly among the youngest citizens, overall declining trends have been interpreted as the product of generational replacement (Dalton, 2004, pp. 93–6; Franklin, 2004, pp. 59–89; Putnam, 2000, p. 250). Young people are usually regarded as more susceptible to social transformations because of their more limited life experiences. This is also claimed for political domains (Jennings and Niemi, 1981, p. 380; Jennings and Niemi, 1974, p. 333; Kinder and Sears, 1985, p. 724; Sapiro, 2004, p. 11). Consequently, if societal transformations are effectively changing citizens’ attitudes and behaviours, young people are the harbingers of things to come. In addition, political attitudes and behaviours that are crystallized during early adulthood are expected to persist substantially throughout an individual’s life. Without disregarding the importance of life-long learning processes, basic orientations acquired during the impressionable years serve as the cognitive design used to structure future experiences (Ryder, 1965, p. 848).

Therefore, the concern about young people’s political participation is fundamentally a general concern regarding the future functioning of democratic institutions. From classic to elitist conceptions, democracy is unthinkable without at least some degree of citizen participation. It is needed for some basic functions, such as the selection and control of government and public officials. It is also essential for providing information regarding needs and demands. If, as has been said, young citizens are increasingly ‘apathetic’, ‘uninterested’, ‘unknowledgeable’ or ‘alienated’ from the political system – and even more importantly if this apathy and alienation is caused by generational change – how can democracy function in the future when these young people grow older without showing more interest in participating?

1.1 Young people’s political participation in Europe at the beginning of the 21st century – Research questions

The recent literature on young people and politics has led to very different portrayals of their involvement. On the one hand, young people are blamed for the declining voter turnout rates across Western countries (Blais, Gidengil, Nevitte, and Nadeau, 2004; IDEA, 1999; Franklin, 2004; Franklin, Lyons, and Marsh, 2004; Wattenberg, 2003; Fieldhouse, Tranmer, and Russell, 2007; Wattenberg, 2008). They also have been portrayed as apathetic (Sloam, 2007; Henn, Weinstein, and Forrest, 2005; Henn and Weinstein, 2006), distrustful and unsupportive of democratic institutions (Dalton, 2004), and uninterested in public affairs (Wattenberg, 2003; Blais et al., 2004; Rubenson, Blais, Fournier, Gidengil, and Nevitte, 2004) or participating in collective efforts (Putnam, 2000). On the other hand, they have been praised for their stronger commitment to society and civic engagement (Dalton, 2008b; Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins, and Delli Carpini, 2006; Gauthier, 2003), their ethical behaviour and creativity in trying to improve society (Zukin et al., 2006; Dalton, 2008b; Stolle, Micheletti, and Berlin, 2010), their stronger support for engaged norms of citizenship (Dalton, 2008b) and for transforming political activism (Norris, 2003, p. 222).

There is also dissent regarding the explanations of young people’s political behaviour. The most common explanation is that low participation among young people is the result of a more educated, informed and less deferential citizenry which is more demanding of or challenging to representative institutions (Norris, 1999a,b, 2002; Inglehart, 1990; Inglehart and Catterberg, 2002). According to this thesis, the citizens’ political action repertoire has broadened; many have insisted that young people are not politically apathetic, but simply prefer to get involved via alternative channels rather than traditional institutions (Henn, Weinstein, and Wring, 2002; Gauthier, 2003; Zukin et al., 2006; Dalton, 2008b).

A more pessimistic perspective is supported by the available evidence regarding levels of political interest, political support, political knowledge and trust in institutions. A number of scholars have pointed to new generations’ cynicism or apathy to explain why citizens are participating significantly less now than they were some decades ago (Blais et al., 2004; Sloam, 2007). This second branch of the literature also associates declining voter participation with a diminished sense of civic duty on the part of young people (Blais et al., 2004; Wattenberg, 2003; Putnam, 2000; Rubenson et al., 2004). In this case, the dynamics of politics are to blame for citizens being less interested and increasingly distrustful or apathetic (Hay, 2007), in particular, the reduction of electoral competition into marketing exercises, the increasing constraints of domestic policy-making autonomy brought about by globalization, the impact of corruption scandals and – in the case of young people – the political elites’ failure to address their interests. Many have suggested that young people have not turned away from politics, but have been left out (O’Toole, Lister, Marsh, Jones, and McDonagh, 2003a; O’Toole, Marsh, and Jones, 2003b; Henn et al., 2005; Sloam, 2007).

Not surprisingly, the consequences of these perspectives are equally diverse. The interpretations range from understanding the trends in political participation as (1) a signal of ‘democratic maturity’ (Norris, 1999a) to (2) ‘global disenchantment’ or ‘cynicism’ (Stoker, 2006; Hay, 2007). The first perspective acknowledges that citizens are increasingly demanding alternative and direct channels to participate in decision-making processes (for example, see Inglehart, 2008, p. 140), and could even imply a ‘second transformation’ of democracy that moves from representative institutions toward collective self-government (Warren, 2006). The second interpretation suggests that if citizens do not care about politics, any initiative that requires even stronger commitments will fail, thus solutions require moderate reforms intended to integrate amateur citizens into traditional representative institutions (Stoker, 2006).

So, are we looking at a new generation of ‘apathetic’ or democratically ‘mature’ citizens? It seems very unlikely that both portrayals can be true at the same time. A closer look at the empirical evidence on young people’s participation sheds some light on the source of these contradictions. In this book, I will argue that the available studies offer an incomplete picture of how young people participate politically because those studies have focused only on single modes of political participation. Likewise, they have focused on only a few countries but have made broad generalizations. Finally, and most importantly, they have often approached young people as an isolated group of the population or have not analysed young people’s habits over time to identify change (see García-Albacete and Martín, 2010).

The focus on single modes of participation has resulted in contradictions within countries. For example, are British, Canadian and American young people a new apathetic generation (Sloam, 2007; Blais et al., 2004; Wattenberg, 2003)? Or are they interested citizens who are active in alternative forms of participation (Henn et al., 2002; Gauthier, 2003; Zukin et al., 2006)? The former, pessimistic, picture comes from voting and party membership studies but critics have pointed out the conceptual one-sidedness and the neglect of emerging participation styles that are supposed to replace the old modes (Gauthier, 2003; O’Toole et al., 2003a; Kovacheva, 2005). The later perspective argues that younger generations prefer participating in life-style sporadic mobilization efforts (Stolle and Hooghe, 2004, p.159) such as political consumerism, informal membership of local groups, regular signing and forwarding of e-mail petitions, and spontaneous protests and rallies (see, among others, Henn et al., 2002; O’Toole et al., 2003a; Gauthier, 2003; Kovacheva, 2005). The fact that young people participate in extra-parliamentary activities has been interpreted as a sign of their strong interest in politics. However, this second group of studies is also onesided, focusing only on young people, without comparing their results with other population groups. This strategy does not distinguish what characteristics are particular to young people or determine whether their level of political interest or participation should be a reason for concern.

The second impediment is the scarcity of comparative studies. The available evidence comes from country-specific studies. Some trends are well documented, such as the disengagement of young British people from the political system (Pirie and Worcester, 1998, 2000; Henn et al., 2005; Kimberlee, 2002; Sloam, 2007) or the generational decline in electoral turnout in Canada (Blais et al., 2004; Rubenson et al., 2004) and the United States (Wattenberg, 2003, 2008, p. 97ff.). There is also evidence of the still-healthy civic engagement of American youth (Zukin et al., 2006, pp. 49–87; Dalton, 2008b, p. 170) and the large number of political consumers among Swedish youth (Stolle, Hooghe, and Micheletti, 2005, p. 248). These results have been combined to draw conclusions about general trends in Western countries (for instance Norris, 2002, 2003), but there is no clear evidence that these participatory practices among young people are also present in other European countries (Stolle and Hooghe, 2004, p. 165). By focusing on different countries and different forms of participation, scholars almost perforce come to different conclusions.

The third limitation is the often-overlooked need to make comparisons over time to identify social change. There is nothing new in the conclusion that young people participate less in institutional activities and more in unconventional or extra-parliamentary forms of action. The relationship between political participation and age has been one of the most consistent findings in political behaviour research since its seminal studies in the 1950s and 1960s. Voter turnout rises with age, reaches its peak in the 40s and 50s, and gradually declines above 60 (Lane, 1959, pp. 216–19; Milbrath, 1965, p. 134; Nie, Verba, and Kim, 1974; Campbell, Converse, Miller, and Stokes, [1960]1980, pp. 493–4). However, participation in protest activities decreases with age; it is mainly a youth domain (Marsh, 1974, p. 124; Marsh and Kaase, 1979, pp. 101–4; Kaase, 1990, p. 43). If we take this into account, the relevant question is no longer whether young people participate differently from adults, but whether they participate differently from their counterparts in previous years. Therefore, the first question this study aims to answer is: What is distinctive about young people’s political participation at the beginning of the 21st century?

The relationship between participation and age is usually interpreted as a characteristic of an individual’s life stage. Skills, resources and interest in political affairs come with middle-age responsibilities. Compared to adults, younger citizens are less integrated into their community (Milbrath, 1965, pp. 134–5), have not been exposed to politics (Verba and Nie, 1972, p. 139) and are busy with other concerns such as preparing for their professional career or forming a family (Glenn and Grimes, 1968, pp. 563–6; Verba and Nie, 1972, p. 139). All in all, adult roles entail stability and experience, and imply that individuals develop knowledge about politics that makes participation easier and more meaningful (Strate, Parrish, Elder, and Ford, 1989; Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993). Furthermore, the argument goes, young people participate more in protest activities because they have the physical vigour and time necessary to pursue energetic forms of participation. They are also more vulnerable to powerful ideological motivation, and are more prone to question a status quo that they did not choose (Marsh and Kaase, 1979, pp. 101–4).

The distinction between life cycle and generational explanations is vital for understanding the consequences of young people’s participation. If young people participate less – or differently – simply because they are at a relatively unsettled stage in their life cycle, we can expect their political behaviour to change as they grow up. It would be a matter of waiting until they finish school, settle in their careers and form a family. On the contrary, if generational forces are at work and they are retreating from representative institutions due to the distinctive context in which they have been socialized politically, their level of engagement may constitute a long-term phenomenon.

The majority of studies reviewed earlier have concluded – or just assumed – that differences in young people’s participation are the product of generational differences. The few studies that have explored both generational and life cycle differences conclude that the sources of declining turnout are generational and not the result of life cycle effects (Blais et al., 2004, p. 227; Franklin, 2004, p. 216). This conclusion is based on the finding that comparing generations when they were the same age results in the lower participation of the most recent cohort. For her part, Norris (2003, p. 16) concludes that there is a persistent generational shift towards cause-oriented political actions. Again this conclusion is based on the comparison of two different cohorts when they were the same age.

Available studies have examined the age–participation relationship using chronological age as a proxy for changes during the life cycle. But this is not a convincing strategy for rejecting the life cycle hypothesis. Being young, as a life stage, has changed significantly in recent decades; youth is now a longer and more complex transitional stage (Gauthier, 2007, p. 218). In addition, the transition to adulthood takes place in more uncertain conditions (for instance Settersten, Furstenberg, and Rumbaut, 2005; Blossfeld, Klijzing, Mills, and Kurz, 2005; Arnett, 2002). For example, in Europe the average age of women at first childbirth has increased more than three years since the late 1970s. The age of first marriage has increased five years during the same period. Since the main rites of passage for the transition to adulthood have been delayed significantly, the lower – or different – participation of young people could also be the result of a delayed transition to adulthood. That is to say, it can be explained by a delay in young people’s political ‘start-up’ (see also Flanagan and Levine, 2010; Flanagan, Finlay, Gallay, and Kim, 2012; Fahmy, 2006).

Age, on its own, is an empty variable. Or rather, age simultaneously represents a number of things (see Settersten and Mayer, 1997, p. 239). It is an indicator of an individual’s life stage, and of the period in which he or she lives, and implies membership in a specific cohort or generation that is socialized in a specific context. The multiplicity of meanings can only be solved by identifying what it is about being young, having been socialized during a specific time or the period in which one is living, that can affect political participation. If the acquisition of adult roles has been delayed, comparing the same age over time fails to accurately capture life cycle stages.

Therefore, before accepting the many suggestions on how societal transformations have resulted in a generation of young people that relates to the political world differently than their former cohorts did, this study proposes to comprehensively explore what being young at the beginning of the 21st century implies for participation. To understand whether young people are participating differently due to their life stage, we need a more fine-grained specification of life stages (Jennings, 1979, p. 770).

In the same line of argument, some studies have suggested that more consideration should be given to young people’s changing transition to adulthood as an explanation of their lower levels of participation in institutional activities (O’Toole et al., 2003a; Kimberlee, 2002; Stolle ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Exploration and Development of Equivalent Measures of Political Participation in Europe
• 3 Political Participation and Age: Building an Exploratory Model of Political Participation Based on Life Cycle, Cohort and Period Effects
• 4 What Does ‘Being Young’ Mean? Young People’s Political Participation in Europe
• 5 Generational Change? Political Generations and Cohorts in Europe
• 6 Too Young to Participate? The Effect of the Transition to Adulthood on Political Participation
• 7 Conclusions
• Appendices
• Notes
• References
• Index