page_title: Participation inequality
section_title: Expansion of Dahl
hierarchical_section_title: Participation inequality / Political participation inequality / Causes of political participation / Expansion of Dahl
caption_attribution_description: English: An expansion on Robert Dahl's two dimensions by adding a possible third dimension: institutions
context_page_description: In social sciences, participation inequality consists of difference between levels of participation of various groups in certain activities. Common examples include:
  differing levels of participation in democratic, electoral politics, by social class, race, gender, etc.
  differing levels of participation in online communities as described by Jakob Nielsen.
  In politics, participation inequality typically affects "the kinds of individuals, such as the young, the poor and those with little formal education" who tend to not take the initiative to participate in electoral and related events. State enumeration, such as was done in Canada before the implementation of the National Register of Electors in 1996, "worked to augment voter turnout among all segments of society and thus mitigated a natural tendency toward participation inequality in electoral politics".
context_section_description: The more insidious cause of participation inequality stems from a third dimension that has been recently added to Dahl’s two-dimensional evaluation of political systems: institutions. In this framework, institutions implement political rights and procedures guaranteed by the state. Institutional causes for participation inequality can include literacy tests, extensive citizenship requirements, sparse voting booths in rural or poor areas, and a lack of public transportation. These all affect the ability of citizens to properly exercise guaranteed rights like voting.
  Institutional causes of participation inequality can also be mitigated or exacerbated by cultural norms. Most often high voter turnout usually is hailed as a marker for a democratically responsive nation; however, in India “the turnout rate among the poor is almost as high as for those who are either middle class or rich. A detailed study of voter participation reported for the 2009 national elections shows that voter participation rates do not seem to vary by income status at all...Recent studies report similar findings from Africa and Latin America (Bratton 2008; Boot & Seligson 2008)”. Many of these studies conclude that in developing democracies voting acts as a reassurance of social status or worth in the eyes of the state. This cultural norm has not translated to more democratically responsive institutions in that “the governments created by these elections are known to neglect the interests of the poor and treat them disrespectfully compared to other income groups”. Nations like India are considered to be exceptions to the general rule that economic status has some bearing on voter participation.
caption: An expansion on Robert Dahl's two dimensions by adding a possible third dimension: institutions
exif: {}