This article asserts that the impact of generational replacement on gendered political participation patterns is not sufficiently taken into account by existing analyses of participatory gender inequalities. In this longitudinal study, gender and generational differences in French protest patterns are systematically examined. The article tackles two interrelated questions: what is the impact of generational replacement on gender differences in political action in France, and from an individual-level perspective, how do we explain the different participation levels from different generations of women and men? A longitudinal quantitative analysis of survey data from the European Values Study from 1981 to 2008 confirms the significance of generational differences as well as the multi-dimensionality of participatory gender differences.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Past research has shown that these different political acts do not build a uniform dimension in every country (Teorell et al. 2007a). This justifies the choice of this article not to integrate all three items into an overall scale of non-institutional political participation.
In view of the reported variance in forms and sizes of participatory gender inequalities, this article refrains from using the term “gender gap”. More importantly, it questions its analytical usefulness. The term “gender gap” not only omits the fact that women tend to participate differently than men but it is also a “catch-all term” that stands for many other gendered patterns of political behaviours or attitudes as well as economic inequalities between women and men.
In comparison, the European Social Survey started only in 2002 and, thus, covers a too short time period for our analyses (2002–2014).
Two exceptions with regard to cutting points had to be made for the first (1930 and before) and last birth cohort (1971 and after). In their case, any smaller regrouping was problematic in terms of numbers of respondents. The number of respondents from birth cohorts 1910–1920 was already very small in 1990, and the same applies of course in an inverse sense for the cohort 1980–1990.
Due to lack of space, results for the “would never do category” are not shown but available on request.
This has been tested by using the same regression models but not separating for women and men and introducing the variable gender instead (results not shown).
Achin, C., and S. Lévêque. 2006. Femmes en politique. Paris: La Découverte.
Barnes, S., M. Kaase, K. Allerback, B. Farah, F. Heunks, R. Inglehart, M.K. Jennings, Hans D. Klingemann, A. Marsh, and L. Rosenmayr. 1979. Political action: Mass participation in five Western democracies. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Baum, M., and A.E. Santo. 2007. Exploring the gender gap in Portugal: Women’s political participation. In Portugal at the polls: In 2002, ed. A. Freire, M. Costa Lobo, and P. Magalhaes, 173–200. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Burns, N., K.L. Schlozman, and S. Verba. 2001. The private roots of public action. Gender, equality, and political participation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Coffé, H. 2013. Gender and political participation in Western and Eastern Europe. In Democracy in transition: political participation in the European Union, ed. D.N. Kyriakos, 95–107. Heidelberg: Springer.
Coffé, H., and C. Bolzendahl. 2010. Same game, different rules? Gender differences in political participation. Sex Roles 62: 318–333.
Conway, M. 2001. Women and political participation. Political Science and Politics 34 (2): 231–233.
Dalton, R.J. 2004. Democratic challenges democratic choices: The Erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dalton, R.J. 2008. Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies 56 (1): 76–98.
Dalton, R., A. van Sickle, and S. Weldon. 2010. The individual–institutional nexus of protest behaviour. British Journal of Political Science 41: 51–73.
Desposato, S., and B. Norrander. 2008. The gender gap in Latin America: Contextual and individual influences on gender and political participation. British Journal of Political Science 39: 141–162.
Duverger, M. 1955. The political role of women. Paris: UNESCO.
EVS. 2011. European values study 1981–2008, Longitudinal data file. GESIS data archive, Cologne, ZA4804 Data File Version 2.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.11005.
Fontana, M.C., A. Sidler, and S. Hardmeier. 2006. The ‘New Right’ vote: an analysis of the gender gap in the vote choice for the SVP. Swiss Political Science Review 12 (4): 243–271.
Gallego, A. 2007. Unequal participation in Europe. International Journal of Sociology 37 (4): 10–25.
Grasso, M.T. 2016. Generations, political participation and social change in Western Europe. London: Routledge.
Hooghe, M., and D. Stolle. 2004. Good girls go to the pooling booth, bad boys go everywhere. Women & Politics 26 (3–4): 1–23.
Hooghe, M. and E. Quintelier. 2014. Political participation in European countries: The effect of authoritarian rule, corruption, lack of good governance and economic downturn. Comparative European Politics 12: 209–232.
Inglehart, R. 1977. The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among Western publics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. 1990. Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R., and P. Norris. 2003. Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Inter-Parliamentary Union. 2017. Women in National Parliaments: http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm. Last Accessed 20 Febuary 2017.
Karp, J.A., and S.A. Banducci. 2008. When politics is not just a man’s game: Women’s representation and political engagement. Electoral Studies 27: 105–115.
Le Hay, V., and J. Mossuz-Lavau. 2010. Genre et politique. Y-a-t-il une exception française ? In Les Français, des Européens comme les autres ?, ed. D. Boy, B. Cautrès, and N. Sauger, 215–240. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Mannheim, K. 1928. Das Problem der Generationen. Kölner Vierteljahreshefte für Soziologie 7 (1928/29): 157–184.
Marien, S., M. Hooghe, and E. Quintelier. 2010. Inequalities in non-institutionalised forms of political participation: A multi-level analysis of 25 countries. Political Studies 58: 187–213.
Mayer, N. 2013. The ‘contentious French’ revisited. In The future of social movement research, ed. B. Klandermans, C.M. Roggeban, and J. van Steklenburg, 426–448. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Morales, L. 1999. Political participation: Exploring the gender gap in Spain. South European Society and Politics 4 (2): 223–247.
Mossuz-Lavau, J. 2002. La parité hommes/femmes en politique: Bilan et perspectives. Population & Sociétés 377: 1–4.
Mossuz-Lavau, J., and M. Sineau. 1983. Enquête sur les femmes et la politique en France. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Norris, P. 2002. Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, P., and R. Inglehart. 2006. Gendering social capital. Bowling in women’s leagues? In Gender and social capital, ed. B. O’Neil, and E. Gidengil, 73–98. London: Routledge.
Norris, P., Lovenduski, J., and R. Campbell. 2004. Gender and political participation. Report for the UK Electoral Commission.
Oakley, A. 1972. Sex, gender, and society. London: Temple Smith.
Pilcher, J. 1994. Mannheim’s sociology of generations: An undervalued legacy. British Journal of Sociology 45 (3): 481–495.
Rétif, S. 2010. Entrer en militantisme par les associations. L’engagement associatif dans les trajectoires militantes féminines. Modern & Contemporary France 18 (4): 415–429.
Sineau, M. 2008. La force du nombre. Femmes et démocratie présidentielle. Paris: Editions de l’Aube.
Schlozman, K.L., N. Burns, and S. Verba. 1994. Gender and the pathways to participation: The role of resources. The Journal of Politics 56 (4): 963–990.
Stolle, D., M. Hooghe, and M. Micheletti. 2005. Politics in the supermarket: Political consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review 26 (3): 245–269.
Stolle, D., and M. Micheletti. 2006. The gender gap reversed. Political consumerism as a women-friendly form of civic and political engagement. In Gender and social capital, ed. B. O’Neil, and E. Gidengil, 45–72. London: Routledge.
Stolle, D., and M. Hooghe. 2011. Shifting inequalities: Patterns of inclusion and exclusion in emerging forms of political participation. European Societies 13 (1): 119–142.
Teorell, J., M. Torcal, and J.R. Montero. 2007a. Political participation. Mapping the terrain. In Citizenship and involvement in European demorcracies: A comparative analysis, ed. J.W. van Deth, J.R. Montero, and A. Westholm, 334–357. London: Routledge.
Teorell, J., P. Sum, and M. Tobiasen. 2007b. Participation and political equality. An assessment of large-scale democracy. In Citizenship and involvement in European demorcracies: A comparative analysis, ed. J.W. van Deth, J.R. Montero, and A. Westholm, 384–414. London: Routledge.
Tiberj, V. 2013. Les temps changent, renouvellement générationnel et évolutions politiques en France. Revue française de sociologie 54 (4): 741–776.
Tiberj, V. 2017. Les citoyens qui viennent. Presses universitaires de France.
Verba, S., N. Nie, and J.-O. Kim. 1978. Participation and political equality: A seven nation comparison. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Verba, S., K.L. Schlozman, and H.E. Brady. 1995. Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Havard University Press.
Verba, S., N. Burns, and K.L. Schlozman. 1997. Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and political engagement. Journal of Politics 59 (4): 1051–1072.
Vráblíková, K. 2014. How context matters? Mobilization, political opportunity structures and non-electoral political participation in old and new democracies. Comparative Political Studies 47 (2): 203–229.
Welch, S. 1977. Women as political animals? A test for some male-female political participation differences. American Journal of Political Science 21 (4): 711–730.
Westbrook, L., and A. Saperstein. 2015. New categories are not enough: Rethinking the measurement of sex and gender in social surveys. Gender & Society 29 (4): 534–560.
Yates, L.S. 2011. Critical consumption. Boycotting and boycotting in Europe. European Societies 13 (2): 191–217.
Zukin, C., S. Keeter, M. Andolina, K. Jenkins, and M.X. Delli Carpini. 2006. A New engagement? Political participation, civic life and the changing American citizen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
I would like to thank Camille Kelbel, Clément Boisseuil as well as the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
Sex of respondent is used as a proxy for gender since the EVS does not ask respondents about their gender:|
|0 (min.)–1 (max.)|
“age when education completed”|
(1) “14 years and less”
(2) “15–17 years”
(3) “18–20 years”
(4) “21 years and more”
|1 (min.)–4 (max.)|
|Type of occupation||
(2) “higher management”
(5) regrouping all groups which are not in the labour market
|1 (min.)–5 (max.)|
Used as a proxy for the individual degree of politicisation|
The EVS asks respondents whether they discuss:
(1) “frequently”, (2) “occasionally” or (3) “never” matters of politics with friends and colleagues
Variable has been recorded so that higher values indicate a higher frequency of political discussions
|1 (min.)–3 (max.)|
|Ideological self-placement on left–right scale||
Used as a second proxy of the degree of individual politicisation|
EVS asks its respondent to place their political views on a scale that goes from 1 (very left)–10 (very right)
Recoded into three categories: 1–4 “left leaning”, 6–10 “right leaning” and “undecided” 5 plus all respondents who answered “don’t know”
|1 (min.)–3 (max.)|
A dummy variable out of two measures was created|
The first question asks respondents whether they belong to a religious denomination
The second question asks if the person considers him/herself as a religious person
The variable indicates (1) when someone belongs to a religious denomination or describes himself as religious; (0) stands for people who do not belong to a religious denomination or describe themselves as not religious
|0 (min.)–1 (max.)|
Postmaterialist values are measured by the EVS’s 4-item scale on postmaterialism:|
There is a lot of talk these days about what the aims of this country should be for the next ten years. On this card are listed some of the goals which different people would give top priority. If you had to choose, which of the things on this card would you say is most important? And which would be the next most important? 1) Maintaining order in the nation; 2) giving people more say in important government decisions 3) fighting rising prices; 4) protecting freedom of speech
If a person chose twice the same materialistic (1/1 or 3/3) or postmaterialistic (2/2 or 4/4) aim, he or she was coded as materialistic (1) or postmaterialist (3) person. Otherwise they were designated as “mixed” (2)
|1 (min.)–3 (max.)|
About this article
Cite this article
Durovic, A. A longitudinal analysis of gendered patterns in political action in France: a generational story?. Fr Polit 15, 418–442 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-017-0039-4
- Political participation
- Gender gap
- Generational change