Participatory Elites? (In-)Equality of Political Participation in Austria [PDF]

Institut für Politikwissenschaft Universitätsstraße 7/2, A-1010 Wien

Participatory Elites? (In-)Equality of Political Participation in Austria

Projektleitung: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Sieglinde K. Rosenberger Institut für Politikwissenschaft Universitätsstraße 7/2 A – 1010 Wien Tel: +43-1-4277-47701 Fax: +43-1-4277-9477 Email: [email protected]

Sachbearbeiter: Mag. Florian Walter Institut für Politikwissenschaft Universitätsstraße 7/2 A – 1010 Wien Tel: +43-1-4277-47738 Email: [email protected]

1

INTRODUCTION

2

2

OBJECTIVES AND STATE OF THE ART

3

3

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

7

4

RESEARCH PLAN AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

4.1

International research context

10 10

4.2 Structure of the research project 4.2.1 Analysis of the participation in elite-directed and elite-challenging activities 4.2.2 Analysis of the participants’ policy preferences and the thematic agenda of political activities

10 11 12

5

TIME SCHEDULE

14

6

BASIC LITERATURE

15

1

Introduction

What goes wrong with political participation? Recent analyses in political and social sciences state a significant decline of political participation for both the United States and Europe. This decline has basically been ascertained by examining turnout in elections, which has been decreasing in nearly all West European countries during the past decades (International IDEA 2004). In the middle of the 1990s in Germany the public and scientific debates which addressed that topic were often marked by the term “Politikverdrossenheit” (Arzheimer 2002, Maier 2000). Decreasing turnout rates, often described and presented as a serious deficit of legitimacy of the representative political system, have caused political actors to develop and exercise new approaches of greater people involvement. Thus, they promote alternative forms of participation in processes of opinion-formation and bargaining, communicated by the keywords “Bürgerbeteiligung” respective “Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung” (public participation; Österreichische Gesellschaft für Umwelt und Technik 2005). At the EU-level the greater involvement of the Civil Society is discussed and exercised by concepts of European governance (European Commission 2001, 2003). 2

A simplified focus on voter turnout suggests an overall decline of political participation. But this is, of course, not the whole story of the development. Although we can observe this decline among elite-directed forms of participation such as voting, partisanship and campaign work, the engagement in other areas has even increased (considering the number of activists). These activities (working in a citizens’ initiative or NGO, signing a petition, taking part in a demonstration, etc.) are known as elite-challenging forms of political participation. This course indicates a change in political behavior, which causes people’s engagement to abandon established paths and move towards new ways of expressing one’s political preferences. For Europe this empirical finding is presented by Ronald Inglehart on the basis of the World Values Survey. Considering these results we come to the conclusion, that there is no decline of but rather a shift among different forms of political participation (Inglehart 2003).

Compared to the new, elite-challenging forms of participation, elections are considered to be the most egalitarian way to voice political opinion. Following Michael Eilfort (Eilfort 1994: 41) there is no other form of political participation featuring as few possible barriers and obstacles as elections do. Within this perspective, political equality can therefore be achieved best via participation in elections. Taking into account the indicated shifts within the spectrum of political participation, we are puzzled by problems related to rising political (in)equality of and through political participation. Who, holding which social characteristics and economic resources, takes part in the political process to what extent? Are the shifts among the different forms of political participation interrelated to the ability and capacity of the activists to represent issues and interests? The proposed project will analyze the alteration of the forms of participation under the view of (in)equality, namely in terms of demographic characteristics as well as in terms of differing issue orientations of participating and non-participating groups. In the following we will proceed with explicating the present state of the art, describing our positioning within the theoretical discourse and presenting our research questions, hypotheses, methodological approach and time schedule.

2

Objectives and State of the Art

The theoretical approaches most appropriate to inform and build the methodological framework of our research project are those which cope with (in)equality related to political 3

participation and conceptualize patterns of (in)equality within different participatory activities.

Research on the issue of political participation is rooted in psephology and emerged from the early works of US political scientists Paul Lazarsfeld, Angus Campbell and Philip Converse (Campbell et al. 1960, Campbell/Gerald/Miller 1954, Lazarsfeld/Berelson/Gaudet 1969). It was already in the 1960s that Lester Milbrath stated some kind of “unidimensionality” (Westle 1994: 143) in studies on political participation because of its exclusive focus on activities related to elections and party politics. During the 1970s “political participation” as the object of research experienced its most sustainable differentiation: The works of Verba and Nie (Verba/Nie 1972), Verba, Nie and Kim (Verba/Nie/Kim 1978), Milbrath and Goel (Milbrath/Goel 1977) and Barnes et al. (Barnes et al. 1979) analyzed and classified different forms of political participation (concerning their degree of constitutional entrenchment, legality or legitimacy). Furthermore, these authors designed models to describe the determinants of political participation. The so called Standard Model developed by Sidney Verba and Norman Nie (Verba/Nie 1972: 125ff) links political participation to the socioeconomic status (SES; i.e. income, education and occupation) and “civic orientations” (i.e. political interest and information, civic duty, political efficacy). In doing so the model provides a basis for the analysis of political participation in respect to social (in)equality. Since then the Standard Model experienced some major sophistication through the formation of models which not only describe but also try to explain socioeconomic differences between participants. Ronald Inglehart (Inglehart 1977, 1990, 2003) explains such differences and alterations in the structure of participation by a Value Change intertwined with a general social change. Robert Putnam (Putnam 1994, 1995, 2000) brings in the effects of the social environment (membership in non-political organizations, interpersonal trust) relating to James Coleman’s (Coleman 1988) and Pierre Bourdieu’s (Bourdieu 1983) idea of Social Capital. Finally Sidney Verba, Kay L. Schlozman and Henry E. Brady (Brady/Verba/Schlozman 1995, Schlozman/Verba/Brady 1999, Verba/Schlozman/Brady 1995) promoted the sophistication of the Standard Model and presented the Resource Model, which accounts for socioeconomic factors as well as “civic skills”, free time and political socialization.

Within German-speaking political science the research on the issue of political participation became important when Max Kaase took part at the so called “Political Action Study” (Barnes et al. 1979). Since then some researchers are busy developing causal models of 4

political participation and testing these models by means of empirical data (see for example Krimmel 2000, Lüdemann 2001, Uehlinger 1988). In most cases this literature describes differences in the participatory activities along different sociological groups, but fails to discuss problems for involvement resulting from inequality. A mainly similar observation can be made for academic debates concerning the political system in Austria. The books by Leopold Rosenmayr (Rosenmayr 1980) on political participation with a focus on value change and by Roland Deiser and Norbert Winkler (Deiser/Winkler 1982) providing a typology of political activists can be regarded as pioneering. However, during the past 20 years no comprehensive study addressing developments and forms of political participation in Austria was conducted and published. This observation is true for voter turnout as well as elite-directed and elite-challenging forms of participation. Books and articles by Fritz Plasser and Peter A. Ulram (Plasser/Ulram 1988, 1999, 2002, Ulram 1990, 2000) provide fruitful insights into the topic, but are not responsive to dimensions of inequality in political participation. The same is true for studies on civil society and elite-challenging forms of participation such as referenda (Rosenberger 2000, Rosenberger/Seeber 2003). Comparative literature highlights the case of Austria because of its relatively high voter turnout rates. Nevertheless the modes and consequences of social inequality in political participation still mark a deficit in cross-national political research. Thus, the three above mentioned approaches (Brady/Verba/Schlozman 1995, Inglehart 1977, 1990, Putnam 1994, 1995, 2000, Schlozman/Verba/Brady 1999, Verba/Schlozman/Brady 1995) were the ones to guide the current debate in empirically oriented research. They describe and explain differences in individual resources, social capital, values, and norms of the politically active. However, this descriptive approach to social differences is mostly insufficient for the overall ascertainment of social inequality in and through political participation. Recent publications referring to the USA therefore analyze economic inequality combined with different forms of participation and its impact on public policy outcomes (American Political Science Association Task Force 2004a, Bartels 2004, Gilens 2005). In a recent review paper Sidney Verba stresses that when talking about political equality we should differentiate between input and output inequality. On the input side political equality might mean not only the equal right but also the capacity and opportunity to participate for all people and/or equal participation and voice itself. Considering the output side of the political system political equality includes equal attention (of representatives) to participatory inputs (of the electorate), equal policy outputs as a consequence of responding to different 5

participatory inputs and most generally equal outcomes for society (Verba 2001: 11). The analyses do not only provide evidence of a significant bias towards economically better off citizens on the input side of the political system, but also a higher responsiveness to interests of people with higher SES on the part of political authorities. These findings suggest that a deeper analysis of the sorting mechanisms active within political participation (i.e. the input side) are important for an interpretation of the results of inequality as a societal outcome (see also Goodin 2001).

In democratic theories inequalities in participation are linked to the attributive function and relevance of political engagement. Max Kaase (Kaase 1992: 339) specifies two socially and politically pivotal functions: •

The instrumental function: Participation is used to select representative authorities as well as to legitimate the distribution of power. This interpretation is associated with elitist and economic theories of democracy tracing back to Joseph Schumpeter (Schumpeter 1993) and Anthony Downs (Downs 1968). Focusing on individuals and sociological groups political participation means that only those who participate are able to contribute to the representative governance.

•

The intrinsic function is emphasized by the so called participatory democratic theories, it underlines the normative dimension of political engagement. Participation gains its significance in people’s quest for self-determination. This is why Peter Bachrach (1970) and Carole Pateman (1970), Jürgen Habermas (1969), James Fishkin (1991) and Benjamin Barber (1994) mainly interested in increasing the scope and content of participation. Additionally these authors (in sharp contrast to the elitist theorists) stress the impact of political participation for the social cohesion of liberal societies. Especially recent publications in political science refer to the decisive role of political participation for active citizenship and social integration (Putnam 2000). The participant is deemed to be rooted in social networks and organizations and is therefore integrated into communities even in times of individualization (Norris 2004, Skocpol/Fiorina 1999). Hence the decline in participation is also framed as a challenge of societal erosion.

6

3

Research questions and hypotheses

The different social and political functions of political participation directly lead to the research questions guiding our proposal. •

Who participates? From the viewpoint of participatory democratic theory, political activity is treated as an objective to be achieved via democratic procedures, in terms of active citizenship and societal stability. In this respect we seek to inquire for the individual demographic characteristics of the politically active by examining who is engaged within different forms of participation.

•

What do they claim? Considering an instrumental approach, participation is dealt with as the articulation of interests towards the political system. Hence political participation should be investigated not only at the individual, but also at the issue level. The question is, who expresses which policy preferences and feeds them into the political system? What significance does social and economic inequality develop in this transformation process? Do preferences and claims aimed at the political system depend on the resources and characteristics of participating groups? Do patterns of inequality of participant groups also reflect in the political interests and preferences addressed to legislators and government?

Figure 1 illustrates the significance and dimensions of political participation within the political system approach.

Figure 1: Participation within the political system following David Easton (Easton 1965) OUTPUT

INPUT (wants, demands) 

WHO? - SES

- Social Capital - Values and Norms

POLITICAL 

POLICIES

SYSTEM

WHAT? Interests and Policy preferences

Participation 

Responsiveness 

7

While still remaining relatively high compared to most other European countries and the USA, turnout levels in Austria are declining over time. So are the numbers of people involved in elite-directed activities within parties and unions - at the same time, however, we can observe an increase of elite-challenging activities. No matter if we consider data taken from surveys (reported activity) or official statistics (virtual activity), the finding that participation rates have been declining in elite-directed and increasing in elite-challenging forms of activity during the past 30 years is confirmed by both our own analysis as well as various publications on the development of different forms of political activity in the USA, Europe and other parts of the world (Dalton 2000, Inglehart 1989, Inglehart/Catterberg 2003). The following Table 1 illustrates our findings using different data sources.

Table 1: Participation in Austria 1974 – 2005 1950s 

1960s 

1970s 

1980s 

1990s 

2000s 

Net  Shift 

Regional Parliament 

93,4 

90,3 

88,5 

85,9 

80,7 

72,4 

‐21,0 

National Parliament 

95,3 

93,8 

92,3 

91,6 

83,6 

84,3 

‐11,0 

European Parliament 

‐ 

‐ 

‐ 

‐ 

58,6 

42,4 

‐16,2 

97 

95,8 

94,7 

89,5 

79,9 

71,6 

‐25,4 

Membership rates (%) 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Party Membersb 

‐ 

‐ 

29 

28 

24 

18 

‐12 

Union Densityc 

‐ 

‐ 

60 

54 

45 

40 

‐20 

Percentage of people  who report... 

  

  

  

  

  

  

being a member of a  political partyd 

29 

28 

23 

23 

15 

15 

‐14 

identifying with a  particular partyd 

73 

75 

64 

61 

48 

54 

‐19 

having signed a petitione 

‐ 

‐ 

34 

48 

46 

55 

+21 

taken part in a  demonstratione 

‐ 

‐ 

6 

10 

10 

16 

+10 

taken part in a consumer  boycotte 

‐ 

‐ 

2 

‐ 

5 

9 

+7 

taken part in an  unofficial strikee 

‐ 

‐ 

1 

‐ 

1 

2 

+1 

occupied buildingse 

‐ 

‐ 

0 

0 

1 

1 

+1 

Avg Turnout (%) 

Presidential 

Sources:

a

  

Federal Ministry of the Interior Proportion of Party members relative to electorate; Source: Mair and van Biezen (2001: 15), own calculations c Proportion of Union members relative to employed population; Source: Karlhofer 1997: 399, b

8

Eurostat Labor Force Survey 1999 Plasser/Ulram 2002: 88; average values per decade e Political Action Survey 1974, Ulram 1990: 156, European Values Surveys 1990 and 1999; values in column “2000s” collected in 1999 d

This development evokes the question on inequality in political participation. The proposed project identifies three dimensions of inequality: •

Inequality between different social classes or strata concerning the socioeconomic status, measured by factors like income, education and occupation (Bourdieu 1987, Kreckel 1992)

•

Inequality relating to gender (Haller 2001, Rosenberger/Sauer 2004)

•

Inequality on the grounds of ethnic diversity, citizenship or migrational background, gaining relevance through growing globalization and transnational migration during the past 20 years (Benhabib 1999).

On the basis of the above mentioned remarks we consider the following main and sub research questions to be relevant: (1) Do patterns of inequality exist within political participation in Austria? a) Who is engaged in different forms of participation in Austria? b) Which forms of participation meet the criteria of political equality better or worse? (2) If so, is there evidence that inequality affects the agenda? a) Do the participants’ socio-demographic characteristics and policy preferences mirror the plurality and heterogeneity of society? Are there differences between participants and non-participants, between people involved in elite-directed and elite-challenging activities, or between the economically better or worse off concerning their interests and preferences? b) What are the consequences of participatory inequality or which effects concerning social inequality can occur along different policy fields?

Our hypotheses are: (1) Political participation shows a bias towards people with higher SES (especially higher education), post materialistic values and stronger integration into social networks. What follows are patterns of social inequality in political participation and the emergence of a participatory elite (Verba/Schlozman/Brady 1995).

9

(2) While inequality remains relatively moderate in elite-directed forms of political participation, it becomes a major issue in elite-challenging engagement (Inglehart 1990, 2003). (3) Inequality structures between participants and non-participants concerning their social characteristics are reflected in their policy preferences. This leads to a significant bias in the representation of interests and generally affects the political agenda (American Political Science Association Task Force 2004a, Verba 2001, 2003).

4 4.1

Research plan and methodological approach International research context

The proposed project is embedded in the current research efforts of the applicants (“Political Participation and Education” funded by the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture [bm:bwk]) and will further its degree of sophistication. It is institutionally linked to a project conducted by the OECD entitled “SOL – The Social Outcomes of Learning”, which deals with the effect of education that cannot solely be understood by economic measures (see the homepage of the project: http://www.oecd.org/document/20/0,2340,en_2649_201185_ 35674452_1_1_1_1,00.html). Within this project we analyze the impact of (higher) education on political participation. As education is known as one of the strongest predictors of political engagement Philip Converse (Converse 1972) even called it the “universal solvent” in explaining political participation. Our scientific involvement allows us to discuss and conduct the project together with international experts right from the very beginning (David E. Campbell [University of Notre Dame], Jon Lauglo [NOVA – Norwegian Social Research]).

4.2

Structure of the research project

The project will analyze different forms of political participation regarding inequality. With Ronald Inglehart (Inglehart 1977: 3) we differentiate between elite-directed and elitechallenging forms of participation, the former meaning hierarchically structured, institutionalized ways of engagement (elections, party and campaign activities), the latter includes activities like working in an action group or citizens’ initiative, signing a petition and taking part in a demonstration. The reason why we opted for this distinction is because it

10

proved useful in explaining the frequency of and differences in participation in recent crosssectional and longitudinal studies (e.g. Inglehart 2003).

Our project will be carried out in two methodological steps: •

Firstly the project wants to point out inequality at the individual level (participating people and groups) by means of selected examples of elite-challenging and elitedirected forms of political participation (“WHO participates?”).

•

Secondly we will conceptually and empirically merge the two dimensions of political activists (“WHO”) and their individual and group interests (“WHAT”). This will be achieved by analyzing the activists’ policy preferences on certain issues (e.g. tolerance, preferred level of decision) and their specific ideological attitudes (e.g. political extremism) in relation to those of the non-participants.

4.2.1

Analysis of the participation in elite-directed and elite-challenging activities

At the beginning we will conduct an analysis examining the development of elite-directed and elite-challenging forms of participation on the basis of secondary data taken from surveys like the European Values Survey 1990 and 1999 as well as the European Social Surveys 2002 and 2004. Afterwards we will associate the different forms of political participation treated as dependent variables with individual demographic characteristics. We use the criteria of the Standard SES model (income, education, job level together with age, gender and ethnicity/citizenship/migrational background), and the criteria of the Resource model (Civic skills, free time), extended by characteristics used in the Social Capital and Value Change models such as the degree of integration into social networks and individual values and norms. Additionally we also consider socialization factors, the degree of political interest and information, political efficacy, membership in non-political organizations, religious attendance and trust in other people and institutions. Our objective in this first step of analysis is to create a multidimensional model, which tells us more about WHO is active in different forms of participation. The major goal is to provide a description as well as a causal interpretation of the data, that allows us to explain the various patterns of engagement. By doing so we anticipate clues which indicate the inequality within political participation in Austria and will thereby be able to answer our first research question or elaborate on hypotheses 1 and 2.

11

4.2.2

Analysis of the participants’ policy preferences and the thematic agenda of political activities

In respect to the requirement of political equality another theoretical aspect gains relevance – namely the relationship between participation and representation. Participation and representation are closely connected: Whenever power is delegated within a representative system, this delegation is linked to an (at least partial) abandonment of participation and selfdetermination. At the same time only those who participate can contribute to the selection of their representatives. Hence in relation to the question of (in)equality the two aspects appear to be mutual prerequisites. Within representation theory the differentiation between descriptive and substantial representation is familiar (Mansbridge 2000, 2001, Pitkin 1972). Descriptive representation presumes, that group interests can only be represented by members of the specific group (women represent women’s interests, workers represent worker’s interests, etc.). On the other hand substantial representation stresses the representation of interests with regard to content. This distinction is central to the proposed project, since it offers a new dimension for the analysis of participatory (in)equality through the combination of the questions “WHO participates?” and “WHAT is claimed?”. The first question is central if we assign an intrinsic value to political participation and consider descriptive representation to be inevitable for the functioning of democracy. If the instrumental aspect is stressed out and substantial representation of interest is regarded as the main role of participation, then the second question moves to the center of interest.

How will we access the issues treated in different forms of participation? Which conceptual framework allows us to analyze their agenda? And how should we interpret the findings?

The analysis of the thematic agenda of political activity confronts us with the problem to measure the actual content or intention of participation. While some forms of engagement (information-rich activities) such as contacting, protesting and signing petitions comprise high levels of information about the thematic concerns of participants, voting or party work (information-poor activities) might express more general motivations or even reasons of promoting one’s individual career. Additionally only very few surveys contain direct measures of accessing the causes for individual engagement – unfortunately those available for the Austrian case do not. To deal with this problem it seems useful for us to look for

12

variables that allow us to assess the content of participatory input as good as possible and can thereby act as proxies for the measurement of the thematic agenda of political participation. Considering the notion that individual attitudes towards certain issues affect not only the willingness but also the content of activity, we think that an analysis of the ideological placement, partisanship, and preferences on certain policy issues may take us very close to the investigation of possible differences in the thematic agenda of political activity. Although this approach of measuring inputs concerning the political agenda through attitudinal items was used in different seminal studies in quite similar ways, the results differ substantively: While Wolfinger and Rosenstone find no differences between voters and nonvoters concerning their policy preferences (Wolfinger/Rosenstone 1980; Chapter 6), Teixeira examines moderate but existing variations (Teixeira 1992). Expanding the view of political activity beyond electoral turnout, more recent analyses from the USA confirm that these ideological differences and variations concerning policy preferences between the politically active and inactive exist (American Political Science Association Task Force 2004a, 2004b). We are interested in finding out whether these findings can be confirmed by the empirical analyses for the Austrian case.

Using the techniques mentioned above, this part of our study allows us to conduct a comparison of individual’s policy preferences between different forms and levels of engagement and thereby link the preferences with the demographic characteristics of participants and non-participants. The crucial step in the empirical analysis of (in)equality will be the linkage of the results from the analysis of individual and group characteristics with the findings from the analysis of the policy preferences and issue orientations of participating and non-participating groups. It is this combination of results that allows us to make statements about possible patterns of inequality in political participation. The answer to our second research question as well as the confirmation on hypothesis 3 is based on this methodological procedure.

13

5

Time schedule

Duration of the whole project: 24 months. The project consists of five work packages.

Work package 1: Elaboration of the research framework Review of state of the art, theoretical approaches, development of research framework Duration: 6 months

Work package 2: Who has voice? Statistical analysis of political activity in Austria with respect to demographic characteristics Duration: 6 months

Work package 3: What do they claim? Statistical analysis of policy preferences and ideological attitudes of participants and nonparticipants in Austria Duration: 6 months

Work package 4: Comparative Analysis Linkage of results; comparison of elite-directed and elite-challenging activities with respect to (in)equality Duration: 4 months

Work package 5: Final report Writing of final report and/or papers Duration: 2 months Table 2: Graphic depiction of working procedure Month 

1 

Working  step 

Work package 1:  Elaboration of research framework 

Month  Working  Step 

13 

2 

14 

3 

15 

4 

16 

5 

17 

6 

18 

Work package 3:   What do they claim? 

7 

8 

9 

10 

12 

23 

24 

Work package 2:  Who has voice?  19 

20 

21 

22 

Work package 4:  Comparative Analysis 

14

11 

Work  package 5:  Report 

6

Basic Literature

American Political Science Association Task Force (2004a): American democracy in an age of rising inequality. Report of the American Political Science Association Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy, in: Perspectives on Politics 2 (4), 651-666 American Political Science Association Task Force (2004b): Inequalities of Political Voice, retrieved from http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/voicememo.pdf, Arzheimer, Kai (2002): Politikverdrossenheit. Bedeutung, Verwendung und empirische Relevanz eines politikwissenschaftlichen Begriffs, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag Bachrach, Peter (1970): Die Theorie demokratischer Elitenherrschaft: eine kritische Analyse, Frankfurt am Main: Europäische Verlagsanstalt Barber, Benjamin (1994): Starke Demokratie. Über die Teilhabe am Politischen, Hamburg: Rotbuch Verlag Barnes, Samuel H., et al. (1979): Political Action. Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies, Beverly Hills/London: Sage Publications Bartels, Larry (2004): Economic Inequality and Political Representation. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, September 2002, retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf, 16.1.2006 Benhabib, Seyla (1999): Kulturelle Vielfalt und demokratische Gleichheit. Politische Partizipation im Zeitalter der Globalisierung, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag Bourdieu, Pierre (1983): Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital, in: Reinhard Kreckel (ed.): Soziale Ungleichheiten, Göttingen: Soziale Welt Sonderband 2, 183198 Bourdieu, Pierre (1987): Die feinen Unterschiede. Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Brady, Henry E. / Sidney Verba / Kay L. Schlozman (1995): Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation, in: American Political Science Review 89 271-294 Campbell, Angus / Gurin Gerald / Warren E. Miller (1954): The Voter decides, Evanston: Row & Peterson Campbell, Angus, et al. (1960): The American Voter, New York: Wiley Coleman, James (1988): Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, in: American Journal of Sociology 94 95-120

15

Converse, Philip E. (1972): Change in the American Electorate, in: Angus Campbell / Philip E. Converse (ed.): The Human Meaning of Social Change, New York: Russel Sage Publications, 263-337 Dalton, Russell J. (2000): Citizen Attitudes and Political Behavior, in: Comparative Political Studies 33 (6/7), 912-940 Deiser, Roland / Norbert Winkler (1982): Das politische Handeln der Österreicher, Wien: Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik Downs, Anthony (1968): Ökonomische Theorie der Demokratie, Tübingen: Mohr Easton, David (1965): A Systems Analysis of Political Life, New York/Chicago: Wiley Eilfort, Michael (1994): Die Nichtwähler - Wahlenthaltung als Form des Wahlverhaltens, Paderborn: Schöningh European Commission (2001): European Governance. A White Paper, retrieved from http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf, European Commission (2003): Bericht der Kommission über Europäisches Regieren, retrieved from http://www.eu.int/comm/governance/docs/comm_rapport_de.pdf, 19.1.2006 Fishkin, James S. (1991): Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform, New Haven: Yale University Press Gilens, Martin (2005): Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness, in: Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (5), 778-796 Goodin, Robert E. (2001): Inout Democracy. Paper prepared for the Power & Democracy Project Oslo, retrieved from http://www.arena.uio.no/events/papers/goodin-input_de.pdf, Habermas, Jürgen (1969): Student und Politik. Eine soziologische Untersuchung zum politischen Bewusstsein Frankfurter Studenten, Neuwied am Rhein: Luchterhand Habermas, Jürgen (1999): Die Einbeziehungen des Anderen. Studien zur politischen Theorie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Haller, Birgitt (2001): Unkonventionelle politische Akteurinnen? Zum politischen Partizipationsverhalten von Frauen, in: Andrej S. Markovits / Sieglinde K. Rosenberger (ed.): Demokratie. Modus und Telos, Wien: Böhlau, 159-171 Inglehart, Ronald (1977): The Silent Revolution. Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics, Princeton: University Press Inglehart, Ronald (1989): Kultureller Umbruch. Wertewandel in der westlichen Welt, Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus Verlag Inglehart, Ronald (1990): Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton: Princeton University Press 16

Inglehart, Ronald (ed., 2003): Islam, Gender, Culture, and Democracy. Findings from the World Values Survey and the European Values Survey, Whitby: De Sitter Publications Inglehart, Ronald / Gabriela Catterberg (2003): Trends in Political Action: The Developmental Trend and the Post-Honetmoon Decline, in: Ronald Inglehart (ed.): Islam, Gender, Culture, and Democracy. Findings from the World Values Survey and the European Values Survey, Whitby: De Sitter Publications, 77-93 International IDEA (ed., 2004): Voter Turnout in Western Europe since 1945, Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance Kaase, Max (1992): Politische Beteiligung, in: Dieter Nohlen / Manfred G. Schmidt (ed.): Lexikon der Politik. Band 3: Die westlichen Länder, München: C.H. Beck, 339-346 Kreckel, Reinhard (1992): Politische Soziologie der sozialen Ungleichheit, Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus Verlag Krimmel, Iris (2000): Politische Beteiligung in Deutschland - Strukturen und Erklärungsfaktoren, in: Jürgen W. Falter / Oskar W. Gabriel / Hans Rattinger (ed.): Wirklich ein Volk? Die politischen Orientierungen von Ost- und Westdeutschen im Vergleich, Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 611-639 Lazarsfeld, Paul F. / Bernhard Berelson / Hazel Gaudet (1969): Wahlen und Wähler. Soziologie des Wählerverhaltens, Neuwied/Berlin: Luchterhand Lüdemann, Christian (2001): Politische Partizipation, Anreize und Ressourcen. Ein Test verschiedener Handlungsmodelle und Anschlusstheorien am Allbus 1998, in: Achim Koch / Martina Wasmer / Peter Schmidt (ed.): Politische Partizipation in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Empirische Befunde und theoretische Erklärungen, Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 43-72 Maier, Jürgen (2000): Politikverdrossenheit in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Dimensionen - Determinanten - Konsequenzen, Opladen: Leske & Budrich Mansbridge, Jane (2000): What Does a Representative Do? Descriptive Representation in Communicative Settings of Distrust, Uncrystallized Interests, and Historically Denigrated Status, in: Will Kymlicka / Wayne Norman (ed.): Citizenship in Diverse Societies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 99-123 Mansbridge, Jane (2001): The Descriptive Political Representation of Gender: An AntiEssentialist Argument, in: Jytte Klausen / Charles Maier (ed.): Has Liberalism Failed Women?, New York: Palgrave, 19-38 Milbrath, Lester W. / M.L. Goel (1977): Political Participation. How and Why Do People Get Involved in Politics?, Chicago: Randy Mc Nally Publishing Norris, Pippa (2004): Electoral Engineering. Voting Rules and Political Behavior, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Österreichische Gesellschaft für Umwelt und Technik (ed., 2005): Das Handbuch Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung. Die Zukunft gemeinsam gestalten, Wien: ÖGUT 17

Pateman, Carole (1970): Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Pitkin, Hanna F. (1972): The Concept of Representation, Berkeley: University of California Press Plasser, Fritz / Peter A. Ulram (1988): Analyse der Wiener Gemeinderatswahl 1987. Die Stadt der Nichtwähler, in: Andreas Khol / Günther Ofner / Alfred Stirnemann (ed.): Österreichisches Jahrbuch für Politik 1987, Wien/München: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik/Oldenbourg, 57-78 Plasser, Fritz / Peter A. Ulram (1999): Politische Involvierung und politische Unterstützung in Österreich, in: Fritz Plasser, et al. (ed.): Wahlen und politische Einstellungen in Deutschland und Österreich, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 241-262 Plasser, Fritz / Peter A. Ulram (2002): Das österreichische Politikverständnis. Von der Konsens- zur Konfliktkultur?, Wien: WUV Putnam, Robert D. (1994): Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in modern Italy, Princeton: Princeton University Press Putnam, Robert D. (1995): Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America, in: PS: Political Science and Politics 28 (4), 664-683 Putnam, Robert D. (2000): Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster Rosenberger, Sieglinde K. (2000): Direkte Demokratie und Geschlechterpolitik, in: Elisabeth Wolfgruber / Petra Grabner (ed.): Politik und Geschlecht, Wien/Innsbruck/München: Studienverlag, 47-67 Rosenberger, Sieglinde K. / Gilg Seeber (2003): Zivilgesellschaft in der Parteienlandschaft, in: Sieglinde K. Rosenberger / Emmerich Tálos (ed.): Sozialstaat. Probleme, Herausforderungen, Perspektiven, Wien: Mandelbaum Verlag, 185-202 Rosenberger, Sieglinde K. / Birgit Sauer (ed., 2004): Politikwissenschaft und Geschlecht, Wien: WUV Rosenmayr, Leopold (ed., 1980): Politische Beteiligung und Wertewandel in Österreich. Einstellungen zu Politik und Demokratieverständnis im internationalen Vergleich, Wien/München: Oldenbourg Schlozman, Kay L. / Sidney Verba / Henry E. Brady (1999): Civic Participation and the Equality Problem, in: Theda Skocpol / Morris P. Fiorina (ed.): Civic Engagement in American Democracy, Washington/New York: Brookings Institution Press/Russel Sage Foundation, 427-460 Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1993): Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie, Tübingen/Basel: Francke 18

Skocpol, Theda / Morris P. Fiorina (ed., 1999): Civic Engagement in American Democracy, Washington/New York: Brookings Institution Press/Russel Sage Foundation Teixeira, Ruy A. (1992): The Disappearing American Voter, Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press Uehlinger, Hans-Martin (1988): Politische Partizipation in der Bundesrepublik. Strukturen und Erklärungsmodelle, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag Ulram, Peter A. (1990): Hegemonie und Erosion. Politische Kultur und politischer Wandel in Österreich, Wien/Köln/Graz: Böhlau Ulram, Peter A. (2000): Civic Democracy. Politische Beteiligung und politische Unterstützung, in: Anton Pelinka / Fritz Plasser / Wolfgang Meixner (ed.): Die Zukunft der österreichischen Demokratie. Trends, Prognosen und Szenarien, Wien: Signum Verlag, 103140 Verba, Sidney (2001): Political Equality. What is it? Why do we want it?, Review Paper for Russell Sage Foundation, retrieved from 22.7.2006 Verba, Sidney (2003): Would the Dream of Political Equality Turn out to Be a Nightmare?, in: Perspectives on Politics 1 663-679 Verba, Sidney / Norman H. Nie (1972): Participation in America: Social Equality and Political Democracy, New York: Harper & Row Verba, Sidney / Norman H. Nie / Jae-On Kim (1978): Participation and Political Equality. A Seven-Nation Comparison, New York: Cambridge University Press Verba, Sidney / Kay L. Schlozman / Henry E. Brady (1995): Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics, Cambridge: Harvard University Press Westle, Bettina (1994): Politische Partizipation, in: Oskar W. Gabriel / Frank Brettschneider (ed.): Die EU-Staaten im Vergleich. Strukturen, Prozesse, Politikinhalte, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 137-173 Wolfinger, Raymond E. / Steven J. Rosenstone (1980): Who Votes?, New Haven: Yale University Press

19