Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Socio-economic Status on Political Participation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Democracy in Transition

Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between political participation on the one hand and parental/adolescent socio-economic status on the other hand. We analyzed this research question using the Belgian Political Panel Survey 2006–2008, a representative panel study among 4,235 young Belgian adolescents (aged 16 at time-point 1). The structural equation model reveals that young people’s socio-economic status has more influence on political participation than the parental socio-economic status. Adolescents’ socio-economic status does not only affect the level of political participation at the time of measurement itself, but also two years later. This indicates that higher educated or in higher tracks, people are not only more likely to participate, but also more likely to participate in the future: the gap between the activists and non-activists even grows over time.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Technique de transition and technique de qualification were coded as in between general/technical and technical/professional education. Arts education is left out for further analyses.

References

  • Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1965). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alwin, D. F., Cohen, R. L., & Newcomb, T. M. (1992). Political attitudes over the life span. The Bennington women after fifty years. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, P. A., & Jennings, M. K. (1982). Pathways to participation. American Political Science Review, 76(1), 94–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berelson, B. N., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & MacPhee, W. N. (1963). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (2006). On political equality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. (1980). Reassessing parental socialization: Indicator unreliability versus generational transfer. American Political Science Review, 74(2), 421–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fridkin, K. L., Kenney, P. J., & Crittenden, J. (2006). On the margins of democratic life: The impact of race and ethnicity on the political engagement of young people. American Politics Research, 34(5), 605–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gimpel, J. G., Lay, C. J., & Schuknecht, J. E. (2003). Cultivating democracy. Civic environments and political socialization in America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirtt, N., Nicaise, I., & De Zutter, D. (2007). De School van de Ongelijkheid. Berchem: Epo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, M., & Quintelier, E. (2012). Political participation in Europe. In O. W. Gabriel & S. I. Keil (Eds.), Society and democracy in Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1981). Generations and politics: A panel study of young adults and their parents. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, D., Cleaver, E., Ireland, E., & Blenkinsop, S. (2003). Citizenship education longitudinal study first cross-sectional survey 2001–2002. Norwich: National Foundation for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, R. E. (1959). Political life: Why and how people get involved in politics. Glencoe: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. M. (1963). Political man. The social bases of politics. Garden City: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milbrath, L. W. (1965). Political participation. How and why do people get involved in politics? Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2006). Political protest in fragile states. Paper presented at the International Political Science Association World Congress in Fukuoka (Japan), Thursday, 1 July 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track. How schools structure inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, G., Moyser, G., & Day, N. (1992). Political participation and democracy in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Plutzer, E. (2002). Becoming a habitual voter: Inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintelier, E. (2009). The political participation of immigrant youth in Belgium. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(6), 919–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (2003[1993]). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumberger, R. W. (2004). Multilevel models for school effectiveness research. In G. J. Palardy & D. Kaplan (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 235–258). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2012). The unheavenly chorus. Unequal political voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taris, T. W. (2000). A primer in longitudinal data analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torney-Purta, J., & Stapleton, L. (2002). Predictors of civic knowledge and engagement: A structural equation model using home background and school factors in the United States, England and Sweden. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, 4 Apr 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J., & Amadeo, J. (1999). Civic education across countries: Twenty-four national case studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. Amsterdam: IEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America. Political democracy and social equality. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., & Nie, N. H. (1993). Race ethnicity and political resources: Participation in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 23(4), 453–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wattenberg, M. P. (2007). Is voting for young people? With a postscript on citizen engagement. New York: Pearson Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woessmann, L. (2004). The effect heterogeneity of central exams: Evidence from TIMSS, TIMSS-Repeat and PISA. Munich, CESIFO Working Paper, No. 1330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Leuven (Belgium), Leuven, Belgium

    Ellen Quintelier & Marc Hooghe

Authors
  1. Ellen Quintelier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marc Hooghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ellen Quintelier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Social and Political Scien, University of Cyprus, Kallipoleos 75, Nicosia, 1678, Cyprus

    Kyriakos N. Demetriou

Appendices

Appendix 1: Distribution of the Variables

 

Missing

Mean

Std. deviation

Minimum

Maximum

2006

Boy

49

0.490

0.500

0

1

Political interest

29

2.005

0.782

1

4

Educational goal

86

3.117

0.770

1

4

Number of books at home

152

4.036

1.606

1

7

Educational track

158

2.377

0.734

1

3

Mothers’ level of education

413

2.478

0.909

1

4

Fathers’ level of education

480

2.510

1.012

1

4

Mother manual worker

0

0.157

0.364

0

1

Mother clerical worker

0

0.394

0.489

0

1

Mother self-employed

0

0.106

0.309

0

1

Mother other prof. status

0

0.252

0.434

0

1

Father manual worker

0

0.289

0.453

0

1

Father clerical worker

0

0.324

0.468

0

1

Father self-employed

0

0.210

0.407

0

1

Father other prof. status

0

0.065

0.247

0

1

Wearing a patch

37

1.176

0.430

1

3

Signing a petition

30

1.429

0.532

1

3

Participating in a legal march

38

1.112

0.339

1

3

Donating money

41

1.484

0.559

1

3

Boycotting products

42

1.241

0.519

1

3

Forwarding a political email

36

1.133

0.378

1

3

Displaying a political message

50

1.051

0.252

1

3

Attending a political meeting

34

1.143

0.372

1

3

Contacting politicians

36

1.040

0.220

1

3

2008

Educational goal

73

3.111

0.778

1

4

Number of books at home

35

4.106

1.596

1

7

Educational track

154

2.357

0.759

1

3

Mothers’ level of education

1,303

2.525

0.977

1

5

Fathers’ level of education

1,329

2.614

1.095

1

5

Wearing a patch

36

1.208

0.463

1

3

Signing a petition

28

1.473

0.542

1

3

Participating in a legal march

30

1.100

0.321

1

3

Donating money

36

1.470

0.552

1

3

Boycotting products

29

1.277

0.543

1

3

Forwarding a political email

35

1.181

0.429

1

3

Displaying a political message

37

1.064

0.286

1

3

Attending a political meeting

34

1.164

0.394

1

3

Contacting politicians

33

1.062

0.261

1

3

Appendix 2: Correlation Between Socio-economic Status Measures

 

Educational track 2006

Educational goal 2006

Number of books at home 2006

Level of education mother 2006

Level of education father 2006

Educational track 2008

Educational goal 2008

Number of books at home 2008

Level of education mother 2008

Educational goal 2006

0.496***

        

Number of books at home 2006

0.181***

0.235***

       

Level of education mother 2006

0.238***

0.290***

0.262***

      

Level of education father 2006

0.246***

0.312***

0.244***

0.476***

     

Educational track 2008

0.764 ***

0.556***

0.209***

0.254***

0.255***

    

Educational goal 2008

0.532***

0.612 ***

0.229***

0.259***

0.272***

0.599***

   

Number of books at home 2008

0.198***

0.247***

0.594 ***

0.271***

0.262***

0.232***

0.252***

  

Level of education mother 2008

0.220***

0.264***

0.254***

0.738 ***

0.409***

0.242***

0.261***

0.277***

 

Level of education father 2008

0.211***

0.270***

0.234***

0.382***

0.729 ***

0.209***

0.258***

0.251***

0.416***

  1. p < 0.001:***; p < 0.01:**; p < 0.05:*.

Appendix 3: Parameter Estimates

 

Parameter estimate

Standard errors

Standardized parameter estimate

Significance

Effect of SES adolescent age 16 on ….

  

Political participation age 18

0.111

0.019

0.154

***

Political participation age 18 (WITH)

0.097

0.011

0.257

***

SES adolescent age 18

1.091

0.014

0.983

***

Effect of political participation age 16 on …

  

Political participation age 18

0.692

0.029

0.66

***

Effect of SES parents on …

   

Political participation age 16

0.04

0.023

0.045

ns

SES adolescent age 16

0.44

0.028

0.341

***

Effect of boy on …

   

Political participation age 16

−0.145

0.025

−0.119

***

SES adolescent age 16

−0.303

0.028

−0.17

***

Effect of political interest on …

   

Political participation age 16

0.326

0.018

0.417

***

SES adolescent age 16

0.327

0.018

0.287

***

Effect of … on political participation age 16

  

Mother clerical

0.069

0.029

0.055

*

Father manual worker

−0.107

0.037

−0.079

**

Effect of … on SES adolescent age 16

   

Mother manual worker

−0.185

0.043

−0.076

***

Mother clerical

0.27

0.034

0.148

***

Mother self-employed

0.168

0.052

0.058

***

Father manual worker

−0.186

0.042

−0.095

***

Father clerical

0.352

0.043

0.186

***

Father self-employed

0.291

0.047

0.133

***

  1. Model fit: Chi2: 2,494.859***, 487df; CFI: 0.966; RMSEA: 0.031. Thresholds, auto-correlated errors and (residual) variances are not presented here

Appendix 4: Latent Constructs and Explained Variances

 

Parameter estimate

Standard errors

Standardized parameter estimate

Signif.

Indicators political participation age 16

R2

0.209

Wearing a patch

1

0

0.59

***

Signing a petition

0.948

0.04

0.561

***

Participating in a legal march

0.926

0.045

0.549

***

Donating money

0.796

0.04

0.476

***

Boycotting products

0.922

0.042

0.547

***

Forwarding a political email

0.94

0.042

0.557

***

Displaying a political message

1.069

0.053

0.627

***

Attending a political meeting

0.762

0.042

0.456

***

Contacting politicians

0.81

0.051

0.484

***

Indicators political participation age 18

 

R2

0.539

Wearing a patch

1

0

0.624

***

Signing a petition

0.948

0.04

0.594

***

Participating in a legal march

0.926

0.045

0.581

***

Donating money

0.796

0.04

0.502

***

Boycotting products

0.922

0.042

0.578

***

Forwarding a political email

0.94

0.042

0.589

***

Displaying a political message

1.069

0.053

0.665

***

Attending a political meeting

0.762

0.042

0.481

***

Contacting politicians

0.81

0.051

0.511

***

Indicators of SES parents

   

Mothers’ level of education

1

0

0.689

***

Fathers’ level of education

1.01

0.071

0.696

***

Indicators of SES adolescent at age 16

 

R2

0.392

Educational goal

1

0

0.806

***

Number of books at home

0.413

0.019

0.361

***

Educational track

1.013

0.028

0.814

***

Indicators of SES adolescent at age 18

 

R2

0.966

Educational goal

1

0

0.879

***

Number of books at home

0.413

0.019

0.399

***

Educational track

1.013

0.028

0.888

***

  1. Model fit: Chi2: 2,494.859***, 487df; CFI: 0.966; RMSEA: 0.031. Thresholds, auto-correlated errors and (residual) variances are not presented here

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Quintelier, E., Hooghe, M. (2013). The Impact of Socio-economic Status on Political Participation. In: Demetriou, K. (eds) Democracy in Transition. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30068-4_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation