DOI: 10.18150/pc8qzq
title: POLINQ-Participation: Political Inequality of Voice

description: This study is about political inequality of voice in terms of political participation. Political inequality research is diverse in disciplinary input, methods and topics (Dubrow 2015). We define political inequality as structured differences in influence over government decisions, and the outcomes of those decisions. Inequality is a gap. Political inequality can be interpreted as an influence and outcomes gap between social groups, and thus a measurable gap between social groups in terms of political voice.Political voice can be defined minimally or maximally. Minimally, political voice is the expression of interests within the political system (e.g. Schlozman et al 2012). Scholars tend to think of voice as participation. Participation can be defined, to use one of Teorell et al’s (2007) dimensions, as influence attempts (see also van Deth 2014). A maximalist definition presents the contours of voice and adds “representation” as a dimension. Maximally, political voice is (a) participation – verbal, physical, symbolic, monetary, or otherwise – in the political sphere by individuals, organizations, social groups, interest groups, or entire populations in electoral and non-electoral situations. In this maximalist sense, voice is also (b) representation by movements, organizations, or political leaders and other figures. From a voice perspective, representation is someone or something engaged in the expression of interests in the political sphere on behalf of others or to promote an idea. This study presents a minimalist interpretation of political voice as it focuses on political participation. Verba et al (1978: 1) defined participation as ‘legal acts by private citizens that are more or less directly aimed at influencing the selection of government personnel and/or the actions they take’; van Deth (2014) pithily defined it as ‘citizens’ activities affecting politics’ (351); and Teorell (2006) expands on different types, as does van Deth (2014). As identifiable participation modes proliferate over time, the scope of what is considered political participation widens. At root, they, and we, define participation as an attempt to influence the decisions of decision-makers who operate in a political sphere.This study is about the political inequality between social groups in terms of a specific form of political voice – political participation. The purpose of the data is to measure political voice inequality on the basis of political participation for social groups. Our main measure of political participation is “participation potential.” In using the World Values Survey and European Social Survey, we consider “have done” and “might do” as expressions of this potential, and thus combine them. “Would never do” is a strong statement about not participating, or zero potential.We use the combined World Values Survey/European Values Survey data (see below). We aggregate these survey data to construct proportions and ratios for the specific social groups on the basis of three political participation items. For each social group we produced a ratio of political participation, e.g. Women to Men in Attending a Demonstration, Young to Old in Signing a Petition, and so on. The entire dataset is age standardized for those 18-75 years old.The result is a country year dataset of 44 countries, 248 country-years, from 1981 to 2021.Participation MeasureThe political participation items are (I) Non-electoral participation, defined as (a) Attending demonstrations and (b) Signing petitions; NEP is Non-Electoral Participation Potential and it is the combination of either Attending or Signing, Have done it or Might do it. (I) Electoral Participation is measured as (c) Voted in last election. The inequality measure is ratio and thus the variables are ratios that compare social groups.Social GroupsThe social groups are:Gender (women to men). For issues in how gender is defined by surveys, see Dubrow, Joshua K. and Corina Ilinca. 2019. “Quantitative Approaches to Intersectionality: New Methodological Directions and Implications for Policy Analysis,” pp. 195 – 214 in The Palgrave Handbook of Intersectionality in Public Policy edited by Olena Hankivsky and Julia S. Jordan-Zachery. London: Palgrave Macmillan.We have two versions of age. One is defined as follows: Proportion of the young (18 – 29) to the mid-aged (30 – 55) and Proportion of the young (18 – 29) to old (56 to 75).The other is defined by the PaReSoGo dataset: Zelinska, Olga; Dubrow, Joshua K.: Party Representation of Social Groups (PaReSoGo) [data]. Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences [producer], Warsaw, 2021. PADS21317. Polish Social Data Archive [distributor], Repozytorium Danych Społecznych [publisher], 2021. https://doi.org/10.18150/NPXPAT, V1PaReSoGo age groups are as follows: young adults (18-29 y.o.), the middle-aged (40-65 y.o.) Old (66-75 y.o.)Education: Proportion of higher education (post-secondary) to those with lower education (secondary and below).We defined “Low education:” inadequately completed elementary education; completed (compulsory) elementary education; incomplete secondary school: technical course; incomplete secondary: university-preparatory course.We defined “High education:” complete secondary school: technical/vocational; complete secondary: university-preparatory course; some university without degree/higher education; university with degree/higher educationRural to not-rural: Proportion of Rural to not-rural, i.e. urban and peripheral urban.