Are Voluntary Organizations a Source of Social Capital...

Are Voluntary Organizations a Source of Social Capital and Civic virtue?

A Comparative Study in European Democracies

Miguel Jerez Mir (Georgetown University, US)

[email protected] (University of Granada, Spain)

[email protected]

&

Rafael Vázquez García (University of Granada, Spain)

[email protected]

Tlf: 0034 958248374 0034 679705947

Fax: 0034 958248969

20th IPSA World Congress “Is Democracy Working?”

Fukuoka, Japan 9-13 July, 2006

Theme Category: Special Session Theme Subject: (SS04) Participation and the Politics of Identity

Session: Influences of NGOs in Theory and Practice (515) Specialization Area: Political Process: Public Opinion, Attitudes, Parties, Forces,

Security Groups and Elections

First draft -Work in progress-

mailto:[email protected]



2

Abstract Until this moment, the most of studies on voluntary associations from Political Science have focused on the determinants which affect the participation of citizenship in this type of organizations; that is, those political, social, cultural, demographic…factors that drive people to engage in socio-political associations. However, voluntary associations can also play an important role as explanatory variables in order to understand the generation of social capital and civic virtue among individuals, and, therefore, to improve the quality of democratic praxis. Some works have already argued that involvement in voluntary organizations presents positive effects on several elements that shape political culture in a country, by increasing political interest in public affairs, growing individual political efficacy, encouraging people to put in practice a broader socio-political activism, etc. Moreover, many evidences about the relationship between associations and social capital have been founded, since voluntary organizations seems to have a clear effect on generating interpersonal trust. From that theoretic framework, this document expounds the connections between socio-political participation in voluntary organizations and some elements of political culture linked to civic virtue. We distinguish different types of voluntary associations and diverse modes of participation inside them. The first wave of the European Social Survey (2002-2003) will be used as the main data source. It is a comparative analysis among European countries and areas (South, North and East). Keywords Political culture, Voluntary Organizations, Social Capital, Civic virtue, Theory of Democracy

3

Are Voluntary Organizations a Source of Social Capital and Civic virtue? A Comparative Study in European Democracies

Miguel Jerez Mir

(Georgetown University, US) [email protected]

(University of Granada, Spain) [email protected]

&

Rafael Vázquez García

(University of Granada, Spain) [email protected]

“…when associational life is multifaceted and cuts across identities, communities, geographies,

and other potential cleavages, it provides a dense social infrastructure enabling pluralistic societies to attain a vibrant creativity and diversity within a context of multiple but governable

conflicts. A robust associational life may enable more democracy in more domains of life, while forming and deepening the capacities and dispositions of democratic citizenship”

(Mark E. Warren, Democracy and Association, 2000:3)

INTRODUCTION AND THEORETIC FRAMEWORK

Until this moment, most of studies on voluntary associations from Political

Science have focused on the determinants which affect the participation of citizenship in

this type of organizations; that is, those political, social, cultural, demographic…factors

that drive people to engage in socio-political associations.

However, voluntary associations can also play an important role as explanatory

variables in order to understand the generation of social capital and civic virtue among

individuals, and therefore, to broaden civil society and to improve the quality of

democratic praxis. Some works have already argued that involvement in voluntary

organizations presents positive effects on several elements that shape political culture in

a country, by increasing political interest in public affairs, growing individual political

efficacy, encouraging people to put in practice a broader socio-political activism, etc.




4

Moreover, many evidences about the relationship between associations and social

capital have been founded, since voluntary organizations seems to have a clear effect on

generating interpersonal trust.

We underline the idea that if it is true that a flourishing market economy makes

liberal democracy stable (Lipset, 1959), however, what makes a truly civil society, and

not only liberal and formally democratic, is a wider range of aspects than the market

economy (Diamond, 1997). Among these elements sociopolitical involvement is crucial

in order to understand the building of civil society.

Mark Warren places civil society halfway between political society, public

sphere and intimate spaces where family and friendship are dominant elements (Warren,

2000: 57). Civil society is the domain of social Organization within voluntary

associative relations are dominant, and political mediating associations are excluded.

Diagram 1. Locating civil society Means of Social Coordination

Closeness of social relations Legal coercion

Social (norms and communication) Money

Distant States Mediating associations: "political society" Mediating spaces: Publics

Mediating associations Markets

Intermediate

Civil Society. Pure associative relations

Intimate Families, friendship Source: Warren (2000: 57).

What makes civil society “civil” is the fact that it is a sphere within which

citizens may freely organize themselves into groups and, mainly, associations at various

levels. we also use the concept here because its great explanatory potential for the

theory of the political as well as for the theory of transition and consolidation of

democracies. Most theorists from Tocqueville have focused in the importance of civic

society, and specially, voluntary associations as vital to the performance and life of

5

democracy (Selle and Stromsnes, 2001: 135). For current political theorists “typical

face-to-face deliberative activities ad horizontal collaboration within voluntary

associations far removed from the political sphere, such as sports clubs, agricultural

cooperatives, or philanthropic groups, promote interpersonal trust, fostering the capacity

to work together in future, creating the bonds of social life that are the basis for civil

society and democracy” (Norris, 2002). In addition, civic society based in associations

makes citizens themselves stronger, in a democratic way, by providing civic and

political skills as improving their sense of efficacy . As Morales has written

“associations work as schools of democracy, and their development should, therefore,

be promoted for their positive consequences for democracy as a whole” (Morales, 2002:

498). The effects are a too large to enumerate them one by one, but what is most

important to highlight is that literature about associational participation has notably

increased since 90’s with Putnam’s works.

Civic virtue, that transcend the concept of social capital and combines some

more elements, related to democratic theory1 and commonly republican tradition

(Barber, 1984. As Warren notes “the list of potential civic virtues is a long one:

attentiveness to the common good and concerns for justice; tolerance of the views of

others, trustworthiness, willingness to participate, deliberate and listen; respect for the

rule of law, and respect for the right of others” (Warren, 2000: 73). Anyway, social

involvement has appeared most of times in the last decade joint to the concept of social

capital. At the core of the conventional definition of social capital is membership in

voluntary associations, which may be dedicated to a variety of purposes ranging from

the recreational or social to the religious or political but which should share two key

features to conform to existing theory. First, they should involve their members in at

least some face-to-face interaction with others, a factor of importance since it is from

such interaction that the capacity for reciprocity is said to follow. Secondly, they should

engaged their members in common endeavour, increasing capacities for collective

action beyond the simply self-help. (Hall, 1999: 420).Warren identifies three general

ways in which associations might produce positive effects and potentially “democratic”

(Warren, 2000: 61). First, effects what he refers as developmental effects on individuals

“Ideally, associations would underwrite the capacities of individuals to participate in

6

collective judgement and decision making”. This idea appears in other recent

publications and it is the point of view of many governmental agendas (Clarke, 2002).

Second, associations may contribute to the formation of public (public sphere effects).

Finally, They also “contribute to institutional conditions and venues that support,

express, and actualise individual and political autonomy as well as transform

autonomous judgements into collective decisions”.

From that theoretic framework, this document expounds the connections

between socio-political participation in voluntary organizations and some elements of

political culture linked to civic virtue. It is a comparative analysis among European

countries and areas, with special attention to Eastern European Countries, members of

EU as well as, and with special attention, some of the new members, which have

participated in the fisrt wave of the European Social Survey (Poland, Hungary, Czech

Republic and Eslovenia). This paper is based on survey data, which coming from

European Social Survey (ESS)(2002-2003)2.

Successful transitions to democracy implies the creation or restoration of a set of

democratic institutions, rules and practices, but to what extent does this new

institutional framework increase political engagement, social trust and, consequently,

social capital and civic virtue (Torcal and Montero, 1999: 167). Despite certain rise

since the restoration of democracy, social capital in Spain remains in a low intensity

equilibrium. In the last decade, some works, referable to transitions to democracy in

Central and Eastern Europe, outline these circumstances3. “It seems to be evident,

especially when we look from an Eastern European perspective, that a properly

functioning democracy must be complemented by civil society. There is no citizenship

without civil society. The reconstruction of democratic institutions and political society

does not entirely provide the conditions for a truly liberal society” (Pietrzyk, 2003: 44).

Piotr Sztompka, referring of post-communist transitions, distinguishes

subcategories of, what he calls “civilisational competence”. One of these is the civic

culture, indispensable for participation in democratic politics. Some of its components

include: political activism, readiness to participate, concern with public issues, rules of

7

law, discipline, respect for opponents or compliance with the majority among others. As

he underlines this civilisational competence was underdeveloped in peripherical Eastern

and Central Europe when communist started to domain all the spheres of social life.

“The decades of real socialism not only blocked the appearance of civilisational

competence, but in many ways shaped a contrary cultural syndrome civilisational

incompetence” (Sztompka, 2000: 7). Political autocracy during this period alienated the

masse and blocked the emergence of a genuine citizenship. In the recent transitions new

factors have appeared which sometimes have helped to preserve the old pre-

revolutionary situation and blocking the emergence of civilisational competence. “Old

patterns have fallen down, new ones have not yet been legitimised. Thrown into

uncertainty and devoid of moral guidance, people feel isolated, lonely, and turn their

resentments against others. Interpersonal suspicion, hostility, and hatred destroy

whatever social bonds have been left intact by totalitarian rule” (Sztompka, 2000:8).

Moreover, communism in practice was a paradoxical system. Theoretically dedicated to

overcoming alienation and establishing a genuine human community based on mutual

trust, it had the contrary effects, destroying trust between people and government and

among people themselves. “Instead of the common good, it saw the rise of egotism and

narrow self-interest (...) It promoted a participatory political culture, while never

allowing its citizens meaningful participation” (Lovell, 2001: 33).

8

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

Table 1 presents a detailed overview of the eighteen countries taken into

consideration. They are analyzed in relation with the most important aspects that people

consider to be necessary to be a good citizen.

Participation in voluntary associations, that is more linked to the possibilities for

generating social capital, seems to be more important for people than exclusive political

involvement. This situation does not mean, necessarily, that it exists a massive decision

to take part in associations, but at least, associations are considered more important for

democratic life.

Table above proves that existing civic virtue is only related to legalism but not

with active participation. That is a common feature for all the countries. In addition, the

importance of forming an independent opinion stand up. That makes true the

predominance of a liberal vision, close to a individualist conception of political life,

where having personal and exclusive ideas is more important that getting opinions by

socialization in groups and deliberation in associations.

Table 1. Most important aspects to be a good citizen

Support people who are worse off than

themselves Vote in

elections

Always obey laws and

regulations

Form their own opinion,

independently of others

Be active in voluntary

associations Be active in

politics Germany 7,31 7,55 7,54 8,81 4,84 4,25 Norway 7,94 8,19 8,18 8,62 5,95 4,75 Finland 8,02 7,59 8,56 8,51 5,5 4,43 Netherlands 7,41 7,48 7,28 8,19 5,82 4,24 Switzerland 7,4 7,37 7,28 8,68 5,68 4,4 Ireland 7,67 7,7 8,35 8,16 5,78 3,82 Luxembourg 7,55 8 8,43 9,14 6,72 3,77 Austria 7,56 8,07 7,69 8,78 5,28 4,89 United Kingdom 6,82 7,16 8,31 8,25 5,17 3,48 Israel 8,46 7,98 8,91 8,47 6,8 4,41 Spain 7,76 6,43 7,12 7,52 5,85 3,52 Belgium 6,95 6,56 7,43 7,81 5,35 3,41 Italy 7,84 7,51 8,48 7,98 6,43 3,99 Czech Republic 6,15 6,16 8,16 7,98 4,45 2,93 Hungary 6,71 8,26 9,1 7,93 4,51 3,66 Poland 7,48 7,65 8,99 8,16 5,54 5,11 Greece 8,37 8,12 8,75 8,54 6,01 5,42 EUROPE 7,58 7,61 8,13 8,41 5,62 4,24

Source: ESS, 2002-2003. Percentages.

9

In this situation of distrusting each other and privacy, the most important aspect

in people’s life is always the family. It’s the closest space where they often find

protection and security. Economic security is also very important, so this is the second

most important aspect for people. Inside the same private area we have to take into

account friendship and leisure time, normally spent with friends. Politics, finally, is the

least important aspect in European everyday life. Most people do not spend a lot of time

engaging themselves in organizational activities nor in political involvement compared

with the time they spend in school, work or the family, with friends or in leisure time.

These are likely to be more important spaces for the generation of trust, of security than

voluntary associations and political sphere of course.

Table 2. Most important aspects in personal life


We have serious doubts about if we can say that this kind of interactions as sign

a petition, take part in a lawful public demonstrations can be considered as social

capital. They are sporadic and they don’t often need social trust to exist. They don’t

have a long life and there is no continuity. In most of cases, they enjoy only a short life.

Once they have been produced, they disappear. They don’t produce solid networks and

nor strong ties (see the table below) and what is most important the do not create

reciprocity: they are, in most of times, individualistic and hedonistic values which

consequences are limited to a very small group but there is no an idea of common good.

As can be observed in table 3, the greater is the implication in activities and

costs are higher, the lower is the importance of them. While signing a petition doesn’t

carry too many costs, participating in political or nonpolitical associations or a strike

Family Friends Leisure Time Politics Work Religion Voluntary Organizations Germany 9,16 8,4 7,62 5,1 7,34 3,95 4,06 Netherlands 8,63 8,34 8,16 5,02 6,76 4,37 5,03 Switzerland 9,3 8,53 7,79 4,61 7,66 4,52 4,88 Ireland 9,66 9,02 7,89 3,85 6,79 6,19 4,54 Austria 9,32 8,7 8,09 4,91 7,62 5,01 4,34 United Kingdom 9,56 8,53 7,69 3,77 5,78 3,88 3,61 Spain 9,47 8,34 8,03 3,68 7,77 4,71 5,6 Belgium 9,05 8,26 7,8 4,03 7,53 4,14 5,02 Italy 9,22 7,65 7,57 4,34 8,18 6,47 6,38 Czech Republic 9,42 8,18 7,5 3,51 7,37 2,62 3,09 Hungary 9,7 7,5 7,41 3,75 7,46 4,29 2,1 Greece 9,74 8,62 7,8 4,92 8,75 8,34 4,97 Portugal 9,62 8,35 7,37 3,52 7,69 5,87 5,36 EUROPE 9,44 8,47 7,91 4,3 7,53 4,93 4,53

10

and a illegal protest activities do it, with personal costs in terms of leisure time, money

and physical integrity.

Table 3. Socio political involvement during the last 12 months

Worked in a political party or action group

Worked in another organization or

association Signed a petition

Taken part in a lawful public demonstration

Participated in illegal protest activities

Denmark 4,1 17,3 28,2 8,3 1,1 Sweden 5 24,6 40,8 6,4 0,8 Norway 9,2 28,2 36 8,5 0,7 Netherlands 3,4 23,1 22,4 2,9 0,4 Finland 3,5 30,7 24 2 0,3 Belgium 5,4 23,2 33,9 8,4 2,4 Germany 3,9 17,8 30,5 10,6 1,1 United Kingdom 3,4 9,2 40 4,4 0,8 Ireland 4,7 13,8 27,6 7,1 0,8 Israel 5,7 7,4 18,4 9,9 1,4 Slovenia 3,5 2,3 11,8 2,7 0,8 Czech Republic 4,7 15,1 16,1 4,6 1,4 Spain 6,1 16,7 24,2 17,5 1,7 Italy 3 7,6 17,4 11 1,8 Portugal 4,2 4,2 7,3 4,3 0,3 Hungary 2,9 2,9 4,2 3,7 0,8 Greece 4,8 5,7 4,8 4,5 1,5 Poland 2,9 5,9 6,9 1,3 0,2 EUROPE 5 15,1 23,8 7,3 1,2


Most of European citizens tend to participate only in some type of voluntary

organizations. That is really important to be marked, since not every type produce the

same effects on democracy and civic virtue. Diverse associations produce different

results for generating civic virtue among their members and deepening the quality of

democracy. Some of them generate more collaborative efforts but other ones promote a

high individualism and hedonist lifestyle (Vázquez, 2004: 23). Let’s analyzed Warren’s

classification applied to European context (table 4).

Individual material goods: trade unions and business organization. They are not

obviously the best type for producing social capital. Anyway, people, generally

speaking, don’t usually use them (not for membership, nor participating, nor donating

money neither making voluntary work. Only nordic traditions, joint to an important

developing of welfare state, present important percentages, mainly referred to trade

unions. Mediterranean countries and new members are situated at the end of the list

with the lowest percentages.

11

Public material goods. In our table, they are represented by parties,

environmental protection groups, and human rights associations. Due to their nature,

they could play a very distinguished role, but they have not too many volunteers.

Anyway, parties are not always totally representative of civil society and they are

situated closer to political spheres. Although there is a significant role for political

parties to be played in representing social interests and mediating between the civil and

the political, they are not sufficient in the long term. Political parties tend to represent

particular interests and the main goal they seek is the access to institutional power.

Membership in these associations is really low in most of the countries, and similars

numbers can be applied to environmental protection groups, and human rights

associations.

Interpersonal identity groups. Sport associations are the most likely to be used

by Europenas, but with important differences among countries. However, their

importance is more connected with hedonist and individualistic reasons than societal

solidarity. They are often closed groups which activities are not to the advantage of

society. Nordic countries and Northern Europe have present more volunteers than the

rest of states

Group identity groups. They only generate effects for specific social sectors. In

European Social Survey we distinguish some examples: religious, gender, age

associations. As we can observe in table bellow they are not at the top and their

outcomes cannot usually be expanded for the rest of society.

12

Table 4. Socio-political association in Europe (Membership)

Sports Cultural Trade Union

Business or professional Consumer

Human rights / Minorities

Enviromental/Peace/ Animal Rights

Religious organisation Political party

Science/ Education/

Parents

Social Club (Young/

Retired/Women)Any other not

mencioned

Belgium 29 22 28 9 9 7 8 6,7 6 8 20 8 Switzerland Czech Republic Germany 32 17 14 9 28 6 6 19 3 6 13 7 Demmark 36 26 65 14 18 11 12 27 6 7 18 7 Spain 12 11 6 5 4 4 2 6 3 8 7 3 Finland 22 13 46 12 5 4 2 25 6 5 9 7 United Kingdom 27 16 16 13 32 4 6 14 3 7 16 5 Greece 4,3 5,7 5 6 0 1 1 1,4 4 4 3 2 Hungary 5,4 4,5 6 3 3 1 0 5,9 2 3 5 2 Ireland 34 18 19 16 9 5 4 25 4 8 16 6 Israel 17 13 14 8 25 3 4 5,4 8 9 11 7 Italy 8,4 7,2 9 9 6 4 3 5 3 2 5 2 Luxembourg 26 21 22 11 46 9 14 4,9 6 11 17 5 Netherlands 46 19 22 13 32 8 20 26 5 10 10 12 Norway 32 22 47 15 33 17 5 15 9 8 22 14 Poland 4,2 3,3 6 1 0 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 Portugal 8,3 3,6 5 3 2 2 1 5,5 4 1 5 5 Sweden 39 25 56 9 37 14 7 15 8 11 19 11 Slovenia 16 8,1 19 8 9 5 1 8,1 4 5 0 5

Source:ESS,2002-2003.Percentages.

13

As it can be seen in table 5, the differences in percentages for simple

membership are so important as those we find for participation, donation or voluntary

work (Morales, 2004: 91). In fact, associational membership in European democracies

oscillates between 92% for Demmark and 21% for Poland, what is more than four times

members in the former country. Participation in activities is situated between 49% in

Belgium and UK and again Poland at the end with 11%. Respect to donate money,

Sweden and Norway are at the top (44%) while Mediterranean democracies and

newcomers are at the bottom. The same is true for voluntary work.

Table 5. Type of involvement in associations (Europe)

Member Participated Donated Money

Voluntary Work Denmark 92 48 34 28 Sweden 90 47 44 35 Norway 84 47 44 38 Netherlands 84 41 43 29 Finland 76 36 19 12 Belgium 71 49 26 23 Germany 71 44 34 26 United Kingdom 70 49 39 23 Ireland 68 38 32 16 Israel 55 27 13 7 Slovenia 52 26 31 19 Czech Republic 43 19 13 8 Spain 36 25 15 7 Italy 35 22 12 5 Portugal 29 18 16 6 Hungary 27 20 6 9 Greece 25 13 9 6 Poland 21 11 12 5 Europe 54 34 25 17


14

Table 6. European citizenship by number of civic actions

No civic actions One or two Three or more Sweden 23 44 33 Norway 28 40 32 Finland 28 43 29 Switzerland 30 37 33 Denmark 32 44 24 United Kingdom 35 40 25 Luxemburg 36 41 23 Germany 37 37 26 Belgium 39 38 23 Ireland 46 34 20 Czech Republic 47 37 16 Netherlands 47 37 16 Israel 53 30 17 Spain 60 24 16 Italy 68 22 10 Slovenia 69 25 6 Poland 73 21 6 Greece 74 19 7 Hungary 75 21 4 Portugal 77 16 7 Europe 51 31 18

Source: ESS 2002-2003. Percentages.

In Warren´ s typology, no association become really important in Mediterranan

countries and in new members coming from Central Eastern Europe, not even at level of

membership. Active engagement, donation of money and voluntary work is even lower

in all cases. Positive effects, via associations, has not much chance to be successful in

these countries, where individualist and traditional values are predominated over

communitarian and republican virtues.

In any case, methodological difficulties come from the fact that there is no

micro-theory of social capital, of voluntary organizations that explicitly states which

aspects of civic engagement, of social interactions matter for the creation of social

capital and civic virtue. “The efficacy of voluntary associations in creating trust and

reciprocity has so far only been assumed in the literature and has not been empirically

tested or explored” (Stolle, 2003: 23-24). National and cross-national surveys include

questions on generalized attitudes and values, but not give specific information about

respondent’s involvement in different types of associations. Our hypothesis tries to

supply it with some analyses.

15

In this paper we wonder if volunteers, joiners are more civic, more virtuous, as

some scholars have asserted, or on the contrary it is difficult to establish differences

between joiners and people who not participate in voluntary organizations. To measure

it we will use a simple indicator of social involvement –member of social and voluntary

organization- and indicators of some civic virtues like trust, politicisation and effectivity

to be involved in other forms of socio-political engagement. The results are presented in

tables 7, 8, 9 and 10.

To measure trust , we have some indicators of interpersonal trust, the image of

politicians, and the confidence in parliament and in legal system (High trust comprises

values between 7 and 10 in a 0-10 scale). In all the countries we can observe that people

who is involved in social associations tend to trust more other people than those who are

not. However the differences are not so important in the overall of countries. The

percentages for both groups are very similiar in Czech Republic, Demmark and Spain.

Related to trust in politicians, volunteers are more trusted, and in a great extent in some

countries like Finland and Slovenia. However, there are some other contexts with the

opposite evidence. In Spain, Greece, Israel and Poland no volunteers present more trust

in politicians than involved people. The same evidence can be found in Greece and

Luxembourg when we analyse confidence in parliament, although the trend is the

contrary.

To measure politicisation, we have chosen some variables to correlate with

voluntary membership (interest in politics, levels of political discussion, capability to

understand politics and political party membership). We can observe that as far as

politicisation is concerned, joining associations definitely makes a difference.

Associations members are clearly, for all the countries, more interested in political

affairs, and consequently with more tendency to discuss about politics (in the sense of

discussing with friends or chating about politics or policies at workplace or in a bus). At

the same time the show more capability to understand political world. Finally, citizens

who get involved in voluntary organizations are more predisposed to became a member

of political party and, how can be seen in tables 9 and 10, to participate in many other

forms of socio-political involvement like contacting a politician, working in a political

party, displaying a campaign, signing a petition, attending lawful public demonstrations,

donating money or participating in illegal protest activities.

16

Despite this clear relation between getting involved in politics and the developed

of many civic virtues, we do not observe too much evidence about the effects of social

volunteering on other variables when we use lineal regression models (see table 11).

Some correlation is founded between voluntary organizations and interest in politics,

political discussion, political understanding, member of political party and vote. They

are not really significant but they exist.

17

Table 7. Volunteering and trust TRUST Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Belgium High Trust in others 41 25 High Trust in

politicians 34 24 High Trust in

Parliament 22 13 High trust in Legal

System 28 20 Switzerland 55 38 43 37 22 20 57 49 Czech Republic 21 20 18 10 6 6 20 13 Germany 32 23 23 19 9 7 44 43 Demmark 69 67 58 48 43 32 79 69 Spain 28 27 23 24 7 9 16 19 Finland 64 57 48 4 26 24 65 63 United Kingdom 43 27 30 23 12 11 38 31 Greece 20 15 27 29 12 14 52 54 Hungary 22 15 32 28 17 12 36 31 Ireland 42 31 34 21 13 12 39 33 Israel 47 30 24 28 12 11 62 62 Italy 41 19 28 20 12 6 48 35 Luxembourg 33 28 40 33 17 22 50 48 Netherlands 52 39 36 27 22 18 43 32 Norway 69 59 50 35 27 14 57 52 Poland 17 11 8 9 4 3 10 13 Portugal 23 16 27 17 6 4 20 16 Sweden 59 50 52 43 27 19 56 47 Slovenia 25 18 50 16 25 6 50 23

Source: European Social Survey, 2002-2003. Percentages

18

Table 8. Volunteering and Politicisation

POLITICISATION Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer


Belgium Interest in Politics 65,3 38,7 Political Discussion 37,1 26 Political

Understanding 33,8 26,8 Member of political

party 11,7 5,7 Switzerland 78,1 56,8 62,5 44,2 40,4 27,9 22,1 6 Czech Republic 44,9 29,1 47,2 34 33,6 21,6 10,9 2,8 Germany 80,6 59,6 60 44,2 46,7 29,5 10,7 2 Demmark 82,7 59,3 57,9 36,4 46,7 29,5 13,3 4,4 Spain 39,2 17,9 47,2 24,5 39,6 21,1 7,5 2,4 Finland 62,3 39,5 51,9 36,2 27,1 16,6 13,3 4,5 United Kingdom 75,5 49,7 48,4 26,9 37,7 21,6 8 2,2 Greece 59,2 29,8 49 17,1 38,8 16,6 24,5 3,6 Hungary 65,2 45,3 56,5 35,9 40,9 29 17,4 1,1 Ireland 70,7 42,6 43,9 24,2 43,9 28,5 9,8 3,9 Israel 70,6 63 60,6 43 45,5 40 29,4 8,3 Italy 66,2 29,8 62,4 28,1 29,8 25,3 21,9 2,5 Luxembourg 66,7 40 50 41,4 33,3 32,1 16,7 6,7 Netherlands 80,5 61,8 51,7 34,5 46,7 27,2 9,6 3,4 Norway 62,2 43,2 53,6 35,3 34,7 25,6 20,4 4,8 Poland 67,9 38,5 63,6 33,4 45,3 21,1 8,1 1,3 Portugal 82,4 33,8 76,5 30,1 32,9 22,7 28,6 3,8 Sweden 70,9 53,1 49,4 30,6 39,9 31,7 16,3 5,7 Slovenia 100 41 50 25 25 26 33,3 4,4


19

Table 9. Volunteering and socio-political involvement SOCIO-POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer


Belgium Vote 86,6 77,4 Contact a politician 33,2 13,1 Work in a political

party 14,3 2,6 Worn or display a

campaign 15,2 5,1 Switzerland 73,7 53,7 44,2 11,8 25 4,2 26,9 5,6 Czech Republic 80,2 61,1 41,7 19,3 16,5 2,5 12 3,8 Germany 89,3 75,7 34,6 8,1 13 1,9 13,3 4,1 Demmark 92,1 88 40 13,1 14,5 1,9 14,7 3,3 Spain 80,8 70,6 33 7,8 25,7 2 35,2 4,6 Finland 84,4 66,4 43,4 15,9 9,3 10 31,8 8,6 United Kingdom 78,9 66,2 50,2 14,8 17 2 32 7,6 Greece 87,8 83,6 61,2 11,8 36,7 2,8 26 1,4 Hungary 90,9 78,5 63,6 13,3 52,2 1,4 52,2 1,8 Ireland 85,4 74 48,8 17,8 17,1 2,3 24,4 7 Israel 76,5 71,7 41,2 10,4 26,5 4 26,5 10 Italy 92,2 84,4 48,4 9 21,4 4,4 50,6 3,9 Luxembourg 66,7 48,3 50 13,3 16,7 0 16,7 3,3 Netherlands 91,1 78,3 33,8 8,7 9,9 1,4 9,9 1,9 Norway 86,7 77,5 40,8 16 21,4 4,4 38,8 16 Poland 79,9 60,5 40,5 7,6 17,5 2 17,4 2 Portugal 88,6 68,4 62,9 10 41,2 2,5 47,1 4,7 Sweden 87,7 79,5 32,4 11,3 12,9 2,4 21,2 7,3 Slovenia 100 74,8 75 11,2 33,3 2,5 0 1,9


20

Table 10. Volunteering and socio-political involvement (cont.) SOCIO-POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer

cont. Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Belgium Sign a petition 54,6 27,6 Lawful Public

Demonstrations 15,3 6,3 Donate Money to a

political organisation 14,8 7,9 Participate in illegal

protest activities 4,6 1,8 Switzerland 62,1 34,5 17,3 6 40,4 13,4 5,7 1,2 Czech Republic 32,3 13,1 10,4 3,5 17,7 10,6 2,4 1,1 Germany 51 26 19,2 8,7 21 6,7 2,3 0,9 Demmark 39,5 25,9 17,3 6,4 22,7 6,4 2,7 0,6 Spain 62,5 16,5 51,2 10,4 20,7 2 6,3 0,8 Finland 32,6 20,3 3,1 1,4 10,9 5,2 0,8 0 United Kingdom 63,7 37,6 11,1 3,7 19,3 6,6 2,3 0,6 Greece 30,6 3,2 28,6 3,1 22,9 1 12,2 0,9 Hungary 39,1 3,2 47,8 2,4 31,8 0,9 26,1 0 Ireland 53,7 23 17,1 5,4 24,4 8,1 2,4 0,4 Israel 41,2 16,4 32,4 8,1 38,2 10,2 5,9 1 Italy 62,7 13,6 42,2 8,4 16,5 2 12,7 0,9 Luxembourg 50 24,1 40 17,2 33,3 13,3 0 3,3 Netherlands 37,5 17,8 6 2 14,9 5,9 1 0,3 Norway 49 30,9 13,3 6,4 21,4 8,8 1 0,4 Poland 23,4 5,9 7,7 0,9 37,8 7,5 0 0,2 Portugal 45,7 5,6 31,4 3 25,7 2,9 2,9 0,1 Sweden 60,2 34,4 12,4 4,4 11,8 4,6 1,7 0,4 Slovenia 75 11,3 25 1,9 35,3 5,6 0 0,6

Source: European Social Survey, 2002-2003. Percentages.

21

Table 11. Lineal Regression Models. Effects of Trust, Politicisation, Socio-Political Involvement and socio-economics factors on Civic Virtue

Interpersonal

Trust Trust in

Parliament Interest in

Politics Political

Discussion Political

Understanding Member of

Political Party Vote

Coef Sig. Coef Sig. Coef Sig. Coef Sig. Coef Sig. Coef Sig. Coef Sig. TRUST Trust in others .010 .089 -.020 .001 .008 .221 -.008 .146 -.022 .000 Trust in politicians .017 .011 -.024 .000 .032 .000 Trust in parliament .032 .000 .019 .003 .045 .000 -.034 .000 Trust in Legal System .019 .001 -.018 .003 -.017 .004

POLITICISATION Interest in politics .012 .089 .032 .000 -.042 .000 Political Discussion -.023 .001 .017 .003 .262 .061 -.010 .094 -.039 .000 Political Understanding .037 .000 -.010 .080 Member of political party -.010 .146 -.043 .000 -.011 .094 -.012 .080 .043 .000

SOCIO-POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT Vote -023 .000 -.029 .000 -.037 .000 .037 .000 Contacted a politician -.041 .000 -.048 .000 -.036 .000 .042 .000 .041 .000 Worked in a political party .028 .000 -.013 .047 -.023 .001 Social Volunteering -.021 .000 -.023 .000 -.012 .080 .015 .012 .031 .000 Worn or displayed a campaign -.034 .000 -.017 .004 -.017 .006 .019 .005 .051 .000 -.022 .001 Sign a petition -.045 .000 -.016 .009 -.060 .000 -.043 .000 .016 .014 -.037 .000 .046 .000 Lawful Public Demonstrations .023 .000 -.012 .048 -.050 .000 -.015 .022 .011 .070 -.032 .000 Donated Money to a political organisation -.010 .124 -.016 .007 -.035 .000 -.030 .000 -.024 .000 -.033 .000 Participated in illegal protest activities .016 .011 -.020 .000 -.015 .011

SOCIO-ECONOMICS FACTORS Gender .012 .047 -.053 .000 -.020 .001 .028 .000 -.040 .000 Age .038 .000 -.011 .055 -.026 .000 .017 .009 -.048 .000 Education .032 .000 Ideology -.016 .008 .021 .000 .011 .036 -.012 .033 -.015 .005 -.015 .013

Adjusted R² .081 .257 .252 .177 .255 .135

Source: European Social Survey (2002-2003)

22

REMARKS AND DISCUSSION For most of the Europeans, participating in voluntary organizations is not

considered as essential requirement in order to become a “good citizen” and generate

civic virtue. People often prefer to stay at home y spend their free time enjoying

themselves with friends or family. In any case, we can find important differences among

European countries related to participation in voluntary organizations. Citizens usually

tend to get involved in sports clubs and cultural associations rather other ones with more

jointly shared tendency. Political parties are associations with less members along all

the countries, while trade unions present a much higher percentage in some countries.

We have enough evidence to corroborate that number of volunteers is declining in

accordance with the level of implication.

The second part in analysis has tried to check if to be a member in an

organization has some influence on generating civic virtues. Analyses show that

important differences exist who are involved in voluntary organizations and who are

not. Volunteers develop more interpersonal trust and confidence towards institutions,

they are more interested in politics and they think to be able for understanding most

about political affairs. Moreover, as members of socio-political organizations participate

to a greater extent in other types of socio-political activities like contacting politicians,

working inside, attending to demonstrations, a political party, or donating money to a

socio-political association.

So, in any case, an obvious deficit of civic attitudes can be found in Europe as a

whole. Democratizing the EU, the new and current EU of 25 members do not only

involve strong parliamentary or presidential institutions, mainly based on elections

(party democracy) but we need to add a great doses of popular democracy, even strong

democracy in Barber’s terms. One task is to recover the dynamics of civil society, the

space between markets and macro-politics and private sphere, and that supposes to

deposit more confidence in civic associations, voluntary organizations as channels of

representation in a modern societies. As Offe has noticed about post-communist

countries “by installing the appreciation and a favourable attitude toward the routines of

democratic participation and representation into their respective social domains, and

also by developing a strong interest in their own respective role in the making of public

23

policies independent trade unions , employer’s associations, leagues of framers,

professional associations, political parties, etc, can reinforce the popular consensus that

supports the constitution and the practice of democratic government” (Offe, 1991: 9)

Furthermore, democratic constitution of the society implies democratic processes.

Institutional change and democratic politics may promote the creation of social

capital in some degree, but it´ s not enough to break a situation of low intensity

equilibrium. The instauration and development of new democratic institutions do not

per se create social capital beyond this level. Changes in civil society need something

more than formal institutions and an established democratic system (Vázquez, 2004:

31).

As Habermas has signed a real public sphere requires more than the institutional

guarantees of the constitutional state since it also needs “the supportive spirit of cultural

traditions and patterns of socialization, of the political culture, of a populace

accustomed to freedom” (Habermas, 1992: 453). Examining contemporary theory of

democracy we conclude that nowadays, the most of current democratic systems,

representative democracies, are too far from being participative democracies. In

addition, and what is more important, associations by themselves don’t make more

democratic societies, but most democratic societies has more and better associations

(Rossteutscher, 2002: 525) It seems that beyond formal and liberal democracy, there is

not just yet genuine democratic mores (customs), what somebody has called “habits of

the heart” or “strong democracy”4.

24

NOTES 1 See Burtt, S. (1993) “The Politics of Virtue Today: a Critique and a Proposal”. American Political Science Review, 87 (2): 360-368. 2 The European Social Survey (the ESS) is an academically social survey designed ti chart and explain the interaction between Europe’s changing institutions and the attitudes, beliefs and behaviour patterns of its diverse populations. The ESS is funded jointly by the European Commission, the European Science Foundation and scientific funding bodies in each participating country. In the round (2002-2003) 22 countries participated, including all 15 EU member states –until that moment-, 4 accession and applicant countries –members at this moment- (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovenia), plus Norway, Switzerland and Israel. 3 As example, Vojoveda, I. (ed.) (1999) Democratization in Central and Eastern Europe. Pinter. London and Bryant, C.G.A and Mokrzycki (eds.) (1994) The New Great Transformation? Change and Continuity in East-Central Europe. Routledge. London. 4 A list of features that strong democracy, versus representative and unitary types, should be contained can be read in Barber, 1984: 219.

25

REFERENCES - Barber, B. (1984) Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics for a New Age. University of California Press. Berkeley. - Badescu, G. and Uslaner, E. M. (eds.) (2003) Social Capital and the Transition to Democracy. Routledge. London. - Clarke, R. (2002) New Democratic Processes. Better Decisions, Stronger Democracy. IPPR. London. - Diamond, L. (1997) Civil Society and the Development of Democracy. WP, 101 (CEACS, Juan March Institute). Madrid. - Habermas, J. (1992) “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere”, in C. Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. London and Cambridge. MIT Press. Massachusetts. -Lovell, D. W (2001) “Trust and the Politics of Postcommunism”. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 34: 27-38. -Mayer, N. (2002) “Social Capital, Trust and Civicness”, in Jan W. Van Deth et alii, Social Capital and Democratic Politics. Rusel Papers. Civic Series 3/2002. University of Exeter. -Morales, L. (2002) “Associational Membership and Social Capital in Comparative Perspective: a Note on the Problems of Measurement”. Politics & Society, 30(3): 497-523.

-Morales, L. (2004) Institutions, Mobilisation, and Political Participation: Political Membership in Western Countries. Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Ciencias Sociales (CEACS). Madrid. -Norris, P. (2002) Democratic Phoenix. Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge University Press. New York. -Offe, C. (1991) “After the Democratic Revolution: New Burdens of Proof”. Paper Delivered at Unesco International Forum “Democracy and Culture”, Prague. -Pietrzyk, D. I. (2003) “Democracy or Civil Society”. Politics, 23 (1): 38-45. - Pollack, D., Jacobs, J., Müller, O., and Pickel, G. (eds.) (2003) Political Culture in Post-Communist Europe. Attitudes in New Democracies. Ashgate. Aldershot. -Rossteutscher, S. (2002) “Advocate or Reflection? Associations and Political Culture”. Political Studies, 50: 514-528. -Selle, P. and Stromsnes, K. (2001) “Membership and Democracy”, in P. Dekker and E. M. Uslaner (eds.) Social Capital and Participation in Everyday Life. Routledge/ECPR. London.

26

-Sztompka, P. (2000) “Civilisational Competence: a Prerequisite of Post-Communist Transition”. Centre for European Studies. Harvard University. Cambridge. - Torcal, M. and Montero, J. R. (1999) “Facets of Social Capital in New Democracies. The Formation and Consequences of Social Capital in Spain”, in J. van Deth, M. Maraffi, K. Newton and P. H. Whiteley (eds.) Social Capital and European Democracy. Routledge. ECPR. London. -Tworzecki, H. (2004) “Disaffected New Democracies? Identities, Institutions and Civic Engagement in Post-Communist Europe”. Paper presented at ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops.Uppsala, Sweden, April 13-18, 2004. -Vázquez, R. (2004) “Creating Social Capital and Civic Virtue: Historical Legacy and Individualistic Values. What Civil Society in Spain?” Paper presented at ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops.Uppsala, Sweden, April 13-18, 2004. -Vázquez, R. (2005) “Participación política y capital social. Andalucía en España y en Europa. Un estudio comparado a partir de la encuesta social andaluza y europea” (Capítulo 3) in J. Andreu Abela (ed.) Desde la esquina de Europa. Análisis comparado del capital social en Andalucía, España y Europa. Biblioteca Nueva. Centro de Estudios Andaluces. Sevilla. -Warren, M. E. (2000) Democracy and Association. Princeton University Press. Princeton.

27

ANEXES

• Questions and variables > Interpersonal trust Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people? On a score of 0 to 10, where o means you can’t be too careful and 1o means that most people can be trusted NEW INTERPERSONAL: Recodified variable: 7-10 High Trust) > Confidence in institutions Using this card , please tell me on store of 10 how much you personally trust each of the I read out. 0 means you do not trust an institution at all, and 10 means you have complete trust B7: Country’s parliament (NEW INTERPERSONAL: Recodified variable: 7-10: High trust) B8: The legal system (NEW LEGAL: Recodified variable: 7-10 High trust) B10: Politicians (NEW POLITICIANS: Recodified variable: 7-10 High trust) > Interest in politics B1 How interested would you say you are in politics – are you... Very interested Quite interested Hardly Interested Or,not at all interested? DK / NA (NEW INTEREST: Recodified variable: Quite or very interested) > Political Understanding B2 How often does politics seem so comoplicated that you can’t really understand what is going on? Never Seldom Occasionally Regularly Frecuently (NEW UNDERSTANDING: Recodified variable: Seldom o never)

28

> Member of political party B26 Are you a member of any political party? Yes No > Vote B13 Did you vote in the last (country) national election in month /year? Yes No Not elegible to vote > Ideology B28 In politics people sometimes talk of “left” and “right”. Where would you place yourself on this scale, where 0 means the left and 10 means the right? > Political discussion E21 How often would you say you discuss politics and current affairs? Every day Several times a week Once a week Several times a month Once a month Less often Never (NEW DISCUSSION: Recodified variable: every day or several times a week)

29

• Lineal regression models (See table 11)

Not Standardized

Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

B Tip. Error. Beta (Constant) ,279 ,060 4,692 ,000 NEW PARLIAMENT ,112 ,007 ,106 15,417 ,000 NEW LEGAL ,080 ,006 ,086 13,250 ,000 NEW POLITICIANS ,162 ,010 ,109 16,387 ,000 NEW INTEREST ,010 ,006 ,012 1,700 ,089 NEW DISCUSSION -,021 ,006 -,023 -3,431 ,001 NEW UNDERSTANDING ,008 ,006 ,008 1,225 ,221 Member of political party -,022 ,015 -,010 -1,452 ,146 Voted last national election

-,018 ,005 -,023 -3,566 ,000

Contacted politician or government official last 12 months ,010 ,008 ,008 1,214 ,225

Worked in political party or action group last 12 months ,061 ,016 ,028 3,932 ,000

Worn or displayed campaign badge/sticker last 12 months -,056 ,011 -,034 -5,036 ,000

Signed petition last 12 months -,045 ,007 -,045 -6,733 ,000

Taken part in lawful public demonstration last 12 months -,012 ,011 -,007 -1,092 ,275

Donated money to political organisation or group last 12 months

-,016 ,011 -,010 -1,536 ,124

Participated illegal protest activities last 12 months ,065 ,025 ,016 2,540 ,011

Gender ,011 ,005 ,012 1,988 ,047 Age ,019 ,003 ,038 5,933 ,000 Education

,027 ,002 ,079 11,880 ,000

Ideology -,003 ,001 -,016 -2,659 ,008 Worked in another organisation or association last 12 months

-,081 ,008 -,064 -9,773 ,000

* Lineal Regression Model. Dependent variable: NEW INTERPERSONAL

30

Not Standardized


B Tip. error Beta (Constant) ,161 ,051 3,168 ,002 NEW LEGAL ,215 ,005 ,242 42,971 ,000 NEW POLITICIANS ,458 ,008 ,326 57,437 ,000 NEW INTEREST ,027 ,005 ,032 5,094 ,000 NEW DISCUSSION ,015 ,005 ,017 2,930 ,003 NEW UNDERSTANDING ,035 ,005 ,037 6,553 ,000 Member of political party -,012 ,013 -,006 -,952 ,341 Voted last national election

-,022 ,004 -,029 -5,064 ,000

Contacted politician or government official last 12 months -,002 ,007 -,002 -,309 ,758

Worked in political party or action group last 12 months ,002 ,013 ,001 ,182 ,855

Worn or displayed campaign badge/sticker last 12 months -,008 ,010 -,005 -,846 ,398


Taken part in lawful public demonstration last 12 months ,035 ,009 ,023 3,863 ,000


-,024 ,009 -,016 -2,695 ,007

Participated illegal protest activities last 12 months ,011 ,022 ,003 ,506 ,613

Gender -,045 ,005 -,053 -9,648 ,000 Age -,005 ,003 -,011 -1,916 ,055 Education

,002 ,002 ,005 ,899 ,369

Ideology ,004 ,001 ,021 3,826 ,000 Worked in another organisation or association last 12 months ,002 ,007 ,001 ,241 ,810

NEW INTERPERSONAL ,081 ,005 ,086 15,417 ,000 Lineal Regression Model. Dependent variable: NEW PARLIAMENT

31

Not Standardized


B Tip. error Beta (Constant) 1,008 ,061 16,455 ,000 NEW LEGAL -,019 ,006 -,018 -2,984 ,003 NEW POLITICIANS ,002 ,010 ,001 ,213 ,831 NEW INTEREST ,281 ,006 ,288 45,823 ,000 NEW UNDERSTANDING ,072 ,006 ,067 11,313 ,000 Member of political party -,026 ,016 -,011 -1,673 ,094 Voted last national election

-,032 ,005 -,037 -6,134 ,000

Contacted politician or government official last 12 months -,065 ,008 -,048 -7,826 ,000

Worked in political party or action group last 12 months -,032 ,016 -,013 -1,986 ,047





-,053 ,011 -,030 -4,812 ,000

Participated illegal protest activities last 12 months -,028 ,026 -,006 -1,068 ,285


,033 ,002 ,089 14,226 ,000


-,032 ,009 -,023 -3,691 ,000

NEW INTERPERSONAL -,022 ,006 -,020 -3,431 ,001 NEW PARLIAMENT ,022 ,008 ,019 2,930 ,003

Lineal Regression Model. Dependent variable: NEW DISCUSSION

32

Not Standardized


B Tip. error Beta (Constant) ,878 ,060 14,679 ,000 NEW LEGAL ,020 ,006 ,019 3,211 ,001 NEW POLITICIANS ,104 ,010 ,063 10,415 ,000 NEW UNDERSTANDING ,116 ,006 ,105 18,709 ,000 Member of political party -,104 ,015 -,043 -6,847 ,000 Voted last national election

-,053 ,005 -,060 -10,454 ,000


Worked in political party or action group last 12 months -,011 ,016 -,004 -,691 ,489





-,063 ,011 -,035 -5,900 ,000

Participated illegal protest activities last 12 months ,024 ,026 ,005 ,952 ,341

Gender -,076 ,006 -,076 -13,795 ,000 Age ,061 ,003 ,109 18,789 ,000 Education

,066 ,002 ,173 29,365 ,000

Ideology ,003 ,001 ,011 2,097 ,036 Worked in another organisation or association last 12 months

-,030 ,008 -,021 -3,543 ,000

NEW INTERPERSONAL ,011 ,006 ,010 1,700 ,089 NEW PARLIAMENT ,037 ,007 ,032 5,094 ,000 NEW DISCUSSION ,267 ,006 ,261 45,823 ,000

Lineal Regression Model. Dependent Variable: NEW INTEREST

33

Not Standardized


B Tip. error Beta (Constant) ,578 ,060 9,681 ,000 NEW LEGAL -,004 ,006 -,004 -,581 ,561 NEW POLITICIANS ,025 ,010 ,017 2,534 ,011 Member of political party -,027 ,015 -,012 -1,750 ,080 Voted last national election

-,002 ,005 -,003 -,444 ,657



Worn or displayed campaign badge/sticker last 12 months ,032 ,011 ,019 2,809 ,005

Signed petition last 12 months ,017 ,007 ,016 2,462 ,014



-,040 ,011 -,024 -3,779 ,000


Gender -,114 ,005 -,126 -21,006 ,000 Age ,009 ,003 ,017 2,629 ,009 Education

,042 ,002 ,120 18,338 ,000

Ideology -,001 ,001 -,004 -,589 ,556 Worked in another organisation or association last 12 months

-,015 ,008 -,012 -1,771 ,077

NEW INTERPERSONAL ,008 ,006 ,008 1,225 ,221 NEW PARLIAMENT ,048 ,007 ,045 6,553 ,000 NEW DISCUSSION ,068 ,006 ,073 11,313 ,000 NEW INTEREST ,115 ,006 ,127 18,709 ,000

Lineal Regression Model. Dependent Variable: NEW UNDERSTANDING

34

Not Standardized


B Tip. error Beta (Constant) ,954 ,024 40,119 ,000 NEW LEGAL -,007 ,003 -,017 -2,882 ,004 NEW POLITICIANS -,016 ,004 -,024 -4,031 ,000 Voted last national election

,013 ,002 ,037 6,398 ,000

Contacted politician or government official last 12 months ,024 ,003 ,042 7,202 ,000

Worked in political party or action group last 12 months ,377 ,006 ,381 63,475 ,000

Worn or displayed campaign badge/sticker last 12 months ,039 ,005 ,051 8,531 ,000


Taken part in lawful public demonstration last 12 months ,008 ,004 ,011 1,811 ,070


,114 ,004 ,153 26,431 ,000


Gender ,011 ,002 ,028 5,006 ,000 Age -,011 ,001 -,048 -8,296 ,000 Education

,005 ,001 ,032 5,279 ,000


,009 ,003 ,015 2,525 ,012

NEW INTERPERSONAL -,004 ,003 -,008 -1,452 ,146 NEW PARLIAMENT -,003 ,003 -,006 -,952 ,341 NEW DISCUSSION -,004 ,002 -,010 -1,673 ,094 NEW INTEREST -,017 ,003 -,042 -6,847 ,000 NEW UNDERSTANDING -,004 ,003 -,010 -1,750 ,080

Lineal Regression Model. Dependent Variable: Member of political party

35

Not Standardized


B Tip. error Beta (Constant) 2,003 ,073 27,614 ,000 NEW LEGAL ,009 ,008 ,008 1,240 ,215 NEW POLITICIANS ,060 ,012 ,032 4,894 ,000 Contacted politician or government official last 12 months ,064 ,010 ,041 6,424 ,000



Signed petition last 12 months ,059 ,008 ,046 7,122 ,000



-,069 ,013 -,033 -5,233 ,000



-,057 ,003 -,130 -20,326 ,000


,050 ,010 ,031 4,857 ,000

NEW INTERPERSONAL -,027 ,008 -,022 -3,566 ,000 NEW PARLIAMENT -,046 ,009 -,034 -5,064 ,000 NEW DISCUSSION -,046 ,007 -,039 -6,134 ,000 NEW INTEREST -,080 ,008 -,070 -10,454 ,000 NEW UNDERSTANDING -,003 ,008 -,003 -,444 ,657 Member of political party ,119 ,019 ,043 6,398 ,000

Lineal Regression Model. Dependent variable: Voted last national election

36

Rafael Vázquez García Assistant Lecturer in Political Science at the Faculty of Political Science and Sociology (University of Granada). Master in Public Opinion Studies (2001). He stayed as visiting researcher at Dipartimento di Scienza della Politica e Sociologia (Universita degli Studi di Firenze, Italy) and in Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung (University of Mannheim) as visiting scholar. First National Award in Political Science Studies. (Spanish Ministry of Education. 2001). Among his last works: -“Inmigración y seguridad nacional. Los inmigrantes en la opinión pública española: una interpretación” (Chapter 7), in Carlos de Cueto (coord.) (2004) Seguridad y Diversidad en las Sociedades Contemporáneas. Biblioteca Nueva. Madrid. 2004. -“Participación política y capital social. Andalucía en España y en Europa. Un estudio comparado a partir de la encuesta social andaluza y europea” (Chapter 3) in J. Andreu Abela (coord.) (2005) Desde la esquina de Europa. Análisis comparado del capital social en Andalucía, España y Europa. Biblioteca Nueva. Sevilla.2005. -“La participación sociopolítica en Andalucía: entre la desafección y la falta de virtud cívica” (Chapter 27), in VVAA (2005) Homenaje al profesor José Cazorla. CIS. Madrid. 2006. -“Creating Social Capital and Civic Virtue: Historical Legacy and Individualistic Values. What Civil Society in Spain” (Chapter 10), inn Derrick Purdue (ed.) Civil Societies and Social Movements. Routledge / ECPR Political Science Series. Londres. 2006.

Are Voluntary Organizations a Source of Social Capital...

Documents

Transcript of Are Voluntary Organizations a Source of Social Capital...