Het effect van sociaaleconomische status en politieke kansenstructuren op protestparticipatie: een multilevel analyse van 17 Europese landen

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]