Centre for Political Research, KU Leuven (Belgium)
Contact : Ellen.Quintelier@soc.kuleuven.be
Discussants: dr. Tom Delreux & Tim Reeskens
Supervisor: Prof. dr. Marc Hooghe
Co-promotor: Prof. dr. Stefaan Fiers
Paper for the 2 nd Research Day
K.U.Leuven (Belgium)
October 27, 2008 – 14.00

1

ABSTRACT
3
1 WHY STUDY YOUTH POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IN BELGIUM?
4
1.1
W HY STUDY POLITICAL PARTICIPATION ?
1.1.1
B ENEFITS TO PEOPLE , SOCIETY AND DEMOCRACY
5
5
1.1.2
H OW MUCH POLITICAL PARTICIPATION ?
8
1.2
D EFINITION OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 12
1.3
E VOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 15
1.4
R ELEVANCE OF STUDYING POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 19
1.4.1
T HE DECLINE IN CONVENTIONAL POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 19
1.4.2
T HE POLITICAL PARTICIPATION OF YOUNG PEOPLE 20
1.4.3
P OLITICAL S OCIALIZATION 23
1.4.4
P OLITICAL P ARTICIPATION IN B ELGIUM 25
1.4.5
R ESEARCH H YPOTHESIS 26
1.5
C ONCLUSION 26
1.6
R EFERENCES 28
2

In this paper, I want to determine how political participation can be defined on the one hand and what the problems are with the current state of political participation research on the other hand. In recent decades, the concept of political participation has widened towards a ‘theory of everything’. Therefore, one has to be careful by what is meant by political participation. I start this paper by stressing the importance of political participation, both at the individual and aggregate level.
Furthermore, different approaches to political participation are discussed: should one strive for overall political participation or representative political participation?
In a second part, political participation is defined: what components determine
‘political participation’? Although the definition of political participation has remained relatively constant over time, the content of the concept has widened. In the third part, the relevance of studying political participation in a political socialization context is stressed. Due to a decline in conventional participation, especially among young people, worries have been expressed on their levels of involvement and solutions have been looked at to counteract this trend. Most of these solutions lie in the political socialization literature. Thus far, research on the level of political participation or political socialization agencies is rare, if not nonexistent in Belgium. Therefore, I will try to add to the existing knowledge on political participation and provide means to reinforce political participation among young Belgian citizens.
3

One might ask why it is essential that people are participating and how much political participation is required in a democracy. How many people and how much do people need to participate? Moreover, what is meant by ‘political participation’? I will try to answer those questions in this chapter.
The first thing one has to do when studying a concept is to develop a good definition and with political participation this is not different. ‘Definitions of concepts are important because our analyses flow from them’ (Conge, 1988:248).
Political participation is not, or has never been, a static concept: it covers a wide range of activities. People can engage in public life in a myriad of ways and scientists also differ in their views about ‘what is political participation?’ (Burt,
2002). Some authors consider only voting as political participation, while others also take campaigning, social engagement and volunteering into account. Van Deth
(2001) is quite negative about the multiple attempts to define political participation.
He concludes that the term political participation has steadily widened and has become almost a ‘study of everything’. Brady (1999) indicates the same problem when he refers to the expanding number of specific forms of political participation.
But they were certainly not the first to acknowledge the problem of the wideness of the definition: Verba, Nie and Kim (1978) already stated in the late 70s that the definition of political participation needed to be delimited to be useful for further research. Despite these concerns, the concept has even widened in the meanwhile.
Because political participation is such a broad topic, we must thus certainly try to define it. However, it is not my goal to create a new definition, because there are already many definitions of political participation and most definitions resemble to a high extent, but I will try to give an overview of the existing definitions. Then I will show what historically happened with the definition of political participation and the different ways to measure political engagement. Finally, I will conclude with what I will consider as political participation. But first I will start by stating
4

the importance of the study of political participation.
1.1
Why are scientists interested in political participation of (young) people? Is it that important that people petition, demonstrate or boycott products? Do young people already need to be active in politics? Is it not enough when young people vote when they are eighteen? I think it is. It is necessary to have a good understanding of the patterns and implications of political participation: not only because equal political participation enhances equal representation and democracy, but also because it enhances citizenship, a feeling of belonging, personal and societal development. Furthermore, is important that young people participate: it has been proved that the adolescence is the key period when political attitudes as political participation are shaped (Galston, 2001; Nie, Junn, & Stehlik-Barry, 1996; Putnam,
2000). Research has, for instance, demonstrated that young people who participated in the Vietnam-protests are later also more likely to protest (Jennings, 2002). So, knowing what people do at a young age is important for the future. Therefore, young sixteen- and eighteen-year-old people will be the population of interest in this research project. First, I will discuss the benefits of political participation to the individual, society and democracy. Second, I will discuss how many people should participate to have a satisfying level of political participation.
Political participation is important because it has a positive influence on the values of democracy and the society, but has also positive effects on the personal development and attitudes of people. Furthermore, political participation creates better citizens (Mansbridge, 1995; Pateman, 1970) leads to a fair division of goods and increases functioning of the political institutions, the social cohesion and social capital in society (Putnam, 1995; Nannestad, 2008:429-430; Putnam, 2000:31-47).
First, political participation is beneficial for the individual. The participation
5

hypothesis posits that when people are involved into one civic activity, they develop skills, attitudes, and habits that lead to deeper entry into the public life
(Freie, 1997; Finkel, 1985). The engaged (young) people will through political participation, start to cumulate other engagements, learn about society and create new relationships. Especially young people will learn how to organize in the adult world and in politics. Political participation also affects the attitudes of the participants. Through political participation people become knowledgeable about different issues (Parry, Moyser, & Day, 1992; Checkoway, Tanene, & Montoya,
2005). Young people feel themselves, through participation, more efficacious (Eden
& Roker, 2002; Pateman, 1970). Furthermore, political participation increases the skills and nuanced views on society. Those who participate and regularly visit meetings have the tendency to speak more, create and give their own opinion. They learn to work in groups and listen to other people’s opinion. Participating people gain more confidence and will have more influence in decision making (Clark,
2000; Checkoway, Tanene, & Montoya, 2005; Eden & Roker, 2002; Torpe, 2003).
Young people also get a higher self-esteem through participating and working with different people. They learn to co-operate, compromise and deal with difficult issues and people. Young people will also create an idea of social justice, more complex view of society and becoming more critical towards society (Eden &
Roker, 2002; Checkoway, Tanene, & Montoya, 2005). Participation learns them to understand that there are different groups in society with different needs and gives them a feeling of social responsibility (Hart, 1992). Therefore, it is assumed that political participation creates better citizens (Pateman, 1970:45). Deliberative polling scholars have shown that ordinary people can deliberate and that they benefit from deliberation (e.g. that they become better citizens) (Fishkin & Luskin, 2005)
1
.
Second, participation does not only stimulate attitudes and skills for the participants, but has also benefits for (the functioning of) the whole society.
Democratic competences promote an increase in satisfaction with the system
1
. However, the causality of this relationship might be discussed
6

(Milbrath & Goel, 1977; Torpe, 2003; Finkel, 1987). Political participation gives a positive boost on the working and acceptance of democracy, and stimulates the functioning of the political system (Putnam, 1993:98-99; Levine, 2008:119). Political participation is an ‘empirical indicator’ or the health and functioning of political systems and democracy (Russell et al., 2002). Political participation is also an indicator of social capital and creates social trust, norms of reciprocity and networks within society. It makes people feel they are a part of the community and creates a sense of generalized trust (Putnam, 2000:31-47). However, not only political attitudes prevail: social capital and personal development are equally important for society. Before the 60s, researchers tended to see protestors as swept up in crowds, acting abnormal and sometimes irrational. They were marginal and alienated members of society (Kornhauser, 1959), insecure and dogmatic (Adorno et al., 1950). But, more recently this attitude has been changed into a more positive attitude toward ‘new’ forms of political participation.
It has been stated many times in the literature that political participation is at the heart of democratic theory because political participation is ‘participating in democracy’ or ‘the mechanism by which those needs and preferences are communicated to political decision makers’ (Verba et al., 1993:455; Lipset, 1963;
Asher, Richardson, & Weisberg, 1984; Parry, Moyser, & Day, 1992; Newton &
Montero, 2007). Political participation is a way for people to voice their needs, concerns and problems to the authorities, and when this can happen freely and autonomous, it strengthens the democratic character of the society. Political participation tries to influence decisions or at least those who will take the decisions and legitimizes in this way the political decisions and the regime that makes those decisions (Brady, 1999; Verba, 2003:667; Asher, Richardson, & Weisberg, 1984;
Hague & Harrop, 2001; Salisbury, 1975). Democracy has been viewed by Dahl
(1990:5) as ‘a set of political institutions and practices, a particular body of rights, a social and economic order, a system that ensures desirable results or a unique process of making collective and binding decisions’. Thus, all people should have the right to engage themselves in the political process. This leads van Deth (2001:3)
7

to the conclusion that ‘democracy is not worth its name if it does not refer to government by the people’. Bollen (1980) argues that one aspect of political democracy is that there are fair elections and other political liberties are warranted.
He also argues that in a political democracy, there should be striven for a maximized power of the non-elite. ‘Democracy expects an active citizenry because it is through discussion, popular interest, and involvement in politics that societal goals should be defined and carried out in a democracy’ (Dalton & Wattenberg,
2000:927). Moreover, studying political participation makes it able to say something about the ‘process, quality and stability of the democratic project’ (Everitt &
O’Neill, 2002:14). So, in general, it can be argued that political participation is interwoven with democracy. The history of political participation is the history of democracy. From the Greek public meetings
2
to contemporary political participation, the way democracy works is determined by political participation.
However, Mansbridge (1995:1-2) notes that although the idea of a participatory democracy exists from the ancient times, the idea that people become better citizens through participation is more novel, as it was not included in the work of Aristotle,
Machiavelli, Rousseau, etc. The idea that participation creates better citizens can be, according to Mansbridge (1995:5) only traced back to Alexis de Tocqueville.
One might also ask how much political participation is required and who should participate in a democracy. While some authors argue that a representative part of the population should participate, others argue that everyone should have the opportunity to participate, ‘as much as possible people’, or ‘everyone’ should participate. Still others argue that not everyone is suited or competent to participate in politics.
However, most authors argue that we should strive for more political participation.
Peter Levine (2007) for instance, argues that we should strive for a broad
2
. Democracy is originated in Greek: Demos = people (all citizens = male inhabitants of Attica with political rights); Cratos/Kratia = power and means ‘power by the people’ (Dahl, 2006:8).
8

participation, as political participation has benefits for people and society. Benjamin
Barber (1984) also argues for an active and ‘strong democracy’: people should participate as much as possible because ‘representation is incompatible with freedom, because it delegates and thus alienates political will at the cost of genuine self-government and autonomy’ (Barber, 1984:145). Political decision making should go through a process of constant deliberation and ongoing public talk.
Barber inclines to a state with large social networks with room for discussion, for example through neighbourhood assemblies. Instead of the above authors, who strive for a representative participation, Barber strives for a ‘widespread and ongoing participation in talk by the entire citizenry’ (Barber, 1984:197). More participation is usually considered to be a good thing and most scientists define it as a goal to have a higher level of political participation (Putnam, 2000). More political participation means more civic virtue and more support for the political leaders and system (Franklin, 2004).
Most authors strive for broad political participation as it is beneficial for society.
However, some authors also fear the ignorance of the population towards politics.
Less political participation can refer to less support for democratic norms and duties, to disengagement and/or disaffection towards the political system (Norris,
1999; Franklin, 2004). Large abstention, on the other hand, can indicate apathy, alienation and disaffection of citizens (Anduiza, 2002; Bollen, 1980). van Deth
(2001:101; Print, 2007) stresses the ‘fragile balance between legitimacy and effectiveness’ and argues that if political decisions do not have a minimum of legitimacy, it will result in discontent, frustration, protest, or withdrawal.
Moreover, when there is too much input into the political system, the system would be overloaded and not be able to work properly (Easton, 1965; Dalton, 2002). Easton
& Dennis (1967:25) argue that one of the ‘major tasks [of a political system] is to provide […] at least a minimal level of support for a regime’, but that the system must also be able to convert inputs into outputs. Other authors also warn that ‘an increase in political participation by present non-participants could upset the stability of the democratic system’ (Pateman, 1970:3), or that overall political
9

participation is not feasible. Gutmann and Thompson, for instance argue:
‘more participation in politics is generally desirable […], but representation in some form has to stay. For the foreseeable future, the scale and complexity of modern government, including any kind of democracy, requires a significant measure of representation’
(Gutmann & Thompson, 1996:131).
Anduiza (2002) argues that if the electoral turnout is very high, it can be due to oppression or power of the elite as in the Weimar Republic or totalitarian regimes
(Lipset, 1963; Bollen, 1980). Because more or less political participation does not always mean more democracy (as I stated above), Bollen (1980) argues that the level of political participation can not be used as an indicator of political democracy.
Not only the number of people, but which people participate (or do not participate) might be important. Differences in levels of political participation among different groups of people are considered to be problematic, because traditionally disadvantaged groups are less influential (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995;
Franklin, 2004). A low level of political participation has on impact on democratic representation as some groups are underrepresented (such as women, lower educated people and immigrants) and these patterns are relatively persistent over time (Anduiza, 2002; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995; Martikainen, Martikainen,
& Wass, 2005; Parry, Moyser, & Day, 1992). However, the level of political participation and representativeness are often related. Rosenstone and Hansen
(2003) argue that in the United States, the smaller the number of participants, the larger the inequality in political participation. Political participation is, after all, one of the ways to influence the division of scarce resources. And as those who are active and inactive may have different opinions and interests, unequal representation could be problematic (Schlozman et al., 2004; Verba, 2003; Dahl,
2006:1)
3
. Equal political participation leads to a relatively fair division of available resources, to equality in political influence and to integration in society (Parry,
Moyser, & Day, 1992; Dahl, 2006:1; Green & Gerber, 2004). In addition, the more likely it is that certain groups will abstain from political participation; the less likely
3
. The finding that voters and non-voters differ in terms of party choice and opinions is questionable (Citrin,
Schickler, & Sides, 2003).
10

it is that politicians and public officials will pay attention to these groups.
Generally, it is argued that the more people participate, the more equally the population is represented (Bollen, 1980; Wattenberg, 2007; Rosenstone & Hansen,
2003). Therefore, it is argued that not everyone should participate, but rather that a representative proportion of all groups should participate. Finally, it is essential in democracy that everybody has the opportunity to participate (Rosenstone &
Hansen, 2003). Often, the opportunity is defined in terms of resources: education, income, connected ness, health and well-being, as the real opportunity is difficult to measure in representative surveys (Verba, 2003:665).
Some also doubt the competences of people to participate. According to Berelson,
Lazarsfeld and MacPhee (1963:312), the democracy will survive, even if not every individual voter meets the requirements for political participation. Similarly,
Schumpeter (1962:261-262) questions the ability of citizens to make ‘good’ decisions: people are, according to him, ignorant, irrational and not able to judge.
Therefore, he argues that we should not strive for equality (1962:265). Furthermore, other authors distinguish between the level of power participants should have
(Mansbridge, 1995:1).
So, equal political participation does not only lead to a better democracy and a legitimate political system, but also to personal development and a more trustful society. Because the widespread participation of Barber (1984) is rather hypothetical and probably also difficult to work with, I argue that the best possible situation is representative political participation: not everybody needs to participate, but a representative sample of each group (i.e. women, lower educated people, immigrants) should participate. Equal representation leads to political equality.
However, I have not yet defined what is exactly meant by political participation . Is it a political activity like voting, or should it demand more effort? Should it be a collective activity or do individual acts suffice? Who should the action be directed to? Which activities can be considered as political participation? I will discuss this here.
11

1.2
Having a clear definition of political participation is important if one wants to talk about it. There are many different definitions of political participation, but they are highly similar (Brady, 1999). Underneath I will try to give some of the major definitions of political participation, or at least those who are considered as important in the recent history of political participation. Almost every researcher whose topic of interest is political participation tried to give his/her own, mostly only a slightly different definition of this topic. However the definitions do not differ to a high extent, the interpretation of the concept sometimes does. But I will argue this later on in this chapter.
Political participation is:
“... those activities by private citizens that are more or less directly aimed at influencing the selection of governmental personnel and/or the actions they take” (Verba & Nie, 1972:2).
“... those actions of private citizens by which they seek to influence or to support government and politics” (Milbrath & Goel, 1977:2).
”... all voluntary activities by individual citizens intended to influence either directly or indirectly political choices at various levels of the political system” (Kaase & March,
1979a:42).
“... action by citizens which is aimed at influencing decisions which are, in most cases, ultimately taken by public representatives and officials” (Parry, Moyser, & Day, 1992:16).
“… activity that has the intent or effect of influencing government action – either directly by affecting the making or implementation of public policy or indirectly by influencing the selection of people who make those policies” (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995:38).
“ … is action directed explicitly toward influencing the distribution of social goods and social values” (Rosenstone & Hansen, 2003:4).
12

There exists a whole variety on definitions of political participation, but the central idea of each definition is almost always the same and can be reduced to four essential components: Political participation is in essence (1) the activity (2) of citizens (3) to influence (4) political decisions (Brady, 1999). However, it should be noted that, contrary to what is often suggested, neither a level of collectivism, not the directness of the activity is assumed in the definition of political participation.
The four components will be discussing more in detail below.
First, by activity , I mean that we have to measure how people are doing politics. Do they vote, demonstrate or do they do nothing at all (Milbrath, 1965)? There are two ways to measure political participation: the willingness to participate (do you think you will …) and the actual participation (have you …). Measuring the willingness
(intention, participative orientation …) to participate (as Barnes & Kaase (1979) do) is not the same as political participation itself. Verbeek (2006:334) on the other hand, argues that ‘individuals who have experiences an event in the past are more likely to experience that event in the future’. Therefore, I might expect that people, who participated this year in a particular political activity, are also more likely to participate in that activity in the future, through preferences or unobserved characteristics of individuals.
The second component states that the action should also been voluntary done by a
‘normal’ citizen or the ‘mass public’, not by the representatives, elite or other paid political personnel (Brady, 1999; Burns, Schlozman, & Verba, 2001; Uhlaner,
2001:11078). Activities, such as the voting of a parliamentarian in parliament is not considered as political participation, while voting at the polling booth is. Political participation is democratic participation, the upward influence from private citizens (Verba & Nie, 1972). However, looking to the first studies of political activists, the subject of investigation was mostly the political elites and not citizens as I consider here (Salisbury, 1975).
13

The third factor, influence , is the attempt of the citizen to have a direct impact on the choices that are made by the politicians. People who participate, try to change or influence governmental decisions or policies (Brady, 1999; Shi, 1997; Teorell,
2006; Kaase & March, 1979a; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995). They can influence in various ways, but political discussion, for example is no indicator of political participation: political discussion has not the aim to (directly) influence governmental decisions, it is more reactive (Verba & Nie, 1972; Verba, Nie, & Kim,
1978)
4
. For the same reasons, reading about politics and following political news is also no political participation. Volunteering and charity is also no political participation, because it is no political activity in the strict sense, but also because it does not aim to directly influence political decision makers (Burns, Schlozman &
Verba, 2001). However, some books also consider indirect forms of participation such as political discussion, reading political news and civic engagement as a form of political engagement (See for example: Barnes & Kaase, 1979; Inglehart & Norris,
2003; Eden & Roker, 2002; Rosenstone & Hansen, 2003), while others use a more strict definition. The attempts to influence the political decision making, add to the responsiveness of the system and are an essential part of democracy (Teorell, 2006).
The fourth element, political decisions , refers to the decisions of allocation of values and public goods by the government. It does not refer to the daily decisions of the principal at school or somebody at work, because their decision making is not political. Those activities may also be important determinants of political activity, but do not influence directly governmental action (Brady, 1999). Norris
(2006) also argues that political participation should take place in the public sphere since political participation aims at influencing the division of public goods.
Thus there are four components in most definitions of political participation: (1) the activity (2) of citizens (3) to influence (4) political decisions. However, the importance of these components differs over time: most authors have gradually
4
. For an overview which activities in which survey are considered to be political participation, see for example
Van Deth, 2001.
14

broadened the concept of political participation and have become less strict on at least one of the four components. The broadening of the concept is discussed in the following paragraphs.
1.3
The description of the evolution of the concept of political participation will start by the modern, liberal democracy in the second half of the twentieth century, together with the introduction of equally available political rights (in most - Western - countries) for all citizens (Verba, Nie, & Kim, 1978). Over these 70 years, the definition of political participation has grown in term of activities (van Deth, 2001) or ‘repertoires’ (Norris, 2002) as these definitions demonstrate (Norris, 2005).
“Political activism has been reinvented in recent decades by a diversification in the agencies
(the collective organizations structuring political activity), the repertoires (the actions commonly used for political expression, and the targets (the political actors that participants seek to influence)” (Norris, 2002:215-216).
“modern definitions [of political participation] have sought to incorporate informal political activity, including protests, social movements and, increasingly, voluntary activities in pressure groups, civic associations, charities and other associations” (Norris, Lovenduski &
Campbell, 2004a:15).
However, van Deth, Norris and others did not find something new. In 1943,
Schumpeter (1962[1943]:247) was already aware of the broadness of the concept of political participation. He argued that
“[b]eyond “direct” democracy lies an infinite wealth of possible forms in which the
“people” may partake in the business of ruling or influence or control those who actually do the ruling. None of these forms, particularly none of the workable ones, has any obvious or exclusive title to being described as Government by the people if these words are to be taken in their natural sense”.
In the beginning
5
, only voting was seen as a (possible) form of political engagement
, because ‘the political role of the people was to be largely confined to voting in
5
. In the 1940s-50s
15

elections’ (Parry, 1999:27; Burt, 2002; Berelson, Lazarsfeld, & MacPhee, 1963;
Campbell et al., 1960). On the other hand, Keith Reeves argues in the foreword of
Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America (Rosenstone & Hansen,
2003:viii; Parry, Moyser, & Day, 1992) that ‘far too many Americans, their conceptions of citizen involvement in the political process [still] begin-and endwith the act of ‘voting’’. Shortly afterwards, this concept was broadened to other conventional activities of political participation: campaigning, contacting etc., which occur mostly ‘within the context of party politics’ (March, 1990:1). Verba, Nie and Kim (1978) distinguished four dimensions of political participation: voting, campaigning, communal activities (working with a group in the community) and particularized contacts. With the exception of communal activities, these are all political activities in the strict sense. Verba and Nie (1972:23) still excluded in 1972 form their understanding of political participation: ceremonial or support participation, attitudes, political protest, and participation in schools, family, jobs, voluntary associations etc.
At the end of the 70s, with their book ‘political action’, Barnes and Kaase (1979) opened the definition of political participation to petitioning, protesting and violent actions. They called it ‘unconventional participation’ or ‘protest potential’, because at that time, activities such as demonstrating and petitioning were not socially accepted and ‘élite-challenging’ (March, 1990:1). However, ‘unconventional’ is a controversial term: activities who were then called ‘unconventional political action’ are now becoming widespread and generally accepted, for example signing petitions and participating in legal protests (Kaase & March, 1979b; della Porta &
Diani, 1999; Dalton, 2002; Putnam, 2000; Inglehart & Catterberg, 2002; Norris, 2004;
Parry, Moyser, & Day, 1992; Norris, Walgrave, & van Aelst, 2005; Rucht, 2007).
However, it remains clear that the unconventional acts of participation have diffused ‘to broader sectors of the population’ (Klandermans, 2003:672). Protest, for instance, has become more large-scale and used for different purposes by almost everyone (della Porta & Diani, 1999:170-172; Norris, Walgrave, & van Aelst, 2005).
Petitioning, on the other hand, has not only become large-scale, but also more
16

consumer-based (Earl & Schussman, 2008:72). The acceptance of political participation may not only differ over time, but also over place: demonstrating in an authoritarian regimes, for example, is still not accepted (Conge, 1988; Shi, 1997).
However, Barnes and Kaase (1979) included also some illegal forms of political participation in their questionnaire that are still illegal (traffic blocking, spray painting …) today. These activities differ from the traditional political participation-definition at two points. First, they do not always want to influence politics directly, but are often used as an expression of (political) ideas. Second, they are often not directed towards countries’ public officials, but other countries governments, international organisations etc.
In the 90s, more and more authors argue that we should shift our focus to
‘alternative’ or ‘non-traditional’ forms of participation as volunteering, community action etc. (Eden & Roker, 2002; Leighley, 1995; Norris, Lovenduski, & Campbell,
2004; Pattie, Seyd, & Whiteley, 2004; Marsh, O'Toole, & Jones, 2006). Whereas the traditional definition of political participation (Brady, 1999) stresses the indirect influence of citizens on other citizens through politicians, civic participation also aims to improve conditions for others and help to shape the community’s future
(Adler & Goggin, 2005:236). Furthermore, they aim more at problem-solving or helping than aiming to influence political decision-making. Partly, this shift from political participation to civic participation can be explained by two elements.
Firstly, Robert Putnam (2000) found in his book Bowling Alone that the levels of political and other forms of participation (especially among the young generation) decreased the last 50 years enormously. To counter the lowering levels of participation, more and more political scientists became ‘aware’ that civic participation is politically relevant (Adler & Goggin, 2005; Gauthier, 2003; Macedo et al., 2005), that citizen engagement has spread to more diverse ‘repertoires’
(Norris, 2002:215), ‘a wider variety of channels’ (Zukin et al., 2006), and that they are so called ‘alternatives’ to the traditional political forms of participation. By adding alternative forms of participation to political participation-questions, those lower levels of engagement could slightly be countered (Zukin et al., 2006; Mariën,
17

Hooghe, & Quintelier, 2008). Secondly, I also notice that those social and civic forms of participation are more often used in youth surveys, because young people are often excluded from conventional forms of participation and more engaged in those new forms than in the traditional ways of participation (Adler & Goggin,
2005; Eden & Roker, 2002; Henn, Weinstein, & Wring, 2002; Kimberlee, 2002).
‘Political consumerism’ or ‘social conscious consumption’ is one of the most recent ingredient of the concept of political participation (Micheletti, Follesdal, & Stolle,
2003; Holzer, 2006). Barnes and Kaase (1979) already used the term boycott
6
, but in the recent years the accent in boycotting has been switched more to the commercial and economic aspects of mass political consumerism (Holzer & Sorensen, 2001;
Marsh, O'Toole, & Jones, 2006). Political consumerism is an artefact of the influence of supranational organizations which no national government can easily influence: recent boycotting is a worldwide phenomenon (vbn xxx). Political consumerism is a way to get the attention of a lot of people, under which companies and
(supranational) governments (Micheletti, 2003; (Marsh, O'Toole, & Jones, 2006).
Contrary to other acts of political participation which want to influence mostly national governments, political consumerism aims to influence more international of supranational actors. Further political consumerism is a more individualized activityT
7
, though it is not necessarily more related to self-interest than other political activities (Schudson, 2007). Political consumerism deviates at most points from the traditional definition of decision-making: it does not only expand on the number of activities, but also considers people more as consumers than citizens and aims at doing something to influence decisions of multinationals instead of politics.
Finally, the Internet has also taken its place among the activities considered as political participation, especially as a strategy to attract young people to politics
(Bennett, 2008a; Krueger, 2002; Tolbert & McNeal, 2003; Pasek et al., 2006).
However, most activities that happen on the Internet also exist outside the online
6
. The first boycotts are traced back to the ‘American War on Independence’ (Micheletti, 2004).
7
Lane (1959:164) argues that not all political activities should require the same amount of sociability.
18

sphere: contacting politicians, signing petitions, forwarding political e-mails, buying environment-friendly products, etc. So, Internet participation does not expand on the number of activities, but on the medium. Furthermore, the political participation on the Internet often aims to express ideas and is also frequently used to target international organisations, multinationals instead of the traditional political institutions.
Political participation is, as many other concepts in social sciences not clearly defined. So, the definition of political participation states that political participation should be activities that young people can do to more or less directly influence political decision making. In this respect, I will stick to conventional and some unconventional forms of participation as political participation. However, the
Belgian Youth Survey also surveyed the respondents about how much they discussed politics, are engaged in voluntary associations and volunteered, but this will not be considered as political participation, but as attitudes and behaviours which can influence political participation.
1.4
The range of different definitions and the broadening of the concept of political participation have their consequences for measuring political participation (Brady,
1999). When want to measure political participation, I have to take into account what activities I want to measure and how; that there are different dimensions in political participation and whether the intention of actual behaviour should be taken into account (the problem of equivalence). I will discuss those three topics here.
Various recent studies have expressed alarm about the civic and political participation of people. Although there seems to be a general decline in political participation, the low level of involvement among young people is one of the most
19

outspoken ones (Putnam, 2000; Skocpol, 2003; Rosenstone & Hansen, 2003). It has been feared that young people no longer participate in politics, voluntary association and various forms of civic life (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996; O'Toole et al., 2003; Gauthier, 2003; Kimberlee, 2002). However, a second stream of thinkers has argued that there is no decline, but a shift in forms of participation (Norris,
2002; Zukin et al., 2006; Dalton, 2007). Although these forms are referred to as
‘new’, they are often not new, but changed in scale of goal. ‘New’ forms of participation are not only referred to as ‘new’, but also ‘engaged citizenship’
(Dalton, 2007), ‘self-actualizing citizenship’ (Bennett, 2008b:14), ‘alternative’ (della
Porta, 2005:338), ‘non-institutionalized’ (Mariën, Hooghe, & Quintelier, 2008) and
‘extra-parliamentary forms of participation’ (Fuchs & Klingemann, 1998; Stolle et al., 2007). These ‘new’ forms of participation attract young people because they fit better in their lifestyles: they are loosely structured (Wuthnow, 1998), ad-hoc, and often constructed around single-issues (Inglehart, 1997). These forms of participation also stress the importance of peer networks and online communities
(Bennett, 2008a:2). However it should be noted that although these ‘new’ forms of participation attract new groups of people (young people and women), they increase the gap in participation between lower and higher educated people
(Mariën, Hooghe, & Quintelier, 2008; Dalton & Klingemann, 2007).
Therefore, we must conclude that the decline in conventional political participation can be both seen as negative (less attachment to the political system) and positive
(an adaptation of the population to a changing environment and new technologies).
In fact, the way the decline is seen, depends almost completely on how political participation is defined, and which forms are seen as valuable: while those that prefer traditional political participation are less positive about the trend, those that also study ‘new’ forms of political participation are much more optimistic.
Interestingly, the main literature on political participation has not focused in depth on age as a crucial factor in explaining differences in political participation.
20

However, some do refer to life cycle effects in this context. Verba, Schlozman and
Brady (1995:441), for instance, control for education, job level and some other relevant factors, but not for age when they try to predict political participation.
Similarly, Rosenstone and Hansen (2003) do not refer to age as an important factor in political participation, but refer to this as ‘experience’ (in terms of life cycle effects). On the other hand, a lot of volumes on political participation did pay attention to age as an explanatory variable. Parry, Moyser and Day (1992), does discuss ‘age’ and ‘youth’, and find a curvilinear pattern: while people in their forties tend to participate most, younger and older people tend to participate less.
They also focus on life cycle effects (length of residence, family status, etc). Verba and Nie (1972) also investigate the age-differences in terms of life cycle effects
(socio-economic status, education and length of residence). To conclude: the main political participation-literature does neither focus on young people, nor on political socialization agencies.
The group of people that will be studied here are young people. I study them because they are one of the most interesting groups with respect to their political socialization. There are six reasons why young people are important. Firstly, young people are cited as the main reasons for the general decline in political participation
(Putnam, 2000) (see above). So, I should look to them to determine why they do not participate and how they can be encouraged to participate. Secondly, as political participation is a habit, it is crucial to gain knowledge of the actual political participation of people at a relatively young age (Plutzer, 2002; Glanville, 1999;
Walgrave & Verhulst, 2006:2). Research has demonstrated that people who participated in the Vietnam-protests are later also more likely to protest (Jennings,
2002). Moreover, people who vote in their first elections, will be more likely to vote further in life, and I have no reasons to expect that these trends would be different for other forms of political participation (Franklin, 2004; Putnam, 2000; Plutzer,
2002). Thirdly, youth is a time of extraordinary psychological and social change
(Niemi & Hepburn, 1995). It has been proved that the adolescence is the key period when political attitudes as political participation, are shaped and ‘the years of most
21

rapid change to adultlike learning capacities and adult attitudes’ (Niemi &
Hepburn, 1995:7; Galston, 2001; Nie, Junn, & Stehlik-Barry, 1996; Putnam, 2000).
The ‘impressionable-years’ model states that adolescents and young people are more likely to change their attitudes and behaviour than older people, which have relatively stable attitudes (Alwin & Krosnick, 1991; Stoker & Jennings, 2008;
Jennings & Niemi, 1978), which makes youth most interesting to study (Torney-
Purta, 2004; Visser & Krosnick, 1998; Jennings, 2007; Franklin, 2004). Fourthly, another reason why our groups of interest are sixteen and eighteen year olds is, that in Belgium (just as in other countries) most civic courses are concentrated in the 10 th through the 12 th grade (Niemi & Hepburn, 1995). Additionally, courses in the 12 th grade seem to have most effect on young people’s attitudes (Galston, 2007:639). In this way, I will be able to discern some effects of the civic education of young people. Fifthly, Gimpel, Lay and Schuknecht (2003; Franklin, 2004) have been arguing that the existing political socialization-patterns are not necessarily the same today as they were in the past. Political socialization is embedded in a historical context: socialization patterns can be changed since the 1950s, 1970s, but even those of the early 2000s (Renshon, 1977:9). One can think of the use of new media, immigration, changing family patterns and period effects (9/11 for instance).
Further, Inglehart (1997; 2008) also argues that older cohorts are socialized with different (postmaterialist) values than young people. Therefore, it is crucial to have up-to-data data on the attitudes of young people. Finally, as Hyman (1959) argues, at the age of sixteen the political attitudes of young people are already well formed and young people already belong to the political culture of their nation (Torney-
Purta, 2002; Torney-Purta, Barber, & Wilkenfeld, 2007). Niemi and Sobieszek (1977) for example argue that even second and fourth grades had some ideas about
Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate scandal, although they can not think abstractly about politics until the age of 11 or 13. Davies (1965; Easton & Dennis,
1969) and other authors even argue that the political socialization is complete at the age of thirteen. Therefore, it is also interesting to know what young people do as the future of their nation. I will not deny that political learning at a very young age is important, but I argue that the period between 16 and 18 is one of the most
22

important period: young people are able to create their own opinion, are not so sensible anymore to the opinions of their friends, and will have to vote when they are eighteen. Moreover, as stated in Niemi and Hepburn (1995; Dudley & Gitelson,
2002:176; Sigel, 1995) measuring political attitudes under fourteen is very cautious, because politics is very complicated and not at the ‘realm of their interest’.
In the 60s, several political socialization authors stated that although young people are introduced in the political system at an early stage in lifecycle (Easton & Dennis,
1967; Hess & Torney, 1967), they were long excluded from political research because it was generally accepted that young people did not know about politics, could not vote and the subject of the first investigations were the political elites
(Salisbury, 1975). Easton and Dennis (1967) argued that young people (7-13 years) already have political attitudes and feelings and if we would wait until people have reached ‘social maturity’ to socialize them with politics, it would be far too late to create ‘any kind of meaningful involvement’. So, people should be socialized to politics as early as possible and young people should have a special place in the research on political attitudes. Because of this awareness, political scientists became increasingly interested in the processes of political socialization. Currently, a large body of research suggests that it is crucial to look into youth to understand the development of political attitudes and behaviour (Stolle & Hooghe, 2004:423) .
Political socialization is the process by which people acquire political attitudes and behavior from their political environment. Overall there are two perspectives on political socialization. The first perspective, sees political socialization as a teaching perspective or ‘the process through which political orientations are taught’ (Beck,
1977:115). The second perspective is the learning perspective, which ‘emphasizes the individual’s own learning activities and development’ (Beck, 1977:115). In the end, both perspectives have the same goal: acquiring political attitudes. Different authors have attributed the title ‘of most important agent of political socialization’ to different agents. While some attributed most importance to the family (Hyman,
23

1959; Langton, 1969), others have referred to schools, voluntary associations, peers
(Jaros, 1973:133) and the media. However, as was already noticed by Hyman: the influence of different socialization agencies might change over time: while parents are important at a young age, the importance of parents will be gradually replaced by other agencies as school, peers and the workplace (Hyman, 1959; Beck, 1977:117;
Jennings & Niemi, 1981). Most authors only discuss the impact of one , or some socialization agents (Hyman, 1959; Campbell, 1980), almost ever all five agents of political socialization are investigated jointly.
For political socialization, it is important to distinguish the processes how people come to political learning (Niemi & Sobieszek, 1977). There is also an important discussion of which institution is the most important political socialization agent: parents, schools, peers, media or voluntary associations (Verba, Schlozman, &
Burns, 2005). Different authors have attributed the title ‘of most important agent of political socialization’ to different agents. While some authors argue that the family is the most important political socialization agent (Davies, 1965:11), others argue that this is the school (Hess & Torney, 1967) or peers (Jaros, 1973; Jennings & Niemi,
1981). Most authors only discuss the impact of one, or some socialization agents
(Hyman, 1959; Campbell, 1980), almost ever all five agents of political socialization are investigated jointly. However, it has been argued that these social contexts overlap and that the influence depends on the dependent variable of interest
(McClurg, 2006; Scheufele et al., 2006). Young people are not only member of a voluntary association, a school, a group of friends etc., but they belong to different social contexts: they are a member of a family and have different friends and belong to different voluntary associations and use similar types of media. Political participation does not happen in isolation, but through interaction between different people in different social contexts (Huckfeldt, 1979). This overlap between different political socialization agents ‘accumulates into a substantial amount’
(Niemi & Sobieszek, 1977).
Political socialization-research had his peak in the 60s and early 70s. However, the
24

number of articles that appear on political socialization, especially among young people (e.g. these younger than high school) declined in the late 70s-early 80s because there were serious doubts about the validity to survey such young people: their answers were instable, often socially correct and the questions were not methodologically substantiated (Dudley & Gitelson, 2002:176; Visser & Krosnick,
1998). During the 90s, there was a renewed interest in political socialization among researchers because of a myriad of ways: the worries about the low level of political knowledge (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996), the decline in civic engagement and political participation (Putnam, 2000), inclusion of more complex analysing techniques. While the political participation-literature did not focus on young people or on the influence of political socialization agencies, the political socialization literature on the other hand, does not focus on all agents of political socialization and/or political participation.
Stevens and De Groof (2006) remark in their chapter on the state of the art on the political participation research in Belgium that has poor research on political participation on youth. Apart from the percentage of young people in political parties, there is not much information available about the political participation of young people. Let alone on the processes that socialize young people into political participation. Because of the compulsory voting in Belgium, there is no regular
‘political participation’-panic that young people and certain other groups do have lower turnout and for this reason there is also less interest of the government in political participation (see for example: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/ ;
Henn, Weinstein & Hodgkinson, 2007). In our neighbouring countries, we see that the turnout among the youngest groups is very low, or lower than among adults
(Pirie & Worchester, 2000; O’Toole, 2004 in Great Britain; Aarts, 2000; SCP, 1999 in the Netherlands; Martikainen & Wass, 2002 in Finland, Ogris & Westphal, 2006 in
Germany; Muxel, Riou & Lehay, 2005 in France). But we see similar worries in
Canada (Electoral Insight, 2003, Vol.5, N°2) and the United States (Putnam, 2000;
25

Wattenberg, 2007). And I have no reasons to assume that this would be different in
Belgium if compulsory voting would be abolished in Belgium (Irwin, 1974).
The key research question in this research project is what enhances or refrains young, Belgian people from political participation? To find an answer to this question I will look into the impact of background variables (gender, education and citizenship status) and political socialization agencies (family, peers, school, media and voluntary associations). Furthermore, I want to look into the differential effects of these factors at the age of sixteen and eighteen. By looking at the political participation of young people, I want to combine the existing literature on the political participation of – mostly adult – people that focuses on the individual level determinants and the literature on political socialization
1.5
Political participation is beneficial to people, society and democracy. People in political participation have more positive attitudes towards politics and the political system. Furthermore, they also develop skills that are useful in politics and life. The aggregate level of political participation, on the other hand, can be used as an indicator of the legitimacy and health of a state, as well as the level of democracy. Not only the relevance of political participation, but also the level of political participation one should desire is important. One stream of researchers strives for the highest level of political participation as possible. Although this would mean that everyone could express his/her opinion, this is not always feasible. More moderate researchers on the other hand, argue that a representative group of people should participate. In this way, all opinions of different groups are equally represented.
As one will surely have noticed, it is very difficult to define political participation in one sentence, because political participation refers to an entity of actions of citizens
26

to influence politics (Brady, 1999). It is also not always that clear what is considered as political participation and what not. When politics becomes more comprehensive, so will the definition of political participation. Therefore, the definition of political participation has broadened not only in terms of activities, but also towards whom the activities are targeted and what the goals of the activities are (e.g. not only influencing but also just helping and express opinions). But, aware of the critique of van Deth (2001) and others, I will restrict my definition of political participation. So, in general I argue that political participation is ‘those activities who directly aim to influence the political decision makers’.
Finally, the necessity of this research project is stressed. In the literature, mainly young people are blamed for their low levels of political participation. In light of their low level of involvement and the overall decline in conventional political participation, researchers have attempted to formulate ‘solutions’ to increase these levels of political participation. However, most of these researchers focus on one wave studies to investigate the effect of these ‘solutions’. Therefore, I will analyse the effect of different strategies through panel data. This will not only lead to the possibility to identify the most appropriate age to implement these strategies, but also the effectiveness of some strategies.
27

1.6
Adler, R.P. & Goggin, J. (2005) What Do We Mean By "Civic Engagement". Journal of
Transformative Education , 3(3), 236-253.
Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., & Sanford, R.N. (1950) The
Authoritarian Personality . Harper, New York.
Almond, G.A. & Verba, S. (1963) The civic culture: political attitudes and democracy in
Five Nations . Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Alwin, D.F. & Krosnick, J.A. (1991) Aging, Cohorts, and the Stability of
Sociopolitical Orientations over the Life Span. American Journal of Sociology ,
97(1), 169-195.
Anduiza, E.P. (2002) Individual characteristics, institutional incentives and electoral abstention in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research , 41(5), 643-
673.
Asher, H.A., Richardson, B.M., & Weisberg, H.F. (1984) Political Participation. An
ISSC workbook in Comparative Analysis . Campus Verlag, Frankfurt.
Badescu, G., Sum, P., & Uslaner, E.M. (2004) Civil Society Development and
Democratic Values in Romania and Moldova. East European Politics & Societies ,
18(2), 316-341.
Barber, B.R. (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age . University of California Press, Berkeley.
Barnes, S. & Kaase, M. (1979) Political action: Mass Participation in Five Western
Democracies . Sage, Beverly Hills.
Beck, P.A. (1977) The Role of Agents in Political Socialization. In: Renshon, S.A.
(eds.) Handbook of Political Socialization (pp.115-142). Free Press, New York.
Bennett, L.W. (2008a) Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth .
MIT Press, Cambridge.
Bennett, W.L. (2008b) Changing Citizenship in the Digital Age. In: Bennett, W.L.
(eds.) Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth (pp.1-24).
MIT Press, Cambridge.
Berelson, B.N., Lazarsfeld, P.F., & MacPhee, W.N. (1963) Voting : a study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign . University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bollen, K.A. (1980) Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Political Democracy.
American Sociological Review , 45(3), 370-390.
Brady, H. (1999) Political Participation. In: Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., &
Wrightsman, L.S. (eds.) Measures of Political Attitudes (pp.737-801). Academic
Press, San Diego.
Burns, N., Schlozman, K.L., & Verba, S. (2001) The private roots of public action.
Gender, Equality, and political participation . Harvard University Press,
Cambridge.
Burt, S. (2002) The Concept of Political Participation. In: Everitt, J. & O’Neill, B.
(eds.) Citizen Politics. Research and Theory in Canadian Political Behavior (pp.232-
246). Oxford University Press, New York.
Campbell, A., Converse P.E., Miller, W.E., & Stokes, D.E. (1960) The American Voter .
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
28

Campbell, B.A. (1980) A Theoretical Approach to Peer Influence in Adolescent
Socialization. American Journal of Political Science , 24(2), 324-344.
Checkoway, B., Tanene, A., & Montoya, C. (2005) Youth participation in public policy at the municipal level. Children and youth services review , 27(10), 1149-
1162.
Citrin, J., Schickler, E., & Sides, J. (2003) What if Everyone Voted? Simulating the
Impact of Increased Turnout in Senate Elections. American Journal of Political
Science , 47(1), 75-90.
Clark, W. (2000) Activism in the public sphere. Exploring the discourse of political participation . Ashgate, Aldershot.
Conge, P.J. (1988) The concept of political participation: toward a definition.
Comparative Politics , 20(2), 241-249.
Dahl, R. (1990) Democracy and Its Critics . Yale University Press, New Haven.
Dahl, R.A. (2006) On Political Equality . Yale University Press, New Haven.
Dalton, R.J. (2002) Citizen Politics. Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced
Industrial Democracies . Chatham House Publishers, New York.
Dalton, R.J. (2007) The Good Citizen. How a Younger Generation is Reshaping American
Politics . CQ Press, Washington, D.C.
Dalton, R.J. & Klingemann, H.-D. (2007) Citizens and Political Behavior. In: Dalton,
R.J. & Klingemann, H.-D. (eds.) Political Behavior (pp.3-26). Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Dalton, R.J. & Wattenberg, M.P. (2000) Parties without partisans. Political change in advanced industrial democracies . Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Davies, J.C. (1965) The Family's Role in Political Socialization. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science , 361, 10-19. della Porta, D. (2005) Deliberation in Movement: Why and How to Study
Deliberative Democracy and Social Movements. Acta Politica , 40(3), 336-350. della Porta, D. & Diani, M. (1999) Social Movements. An Introduction . Blackwell
Publishers, Oxford.
Delli Carpini, M.X. & Keeter, S. (1996) What Americans know about politics and why it matters . Yale University Press, New Haven.
Dewey, J. (1913) The School and Society . University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Dudley, R.L. & Gitelson, A.R. (2002) Political Literacy, Civic Education, and Civic
Engagement: a Return to Political Socialization. Applied Developmental Science ,
6(4), 175-182.
Earl, J. & Schussman, A. (2008) Contesting Culturla Control: Youth Culture and
Online Petitioning. In: Bennett, W.L. (eds.) Civic Life Online: Learning How
Digital Media Can Engage Youth (pp.71-95). MIT Press, Cambridge.
Easton, D. (1965) A Framework for Political Analysis . Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.
Easton, D. & Dennis, J. (1969) Children in the political system. Origins of political legitimacy . McGraw-Hill, New York.
Easton, D. & Dennis, J. (1967) The Child's Acquisition of Regime Norms: Political
Efficacy. American Political Science Review , 61(1), 25-38.
Eden, K. & Roker, D. (2002) '...doing something': young people as social actors . The
National Youth Agency, Leicester.
Everitt, J. & O’Neill, B. (2002) Citizen Politics. Research and Theory in Canadian Political
29

Behavior . Oxford University Press, New York.
Finkel, S.E. (1985) Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Efficacy: A Panel
Analysis. American Journal of Political Science , 29(4), 891-913.
Finkel, S.E. (1987) The effects of participation on political efficacy and political support: evidence from a West German panel. Journal of Politics , 49, 441-464.
Fishkin, J.S. & Luskin, R.C. (2005) Experimenting with a Democratic Deliberative
Polling and Public Opinion. Acta Politica , 40(3), 284-298.
Flanagan, C.A. (2004) Volunteerism, Leadership, Political Socialization, and Civic
Engagement. In: Lerner, R.M. & Steinberg Laurence (eds.) Handbook of
Adolescent Psychology. Second Edition (pp.721-745). John Wiley & Sons, New
Jersey.
Franklin, M.N. (2004) Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in
Established Democracies Since 1945 . Cambridge University Press, New York.
Freie, J.F. (1997) The Effects of Campaign Participation on Political Attitudes.
Political Behavior , 19(2), 133-156.
Fuchs, D. & Klingemann, H.-D. (1998) Citizens and the state: A Changing
Relationship. In: Klingemann, H.-D. & Fuchs, D. (eds.) Citizens and the State
(pp.1-23). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Galston, W.A. (2001) Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic
Education. Annual Review Political Science , 4, 217-234.
Galston, W.A. (2007) Civic Knowledge, Civic Education, and Civic Engagement: A
Summary of Recent Research Source. International Journal of Public
Administration , 30(6), 623-642.
Gauthier, M. (2003) The inadequacy of concepts: The rise of youth interest in Civic participation in Quebec. Journal of Youth Studies , 6(3), 265-276.
Gimpel, J.G., Lay, C.J., & Schuknecht, J.E. (2003) Cultivating Democracy. Civic
Environments and Political Socialization in America . Brookings Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Glanville, J.L. (1999) Political socialization or selection? Adolescent Extracurricular
Participation and Political Activity in Early Adulthood. Social Science Quarterly ,
10(2), 279-290.
Green, D.P. & Gerber, A.S. (2004) Get out the vote! How to increase voter turnout .
Brookings Institution Press, Washington.
Hague, R. & Harrop, M. (2001 ) Comparative Government and politics. An Introduction .
Palgrave, Houndmills.
Hahn, C. (1998) Becoming political: comparative perspectives on citizenship education .
State University of New York Press, New York.
Hanks, M. & Eckland, B.K. (1978) Adult Voluntary Associations and Adolescent
Socialization . Sociological Quarterly , 19(3), 481-490.
Hart, R.A. (1992) Children’s participation. From tokenism to citizenship . United Nations
Children's Fund, Florence.
Henn, M., Weinstein, M., & Wring, D. (2002) A generation apart? Youth and political participation in Britain. British Journal of Politics and International
Relations , 4(2), 167-192.
Hess, R.D. & Torney, J.V. (1967) The development of political attitudes in Children .
Aldine, Chicago.
30

Holzer, B. (2006) Political consumerism between individual choice and collective action: social movements, role mobilization and signaling. International Journal of Consumer Studies , 30(5), 405-415.
Holzer, B. & Sorensen, M. (2001) Subpolitics and Subpoliticians. Arbeitspapier 4 des SBF
536 Reflexive Modernisierung. Munich: University of Munich.
Huckfeldt, R. (1979) Political Participation and the Neighborhood Social Context.
American Journal of Political Science , 23(3), 579-592.
Hyman, H.H. (1959) Political Socialization . Free Press, Glencoe.
Inglehart, R. (1997) Modernization and postmodernization. Cultural, economic and political change in 43 countries . Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Inglehart, R. & Catterberg, G. (2002) Trends in Political Action: The developmental
Trend and the Post-Honeymoon Decline. International Journal of Comparative
Sociology , 43(1), 300-316.
Inglehart, R. & Norris, P. (2003) Rising tide: gender equality and cultural change around the world . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Inglehart, R.F. (2008) Changing Values among western Publics from 1970 to 2006.
West European Politics , 31(1/2), 130-146.
Irwin, G. (1974) Compulsory Voting Legislation. Impact on Voter Turnout in the
Netherlands. Comparative Political Studies , 7(3), 292-315.
Jaros, D. (1973) Socialization to politics. Basic concepts in political science . Nelson,
Nairobi.
Jennings, M.K. (2002) Generation Units and the Student Protest Movement in the
United States: An Intra- and Intergenerational Analysis. Political Psychology ,
23(3), 303-324.
Jennings, M.K. (2007) Political Socialization. In: Dalton, R.J. & Klingemann, H.-D.
(eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior (pp.29-44). Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Jennings, M.K. & Niemi, R.G. (1968) The transmission of political values from parent to child. American Political Science Review , 62(1), 169-184.
Jennings, M.K. & Niemi, R.G. (1978) The Persistence of Political Orientations: An
Over-Time Analysis of Two Generations. British Journal of Political Science , 8(3),
333-363.
Jennings, M.K. & Niemi, R.G. (1981) Generations and politics: a panel study of young adults and their parents . Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Kaase, M. & March, A. (1979a) Political action: a theoretical perspective. In: Barnes,
S. & Kaase, M. (eds.) Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies
(pp.27-56). Sage, Beverly Hills.
Kaase, M. & March, A. (1979b) Political action repertory: changes over time and a new typology. In: Barnes, S. & Kaase, M. (eds.) Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies (pp. Sage, Beverly Hills.
Kimberlee, R.H. (2002) Why Don’t British Young People Vote at General Elections?
Journal of Youth Studies , 5(1), 85-98.
Kornhauser, W. (1959) The politics of mass society . Free Press, Glencoe.
Krueger, B.S. (2002) Assessing the potential of Internet political participation in the
United States. American Political Research , 30(5), 476-598.
Lane, R.E. (1959) Political life: why and how people get involved in politics . Free Press,
31

Glencoe.
Langton, K.P. (1969) Political socialization . Oxford University Press, New York.
Leighley, J.E. (1995) Attitudes, Opportunities and incentives: a field essay on political participation. Political Research Quarterly , 48(1), 181-209.
Levine, P. (2007) The Future of Democracy. Developing the Next Generation of American
Citizens . Tufts University Press, Medford.
Levine, P. (2008) A Public Voice for Youth: The Audience Problem in Digital Media and Civic Education. In: Bennett, L.W. (eds.) Civic Life Online: Learning How
Digital Media Can Engage Youth (pp.119-138). MIT Press, Cambridge.
Lipset, S.M. (1963) Political Man. The Social Bases of Politics.
Doubleday, Garden City.
Macedo, S., Alex-Assensoh, Y.M., Berry, J.M., Brintnall, M., Campbell, D.E., Fraga,
L.R., Fung, A., Galston, W.A., Karpowitz, C.F., Levi, M., Levinson, M., &
Lipsitz, K. (2005) Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices Undermine Citizen
Participation, and What We Can Do About It . Brookings Institution, Washington
DC.
Mansbridge, J. (1995) Does Participation Make Better Citizens? Paper presented at the
PEGS Conference, February 11-12.
Mariën, S., Hooghe, M., & Quintelier, E. (2008) Inequalities in "New" Forms of Political
Participation. An analysis of the 2004 ISSP Survey. Paper presented at the Conference on Normative Implications of New Forms of Participation (8-10 May), Grythyttan,
Sweden .
Marsh, D., O'Toole, T., & Jones, S. (2006) Young people and politics in the UK. Apathy or Alienation . Palgrave, Houndmills.
Martikainen, P., Martikainen, T., & Wass, H. (2005) The effect of socioeconomic factors on voter turnout in Finland: A register-based study of 2.9 million voters.
European Journal of Political Research , 44(5), 645-669.
McClurg, S. (2006) The electoral relevance of political Talk: Examining
Disagreement and Expertise Effects in Social Networks on Political
Participation. American Journal of Political Science , 50(3), 737-754.
Micheletti, M., Follesdal, A., & Stolle, D. (2003) Politics, Products, and Markets.
Exploring Political Consumerism Past and Present . Transaction Publishers,
Rutgers.
Milbrath, L.W. (1965) Political participation. How and why do people Get involved in
Politics?
Rand McNally and Company, Chicago.
Milbrath, L.W. & Goel, M.L. (1977) Political Participation. How and why do People Get
Involved in Politics?
Rand McNally College Publishing Company, Chicago.
Nannestad, P. (2008) What Have We Learned About Generalized Trust, If
Anything? Annual Review of Political Science , 11, 413-436.
Newton, K. & Montero, J.R. (2007) Patterns of political and social participation in
Europe. In: Jowell, R. et al. (eds.) Measuring Attitudes Cross-Nationally. Lessons from the European Social Survey (pp.205-238). Sage, London.
Nie, N.H., Junn, J., & Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996) Education and Democratic Citizenship .
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Niemi, R.G. & Hepburn, M.A. (1995) The rebirth of political socialization.
Perspectives on Political Science , 24(1), 7-16.
Niemi, R.G. & Sobieszek, B.I. (1977) Political Socialization. Annual Review of
32

Sociology , 3, 209-233.
Norris, P., Lovenduski, J., & Campbell, R. (2004) Gender and Political Participation .
Electoral Commission, London.
Norris, P. (1999) Conclusion : The Growth of Critical Citizens and Its Consequences.
In: Norris, P. (eds.) Critical Citizens. Global Support for Democratic Governance
(pp.257-270). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Norris, P. (2002) Democratic Phoenix. Reinventing Political Activism . Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Norris, P. (2004) Young people and political activism: From the politics of loyalties to the politics of choice? Paper for the conference ‘civic engagement in the 21st century: toward a Scholarly and Practical Agenda’ at the University of Southern Carolina, Oct
1-2 2004.
Norris, P. (2005) Political activism: new challenges, new opportunities. In: Boix, C.
& Stokes, S. (eds.) Oxford handbook of comparative politics (pp. Oxford University
Press., Oxford.
Norris, P. (2006) Political Protest in Fragile States. Paper presented at the International
Political Science Association World Congress in Fukuoka (Japan), Thursday, 1th July
2006.
Norris, P., Walgrave, S., & van Aelst, P. (2005) Who demonstrates? Anti-state rebels or conventional participants? Or everyone? Comparative Politics , 37(2), 189-205.
O'Toole, T. et al. (2003) Tuning out or left out? Participation and non-participation among young people. Contemporary Politics , 9(1), 45-61.
Parry, G. (1999) Constructive and Reconstructive Political Education. Oxford Review of Education , 25(1/2), 23-38.
Parry, G., Moyser, G., & Day, N. (1992) Political participation and democracy in Britain .
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pasek, J. et al. (2006) America’s Youth and Community Engagement. How Use of
Mass Media Is Related to Civic Activity and Political Awareness in 14- to 22-
Year-Olds. Communication Research , 33(3), 115-135.
Pateman, C. (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory.
Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Pattie, C., Seyd, P., & Whiteley, P. (2004) Citizenship in Britain. Values, Participation and democracy . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Plutzer, E. (2002) Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in
Young Adulthood. American Political Science Review , 96(1), 41-56.
Print, M. (2007) Citizenship Education and Youth Participation in Democracy.
British Journal of Educational Studies , 55(3), 325-345.
Putnam, R. (1995) Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of
Democracy , 6(1), 65-78.
Putnam, R.D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: civic traditions in modern Italy .
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Democracy .
Simon & Schuster, New York.
Renshon, S.A. (1977) Assumptive Frameworks in Political Socialization Theory. In:
Renshon, S.A. (eds.) Handbook of Political Socialization (pp.3-44). The Free Press,
New York.
33

Rosenstone, S.J. & Hansen, J.M. (2003) Mobilization, participation, and democracy in
America . Longman, New York.
Rucht, D. (2007) The Spread of Protest Politics. In: Dalton, R.J. & Klingemann, H.-D.
(eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior (pp. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Russell, A., Fieldhouse, E., Purdam, K., & Kalra, V. (2002) Voter engagement and young people. Research report, July 2002 . Electoral Commission, London.
Salisbury, R.H. (1975) Research on political participation. American Journal of
Political Science , 19(2), 323-341.
Sapiro, V. (2004) Not your parents’ political socialization: Introduction for a new generation. Annual Review , 7(1), 1-23.
Scheufele, D.A. et al. (2006) Democracy Based on Difference: Examining the Links
Between structural Heterogeneity of Discussion Networks, and Democratic
Citizenship. Journal of Communication , 56, 728-753.
Schizzerotto, A. & Gasperoni, G. (2001) Study on the State of Young People and Youth
Policy in Europe . Istituto di Ricera, Milan.
Schlozman, K.L., Page, B.I., Verba, S., & Fiorina, M. (2004) Inequalities of Political
Voice . Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy/American Political
Science Association, Washington.
Schudson, M. (2007) Citizens, Consumers, and the Good Society. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science , 611, 236-249.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1962) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Third Edition . Harper &
Row, New York.
Shi, T. (1997) Political Participation in Beijing . Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Sigel, R.S. (1995) New Directions for Political Socialization Research: Thoughts and
Suggestions. Perspectives on Political Science , 24(1), 17-22.
Skocpol, T. (2003) Diminished Democracy. From membership to management in American
Civic Life . University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Stevens, F. & De Groof, S. (2006) Politiek beroerd? Politiek in het jeugdonderzoek
2000-2005. In: Vettenburg, N., Elchardus, M., & Walgraeve, L. (eds.) Jongeren van nu en straks: overzicht en synthese van recent jeugdonderzoek in Vlaanderen
(pp.273-305). Lannoo, Tielt.
Stoker, L. & Jennings, K.M. (2008) Of Time and the Development of Partisan
Polarization. American Journal of Political Science , 52(3), 619-635.
Stolle, D. & Hooghe, M. (2004) The Roots of Social Capital: Attitudinal and
Network Mechanisms in the Realtion between Youth and Adult Indicators of
Social Capital. Acta Politica , 39(4), 422-441.
Stolle, D. and others (2007) What Does Politics Mean to You? Young Citizens and Extra-
Parliamentary Forms of Political Action. ECPR General Conference (6-8 September),
Pisa .
Tedin, K.L. (1974) The influence of Parents on the Political Attitudes of Adolescents.
American Political Science Review , 68(4), 1579-1592.
Teorell, J. (2003) Linking Social Capital to Political Participation: Voluntary
Associations and Networks of Recruitment in Sweden. Scandinavian Political
Studies , 26(1), 49-66.
Teorell, J. (2006) Political participation in three theories of democracy: a research
34

inventory and agenda. European Journal of Political Research , 45(5), 787-810.
Tolbert, C.J. & McNeal, R.S. (2003) Unraveling the effects of the Internet on political participation? Political Research Quarterly , 56(2), 175-186.
Torney-Purta, J. (2002) The School’s Role in developing Civic Engagement: A Study of Adolescents in Twenty-Eight Countries. Applied Developmental Science , 6(4),
203-212.
Torney-Purta, J. (2004) Adolescents' political socialization in changing contexts: an international study in the spirit of Nevitt Sanford. Political Psychology , 25(3),
465-478.
Torney-Purta, J., Barber, C.H., & Wilkenfeld, B. (2007) 'Latino Adolescents' Civic
Development in the United States: Research Results from the IEA Civic
Education Study . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 36(2), 111-125.
Torpe, L. (2003) Democracy and associations in Denmark: Changing Relationships between individuals and associations? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly ,
32(3), 329-343.
Uhlaner, C.J. (2001) Participation, political. In: Smelser, N.J. & Bates, P.B. (eds.)
International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp.11078-11082).
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam. van Deth, J.W. (2001) Studying political participation: towards a theory of everything?
Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions. Workshop ‘Electronic democracy: mobilization, organization and participation via new ICT’s’ Grenoble, 6-11 April 2001.
Verba, S. et al. (1993) Race Ethnicity and Political resources: Participation in the
United States. British Journal of Political Science , 23(4), 453-497.
Verba, S. (2003) Would the Dream of Political Equality Turn out th Be a Nightmare?
Perspectives on Politics , 1(4), 663-679.
Verba, S., Nie, N.H., & Kim, J. (1978) Participation and political equality: a seven-nation comparison . Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Verba, S. & Nie, N. (1972) Participation in America. Political Democracy and Social
Equality . Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., & Brady, H.E. (1995) Voice and equality: civic voluntarism in American Politics . Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., & Burns, N. (2005) Family Ties. Understanding the
Intergenerational Transmission of Political Participation. In: Zuckerman, A.S.
(eds.) The Social Logic of Politics. Personal Networks as Contexts for Political
Behavior (pp. Temple University, Philadelphia.
Verbeek, M. (2006) A Guide to Modern Econometrics.
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Visser, P.S. & Krosnick, J.A. (1998) Development of Attitude Strength Over the Life
Cycle: Surge and Decline. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75(6), 1389-
1410.
Walgrave, S. & Verhulst, J. (2006) The first time is the hardest? A cross-national and cross-issue comparison of first-time protest participants. Paper presented at the APSA conference, Philadelphia, August 31 - September 3 .
Wattenberg, M.P. (2007) Is Voting for Young People? With a Postscript on Citizen
Engagement . Pearson Longman, New York.
Wuthnow, R. (1998) Loose connections: joining together in America’s Fragmented
Communities . Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
35

Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Delli Carpini, M.X. (2006) A New
Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen .
Oxford University Press, New York.
36