Abstract
The impact of political trust on political participation is still contested, especially considering the variety of political expressions citizens use as political tools. A further complication is added by the substantial differences in the context under which participation take place and the contextual impact on the link between political trust and participation. We here examine how political trust affects institutionalised and non-institutionalised forms of political participation. Furthermore, we examine how these linkages are affected by the institutional openness of the political system, since this constitutes a central element of the context of participation. These research questions are examined using data from the fourth round of the European Social Survey from 2008 including 26 democratic countries and a total of 49,979 respondents. The results suggest that political trust promotes institutionalised participation and has a negative impact on non-institutionalised participation. Furthermore, the institutional context mediates the effect of political trust on political participation meaning that institutional openness strengthens the effect of political trust on institutionalised participation whereas it weakens the effect of political distrust on non-institutionalised participation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Due to a lack of appropriate weighs in the data, Lithuania has been excluded from the analyses.
- 2.
The values for all countries are presented in the appendix.
- 3.
We obtain the odds by exponentiating the coefficient i.e. Exp (0.024) = 1.024.
- 4.
Exp (1.610) = 5.003
References
Aarts, K., & Thomassen, J. (2008). Satisfaction with democracy: Do institutions matter? Electoral Studies, 27, 5–18.
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture – political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96(2), 231–60.
Barnes, S., Kaase, M., et al. (1979). Political action: Mass participation in five Western democracies. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Burns, N., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (2001). The private roots of public action – gender, equality, and political participation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Christensen, H. S. (2011). Political participation beyond the vote – how the institutional context shapes patterns of political participation in 18 Western European democracies. Turku: Åbo Akademi University Press.
Cleary, M. R., & Stokes, S. C. (2006). Democracy and the culture of skepticism. Political trust in Argentina and Mexico. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Crozier, M., Huntington, S. P., & Watanuki, J. (1975). The crisis of democracy: Report on the governability of democracies to the trilateral commission. New York: New York University Press.
Dalton, R. J., Van Sickle, A., & Weldon, S. (2010). The individual–institutional nexus of protest behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 40, 51–73.
Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.
European Social Survey Round 4 Data. (2008). Data file edition 4.0. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESS data.
Freitag, M., & Bühlmann, M. (2009). Crafting trust: The role of political institutions in a comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 42(12), 1537–1566.
Gambetta, D. (1988). Can we trust ? In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust. Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 213–35). New York: Basil Blackwell.
Gamson, W. A. (1968). Power and discontent. Homewood: Dorsey.
Grönlund, K., & Setälä, M. (2007). Political trust, satisfaction and voter turnout. Comparative European Politics, 5, 400–422.
Hardin, R. (1999). Do we want trust in Government? In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy & trust (pp. 22–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hardin, R. (2006). Trust. Cambridge: Polity.
Hay, C. (2007). Why we hate politics. Cambridge: Polity.
Hibbing, J. R. & Theiss-Morse, E. (2001). Americans’ desire for stealth democracy. How declining trust boosts political participation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest political science association, Chicago.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization – cultural, economic, and political chance in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Karp, J. A., & Banducci, S. A. (2007). Political efficacy and participation in twenty-seven democracies: How electoral systems shape political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 37, 1–24.
Kitschelt, H. P. (1986). Political opportunity structure and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16, 57–85.
Kriesi, H. P., Koopmans, R., Duyvendak, J. W., & Giugni, M. G. (1992). New social movements and political opportunities in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 22, 219–244.
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy – government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lundell, K., & Karvonen, L. (2008). A comparative data set on political institutions. Åbo: Akademi University: Department of Political Science.
Mansbridge, J. (1999). Altruistic trust. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy & trust (pp. 290–309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marien, S. (2011). Measuring political trust across time and space’. In M. Hooghe & S. Zmerli (Eds.), Political trust. why context matters (pp. 13–46). Colchester: ECPR Press.
Marien, S., Hooghe, M., & Quintelier, E. (2010). Inequalities in non-institutionalised forms of political participation: A multilevel analysis of 25 countries. Political Studies, 58(2), 187–213.
Meyer, D. S. (2004). Protest and political opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 125–145.
Miller, A. H., & Listhaug, O. (1990). Political parties and confidence in Government: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 29, 357–386.
Morales, L. (2009). Joining political organisations – institutions, mobilisation and participation in Western democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press.
Newton, K. (2007). Social and political trust. In R. J. Dalton & H.-D. Klingemann (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political behaviour (pp. 342–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norris, P. (Ed.). (1999). Critical citizens – global support for democratic government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norris, P. (2002). Democratic phoenix – reinventing political activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, P., Walgrave, S., & Van Aelst, P. (2006). Does protest signify disaffection – demonstrators in a postindustrial democracy. In M. Torcal & J. R. Montero (Eds.), Political disaffection in contemporary democracies – social capital, institutions and politics (pp. 279–307). New York: Routledge.
Pharr, S. J., & Putnam, R. D. (Eds.). (2000). Disaffected democracies – what’s troubling the trilateral countries? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Powell, G. B., Jr. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy – majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rosanvallon, P. (2006). La contre-démocratie. La politique a l’âge de la défiance. Paris: Seuil.
Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–1053.
Smith, S. S. (2010). Race and trust. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 453–75.
Stoker, G. (2006). Why politics matter – making democracy work. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Stolle, D., Hooghe, M., & Micheletti, M. (2005). Politics in the supermarket: Political consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review, 26(3), 245–269.
Teorell, J., Torcal, M., & Montero, J. R. (2007). Political participation – mapping the terrain. In J. W. van Deth, J. R. Montero and A. Westholm (eds.), Citizenship and involvement in European democracies – a comparative analysis (pp. 334–357). London/New York: Routledge.
Torcal, M., & Lago, I. (2006). Political participation, information, and accountability – some consequences of political dissatisfaction in new democracies. In M. Torcal & J. R. Montero (Eds.), Political disaffection in contemporary democracies – social capital, institutions and politics (pp. 308–331). New York: Routledge.
Tyler, T. R. (2011). Why people cooperate. The role of social motivations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality – civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1: Country Level Distribution of Institutional Variables
Country | Effective threshold | Effective threshold 0–1 (1 highest openness) | Fiscal decentralisation | Fiscal decentralisation 0–1 (1 highest openness) | Combined scale 0–1 (1 highest openness) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Belgium | 8.82 | 0.76 | 0.14 | 0.33 | 0.55 |
Bulgaria | 4.00 | 0.89 | 0.09 | 0.20 | 0.55 |
Croatia | 5.45 | 0.85 | 0.10 | 0.23 | 0.54 |
Cyprus | 3.60 | 0.90 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.48 |
Czech Republic | 5.00 | 0.87 | 0.15 | 0.35 | 0.61 |
Denmark | 2.00 | 0.95 | 0.35 | 0.79 | 0.87 |
Estonia | 7.96 | 0.79 | 0.14 | 0.32 | 0.55 |
Finland | 5.23 | 0.86 | 0.25 | 0.58 | 0.72 |
France | 37.5 | 0.00 | 0.14 | 0.32 | 0.16 |
Germany | 5.00 | 0.87 | 0.33 | 0.76 | 0.81 |
Greece | 11.98 | 0.68 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.35 |
Hungarya | 19.82 | 0.47 | 0.14 | 0.32 | 0.40 |
Ireland | 15.15 | 0.60 | 0.09 | 0.21 | 0.40 |
Israel | 2.00 | 0.95 | 0.07 | 0.16 | 0.55 |
Latvia | 5.00 | 0.87 | 0.18 | 0.41 | 0.64 |
Lithuania | 19.41 | 0.48 | 0.13 | 0.29 | 0.39 |
Netherlands | 0.67 | 0.98 | 0.12 | 0.26 | 0.62 |
Norway | 4.00 | 0.89 | 0.16 | 0.35 | 0.62 |
Poland | 5.00 | 0.87 | 0.18 | 0.40 | 0.63 |
Portugal | 6.55 | 0.83 | 0.08 | 0.19 | 0.51 |
Romania | 5.00 | 0.87 | 0.20 | 0.46 | 0.67 |
Slovakia | 5.00 | 0.87 | 0.08 | 0.18 | 0.53 |
Slovenia | 7.50 | 0.80 | 0.10 | 0.23 | 0.51 |
Spain | 9.70 | 0.74 | 0.25 | 0.58 | 0.66 |
Sweden | 4.00 | 0.89 | 0.35 | 0.80 | 0.85 |
Switzerland | 8.63 | 0.77 | 0.44 | 1.00 | 0.88 |
United Kingdom | 37.50 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.20 | 0.10 |
Mean | 9.31 | 0.75 | 0.16 | 0.37 | 0.56 |
Max | 37.5 | 0.98 | 0.44 | 1.00 | 0.88 |
Min | 0.67 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.10 |
Appendix 2: Coding of Variables and Descriptive Statistics
Coding | Descriptive statistics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | St.d. | Min | Max | ||
Dependent variables | |||||
Institutionalised participation | Dichotomous variable based on questions on four political activities performed: Voted last election, Member of political party, Worked political party or action group, Contacting politicians or officials (last three within last 12 months). 1 indicates having performed at least one of the activities. | 0.79 | 0.41 | 0 | 1 |
Non-institutionalised participation | Dichotomous variable based on three political activities performed during last 12 months: Taking part in public demonstration, Sign petition, Boycott products (within last 12 months). 1 indicates having performed at least one of the activities | 0.28 | 0.45 | 0 | 1 |
Independent variables | |||||
Individual level | |||||
Political trust | Question: Using this card, please tell me on a score of 0–10 how much you personally trust the following institutions. 0 means “do not trust at all”; 10 means “you have complete trust”. Index based on replies to: [country]’s parliament, the legal system, the police, politicians, and political parties | 21.55 | 10.64 | 0 | 50 |
Gender | Gender of respondent, 1 = male | 0.46 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
Age | Age of respondent in years | 47.89 | 18.48 | 15 | 105 |
Education | Question: What is the highest level of education you have achieved? | 1.81 | 0.96 | 0 | 3 |
Answers in four categories ranging from “Less than lower secondary education” to “Tertiary education completed” | |||||
Political interest | Question: How interested would you say you are in politics? | 1.37 | 0.91 | 0 | 3 |
Answers in four categories ranging from “Not at all interested” to “Very interested” | |||||
Watching TV | Question: On an average weekday, how much time, in total, do you spend watching television? | 4.38 | 2.07 | 0 | 7 |
Eight categories ranging from “No time at all” to “More than 3 h”, highest score indicates more time spent | |||||
Reading newspaper | Question: On an average weekday, how much time, in total, do you spend reading the newspapers? | 1.32 | 1.29 | 0 | 7 |
8 categories ranging from “No time at all” to “More than 3 h”, highest score indicates more time spent | |||||
Internal efficacy | Index based on answers to two questions: How often does politics seem so complicated that you can’t really understand what is going on? (answers in 5 categories ranging from “Never” to “Frequently”) | 2.93 | 0.93 | 1 | 5 |
+ How difficult or easy do you find it to make your mind up about political issues? (Answers in five categories ranging from “Very easy” to “Very difficult”), coded so highest score indicate highest internal efficacy | |||||
Generalised trust | Index based on answers to three questions: “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people? +” Using this card, do you think that most people would try to take advantage of you if they got the chance, or would they try to be fair?’ + “Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful or that they are mostly looking out for themselves?”. Answers to all scored on scale from 0–10, coded so highest score indicates highest trust | 5.02 | 2.03 | 0 | 10 |
Country level | |||||
Established democracy | More than 20 year of uninterrupted democracy based on POLITY, 0 = no, 1 = yes | 0.64 | 0.48 | 0 | 1 |
Effective electoral threshold | Ranges between 0 and 37.5 as the highest theoretical value. Recoded to vary between 0 and 1 with 1 indicating lowest effective threshold associated with institutional openness | 0.78 | 0.26 | 0 | 0.98 |
Fiscal decentralisation | Ranges between 0 (no decentralisation) and 100 (totally decentralised). Since the notion of a totally decentralised state is unrealistic, the max value is subsequently coded with the highest extent of decentralisation (Switzerland =0.44) as the maximum value 1 | 0.38 | 0.24 | 0.02 | 1 |
Combined measure | Effective electoral threshold + Fiscal decentralisation. Coded to vary between 0 and 1 with 1 indicating highest extent of institutional openness | 0.57 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.88 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marien, S., Christensen, H.S. (2013). Trust and Openness: Prerequisites for Democratic Engagement?. In: Demetriou, K. (eds) Democracy in Transition. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30068-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30068-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-30067-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-30068-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)