Political Participation:

Dimensions, Theories and Determinants

Paper submitted to the Utkal University

In partial fulfilment of the requirement of
Pre-PhD Course Work in Political Science

By

Tapas kumar Sarangi

PG Dept. of Political Science

Utkal University
Bhubaneswar-751004

January 2019
 1

Political Participation:
Dimensions, Theories and Determinants

Contents

Introduction .............................................................................................. 2
Defining the concept ................................................................................. 3
Dimensions ................................................................................................ 4
Theories..................................................................................................... 8
Determinants .......................................................................................... 11
Conclusion ............................................................................................... 17
References............................................................................................... 18
 2

Political Participation:
Dimensions, Theories and Determinants

Introduction

Aristotle defines the human being as a “political animal”. Involvement in

collective decision making is both an obligation owed to the community and an exercise

in personal development. High levels of political participation are usually associated

with democracy and, therefore, considered beneficial to both the individual and the

society. Political participation gained significance as a result of the modernization

process and as a component of modern societies. Modernization first of all affects the

nature of the participation. While modernization increases autonomous participation,

it decreases the amount of the mobilized participation. Secondly, the motives ensuring

participation increases with modernization. There are four motivations here namely;

deferential, solidarity, instrumental and civic. Thirdly, basis of the participation will

change. In traditional societies, individual identifies himself/herself with his family, clan,

tribe or communal group such as village, religion, religious group but with

modernization class-based participation increased. Lastly, modernization affects the

amount of political participation. With social and economic modernization, amount of

participation also increased.

 3

Defining the concept

It is understood that there is also no universally accepted definition of this

concept. Therefore, it is very important to determine which actions are to be included

in the political participation researches. Political participation can be loosely defined as

citizens’ activities affecting politics. Within a political system, individuals perform some

actions in order to affect directly or indirectly the decision-making of the political

administrators. These actions may range from voting to participate in a candidate’s

campaign, to collect signatures, or participating in boycotts or meetings. In addition,

individuals may follow political agenda via mass media or may make their voices heard;

they also perform a political attitude and action by discussing political issues within their

family or friends.

According to Verba and Nie (1972) political participation refers “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”

Conway (2000) defines as “means those activities that attempt to influence the

different levels of government such as its structure, policies or officials.

When those definitions mentioned above are reviewed, it is observed that participation

is largely defined intensively as the actions performed by individuals to elect the

persons to come to power and affect their decisions. In this process, it is observed that

individuals conduct some actions and activities in order to make their voice heard by
 4

the political power to let them know about their political attitudes and believes and in

order to affect their decisions. In this context, political participation, in its broadest

sense, may be defined as the totality of actions that are performed to elect the political

power figures and to affect their decisions.

Dimensions

Political Participation is a multi-dimensional concept. It has been measured in

its different dimensions and classified by different scholars.

Dahl (1963) expresses that individuals in the political system are interested in

the political life to the same extent. While some stays away from politics, some are quite

active in this respect. Some of the individuals interested in politics seek power and the

power they gain is different from one another. He indicates that these as apolitical

strata, political strata and power seekers included in these strata and the powerful

included in these seekers. In addition, there are four levels of political participation for

the individual who takes place in the political strata. These are curiosity, interest,

information and action.

Curiosity refers to the desire of the individual to know what’s going on; interest

means the level of individual’s caring about political events; information refers to the

amount of the individual’s knowledge on the political events; and action means how

much an individual may affect political decision.

However the former three influences political participation, not a form of

participation in itself.
 5

Milbrath (1965) defines individuals’ relationships with the political system as

multifarious. For him some individuals, take the system for granted and are concerned

only to adjust their behaviour to its demands; others want to improve or transform it.

Some have only passive relationship to the system, while others are very actively

involved. As a summary; some people are active in terms of political participation, while

some others not. He divides political action into two, namely passive and active. Active

participants are further divides into instrumental and expressive, depending on their

goals. He defines this expressive-instrumental differentiation as the former focuses on

symbol manipulation; mere engagement in the behaviour is satisfying or drive-reducing

while the latter is oriented toward manipulating and changing things. He put the actions

in a hierarchical order and established a political participation pyramid. However, he

also stated that the order of each item included in this hierarchy could change from

election to election, decade to decade and country to country. Spectator activities take

place at the bottom, transitional activities occupy the middle and gladiatorial activities

take place at the top.

Spectator activities: Exposing one to political stimuli, voting, initiating a political

discussion, attempting to talk another into voting a certain way, wearing a button or

putting a sticker on the car.

Transitional Activities: Contacting a public official or a political leader, making a

monetary contribution to a party or candidate attending a political meeting or rally.

 6

Gladiatorial Activities: Contributing time in a political campaign, becoming an active

member in a political party, attending a caucus or strategy meeting, soliciting political

funds, being a candidate for office, holding public and party office.

These actions are included in a hierarchy and political action is cumulative. Individuals

who took part in a political action would take part much possibly in another one. The

individuals taking part in the top mentioned above participate also in the lower levels.

Thus, Milbrath stated typology of the act of political participation as apathetics,

spectators and gladiators.

Verba, Nie and Kim (1978) into four groups such as voting, campaigning,

communal activities, and contacting.

 7

Participation is also divided as autonomous and mobilized, based on the

individuals’ voluntary participation. In autonomous participation, individuals

participate in politics especially in order to affect the decisions of the political power.

However, mobilized participation means the actions that are defined by the persons or

people other than the actor.

Political participation also can be classified as conventional and unconventional.

Conventional political participation is composed of actions in accordance with

the rules and norms established by the political regime. These actions are considered

legitimate since they are expressed in the laws and constitution. Voting, participating in

election campaigns, making donation to the election campaign of a candidate, being

interested in politics, discussing political issues, wearing a badge of a political party,

becoming a member of a political party or having conversation with political people are

examples of such activities.

Unconventional political participation is composed of actions that are not in

compliance with the rules and norms established by the political regime. These are

considered as illegitimate actions. Publishing leaflets, arranging demonstrations or

meetings, forwarding collective petition, boycotting, and blocking building

entrances/exits are

Inglehart (1977), on the other hand, mentions conventional and unconventional

participation as elite-directed and elite-challenging.

 8

Elite-directed political participation is largely a matter of elites mobilizing mass

support through established organizations such as political parties, labour unions,

religious institutions, and so on.

The newer elite-challenging style of politics gives the public an increasingly

important role in making specific decisions, not just a choice between two or more sets

of decision-makers.

Theories

In this section the theories that explain how political participation is realized will

be briefly explained. Each of them attempts at explaining political participation is

realized by whom and how and why from different viewpoints.

SES Model

The socioeconomic status (SES) model is associated with Verba and Nie (1972).

According to this model, the factors determining political participation is closely related

with the socio-economic status of the individual. What is meant by socio-economic

status here is education, income and occupation. This theory suggests that there is a

positive relationship between higher socio-economic level and political participation.

(Milbrath 1965; Verba and Nie 1972; Wolfinger and Rosenstone 1980).
 9

Resource Model

Brady, Verba and Schlozman (1995) mentions the Resource Model going beyond

SES in measuring political participation. Time, money and civic skills are considered as

resources by them. While SES is quite successful in determining political participation,

it is rather inadequate in linking it to social status and in specifying activity. On the other

hand, rational choice clearly specifies how and why people might decide to involve in

politics but it is rather inadequate in predicting political participation. In this sense, they

states that how benefits take precedence over costs in rational choice concerning

political participation, and that in the process, costs are not reviewed in detail and

carefully. Therefore in the resource model, when resources are used, their costs are

also studied in detail. While time is related with working in a campaign, writing a letter,

attending a community meeting; money is considered to be related with donating

money to candidate. Civic skills, on the other hand, are evaluated as communicational

and organizational capabilities.

Rational Choice Theory

It is assumed that political participation is rational and it is suggested here that

individuals realize political participation in order to attain some goals. During this

process, the individual makes an analysis of the benefits to be gained and their costs. In

fact, being interested in politics involves a goal and the benefits thereof. Although goals

of individuals in political participation are different from each other, it is clear that they

calculate the gains or costs to be attained or imposed in the end. The Rational Choice
 10

Theory suggests that a cost-benefit analysis is made in political participation. Individuals

may vote in order to maximize their gains and minimize their costs, may assume duties

in the campaign of a candidate or a party, may participate in a petition, or may support

or object to a policy. Every political party and candidate makes some promises before

elections. These may be aimed at improving or totally changing the existing status.

However, this may involve some undesired outcomes for some people while bringing

about gains for others. At this point, it would not be wrong to argue that if the individual

is considered as a rational creature, then every individual would choose the most

beneficial option for himself/herself in terms of political participation.

Mobilisation Model

According to Rosenstone and Hansen (1993), people are not isolated individuals,

rather embedded in social networks. These social networks like churches, unions,

interests groups, and political parties mobilise the individual to participate. The

networks exert social pressure on the individual as well as reduce the cost of

participation.

Socialisation Model

This model focuses on how people learn political attitudes from birth. People

are socialised via different agents like family, peer groups, school, workplace etc.

Socialisation functions either through systematic training or by desire to conform the

behaviour of others like peer groups. So those people participate are those are
 11

socialised to participate. The political discussion with friends, relative etc. influences

them to participate.

Psychological Model

It is based upon the psychological engagement of individual with politics. Those

are more interested in politics are more likely to vote. It focuses upon individual

personality, their cognitive ability, their ideological standing, sense of efficacy,

identification with political parties etc. to explain political participation. The social

networks as emphasized in the socialisation and mobilisation model may augment the

political interest of the individuals. But in psychological model the factors of political

participation are rooted in individual psychology which is somewhat static.

Determinants

The determinants of political participation are one of the issues that are studied

most frequently by political participation researches. It is known that there are many

factors that determine participation. In the literature, it is associated with many

variables such as age, gender, education, income, occupation, settlement, social status

and organizational participation and it is also associated with interest in politics, family

and peer group socialization, political activity and psychological factors, as well. In this

section, the variables that are considered to have an effect on political participation and

how they affected political participation will be investigated.

 12

Age

It is known that participation increases by age, in general. Age is one of the

variables that are associated with participation most, in political participation studies.

It is observed that there is a tendency that as age increases, political participation

increases as well, and that the highest level of participation is realized in middle ages.

On the other hand, participation of young people is lower. Similarly, Milbrath (1965)

states that participation increases until a certain age and reaches peak level in ages of

40s and 50s, starting to decrease again after 60s.

Gender

Another major variable taking place in the political participation literature is

gender. According to the literature, political participation of men is more than that of

women (Milbrath, 1965; Wolfinger and Rosenstone 1980). Women always showed less

participation then men in the past. However, in 1970s, women with university

education with their 30s started to show almost the same rate of voting activity as their

younger male counterparts. Nevertheless, it is observed that women were less active

than men, in terms of campaign activities. Hence, it can be said that although voting

rate of women become equal to that of men, men are still more active than women in

certain forms of political participation, such as campaign activities, again, could be

related to the fact that women have fewer roles outside of their household.

Furthermore, the fact that men have higher level of education than women could be

another reason for lower participation rate of women. In this context, education level
 13

will be kept constant in the current study, in order to determine whether there is a

difference between the people who have the same level of education in terms of

gender.

Socio-Economic Status

In political participation studies, the link between political participation and

socio-economic status is one of the most frequently investigated issues. What is meant

here is that if one has higher socio-economic status (education, income and

occupation), he/she would involve more in politics than a person with lower socio-

economic status. The researchers also show that there is a relationship between higher

socio-economic status and higher participation rate (Verba and Nie, 1972; Wolfinger

and Rosenstone, 1980)

a) Income

Researchers conducted in this field shows that there is a relationship between

income and political participation. According to this, as income increases, political

participation increases, as well, in other words, there is a positive relationship between

them. Milbrath (1965) states that middle-income individuals show higher political

participation than low-income individuals; but that high-income individuals are not as

politically active as middle-income individuals.

 14

b) Occupation

The relationship between occupation and political participation is established

rather the status of the occupations. Many researches show that individuals with higher

occupational status have higher level of participation. Milbrath states that distinction

between white-collar and blue-collar in terms of occupations is the most traditional

distinction, and that while some researchers found the participation of the white-collars

was higher, some others concluded that there was no relationship encountered

between the two. Here, status of occupation is an important distinction and people with

higher occupational status would show more participation. Participation of

professionals and businessmen is higher.

c) Education

No doubt, education is the most emphasized variable among the socio-

economic variables. It will not be wrong to claim that with education, the individual’s

interest and knowledge concerning political issues will increase. In addition, as

mentioned before, a relationship between education and income could be established;

thus, education would also have a positive effect on political participation.There is a

very strong relationship between rates of voting and years of education. The most

significant effect in the framework of socio-economic status is observed to be made by

the variable of education. Moreover, as to the income-education relationship; the level

of participation of the people with higher education is also higher at all income levels.

One of the reasons why education increases participation is that it enhances civic skills.
 15

Therefore, even more complex and abstract political issues could be understood easily.

In addition, educated people get more satisfaction from political participation.

Education not only increases voting, but also participation in campaign activities,

organizational activities and other activity levels, as well. Furthermore, higher

education level leads the individual to follow up political events via mass media. This

enables the individuals to have information on political issues and make them take

place in politics, with their increased interest. Therefore, they may desire to participate

in politics, thinking that they could do something to change, improve or develop the

existing system.

Settlement

It is expected that with modernization process, political participation becomes

associated also with urbanization that emerges in parallel to this process. Because,

cities provide people with more education and culture means and facilities, and become

influential in the level of individuals’ consciousness. For this reason, the idea that urban

life has also a positive effect on political participation has become widespread. However

some studies found that in terms of participating in elections, villagers realized the

higher level of participation than urban people. Moreover, it is observed that there is a

relationship between the duration of a person’s residence at a place and his/her

participation.
 16

Socialization

According to socialization theory, rules and behavioural patterns are transferred

to children by parents, family, friends, and school. Because of the fact that the individual

has remained within these rules and behavioural patterns since his/her early childhood,

he/she tends to continue those rules and patterns. In this context, it is possible to claim

that family and peer group of the person also affect that person’s political participation.

Family is the first place where the individual learns about ethical, religious, social,

economic and politic values. Later, these values are reinforced by the individual’s peer

group and school. For this reason, if the individual’s family and friends have higher level

of participation, this would also affect positively the individual’s participation.

Political Mobilisation

Social networks like church, ethnic groups, interest groups, political parties

mobilise the people to participate. So participation is higher among individuals who are

members of such organisations.

Psychological factors

Psychosocial involvements in politics are a perceived as obligation to participate.

Interest in politics, interest in a current or upcoming political campaign, sense of

personal political efficacy, identification with a political party are associated with more

participation. There are positive and negative psychological variables which affects

political participation. While political activeness, citizenship duty, empathy and social
 17

assertiveness are considered positive factors; alienation, anomie and cynicism are

considered negative factors.

Conclusion

Political Participation is essential for every political system. If a political system

is to function, someone or the other must take part in it. In democracy participation is

the principal means by which consent is granted or withdrawn and the ruler are made

accountable to the people. However a very few people participate in political activities

except voting. This makes politics as a prerogative of elites. For making a democracy

successful masses must participate equally. A lot of research has been done to find out

the factors influencing political participation. However still no theory is able to fully

explain political participation. Moreover political participation is a multi-dimensional

concept. Different factors explain differently the different dimensions of political

participation. There is no unanimity in how to measure it. Validity and reliability is very

important to measure a social concept like Political Participation.

 18

References
Blais, Andre. 2000. To Vote or Not to Vote: The merits and Limits of Rational Choice
Theory. Pittsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Brady, Henry E., Sidney Verba, and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1995. "Beyond Ses: A
Resource Model of Political Participation." The American Political Science
Review 271-294. doi:10:2307/2082425.
Conway, M. M. 2000. Political Participation in the United States. Washington D.C.: CQ
Press.
Dahl, robert. 1963. Modern Political Analysis. Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
Ingelhart, Ronald. 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles
Among Western Publics. Princenton: Princenton University Press.
Milbrath, L.W. 1965. Political Participation: How and Why Do People Get Involved with
Politics? Chicago: Rand McNally Company.
Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation and
Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
Verba, S., and N.H. Nie. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social
Equality. New york: Harper & Row.
Verba, S., N. Nie, and J. Kim. 1978. Participation and Political Equality: A seven Nation
Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolfinger, R.E., and S.J. Rosenstone. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
19