Suchergebnisse

A widespread consensus has emerged that a revival of patterns of civic engagement and citizenship will compensate for the assumed deficiencies of modern democracies. Voluntary associations are widely perceived as pivotal facilitators and mediators of social and political participation and as making a significant (direct and indirect) contribution to civic and democratic well-being. Associations are valorised as social capital manufacturers and for their all-round societal and democratic contribution. However, different types of association are likely to 'produce' very different levels of social capital. Given much of the contemporary focus on the (alleged) associational impact on members, there is a paucity of research that actually links citizens' Orientations to the specific types of association they are involved in. This article seeks to make a contribution to that research gap by connecting the organisational context to membership, activism and volunteering. Unique data from a comparative study of associational life in Aberdeen (UK) and Mannheim (Germany) are presented. This study includes extensive mapping of all voluntary associations in these two cities, and interviews with selected members. In spite of the common expectation among social capitalists that groups concerned with social matters, small groups and groups with high levels of involvement will show higher levels of confidence and engagement, the data presented in this article did not uncover any systematic substantial difference (in either city). Adapted from the source document.

"In the last decades, political participation expanded continuously. This expansion includes activities as diverse as voting, tweeting, signing petitions, changing your social media profile, demonstrating, boycotting products, joining flash mobs, attending meetings, throwing seedbombs, and donating money. But if political participation is so diverse, how do we recognize participation when we see it? Despite the growing interest in new forms of citizen engagement in politics, there is virtually no systematic research investigating what these new and emerging forms of engagement look like, how prevalent they are in various societies, and how they fit within the broader structure of well-known participatory acts conceptually and empirically. The rapid spread of internet-based activities especially underlines the urgency to deal with such challenges. In this book, Yannis Theocharis and Jan W. van Deth put forward a systematic and unified approach to explore political participation and offer new conceptual and empirical tools with which to study it. Political Participation in a Changing World will assist both scholars and students of political behaviour to systematically study new forms of political participation without losing track of more conventional political activities."--Provided by publisher.

Over the last two decades, scholars have investigated norms of citizenship by focussing primarily on 'dutiful' and 'engaged' norms. In the meantime, contemporary democracies have witnessed growing demands for more sustainable styles of living and increasing public support for authoritarian and populist ideas. These developments point to both a change and an expansion of conventional understandings and conceptions of what a 'good citizen' in a democratic polity ought to do. Specifically, they raise questions about whether demands for more sustainability and increasing support for populist ideas establish new facets of democratic citizenship, and if so, how they can be meaningfully incorporated into existing images of citizenship. This study provides a re-conceptualization of citizenship norms and empirically tests a new measurement instrument using original data collected in Germany in 2019. The empirical application of an expanded set of items demonstrates the existence of more variegated facets of norms of citizenship, including norms to safeguard a sustainable future and distinct populist facets emphasizing the relevance of trust in authorities and experts as well as reliance on feelings and emotions. Contemporary conceptions of citizenship thus go beyond conventional distinctions between dutiful and engaged norms of citizenship.

A widespread consensus has emerged that a revival of patterns of civic engagement and citizenship will compensate for the assumed deficiencies of modern democracies. Voluntary associations are widely perceived as pivotal facilitators and mediators of social and political participation and as making a significant ( direct and indirect) contribution to civic and democratic well-being. Associations are valorised as social capital manufacturers and for their all-round societal and democratic contribution. However, different types of association are likely to 'produce' very different levels of social capital. Given much of the contemporary focus on the (alleged) associational impact on members, there is a paucity of research that actually links citizens' orientations to the specific types of association they are involved in. This article seeks to make a contribution to that research gap by connecting the organisational context to membership, activism and volunteering. Unique data from a comparative study of associational life in Aberdeen (UK) and Mannheim (Germany) are presented. This study includes extensive mapping of all voluntary associations in these two cities, and interviews with selected members. In spite of the common expectation among social capitalists that groups concerned with social matters, small groups and groups with high levels of involvement will show higher levels of confidence and engagement, the data presented in this article did not uncover any systematic substantial difference (in either city).

Modern liberal democracies demand high and equal levels of political action. Unequal levels of political action between ideological groups may ultimately lead to biased policy. But to what extent do citizens' ideological preferences affect their likelihood to participate politically? And does the institutional environment moderate this relationship? From rivaling theories, the authors construct hypotheses regarding the relationship between ideological preferences and participation and those regarding the moderating effect of state institutions. They test them for six modes of political action—voting, contacting, campaigning, cooperating, persuading, and protesting—through multilevel analyses of 27 elections in 20 Western democracies. First, they find that citizens' ideological preferences are an important determinant political action. Second, they find that majoritarianism outperforms consensualism: In majoritarian systems, political action is more widespread and not less equal across the crucial factor of ideological preferences. The field should therefore reconsider Lijphart's conclusions about the superiority of consensualism.