« Political participation » : différence entre les versions

De Baripedia
Aucun résumé des modifications
 
(20 versions intermédiaires par le même utilisateur non affichées)
Ligne 19 : Ligne 19 :
}}
}}


Examinaremos las diferentes formas de participación política y luego los diferentes factores explicativos. En lo que respecta a la participación política, por lo general sólo hay una teoría dominante, que es la teoría de los recursos, y hay otras teorías que pueden extraerse de los trabajos existentes.  
We will examine the different forms of political participation and then the different explanatory factors. As far as political participation is concerned, there is usually only one dominant theory, which is the theory of resources, and there are other theories that can be drawn from existing works.  


El estudio de la participación se remonta al auge del conductismo. Al principio, los investigadores se interesaron en explicar la participación en un país determinado y sólo más tarde comenzaron a elaborarse estudios comparativos que tienen la ventaja de centrarse en el papel del contexto. En un principio, la participación se concibió únicamente en términos de participación electoral y todo lo demás se puso en otra categoría. Luego pasamos a los análisis bivariantes que ponen dos o un factor explicativo en relación con lo que tratamos de explicar; y hoy en día, nos interesan muchos más factores, en particular debido a métodos de análisis más sofisticados con análisis de múltiples niveles entre otros.{{Translations
The study of participation goes back to the rise of behaviorism. At first, researchers were interested in explaining participation in a given country, and only later did they begin to develop comparative studies that have the advantage of focusing on the role of context. Initially, participation was conceived only in terms of voter turnout and everything else was put into another category. Then we moved to bivariate analyses that put two or one explanatory factor in relation to what we are trying to explain; and today, we are interested in many more factors, particularly because of more sophisticated analysis methods with multi-level analysis among others.
 
{{Translations
| fr = La participation politique
| fr = La participation politique
| es =  
| es = La participación política
| it = La partecipazione politica
}}
}}


=Formes de participation politique=
=Forms of political participation=
Quelles sont les différentes formes de la participation politique ? On distingue une participation conventionnelle d’une participation non-conventionnelle. Ces termes sont encore aujourd’hui souvent utilisés dans la littérature sur la participation. Néanmoins, le terme de conventionnel n’est pas très bien choisi parce qu’il ne reste pas stable ; par contre, la distinction entre comportement institutionnel et comportement non-institutionnel fait référence à un comportement qui s’inscrit dans un cadre institutionnalisé et d’autres formes de participation qui sont non-institutionnalisées.  
What are the different forms of political participation? A distinction is made between conventional and non-conventional participation. These terms are still often used in the literature on participation. Nevertheless, the term conventional is not very well chosen because it does not remain stable; on the other hand, the distinction between institutional and non-institutional behaviour refers to behaviour that takes place within an institutionalized framework and other forms of participation that are non-institutionalized.
 
Milbrath is one of the founders of American sociology on political participation, showing that there were several forms of participation. In a 1965 book, he postulates a distinction between three types of political actors also called "citizens" who are apathetic actors (1) who do not participate and are completely absent, spectators (2) who are people marginally involved in politics participating from time to time, and gladiators (3) who are people who are active fighters and participate all the time.
 
On the other hand, Milbrath based himself on studies by Verba. Milbrath distinguishes six different types of citizens, voters and patriots (1), contact specialists (2), communicators (3), party and campaign workers (4), community activists (5), protestors (6).
 
A third essential typology is that of Barnes and Kaase. They were the first to think in terms of typology in order to highlight the main types of participation. There is the idea of a true typology of forms of participation: inactive (1), conformists (2), reformists (3), activists (4), protestors (5).
 
=Typology of the repertoire of political action: Barnes and Kaase=
The starting point is a list of more specific actions, which in this case is a list of actions called "conventional participation". Barnes and Kaase innovate in the sense that they cross conventional criteria with non-conventional criteria. This way of thinking speaks of a current reflection that is a combination in order to see how forms of institutional commitments combine with forms of non-institutional commitments.
 
[[Fichier:comportement politique typologie du répertoire de l’action politique Barnes et Kaase 1.png|center|vignette|Barnes, S., M. Kaase et al. (1979). Political Action. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.<ref name=":0">Barnes, Samuel H., and Max Kaase. ''Political action : mass participation in five Western democracies''. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications, 1979. Print.</ref><ref>Powell, G. B., Jr. (1981). Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies.Samuel H. Barnes , Max Kaase , Klaus R. Allerback , Barbara Farah , Felix Heunks , Ronald Inglehart , M. Kent Jennings , Hans D. Klingemann , Allan Marsh , Leopold Rosenmayr. American Journal of Sociology, 87(2), 505–507. https://doi.org/10.1086/227490</ref><ref>LeDuc, L. (1981). Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western DemocraciesSamuel H. Barnes, Max Kaase, et al. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1979, pp. 608. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 14(1), 201–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008423900035824</ref>]]
 
=Country directories of political action=


Milbrath est l’un des fondateurs de la sociologie américaine sur la participation politique montrant qu’il y avait plusieurs formes de participation. Dans un ouvrage de 1965, il postule une distinction entre trois types d’acteurs politiques dit aussi « citoyens » qui sont les acteurs apathiques (1) qui ne participent pas et qui sont complétement absent, spectateur (2) qui sont des personnes marginalement impliquées dans la politique participant de temps en temps, et les gladiateurs (3) qui sont des personnes qui sont des combattants actifs et qui participent tout le temps.  
The interest with this table is to see how participation varies and to show that engagement is highly dependent on the political context in which it takes place.


D’autre part, Milbrath s’est basé sur des études de Verba. Milbrath distingue six types différents de citoyens, voters and patriots (1), contact specialists (2), communicators (3), party and campaign workers (4), community activists (5), protestors (6).
[[Fichier:comportement politique répertoires de l’action politique selon les pays 1.png|center|vignette|Barnes, S., M. Kaase et al. (1979). Political Action. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.<ref name=":0" />]]
 
Une troisième typologie essentielle est celle de Barnes et Kaase. Ce sont les premiers à avoir pensé en termes de typologie afin de faire ressortir des grands types de participation. Il y a l’idée d’une véritable forme de typologie des formes de participation : inactifs (1), conformistes (2), réformistes (3), activistes (4), protestataires (5).
=Forms of political participation: Teorell, Torcal and Montero=
Teorell, Tocal and Montero distinguish several forms of political participation, namely voting (1), consumer participation (2), party activity (3), protest activity (4) and contacting (5). These five forms depend on three criteria: channel of expression (1) which is extra-representative (2), exit-based (3) and voice-based (4). A further distinction is made between targeted (1) and non-targeted (2).


=Typologie du répertoire de l’action politique : Barnes et Kaase=
This typology has been empirically tested, but how was it arrived at on the basis of empirical data?
On part d’une liste d’actions plus spécifiques qui sont en l’occurrence une liste d’actions appelées « participation conventionnelle ». Barnes et Kaase innovent dans le sens où ils croisent des critères conventionnels avec des critères non-conventionnels. Cette manière de réfléchir parle d’une réflexion actuelle qui est une combinaison afin de voir comment les formes d’engagements institutionnels se combinent avec les formes d’engagements non-institutionnels.


[[Fichier:comportement politique typologie du répertoire de l’action politique Barnes et Kaase 1.png|center|vignette|Barnes, S., M. Kaase et al. (1979). Political Action. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.]]
[[Fichier:comportement politique formes de participation politique Teorell Torcal Montero 1.png|center|vignette|Van Deth, J.W., J.R. Montero et A. Westholm, éds. (2007). Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies. London: Routledge.<ref name=":1">Deth, Jan W., Montero, and Anders Westholm. Citizenship and involvement in European democracies : a comparative analysis. London New York: Routledge, 2007. Print.</ref>]]


=Répertoires de l’action politique selon les pays=
=Factorial analysis of forms of political participation=


L’intérêt avec ce tableau est de voir comment la participation varie et de montrer que l’engagement est fortement tributaire du contexte politique dans lequel il se situe.
[[Fichier:comportement politique analyse factorielle des formes de participation politique 1.png|vignette|Van Deth, J. W., J.R. Montero et A. Westholm, éds. (2007). Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies. London: Routledge.<ref name=":1" />]]


[[Fichier:comportement politique répertoires de l’action politique selon les pays 1.png|center|vignette|Barnes, S., M. Kaase et al. (1979). Political Action. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.]]
A fairly standard battery of participation appears. The idea of factor analysis starts from the idea that there are certain latent dimensions of human action that cannot be observed. We observe something else and through this we try to identify and understand the latent dimensions. A factorial analysis will allow us to reduce a great complexity and to identify some underlying and latent dimensions. We observe correlations between the observed item and the latent unobserved dimension. The logic is to try to define and observe participations through inferences.  


=Formes de participation politique : Teorell, Torcal et Montero=
In the literature, there are several proposals, but in the end, it is possible to reach a consensus that defines up to five main forms of participation.
Teorell, Tocal et Montero distinguent plusieurs formes de participation politique, à savoir voting (1), consumer participation (2), party activity (3), protest activity (4) et contacting (5). Ces cinq forment dépendent de trois critères : canal d’expression (1) qui est extra-représentatif (2), exit-based (3) et voice-based (4). Une distinction ultérieure est faite entre targeted (1) et non- targeted (2).


Cette typologie a été testée empiriquement, mais comment est t-on arrivé à cette typologie sur la base de données empiriques ?
=Explanatory factors for political participation=
A first way to explain political participation is to ask the question about the potential factors that may explain why one participates or why one does not participate. Remember that when we talk about political participation, we try to explain why we vote or why we abstain, or why we participate in certain forms such as a social movement or why we do not participate.


[[Fichier:comportement politique formes de participation politique Teorell Torcal Montero 1.png|center|vignette|Van Deth, J.W., J.R. Montero et A. Westholm, éds. (2007). Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies. London: Routledge.]]
It is already possible to distinguish between four main types of explanatory factors that must be taken into account.


=Analyse factorielle des formes de participation politique=
First, we need to look at what Milbrath called the immediate environment, i.e., contextual factors directly or closely related to the explanations of participation, such as the role of the media, the potential effect of political campaigns, but also the role of personal contacts and informal conversations that influence us that can inform, convince or deter.


[[Fichier:comportement politique analyse factorielle des formes de participation politique 1.png|vignette|Van Deth, J. W., J.R. Montero et A. Westholm, éds. (2007). Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies. London: Routledge.]]
The second set of factors refers to attitudes, beliefs and personality traits encompassing partisan identification that can influence our participation, but also political effectiveness. Dissatisfaction with politics is another example of an attitude that we can refer to two hypotheses with the fact that dissatisfaction with politics could push someone to participate or on the contrary to not participate.


Apparaît une batterie de participation assez standard. L’idée de l’analyse factorielle part de l’idée qu’il y a certaines dimensions latentes de l’action humaine qu’on ne peut pas observer. On observe quelque chose d’autre et à travers cela, on essaie d’identifier et comprendre les dimensions latentes. Une analyse factorielle va permettre de réduire une grande complexité et de dégager quelques dimensions sous-jacentes et latentes. On observe des corrélations entre l’item observé et la dimension non-observée latente. La logique est de tenter de définir et d’observer des participations à travers des inférences.  
A third set of factors is related to social position, which is socio-economic status, age, but also gender. There are variations between these different socio-demographic characteristics and participation.


Dans la littérature, il existe plusieurs propositions, mais finalement, il est possible d’arriver à un consensus qui définit jusqu’à cinq grandes formes de participations.
Finally, to return to the contextual level, there is the broader environment, namely the social system, cultural tradition or the institutional framework and political system, which may explain different participation rates from one context to another.


=Facteurs explicatifs de la participation politique=
To sum up, two levels need to be taken into account, namely the macro level, which is a contextual level, and the macrosociological level. A comprehensive explanation takes into account these four types of factors. Nevertheless, this is a simple list of factors to try to explain why people participate in politics. These factors potentially have an effect.
Une première manière d’expliquer la participation politique est de se poser la question sur les potentiels facteurs qui peuvent expliquer pourquoi on participe ou pourquoi ne participe-t-on pas. Rappelons que lorsqu’on parle de participation politique, on tente d’expliquer pourquoi on va voter ou pourquoi s’abstient-on, ou encore pourquoi va t-on participer à certaines formes comme un mouvement social ou pourquoi n’y participe-t-on pas.  


Il est déjà possible de faire une distinction entre quatre grands ordres de facteurs explicatifs dont il faut tenir compte.  
=Theories of political participation=
In the literature, there are several theories of political participation. We will see a classification of the theories that partly use these different factors. This classification of theories distinguishes between five explanatory theories of participation. There is not only one way to classify the theories of participation. Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish between two or even three main approaches.  


D’abord, il faut s’intéresser à ce que Milbrath appelait l’environnement immédiat, à savoir des facteurs relevant du contexte influençant directement ou proche de l’explicitions de la participation comme par exemple le rôle des médias, l’effet potentiel des campagnes politiques, mais aussi le rôle des contacts personnels et conversations informelles qui nous influencent qui peuvent informer convaincre ou dissuader.
==Socio-economic status - standard model==
This theory is the first chronologically in the history of the discipline, namely the theory of socio-economic status. This theory focuses on a certain type of factors, namely the level of education, which is the variable that has the most explanatory power of participation in general whether electoral or non-electoral, there is also income and occupation. Behind this theory there is a concern about the role of social class. This theory has been dominant for many years.
Le deuxième ensemble de facteurs renvoi aux attitudes, croyances et traits de la personnalité englobant l’identification partisane qui peut influencer notre participation, mais aussi l’efficacité politique. L’insatisfaction avec la politique est un autre exemple d’attitude que nous pouvons renvoyer à deux hypothèses avec le fait que l’insatisfaction en politique pourrait pousser quelqu’un à participer ou au contraire à ne pas participer.
Un troisième ensemble de facteurs attrait à la position sociale qui est le statut socio-économique, l’âge, mais aussi le genre. Il y a des variations entre ces différentes caractéristiques sociodémographiques et la participation.  
   
   
Finalement, pour revenir au niveau contextuel, il y a l’environnement plus large, à savoir le système social, la tradition culturelle ou encore le cadre institutionnel et le système politique qui peut expliquer des taux de participation différents d’un contexte à l’autre.
==Orientations politiques - political attitudes model==
Orientation" refers to political attitudes. It is a type of explanation that emphasizes the role of political attitudes more than the role of social inclusion. Political attitudes include interest in politics, political trust, which is the fact of having confidence in political institutions, which can explain participation in one way or another. Political trust may be something that explains electoral participation while it explains abstention in other forms of participation. That is why, at one point, researchers have tried to go beyond this distinction in trying to see in which form participation will take place because several explanatory factors may apply to different forms of participation. Political effectiveness must also be taken into account.


Pour résumer, il faut tenir compte de deux niveaux, à savoir niveau macro qui est un niveau contextuel et un niveau macrosociologique. Une explication exhaustive tient compte de ces quatre types de facteurs. Néanmoins, ceci, est une simple liste de facteurs afin de tenter d’expliquer pourquoi les gens participent en politique. Ces facteurs ont potentiellement un effet.
This theory is rarely found in textbooks. It is Professor Giugni who makes the distinction, because it can be integrated elsewhere.


=Théories de la participation politique=
==Resources - civic voluntarism model==
Dans la littérature, il existe plusieurs théories de la participation politique. Nous allons voir une classification des théories qui utilisent en partie ces différents facteurs. Cette classification de théories distingue entre cinq théories explicatives de la participation. Il n’y a pas qu’une seule manière de classifier les théories de la participation. Néanmoins, il est possible de faire une distinction entre deux voire trois principales approches.  
The resource model is a dominant model that is still dominant today and comes from Verba for example. This theory focuses on the resources that individuals have in politics. The idea is that to be able to participate politically, you have to have certain resources. According to a broad definition, this can be any kind of resources, including cultural resources that come from education. Resources are defined as time to devote to political participation, money that refers to the income factor, and civic skills. Behind this model is the idea that skills come from somewhere and highlights the fact that engagement in various non-political and therefore civic associations gives us those skills that are useful for political participation later on.  


==Statut socioéconomique – standard model==
Between these first three models, it is possible to distinguish between the economic status model, which emphasizes social characteristics of people, and the resource model, which emphasizes the resources available to people.
Cette théorie est la première chronologiquement dans l’historie de la discipline, à savoir la théorie du statut socioéconomique. Cette théorie met l’accent sur un certain type de facteurs, à savoir le niveau d’éducation qui est la variable qui a le plus de pouvoir explicatif de la participation en général qu’elle soit électorale ou non-électorale, il y a aussi le revenu et l’occupation. Derrière cette théorie, il y a une préoccupation qui concerne le rôle de la classe sociale. Cette théorie a été dominante pendant de longues années.
==Orientations politiques – political attitudes model==
On entend par « orientation » des attitudes politiques. C’est un type d’explication qui met l’accent notamment sur le rôle des attitudes politiques plus que sur le rôle de l’insertion sociale. Parmi les attitudes politiques on retrouve l’intérêt pour la politique, la confiance politique qui est le fait d’avoir confiance dans les institutions politiques qui peut expliquer la participation dans un sens comme un autre. La confiance politique peut être quelque chose qui explique la participation électorale alors qu’elle explique l’abstention dans d’autres formes de participation. C’est pourquoi, à un certain moment, les chercheurs ont essayé d’aller plus loin que cette distinction cherchant à voir dans quelle forme participera t-on parce que plusieurs facteurs explicatifs peuvent s’appliquer à différentes formes de participation. Il faut prendre également en compte l’efficacité politique.
Cette théorie se retrouve peu dans les manuels. C’est le professeur Giugni qui fait la distinction, car on peut l’intégrer ailleurs.


==Ressources – civic voluntarism model==
==Social capital - social capital model==
Le modèle des ressources est un modèle dominant encore aujourd’hui qui vient de Verba par exemple. Cette théorie met l’accent sur les ressources qu’ont les individus en politique. L’idée est que pour pouvoir participer politiquement, il faut avoir certaines ressources. Selon une définition large, cela peut être n’importe quel type de ressources y compris les ressources culturelles qui proviennent de l’éducation. On entend par « ressources » le temps pour dédier de son temps à la participation politique, l’argent qui renvoie au facteur revenu et les compétences civiques. Derrière ce modèle, il y a l’idée que les compétences viennent de quelque part et met en évidence le fait que l’engagement dans différentes associations non-politiques donc civiques, nous donne ces compétences qui sont utiles pour la participation politique par la suite.  
Social capital is defined by its properties and resources, i.e., the social relationships and networks that give rise to generalized trust, as Putnam calls it, which translates into institutional trust. Putnam also emphasizes the idea of norms of reciprocity that are established between a social system and an individual.


Entre ces trois premiers modèles, il est possible de distinguer le modèle du statut économique qui met l’accent sur des caractéristiques sociales des personnes et le modèle des ressources qui met l’accent sur les ressources dont les personnes disposent.  
This theory has been used mainly to explain the participation of certain minority groups, particularly in the study of immigrant participation. Nevertheless, this theory is less widespread, but it is a model that has begun to spread.
==Capital social – social capital model==
Le capital social se définit par ses propriétés et ses ressources, à savoir les relations et les réseaux sociaux qui donnent de la confiance généralisée telle que nommée par Putnam qui se traduit par une confiance institutionnelle. Putnam met également l’accent sur l’idée des normes de réciprocités qui s’instaurent entre un système social et un individu.


Cette théorie a été utilisée surtout afin d’expliquer la participation de certains groupes minoritaires et notamment dans le cadre de l’étude de la participation des immigrés. Néanmoins, cette théorie est moins rependue, mais c’est un modèle qui a commencé à se répandre.
==Group consciousness model==
This model is less widely used to explain, among other things, the participation of certain minorities in the United States in the context of ethical and racial cleavages. The basic idea is that there are a number of factors, including four main actors that explain why people participate:
==Conscience de groupe – group consciousness model==
Ce modèle est moins rependu servant à expliquer notamment la participation de certaines minorités aux États-Unis dans des contextes des clivages éthiques et raciaux. L’idée de base est qu’il y a un certain nombre de facteurs et notamment quatre acteurs principaux qui expliquent pourquoi participe t-on, à savoir :


*le group identification avec un fort élément identitaire qui souligne le rôle des identités collectives. Il faut d’abord s’identifier avec un certain groupe que l’on peut entendre par le terme de « classe ». L’origine de la théorie est plutôt dans la distinction de type ethnique, mais on peut très bien l’extrapoler à un clivage de classe faisant que cette théorie devient pleinement marxiste ;
*group identification with a strong identity element that emphasizes the role of collective identities. First of all, one must identify with a certain group that can be understood by the term "class". The origin of the theory is rather in the distinction of ethnic type, but it can very well be extrapolated to a class cleavage that makes this theory fully Marxist;
*polar affect qui est une préférence pour les membres de son propre groupe par rapport aux membres de l’autre groupe. Cela se traduit par l‘existence d’un clivage entre plusieurs groupes au sein de la société ;
*polar affect which is a preference for members of one's own group over members of the other group. This translates into the existence of a cleavage between several groups within society;
*le polar power est le sentiment d’insatisfaction par rapport à la situation que son propre groupe a dans la société. C’est un sentiment d’injustice, celui d’appartenir à un groupe traité de manière injuste par rapport à la situation dans la société ;
*polar power is the feeling of dissatisfaction with the situation that one's own group has in society. It is a feeling of injustice, of belonging to a group that is treated unfairly in relation to the situation in society;
*la théorie postule dans sa version plus précise un effet additif de ces différents facteurs, à savoir la distinction entre individual et system blame qui est l’attribution de responsabilités pour la situation injuste du groupe auquel l’individu appartient et s’identifie.
*the theory postulates in its more precise version an additive effect of these different factors, namely the distinction between individual and system blame which is the attribution of responsibility for the unjust situation of the group to which the individual belongs and identifies himself.


Le cumul de ces quatre facteurs fait que des membres d’une minorité devraient participer dans des formes d’action collective. La première grande théorie afin d’expliquer l’apparition des mouvements sociaux met l’accent sur les griefs qui sont des revendications liées aussi à des situations d’injustices entre groupes.
The combination of these four factors means that members of a minority should participate in forms of collective action. The first major theory to explain the emergence of social movements focuses on grievances, which are claims also related to situations of injustice between groups.


=Facteurs explicatifs de la participation électorale=
=Explanatory factors for voter turnout=
Lorsqu’on s’intéresse à la participation électorale, il y a trois grandes familles de facteurs explicatifs.
When we look at voter turnout, there are three main families of explanatory factors.


D’abord, il y a ce qui relève des caractéristiques du système politique et du processus politique avec le système électoral qui peut être majoritaire ou proportionnel avec la traduction de la volonté des citoyens en vote, l’obligation de s’enregistrer sur les listes électorales, le nombre de partis en tenant compte du fait que le type de système électoral influe sur le nombre de partis, le nombre d'élections ou de votations, la présence d'autres canaux d’influence politique tel que les lobbys, le pouvoir de décision des autorités politiques ou encore le degré de légitimité du système politique qui peut influencer le degré de participation.  
First, there are the characteristics of the political system and the political process with the electoral system which can be majority or proportional with the translation of the will of the citizens into votes, the obligation to register on the electoral lists, the number of parties taking into account that the type of electoral system influences the number of parties, the number of elections or votes, the presence of other channels of political influence such as lobbies, the decision-making power of political authorities or the degree of legitimacy of the political system which can influence the degree of participation.


Un autre ensemble de facteurs se situe à un autre niveau qui sont les caractéristiques de l’élection ou de la votation avec le nombre de partis et candidats en lice, l’importance de l’enjeu, l’équilibre des forces en jeu ou encore le degré de compétition entre partis et les candidats.
Another set of factors is at another level, namely the characteristics of the election or vote, including the number of parties and candidates in the running, the importance of the issue at stake, the balance of forces at play, and the degree of competition between parties and candidates.


Enfin, il y a les caractéristiques de l’électorat avec la position sociale et la perception de la politique.
Finally, there are the characteristics of the electorate with the social position and the perception of politics.


Pour résumer, l’explication de la participation électorale fait appelle à des facteurs qui se situent au niveau macro au niveau du système et du processus politique dans son ensemble, des caractéristiques de l’élection spécifiques ou de la votation qu’on étudie pouvant expliquer des variations d’une relation à l’autre et finalement les caractéristiques de l’électorat qui peuvent expliquer des variations entre les individus ou entre un groupe d’individus et un autre. Il faut prendre en compte l’ensemble de ces facteurs afin d’avoir une explication exhaustive de la participation électorale.  
To summarize, the explanation of voter turnout involves factors that are at the macro level of the political system and process as a whole, specific characteristics of the election or vote being studied that can explain variations from one relationship to another, and finally the characteristics of the electorate that can explain variations between individuals or between one group of individuals and another. All of these factors must be taken into account in order to have a comprehensive explanation of voter turnout.


=Explications de la participation électorale : Franklin=
=Explanations of voter turnout: Franklin=
Curieusement, il n’y a pas de théorie de la participation électorale comme il y en a pour la participation politique, mais par contre, il y a certains auteurs qui ont essayé d’élaborer une théorie dont Franklin qui avait une idée sur ce qui explique véritablement la participation électorale, à savoir le fait que les gens vont voter plutôt que l’abstention. Il n’y a pas de théorie de la participation électorale, mais par contre il y a des théories de l’abstention. Ainsi, la participation électorale est étudiée par le revers de la médaille.  
Curiously, there is no theory of voter turnout as there is for political participation, but on the other hand, there are some authors who have tried to develop a theory, including Franklin, who had an idea about what really explains voter turnout, namely the fact that people will vote rather than abstain. There is no theory of voter turnout, but there are theories of abstention. So voter turnout is studied from the other side of the coin.  


Selon Franklin, il y a trois grandes théories de la participation politique, à savoir les ressources (1) qui sont le temps, l’argent et la connaissance, les théories de la mobilisation (2) qui mettent l’accent sur le rôle des individus et la prise de conscience du rôle politique des individus peut être due à différentes sources notamment le rôle des médias. En d’autres termes, il y a des instances organisationnelles qui mobilisent les gens à aller voter. Enfin, il y a la motivation instrumentale (3).  
According to Franklin, there are three main theories of political participation, namely the resources (1) which are time, money and knowledge, the mobilization theories (2) which focus on the role of individuals and the awareness of the political role of individuals can be due to different sources including the role of the media. In other words, there are organizational bodies that mobilize people to vote. Finally, there is instrumental motivation (3).


Au moment où Franklin écrivait, il y avait deux grandes théories qui sont la théorie des ressources et la théorie de la mobilisation. Pour Franklin, il fallait aussi regarder la motivation instrumentale qui est le sens que les individus peuvent avoir par rapport à l’impact de leurs actions sur le résultat de l’élection. C’est le sentiment d’efficacité de sa propre participation.  
At the time Franklin was writing, there were two major theories, namely resource theory and mobilization theory. For Franklin, it was also necessary to look at instrumental motivation, which is the meaning that individuals can have in relation to the impact of their actions on the outcome of the election. It is the sense of the effectiveness of one's own participation.


S’il faut tenir compte de la motivation instrumentale, c’est parce que la théorie des ressources, mais aussi la théorie de la mobilisation, ne permet pas d’expliquer un fait qui est évident, à savoir que le taux de participation au niveau agrégé varie fortement d’un contexte à l’autre. Pour expliquer cette variation, il faut regarder la variation instrumentale qui est la motivation que les gens ont de participer pour des raisons instrumentales, c‘est-à-dire que le fait de participer est expliqué par la perception de l’efficacité de sa participation. Cette motivation instrumentale est fortement influencée par le contexte et des facteurs tel que le fait que les systèmes électoraux, le nombre de partis en jeu, la saillance d’une élection, l’équilibre des forces en jeu sont ce qui donne de la motivation aux citoyens afin de participer.  
The reason why instrumental motivation has to be taken into account is that resource theory, but also mobilization theory, cannot explain a fact that is obvious, namely that the rate of participation at the aggregate level varies greatly from one context to another. To explain this variation, we must look at the instrumental variation, which is the motivation people have to participate for instrumental reasons, i.e. the fact of participating is explained by the perception of the effectiveness of participation. This instrumental motivation is strongly influenced by the context and factors such as the fact that electoral systems, the number of parties involved, the salience of an election, the balance of forces at play are what motivate citizens to participate.


==Participation électorale selon les pays==
==Voter turnout by country==


[[Fichier:comportement politique participation électorale selon les pays 1.png|vignette|Leduc, L., R. Niemi et P. Norris, éds. (1996). Comparing Democracies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.]]
[[Fichier:comportement politique participation électorale selon les pays 1.png|vignette|Leduc, L., R. Niemi et P. Norris, éds. (1996). Comparing Democracies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.<ref name=":2">LeDuc, L., Niemi, R., & Norris, P. (2010). Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in the 21st Century. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288740</ref>]]


Ce tableau est le taux moyen de participation dans des élections libres cumulées entre 1960 et 1995. Apparaissent des variations énormes avec par exemple l’Australie avec 95% et la Pologne avec pratiquement 51%. Tout de suite après apparaît la Suisse dans ce classement négatif.  
This table is the average voter turnout in free elections cumulated between 1960 and 1995. Enormous variations appear with, for example, Australia with 95% and Poland with almost 51%. Immediately after appears Switzerland in this negative ranking.  


On voit une énorme différence d’un pays à l’autre. Pour Franklin, cela ne peut pas être expliqué par le modèle des ressources parce qu’on présuppose que dans tous les pays, dans la moyenne, il ne devrait pas y avoir un effet de composition d’un électorat à l’autre qui pourrait expliquer cette grande différence. Il y a la même chose pour la théorie de la mobilisation, les médias jouent un grand rôle, tous les partis politiques font des campagnes politiques, il y a des groupes qui se mobilisent, il y un ensemble d’homogénéité qui ne peut expliquer les différences.
There is a huge difference from one country to another. For Franklin, this cannot be explained by the resource model because it is assumed that in all countries, on average, there should not be a composition effect from one electorate to another that could explain this big difference. The same is true for the theory of mobilization, the media plays a big role, all political parties run political campaigns, there are groups that mobilize, there is a set of homogeneity that cannot explain the differences.


La motivation instrumentale est fortement influencée par le contexte et notamment la saillance des élections varie beaucoup d’un contexte à l’autre dépendant énormément de nombreux facteurs qui peuvent varier d’un contexte à l’autre.
Instrumental motivation is strongly influenced by the context, and in particular the salience of elections varies greatly from one context to another depending on many factors that can vary from one context to another.


==Participation électorale selon les caractéristiques individuelles==
==Voter turnout by individual characteristics==


[[Fichier:comportement politique participation électorale selon les caractéristiques individuelles  1.png|vignette|center|Leduc, L., R. Niemi et P. Norris, éds. (1996). Comparing Democracies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.]]
[[Fichier:comportement politique participation électorale selon les caractéristiques individuelles  1.png|vignette|center|Leduc, L., R. Niemi et P. Norris, éds. (1996). Comparing Democracies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.<ref name=":2" />]]


Ce tableau montre les effets individuels de différents facteurs comme l’âge, la force de l’identification partisane, le fait de discuter de politique, l’éducation, la participation religieuse, la participation à des associations et le revenu.
This table shows the individual effects of different factors such as age, strength of partisan identification, discussing politics, education, religious involvement, associational participation and income.


Franklin a voulu montrer le taux moyen de participation électorale dans la catégorie inférieure par rapport à la catégorie supérieure de la variable en question.  
Franklin wanted to show the average rate of voter turnout in the lower versus the higher category of the variable in question.


On voit des mesures des effets individuels et des effets de contextes. Franklin conclut que l’effet du contexte est plus important que les différences individuelles.
We see measures of both individual and contextual effects. Franklin concludes that the context effect is more important than individual differences.


==Effets des facteurs individuels sur la participation électorale==
==Effects of Individual Factors on Voter Turnout==


[[Fichier:comportement politique effets des facteurs individuels sur la participation électorale 1.png|vignette|center|Leduc, L., R. Niemi et P. Norris, éds. (1996). Comparing Democracies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.]]
[[Fichier:comportement politique effets des facteurs individuels sur la participation électorale 1.png|vignette|center|Leduc, L., R. Niemi et P. Norris, éds. (1996). Comparing Democracies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.<ref name=":2" />]]


Ce tableau montre trois tableaux de régression. Dans le premier apparaissent que les effets individuels, le troisième contient les effets individuels, contextuels et une estimation des données manquantes.  
This table shows three regression tables. The first shows individual effects, the third contains individual, context effects and an estimate of missing data.  


Les caractéristiques individuelles jouent un rôle important, mais l’effet du contexte est particulièrement important.
Individual characteristics play an important role, but the context effect is particularly important.


==Effets des facteurs contextuels sur la participation électorale==
==Effects of Contextual Factors on Voter Turnout==


[[Fichier:comportement politique effets des facteurs contextuels sur la participation électorale 1.png|vignette|center|Leduc, L., R. Niemi et P. Norris, éds. (1996). Comparing Democracies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.]]
[[Fichier:comportement politique effets des facteurs contextuels sur la participation électorale 1.png|vignette|center|Leduc, L., R. Niemi et P. Norris, éds. (1996). Comparing Democracies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.<ref name=":2" />]]


Dans ce tableau, Franklin met l’accent sur des effets de contexte. Si on regarde le premier modèle, Franklin tente de voir quelles sont les caractéristiques du contexte institutionnel qui peuvent influencer la participation. On peut voir un effet significatif, mais relativement peu important de 0,62. Autrement dit, cela fait augmenter de 0,62% la participation si on est dans un système proportionnel plutôt que dans un système majoritaire.
In this table, Franklin emphasizes context effects. Looking at the first model, Franklin tries to see what characteristics of the institutional context can influence participation. We can see a significant, but relatively small effect of .62. In other words, it increases participation by 0.62% if you are in a proportional system rather than a majority system.


Le vote obligatoire, comme il y a dans certains endroits aussi en Suisse, l’effet est toujours significatif, mais toujours important. Si on est obligé de voter, cela fait augmenter de 7% la participation électorale.  
With compulsory voting, as there is in some places also in Switzerland, the effect is still significant, but still important. If you are obliged to vote, it increases voter turnout by 7%.


Une troisième caractéristique est le ou les jours de vote qui est le seul effet qui n’est pas significatif et qui est même négatif, à savoir que plus on laisse de temps aux gens pour voter, moins ils vont voter.  
A third characteristic is the voting day or days, which is the only effect that is not significant and is even negative, namely that the more time people are given to vote, the less they will vote.


La saillance d’une élection, qui est le facteur contextuel sur lequel Franklin veut mettre l’accent, a un effet significatif important. Plus une élection est saillante, plus on a tendance à participer.
The salience of an election, which is the contextual factor Franklin wants to emphasize, has a significant effect. The more salient an election is, the more likely people are to participate.


==Evolution de la participation électorale==
==Trends in voter turnout==


[[Fichier:comportement politique évolution de la participation électorale 1.png|vignette|center|Dalton, R.J. et H.-D. Klingemann, éds. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]]
[[Fichier:comportement politique évolution de la participation électorale 1.png|vignette|center|Dalton, R.J. et H.-D. Klingemann, éds. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<ref>Dalton, R. J., & Klingemann, H. (Eds.). (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270125.001.0001</ref>]]


La participation électorale varie beaucoup d’un contexte à l’autre et aussi dans le temps. Beaucoup de travaux essaient de montrer qu’il y a un déclin assez régulier dans la participation électorale. Ce tableau montre deux lignes à savoir tous les pays inclus dans l’analyse, et une deuxième ligne qui montre les démocraties. La participation est surement surestimée pour des périodes différentes. On voit un déclin allant de 79% à 71% pour tous les pays et un déclin allant de 83% à 73% pour les démocraties. Ce qu’on constate est que le vrai moment de déclin est à partir des années 1990.
Voter turnout varies greatly from one context to another and also over time. Much work tries to show that there is a fairly steady decline in voter turnout. This table shows two lines, namely all the countries included in the analysis, and a second line showing democracies. Participation is probably overestimated for different periods. We see a decline ranging from 79% to 71% for all countries and a decline ranging from 83% to 73% for democracies. What we see is that the real point of decline is from the 1990s onwards.


=Annexes=
=Annexes=

Version actuelle datée du 3 février 2021 à 00:13


We will examine the different forms of political participation and then the different explanatory factors. As far as political participation is concerned, there is usually only one dominant theory, which is the theory of resources, and there are other theories that can be drawn from existing works.

The study of participation goes back to the rise of behaviorism. At first, researchers were interested in explaining participation in a given country, and only later did they begin to develop comparative studies that have the advantage of focusing on the role of context. Initially, participation was conceived only in terms of voter turnout and everything else was put into another category. Then we moved to bivariate analyses that put two or one explanatory factor in relation to what we are trying to explain; and today, we are interested in many more factors, particularly because of more sophisticated analysis methods with multi-level analysis among others.

Forms of political participation[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

What are the different forms of political participation? A distinction is made between conventional and non-conventional participation. These terms are still often used in the literature on participation. Nevertheless, the term conventional is not very well chosen because it does not remain stable; on the other hand, the distinction between institutional and non-institutional behaviour refers to behaviour that takes place within an institutionalized framework and other forms of participation that are non-institutionalized.

Milbrath is one of the founders of American sociology on political participation, showing that there were several forms of participation. In a 1965 book, he postulates a distinction between three types of political actors also called "citizens" who are apathetic actors (1) who do not participate and are completely absent, spectators (2) who are people marginally involved in politics participating from time to time, and gladiators (3) who are people who are active fighters and participate all the time.

On the other hand, Milbrath based himself on studies by Verba. Milbrath distinguishes six different types of citizens, voters and patriots (1), contact specialists (2), communicators (3), party and campaign workers (4), community activists (5), protestors (6).

A third essential typology is that of Barnes and Kaase. They were the first to think in terms of typology in order to highlight the main types of participation. There is the idea of a true typology of forms of participation: inactive (1), conformists (2), reformists (3), activists (4), protestors (5).

Typology of the repertoire of political action: Barnes and Kaase[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The starting point is a list of more specific actions, which in this case is a list of actions called "conventional participation". Barnes and Kaase innovate in the sense that they cross conventional criteria with non-conventional criteria. This way of thinking speaks of a current reflection that is a combination in order to see how forms of institutional commitments combine with forms of non-institutional commitments.

Barnes, S., M. Kaase et al. (1979). Political Action. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.[8][9][10]

Country directories of political action[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The interest with this table is to see how participation varies and to show that engagement is highly dependent on the political context in which it takes place.

Barnes, S., M. Kaase et al. (1979). Political Action. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.[8]

Forms of political participation: Teorell, Torcal and Montero[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Teorell, Tocal and Montero distinguish several forms of political participation, namely voting (1), consumer participation (2), party activity (3), protest activity (4) and contacting (5). These five forms depend on three criteria: channel of expression (1) which is extra-representative (2), exit-based (3) and voice-based (4). A further distinction is made between targeted (1) and non-targeted (2).

This typology has been empirically tested, but how was it arrived at on the basis of empirical data?

Van Deth, J.W., J.R. Montero et A. Westholm, éds. (2007). Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies. London: Routledge.[11]

Factorial analysis of forms of political participation[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Van Deth, J. W., J.R. Montero et A. Westholm, éds. (2007). Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies. London: Routledge.[11]

A fairly standard battery of participation appears. The idea of factor analysis starts from the idea that there are certain latent dimensions of human action that cannot be observed. We observe something else and through this we try to identify and understand the latent dimensions. A factorial analysis will allow us to reduce a great complexity and to identify some underlying and latent dimensions. We observe correlations between the observed item and the latent unobserved dimension. The logic is to try to define and observe participations through inferences.

In the literature, there are several proposals, but in the end, it is possible to reach a consensus that defines up to five main forms of participation.

Explanatory factors for political participation[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

A first way to explain political participation is to ask the question about the potential factors that may explain why one participates or why one does not participate. Remember that when we talk about political participation, we try to explain why we vote or why we abstain, or why we participate in certain forms such as a social movement or why we do not participate.

It is already possible to distinguish between four main types of explanatory factors that must be taken into account.

First, we need to look at what Milbrath called the immediate environment, i.e., contextual factors directly or closely related to the explanations of participation, such as the role of the media, the potential effect of political campaigns, but also the role of personal contacts and informal conversations that influence us that can inform, convince or deter.

The second set of factors refers to attitudes, beliefs and personality traits encompassing partisan identification that can influence our participation, but also political effectiveness. Dissatisfaction with politics is another example of an attitude that we can refer to two hypotheses with the fact that dissatisfaction with politics could push someone to participate or on the contrary to not participate.

A third set of factors is related to social position, which is socio-economic status, age, but also gender. There are variations between these different socio-demographic characteristics and participation.

Finally, to return to the contextual level, there is the broader environment, namely the social system, cultural tradition or the institutional framework and political system, which may explain different participation rates from one context to another.

To sum up, two levels need to be taken into account, namely the macro level, which is a contextual level, and the macrosociological level. A comprehensive explanation takes into account these four types of factors. Nevertheless, this is a simple list of factors to try to explain why people participate in politics. These factors potentially have an effect.

Theories of political participation[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

In the literature, there are several theories of political participation. We will see a classification of the theories that partly use these different factors. This classification of theories distinguishes between five explanatory theories of participation. There is not only one way to classify the theories of participation. Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish between two or even three main approaches.

Socio-economic status - standard model[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

This theory is the first chronologically in the history of the discipline, namely the theory of socio-economic status. This theory focuses on a certain type of factors, namely the level of education, which is the variable that has the most explanatory power of participation in general whether electoral or non-electoral, there is also income and occupation. Behind this theory there is a concern about the role of social class. This theory has been dominant for many years.

Orientations politiques - political attitudes model[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Orientation" refers to political attitudes. It is a type of explanation that emphasizes the role of political attitudes more than the role of social inclusion. Political attitudes include interest in politics, political trust, which is the fact of having confidence in political institutions, which can explain participation in one way or another. Political trust may be something that explains electoral participation while it explains abstention in other forms of participation. That is why, at one point, researchers have tried to go beyond this distinction in trying to see in which form participation will take place because several explanatory factors may apply to different forms of participation. Political effectiveness must also be taken into account.

This theory is rarely found in textbooks. It is Professor Giugni who makes the distinction, because it can be integrated elsewhere.

Resources - civic voluntarism model[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The resource model is a dominant model that is still dominant today and comes from Verba for example. This theory focuses on the resources that individuals have in politics. The idea is that to be able to participate politically, you have to have certain resources. According to a broad definition, this can be any kind of resources, including cultural resources that come from education. Resources are defined as time to devote to political participation, money that refers to the income factor, and civic skills. Behind this model is the idea that skills come from somewhere and highlights the fact that engagement in various non-political and therefore civic associations gives us those skills that are useful for political participation later on.

Between these first three models, it is possible to distinguish between the economic status model, which emphasizes social characteristics of people, and the resource model, which emphasizes the resources available to people.

Social capital - social capital model[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Social capital is defined by its properties and resources, i.e., the social relationships and networks that give rise to generalized trust, as Putnam calls it, which translates into institutional trust. Putnam also emphasizes the idea of norms of reciprocity that are established between a social system and an individual.

This theory has been used mainly to explain the participation of certain minority groups, particularly in the study of immigrant participation. Nevertheless, this theory is less widespread, but it is a model that has begun to spread.

Group consciousness model[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

This model is less widely used to explain, among other things, the participation of certain minorities in the United States in the context of ethical and racial cleavages. The basic idea is that there are a number of factors, including four main actors that explain why people participate:

  • group identification with a strong identity element that emphasizes the role of collective identities. First of all, one must identify with a certain group that can be understood by the term "class". The origin of the theory is rather in the distinction of ethnic type, but it can very well be extrapolated to a class cleavage that makes this theory fully Marxist;
  • polar affect which is a preference for members of one's own group over members of the other group. This translates into the existence of a cleavage between several groups within society;
  • polar power is the feeling of dissatisfaction with the situation that one's own group has in society. It is a feeling of injustice, of belonging to a group that is treated unfairly in relation to the situation in society;
  • the theory postulates in its more precise version an additive effect of these different factors, namely the distinction between individual and system blame which is the attribution of responsibility for the unjust situation of the group to which the individual belongs and identifies himself.

The combination of these four factors means that members of a minority should participate in forms of collective action. The first major theory to explain the emergence of social movements focuses on grievances, which are claims also related to situations of injustice between groups.

Explanatory factors for voter turnout[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

When we look at voter turnout, there are three main families of explanatory factors.

First, there are the characteristics of the political system and the political process with the electoral system which can be majority or proportional with the translation of the will of the citizens into votes, the obligation to register on the electoral lists, the number of parties taking into account that the type of electoral system influences the number of parties, the number of elections or votes, the presence of other channels of political influence such as lobbies, the decision-making power of political authorities or the degree of legitimacy of the political system which can influence the degree of participation.

Another set of factors is at another level, namely the characteristics of the election or vote, including the number of parties and candidates in the running, the importance of the issue at stake, the balance of forces at play, and the degree of competition between parties and candidates.

Finally, there are the characteristics of the electorate with the social position and the perception of politics.

To summarize, the explanation of voter turnout involves factors that are at the macro level of the political system and process as a whole, specific characteristics of the election or vote being studied that can explain variations from one relationship to another, and finally the characteristics of the electorate that can explain variations between individuals or between one group of individuals and another. All of these factors must be taken into account in order to have a comprehensive explanation of voter turnout.

Explanations of voter turnout: Franklin[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Curiously, there is no theory of voter turnout as there is for political participation, but on the other hand, there are some authors who have tried to develop a theory, including Franklin, who had an idea about what really explains voter turnout, namely the fact that people will vote rather than abstain. There is no theory of voter turnout, but there are theories of abstention. So voter turnout is studied from the other side of the coin.

According to Franklin, there are three main theories of political participation, namely the resources (1) which are time, money and knowledge, the mobilization theories (2) which focus on the role of individuals and the awareness of the political role of individuals can be due to different sources including the role of the media. In other words, there are organizational bodies that mobilize people to vote. Finally, there is instrumental motivation (3).

At the time Franklin was writing, there were two major theories, namely resource theory and mobilization theory. For Franklin, it was also necessary to look at instrumental motivation, which is the meaning that individuals can have in relation to the impact of their actions on the outcome of the election. It is the sense of the effectiveness of one's own participation.

The reason why instrumental motivation has to be taken into account is that resource theory, but also mobilization theory, cannot explain a fact that is obvious, namely that the rate of participation at the aggregate level varies greatly from one context to another. To explain this variation, we must look at the instrumental variation, which is the motivation people have to participate for instrumental reasons, i.e. the fact of participating is explained by the perception of the effectiveness of participation. This instrumental motivation is strongly influenced by the context and factors such as the fact that electoral systems, the number of parties involved, the salience of an election, the balance of forces at play are what motivate citizens to participate.

Voter turnout by country[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Leduc, L., R. Niemi et P. Norris, éds. (1996). Comparing Democracies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.[12]

This table is the average voter turnout in free elections cumulated between 1960 and 1995. Enormous variations appear with, for example, Australia with 95% and Poland with almost 51%. Immediately after appears Switzerland in this negative ranking.

There is a huge difference from one country to another. For Franklin, this cannot be explained by the resource model because it is assumed that in all countries, on average, there should not be a composition effect from one electorate to another that could explain this big difference. The same is true for the theory of mobilization, the media plays a big role, all political parties run political campaigns, there are groups that mobilize, there is a set of homogeneity that cannot explain the differences.

Instrumental motivation is strongly influenced by the context, and in particular the salience of elections varies greatly from one context to another depending on many factors that can vary from one context to another.

Voter turnout by individual characteristics[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Leduc, L., R. Niemi et P. Norris, éds. (1996). Comparing Democracies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.[12]

This table shows the individual effects of different factors such as age, strength of partisan identification, discussing politics, education, religious involvement, associational participation and income.

Franklin wanted to show the average rate of voter turnout in the lower versus the higher category of the variable in question.

We see measures of both individual and contextual effects. Franklin concludes that the context effect is more important than individual differences.

Effects of Individual Factors on Voter Turnout[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Leduc, L., R. Niemi et P. Norris, éds. (1996). Comparing Democracies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.[12]

This table shows three regression tables. The first shows individual effects, the third contains individual, context effects and an estimate of missing data.

Individual characteristics play an important role, but the context effect is particularly important.

Effects of Contextual Factors on Voter Turnout[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Leduc, L., R. Niemi et P. Norris, éds. (1996). Comparing Democracies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.[12]

In this table, Franklin emphasizes context effects. Looking at the first model, Franklin tries to see what characteristics of the institutional context can influence participation. We can see a significant, but relatively small effect of .62. In other words, it increases participation by 0.62% if you are in a proportional system rather than a majority system.

With compulsory voting, as there is in some places also in Switzerland, the effect is still significant, but still important. If you are obliged to vote, it increases voter turnout by 7%.

A third characteristic is the voting day or days, which is the only effect that is not significant and is even negative, namely that the more time people are given to vote, the less they will vote.

The salience of an election, which is the contextual factor Franklin wants to emphasize, has a significant effect. The more salient an election is, the more likely people are to participate.

Trends in voter turnout[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Dalton, R.J. et H.-D. Klingemann, éds. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.[13]

Voter turnout varies greatly from one context to another and also over time. Much work tries to show that there is a fairly steady decline in voter turnout. This table shows two lines, namely all the countries included in the analysis, and a second line showing democracies. Participation is probably overestimated for different periods. We see a decline ranging from 79% to 71% for all countries and a decline ranging from 83% to 73% for democracies. What we see is that the real point of decline is from the 1990s onwards.

Annexes[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

References[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

  1. Marco Giugni - UNIGE
  2. Marco Giugni - Google Scholar
  3. Marco Giugni - Researchgate.net
  4. Marco Giugni - Cairn.info
  5. Marco Giugni - Protest Survey
  6. Marco Giugni - EPFL Press
  7. Marco Giugni - Bibliothèque Nationale de France
  8. 8,0 et 8,1 Barnes, Samuel H., and Max Kaase. Political action : mass participation in five Western democracies. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications, 1979. Print.
  9. Powell, G. B., Jr. (1981). Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies.Samuel H. Barnes , Max Kaase , Klaus R. Allerback , Barbara Farah , Felix Heunks , Ronald Inglehart , M. Kent Jennings , Hans D. Klingemann , Allan Marsh , Leopold Rosenmayr. American Journal of Sociology, 87(2), 505–507. https://doi.org/10.1086/227490
  10. LeDuc, L. (1981). Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western DemocraciesSamuel H. Barnes, Max Kaase, et al. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1979, pp. 608. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 14(1), 201–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008423900035824
  11. 11,0 et 11,1 Deth, Jan W., Montero, and Anders Westholm. Citizenship and involvement in European democracies : a comparative analysis. London New York: Routledge, 2007. Print.
  12. 12,0 12,1 12,2 et 12,3 LeDuc, L., Niemi, R., & Norris, P. (2010). Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in the 21st Century. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288740
  13. Dalton, R. J., & Klingemann, H. (Eds.). (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270125.001.0001