Het effect van sociaaleconomische status en politieke kansenstructuren op protestparticipatie: een multilevel analyse van 17 Europese landen | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 98, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0025-9454
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2816

Abstract

Abstract

In recent years, protesting has become an increasingly pertinent form of political participation. Within the literature on political participation, both socioeconomic status (SES) and political opportunity structures (POS) have been shown to affect protest participation, but not often have these factors been studied in relation to each other. This study addresses this gap in the literature by analysing the effects of both SES and openness of POS on individual protest participation, as well as the moderating effect of POS on the effect of SES. Multilevel models were estimated using data from the European Social Survey and the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. The results show that both SES and openness of POS positively affect individual protest participation. The moderating effect of POS openness was not significant, indicating that the positive effect of SES on protest participation remains consistent across different political opportunity structures. Thus, we have shown that political inequality based on socioeconomic status is persistent across European countries, however, it does not depend on political opportunity structures.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2023.2.003.VAAT
2023-06-01
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barkan, S. E. (2004). Explaining public support for the environmental movement: A civic voluntarism model. Social Science Quarterly, 85(4), 913-937.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barone, C., & Assirelli, G. (2020). Gender segregation in higher education: an empirical test of seven explanations. Higher Education, 79(1), 55-78.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barsegyan, V., Knigge, A., & Maas, I. (2022). Social origin and political participation: does education compensate or reinforce family (dis) advantages?. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/hjf5n
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Corrigall-Brown, C. (2011). Patterns of Protest: trajectories of participation in social movements [E-book]. Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CSES. (2019, October8). About. Geraadpleegd op 12april2022, van https://cses.org/about/
    [Google Scholar]
  6. CSES. (2020, December3). Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Geraadpleegd op 12april2022, van https://cses.org/about/frequently-asked-questions/
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dalton, R., Van Sickle, A., & Weldon, S. (2010). The individual–institutional nexus of protest behaviour. British journal of political science, 40(1), 51-73.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Della Porta, D. (2006). Social movements: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dodson, K. (2015). Gendered activism: A cross-national view on gender differences in protest activity. Social Currents, 2(4), 377-392.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Eisinger, P. K. (1973). The conditions of protest behavior in American cities. American political science review, 67(1), 11-28.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. European Social Survey. (2018a, juli). Round 9 Survey Specification for ESS ERIC Member, Observer and Guest Countries. http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round9/methods/ESS9_project_specification.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  12. European Social Survey. (2018b, januari). European Social Survey Round 9 Sampling Guidelines: Principles and Implementation. http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round9/methods/ESS9_sampling_guidelines.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  13. European Social Survey. (2019, juli). Measuring education in the ESS and EVS | European Social Survey (ESS). Geraadpleegd op 14april2022, van http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/findings/blog/essblog0013.html
    [Google Scholar]
  14. European Social Survey. (2020). Appendix A2 Income, ESS9 – 2018 ed. 3.0. https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round9/survey/ESS9_appendix_a2_e03_0.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  15. European Social Survey. (2021, february). ESS9 – 2018 Documentation Report. https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round9/survey/ESS9_data_documentation_report_e03_1.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ganzeboom, H. B., De Graaf, P. M., & Treiman, D. J. (1992). A standard international socio-economic index of occupational status. Social science research, 21(1), 1-56.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gherghina, S., & Geissel, B. (2017). Linking democratic preferences and political participation: Evidence from Germany. Political Studies, 65(1S), 24-42.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Grasso, M. (2016). Generations, political participation and social change in Western Europe. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Grasso, M. T., & Giugni, M. (2016). Protest participation and economic crisis: The conditioning role of political opportunities. European Journal of Political Research, 55(4), 663-680.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hammer, B., Spitzer, S., & Prskawetz, A. (2022). Age-specific income trends in Europe: The role of employment, wages, and social transfers. Social indicators research, 162(2), 525-547.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kitschelt, H. P. (1986). Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British journal of political science, 16(1), 57-85.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Koos, S. (2012). What drives political consumption in Europe? A multi-level analysis on individual characteristics, opportunity structures and globalization. Acta sociologica, 55(1), 37-57.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lane, D. S., Thorson, K., & Xu, Y. (2021). Uninterested and unequal?: examining SES-based gaps in youth political behavior on social media. Information, Communication & Society, 1-19.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lay, T. (2022, maart). ACLED 2021: The Year in Review. ACLED. https://acleddata.com/acleddatanew/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ACLED_Annual_Year-in-Review-2021_Web_Pub_Fin-.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Marien, S., Hooghe, M., & Quintelier, E. (2010). Inequalities in non-institutionalised forms of political participation: A multi-level analysis of 25 countries. Political studies, 58(1), 187-213.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Melo, D. F., & Stockemer, D. (2014). Age and political participation in Germany, France and the UK: A comparative analysis. Comparative European politics, 12(1), 33-53.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Meyer, D. S., & Minkoff, D. C. (2004). Conceptualizing political opportunity. Social forces, 82(4), 1457-1492.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mezzetti, G., & Ricucci, R. (2019). Political opportunity structures and the activism of first-and second-generation Muslims in two Italian cities. Religion, State & Society, 47(4-5), 405-422.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Nam, T. (2007). Rough days in democracies: Comparing protests in democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 46(1), 97-120.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Neundorf, A., Niemi, R. G., & Smets, K. (2016). The compensation effect of civic education on political engagement: How civics classes make up for missing parental socialization. Political Behavior, 38(4), 921-949.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Parvin, P. (2018). Democracy without participation: A new politics for a disengaged era. Res Publica, 24(1), 31-52.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Quaranta, M. (2018). Repertoires of political participation: Macroeconomic conditions, socioeconomic resources, and participation gaps in Europe. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 59(4), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715218800526
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Quintelier, E., & Hooghe, M. (2013). The impact of socio-economic status on political participation. In Democracy in transition (pp. 273-289). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. R Core Team (2022). R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
  35. Schoene, M (2017) Urban continent, urban activism? European cities and social movement activism. Global Society, 31(3), 370–391.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Sloam, J., Kisby, B., Henn, M., & Oldfield, B. (2021). Voice, equality and education: the role of higher education in defining the political participation of young Europeans. Comparative European Politics, 19(3), 296-322.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Stolle, D., & Hooghe, M. (2011). Shifting inequalities: Patterns of exclusion and inclusion in emerging forms of political participation. European Societies, 13(1), 119-142.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Tilly, C., & Tarrow, S. G. (2015). Contentious Politics (2nd ed.) [E-book]. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Vráblíková, K. (2014). How context matters? Mobilization, political opportunity structures, and nonelectoral political participation in old and new democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 47(2), 203-229.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Warren, M. E. (2009). Citizen participation and democratic deficits: Considerations from the perspective of democratic theory. In Activating the citizen (pp. 17-40). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Watanabe, T. (2007). International comparison on the occurrence of social movements. Journal of Business research, 60(7), 806-812.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2023.2.003.VAAT
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2023.2.003.VAAT
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error