Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Empirical Test of the Relative Education Model in Sweden

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Numerous studies show that education has a positive effect on political participation at the individual level. However, the increase in aggregate levels of education in most Western countries over the last decades has not resulted in a corresponding increase in aggregate levels of political participation. Nie et al. (Education and democratic citizenship in America, 1996) propose the relative education model as a possible solution to this paradox. According to this model, it is not the skills promoted by education that have positive effects on political participation. Rather, education influences individuals’ social status, which in turn influences political participation. The relative education model expects that the individual-level effect of an additional year of education will decrease as the mean level of education in the environment increases. This article evaluates this theory using Swedish election surveys (1985–2006) and it thus provides the first in depth evaluation of the relative education model outside the US. On voting and political participation related to political parties, support is found for the relative education model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although it is not referred to as ‘the relative education model’ the same idea is put forward already by Huckfeldt (1979) and Verba and Orren (1985, Chap. 10).

  2. The model is synonymously referred to as ‘the sorting model’ in the literature.

  3. Chapter 10 of NJS (1996) provides a brief investigation of effects of raised educational levels on tolerance in Europe. Campbell (2006) presents results in partial support of the sorting model on non country-specific European data.

  4. As Verba, Schlozman and Brady point out, one of the reasons why individuals participate in democratic activities is simply because they were asked. Consequently, the reason why individuals with low levels of education participate to a lesser extent in political activities may simply be that they are “outside of the recruitment networks that bring people into politics” (Verba et al. 1995, p. 269).

  5. However, as Campbell points out Helliwell and Putnam “have not accounted for the considerable differences in educational attainment across age cohorts” (Campbell 2009, p. 775). In addition, Helliwell and Putnam do not include electoral activities. In sum, this may explain the weak support of the sorting model in their analyses.

  6. Regarding income there is a larger gap between the rich and the poor in the US than in Sweden (De Nardi et al. 2000). The Gini Coefficient is 0.368 for USA and 0.252 for Sweden (source: Luxembourg Income Study 2007). Additionally, Sweden has been shown to occupy a special place in studies of social mobility. Breen and Jonsson claim that “class origins […] appear to have a smaller influence on class destinations […] than in most other countries” (Breen and Jonsson 2007, pp. 1175–1776). Likewise, preferences in favor of egalitarian values are also less common in the US than in Sweden (Verba and Orren 1985).

  7. During 1985 to 2006 voter turnout in Sweden has declined from 90% in 1985 to 82.0% in 2006. Moreover, contact with political representatives has decreased from 16% to about 9%. Party membership and active participation in political parties have however remained quite stable around 8 and 3% respectively since the early 1990s.

  8. The pooled dataset consists of SNES 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1998, 2002, and 2006. The SNES-studies are based on face-to-face interviews; Statistics Sweden (SCB) carries out the fieldwork. The response rates vary between 69.3% (2002) and 81.4% (1998). The SNES surveys are conducted at every Swedish election and are based on national representative samples. Principal investigators were Sören Holmberg and Mikael Gilljam (1985, 1988, 1991 and 1994), Sören Holmberg (1998) and Sören Holmberg and Henrik Oscarsson (2002 and 2006).

  9. In SNES 2006 and 2002 we got exact information from Statistics Sweden about each respondent’s educational attainment. In the older surveys, there is a single question on highest achieved education. Data from 2002 and 2006 are harmonized to follow the same scale as the measures in the earlier surveys in order to not produce distortion in the comparison between the surveys before and after 2002. Data on individuals’ highest achieved education was transformed to a variable describing the length of education in years.

  10. All data on contextual levels of education can be obtained from http://www.ssd.scb.se/databaser/makro/start.asp.

  11. Following prior research in the field, respondents younger than 26 were excluded since a considerable amount of them have not yet finished their educations. Thus, the effects of education on social network centrality are yet to come. Likewise, respondents older than 74 years old are excluded since no information on mean levels of education among individuals over that age are available from Statistics Sweden.

  12. It is worth to mention that it is not possible to replicate the measure of educational environment employed by NJS—i.e. using the mean level of education among people 25–50 when the respondent was 25. To replicate this measure we would need detailed information about mean levels of education as far back as in the 1930s. Furthermore, to use a narrow area specific measure we would need to know where respondents lived at the time they were 25; unfortunately we only know where they lived at the time of the survey. For that reason, mean levels of education in the environment are calculated at the time of every specific survey.

  13. To reduce multicollinearity in the model, age is divided in 10 cohorts (26–30, 31–35, 36–40, 41–45, 46–50, 51–55, 56–60, 61–65, 66–70, 71–74).

  14. Substituting the “time” variable with a set of dummy variables for each specific election year does not significantly alter the results. Results available upon request from the author.

  15. Even though the models include both age cohorts, generation, time, and in addition two of the specifications of the educational environment define mean education as the level of education among people at the same age, results are not distorted by multicollinearity. Models with educational environment defined as “A: Age and place” and as “B: Place only” includes no independent variables correlated higher than 0.706. None of the variables have a VIF above the critical value 10 or tolerance below 0.1. However, models with educational environment defined as “C: Age only” suffer from some multicollinearity since the educational environment measure and “age” has a correlation of −0.7949. As a consequence, the VIF for “Educational environment: Place only” is 10.56 and “Age” is 11.26. However, by dropping the “Generation” dummies the VIF decreases below the critical value 10 (VIF for “Educational environment” is 9.30 and “Age” is 7.03). Models without the generation dummies do not significantly alter the sizes, signs or significance of the main independent variables presented in the article. Most, importantly the interaction term in model 3 remain significant and the marginal effect of education decrease from a significant value of 0.0096 when the “Educational environment” is held constant two standard deviations below the mean to 0.0077 when the “Educational environment” is held constant two standard deviations above the mean.

  16. Since the individuals are clustered within different educational environments the vce(cluster) option in STATA11 is used in order to cluster individuals within their educational environment and produce standard errors which allow for intragroup correlation.

  17. In logistic regression, merely examining the significance level of the coefficient for the interaction term reported in the regression output cannot test the true significance of the interaction. Since each of the coefficients is conditional on the other variables in the model in logistic regression, the true sign of the interaction term as well as its level of significance may be different for different observations (Norton et al. 2004; Ai and Norton 2003). Additional analyses have been made to compute the correct effect of the interaction term by making use of Norton, Wang and Ai’s STATA command inteff. Results from inteff for the models with significant coefficients of the interaction terms are supplied upon request from the author.

  18. Marginal effects were calculated with the margins command in STATA11.

  19. Marginal effects are calculated while all controls are simultaneously held at their means.

  20. One concern when using this pooled dataset from a period of over 20 years might be whether the simultaneous overall trends towards lower participation and higher education distorts the results. Indeed there is such a trend during the period (as explained in footnote 9). A continuous variable for “time” (year of survey) is included in the analyses to control for this negative trend. Another way to further make sure that this negative trend has not distorted the results is to run the models for each specific year respectively. Results from such models can be provided upon request from the author. In sum results from these models show no systematic distortion in the year-by-year coefficients and the amount of support for the sorting model does not vary over time.

References

  • Abramson, P. R., & Aldrich, J. H. (1982). The decline of electoral participation in America. The American Political Science Review, 76(3), 502–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ai, C., & Norton, E. C. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80(1), 123–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berinsky, A. J., & Lenz, G. S. (forthcoming). Education and political participation: Exploring the causal link. Political Behavior.

  • Bottero, W. (2007). Social inequality and interaction. Sociology Compass, 1/2, 814–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breen, R., & Jonsson, J. O. (2007). Explaining change in social fluidity: Educational equalization and educational expansion in twentieth-century Sweden. American Journal of Sociology, 112(6), 1775–1810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, R. A. (1978). The puzzle of political participation in America. In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system S. Beer (pp. 287–324). Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burden, B. C. (2009). The dynamic effects of education on voter turnout. Electoral Studies, 28(4), 540–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. E. (2006). What is education’s impact on civic and social engagement? In R. Desjardins & T. Schuller (eds) Measuring the effects of education on health and civic engagement (pp. 25–126). Paris: OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.

  • Campbell, D. E. (2009). Civic engagement and education: An empirical test of the sorting model. American Journal of Political Science, 25(4), 771–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Nardi, M., Ren, L., & Wei, C. (2000). Income inequality and redistribution in five countries. Economic Perspectives, Q II, 2–20.

  • Desjardins, R. (2008). Researching the links between education and well-being. European Journal of Education, 43(1), 23–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyck, J. J., Gaines, B. J., & Shaw, D. R. (2009). The effect of local political context on how Americans vote. American Politics Research, 37, 1088–1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emler, N., & Frazer, E. (1999). Politics: The education effect. Oxford Review of Education, 25(1–2), 251–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, R., & Jonsson, J. O. (1996). Explaining class inequality in education: The Swedish test case. In R. Erikson & J. O. Jonsson (Eds.), Can education be equalized? The Swedish case in comparative perspective. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esaiasson, P., & Holmberg, S. (1996). Representation from above: Members of parliament and representative democracy in Sweden. Aldershot: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granberg, D., & Holmberg, S. (1988). The political system matters: Social psychology and voting behavior in Sweden and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2007). Education and social capital. Eastern Economic Journal, 33(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highton, B. (2009). Revisiting the relationship between educational attainment and political sophistication. The Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1564–1576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillygus, D. S. (2005). The missing link: Exploring the relationship between higher education and political engagement. Political Behavior, 27(1), 25–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, F. (1978). Social limits to growth. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, S. (1974). Riksdagen representerar svenska folket: Empiriska studier i representativ demokrati. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, S. (1989). Political representation in Sweden. Scandinavian Political Studies, 12(1), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hout, M., & Dohan, D. P. (1996). Two paths to educational opportunity. In R. Erikson & J. O. Jonsson (Eds.), Can education be equalized? The Swedish case in comparative perspective. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huckfeldt, R. (1979). Political participation and the neighborhood social context. American Journal of Political Science, 23(3), 579–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. G. (1996). Educational environment and relative education measures. In N. H. Nie, J. Junn, & K. Stehlik-Barry (Eds.), Education and democratic citizenship in America (pp. 227–230). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kam, C. D., & Franzese, R. J., Jr. (2007). Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kam, C. D., & Palmer, C. L. (2008). Reconsidering the effects of education on political participation. The Journal of Politics, 70(3), 612–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, C. B. (1992). Political participation and effects from the social environment. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 259–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leighley, J. E. (1990). Social interaction and contextual influences on political participation. American Politics Research, 18(4), 459–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leighley, J. E., & Nagler, J. (1992). Individual and systemic influences on turnout: Who votes? Journal of Politics, 54(3), 718–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma. The American Political Science Review, 91(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luskin, R. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(4), 331–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClurg, S. (2003). Social networks and political participation: The role of social interaction in explaining political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 449–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, M., & Popkin, S. L. (2001). The myth of the vanishing voter. American Political Science Review, 95(4), 963–974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meghir, C., & Palme, M. (2005). Educational reform, ability and family background. The American Economic Review, 95(1), 414–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W. E. (1992). The puzzle transformed: Explaining declining turnout. Political Behavior, 14(1), 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narud, H. M., & Valen, H. (2000). Does social background matter? In P. Esaiasson & K. Heidar (Eds.), Beyond Westminster and Congress: The Nordic experience. Ohio: State University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie, N. H., & Hillygus, D. S. (2001). Education and democratic citizenship. In D. Ravitch & J. P. Viteritti (Eds.), Making good citizens: Education and civil society. New York: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie, N. H., Junn, J., & Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and democratic citizenship in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, E. C., Wang, H., & Ai, C. (2004). Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. Stata Journal, 4(2), 154–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson, M., & Oscarsson, H. (2010). Did the egalitarian reforms of the Swedish educational system equalise levels of democratic citizenship? Scandinavian Political Studies, 33(2), 135–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radcliff, B., & Davis, P. (2000). Labor organization and electoral participation in industrial democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 132–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, B. (1996). The social democratic state: The Swedish model and the bureaucratic problems of social reforms. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenn, S. (2005). An alternative measure of relative education to explain voter turnout. Journal of Politics, 67(1), 271–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenn, S. (2007). The effect of education on voter turnout. Political Analysis, 15(4), 446–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., & Orren, G. R. (1985). Equality in America: The view from the top. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., Schlozman, K., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2006). A new engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Previous versions of this paper were presented at the APSA annual meeting in Toronto 2009, the general conference for the ECPR in Potsdam 2009 and the Elections, Opinion and Democracy seminar at University of Gothenburg. I am grateful for helpful comments from Peter Esaiasson, Henrik Oscarsson, David E. Campbell, Stefan Dahlberg, Mikael Gilljam, Sören Holmberg, Andrej Kokkonen, two anonymous reviewers and the editors of Political Behavior. Thanks to Rebecka Åsbrink for research assistance with data from Statistics Sweden and to Per Hedberg for assistance with the Swedish National Election Studies. Research for this paper was supported by a grant from The Swedish Research Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Box 711, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Mikael Persson

Authors
  1. Mikael Persson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mikael Persson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Persson, M. An Empirical Test of the Relative Education Model in Sweden. Polit Behav 33, 455–478 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9138-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9138-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation