Participation and tolerance Lecture 6 Three forms of participation •Voting •Contentious politics •Civil society Election turnout Paradox of voting •You should vote if benefits > costs –Costs = time and effort (C) –Benefits = money, job if party wins –p = probability of being decisive vote –Vote if pB-C>0 •But p = 0, your vote is almost never decisive •Therefore you rationally shouldn’t vote Do we learn anything from rational model? •Higher costs => lower turnout –Difficult registration or voting procedures –More frequent voting •More competitive elections (higher p) => higher turnout •But still no reason to vote •How to think of benefits? –Can add an extra term: D for civic duty –Thus: pB – C + D Another view of benefits •Benefits not just personal •If my candidate wins, it benefits many, many people –Let’s say benefit = 5000 Kc and 5 million people benefit, then B = 2,500,000,000 Kc •Voting decisions are usually motivated by beliefs about social benefits not individual –Sociotropic versus pocketbook voting Turnout in advanced democracies •Average level of 70% •Declines from 80% in 1960s & 1970s to 60-70% today •More declines among young people voting-by-country1.png (449×455) Explanations for variation •Lower stakes of elections •Cultural shift? •Compulsory voting in some countries •Proportional representation –More choices –More opportunities to be decisive vote –But less clarity of results Postcommunist turnout •High turnout in first elections: >80% •Declining turnout since: range from 40% to 80% • •Czech turnout Why? Did it matter? •Has Czech politics stabilized at low level? –What changed in early 2000s? –Accession to EU •What would energize voters? •Who was helped and hurt? Explanations for Czech turnout •Disenchantment –Initially excitement, optimism –Now corruption, economic problems •Importance of elections –Decline after entering EU –Higher for more important institutions –Increase when democratization Ways you can increase turnout •Key is social environment •Make voters feel wanted –Personal invitation, live conversation on phone •Build on existing motivation –Call back those who are interested •Show voters that others are watching –Remind them that there is a public record • What works and doesn’t work •Works •Door-to-door canvassing •Telephone contact with live person •Doesn’t work •Direct mail •Leaflets •Robocalls •Email Do we want to increase turnout? •Who doesn’t vote? –Uneducated –Uninformed –Young –Poor (except India – poor vote more) •Will they improve our choices? •But turnout as sign of legitimacy Turnout inequalities turnout.png (988×524) Contentious politics Contentious politics rising? •Increase in percentage of people who: –Sign petitions –Participate in boycotts –Participate in demonstrations •Why does this increase when voting declines? •But still a small number Why do people participate in contentious politics? •Resources –Education, money, time –Sense of efficacy •Mobilization by politicians and movements –Social networks Postcommunist patience •Big mystery is lack of protest given economic problems & corruption –Signed a petition: 21% versus 58% in West –Participated in boycott: 5% versus 12% –Participated in demonstration: 13% vs 19% –Compare Latin America: riots & demonstrations •Why? –Older citizens –Alternative sources of income –Fewer urban poor • Civil society Tocqueville’s Argument •Need voluntary groups for democracy to work –Worry that expanding bureaucracy will overwhelm atomized citizens –Groups enable citizens to defend themselves against government and limit what government needs to do How does civil society help government work better? •Creates trust and cooperation among people –Government can work with light touch: efficiency •People aware of public policy and able to express interests –Government can be more responsive •Could there be tradeoffs? Weakness of postcommunist civil society •Average number of organizational memberships –Sports, church, unions, political party, environmental, professional, charitable •Western Europe: 2.4 organizations/person •Latin America: 1.8 •Postcommunist: 0.8 •Civil society in postcommunist Europe •Types of organizations Why so weak? •Marc Morje Howard: past experiences from communism –Lack of trust –Disappointment from transition –Persistence of friendship networks •But shouldn’t this disappear over time? •Do you join clubs/organizations? Why? Why not? How does civic community get started? •Collective Action Problem: everyone benefits and individual contribution doesn’t matter •Social context key (social capital) –Where strong norms, networks, and trust, then civic community flourishes •Virtuous circle versus vicious circle Creative leadership? •Antanas Mockus – mayor of Bogota –7000 community security groups –Homicide down 70% –Traffic fatalities down 50% –Drinking water provision up from 79% to 100% Mockus America the leader? •Traditionally very strong associational life •But large decline in last 50 years •Do new organizations make up for this? –Contributing money versus attending a rally •Bowling alone? Why has social capital declined in America? •Time and money pressures? •Mobility? •Changing role of women? •Eclipse of traditional family? •Rise of welfare state? •Generational effects –Yes, long civic generation born between 1910s and 1940s participates much more What happened? •Television –1950: 10% of homes, 1959: 90% of homes •TV viewing strongly and negatively correlated with trust and membership; destroys social capital • •When you are on your deathbed, are you going to say: “My one regret in life is that I didn’t watch more TV.” What can you do? •Surprise a neighbor by making a favorite dinner •Help fix someone’s flat tire •Join an organization •Sing in a choir •Perform in a volunteer theater •Attend parades •Read the local news faithfully •Pick it up even if you didn’t drop it •Buy a big hot tub •Attend gallery openings •More at www.bettertogether.org Tolerance • Measuring tolerance •Abstract: –Do you agree with freedom of speech? –Do you support rights for minority? •Least-liked group –Which group do you like least: communists, atheists, fascists, homosexuals, racists, etc. –Should this group be allowed to… hold a rally, run for office, give political speeches Levels of tolerance •Initial studies: not as high as expected •Despite abstract support for tolerance, less tolerance of disliked groups •Trend over last 50 years is positive Determinants of tolerance •Portrayal of group/ideas by media & elite – threatening or not •Support for democratic norms •Personality –Negative: insecurity, dogmatism, extroversion, –Positive: openness to experience, trust Recent work by Putnam •Finds that more diverse communities have –Less trust both between and within groups –Lower participation and volunteering –Less happiness and fewer friends –More time watching TV •Contradicts both contact hypothesis and conflict hypothesis – • • Ethnic homogeneity & trust http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/asset/image_n/SCPS_176_f3.gif ?v=1&t=im4vxdzw&s=3fd522195ae2863afb6fd3b78a68325e3ba8d215 But also long-term decline in violence http://edge.org/3rd_culture/MC11slides/sp-Slide018.jpg Why? •Leviathan: power of state •Commerce: mutual benefit •Feminization: more respect for women •Cosmopolitanism: literacy, media – see perspective of others •Reason: come to see futility of violence •