THREE HYPOTHESES ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLITICAL PERFORMANCE (SPECIFIC SUPPORT) AND ATTITUDE ABOUT THE POLITICAL SYSTEM (DIFFUSE SUPPORT) ARE INVESTIGATED. DATA ARE FROM A STUDY DONE IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY IN 1974 1976. SUPPORT IS FOUND FOR A SOCIAL LEARNING HYPOTHESIS, PREDICTING THAT SYSTEM SUPPORT WILL RESPOND TO DIFFERENTIAL SATISFACTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF AN INCUMBENT GROUP.
In accounting for the variation in income inequities among wealthy capitalist states, a multivariate causal model was tested with 1975-1980 data from the World Bank. The factors of strengths of socialist & conservative parties, the openness of the economy to international trade forces, & the scope of union membership were hypothesized to have direct effects on income inequity; additional factors from other models (voter turnout, level of political democracy, level of economic development, rate of economic growth, expansion of investment, & secondary school enrollment ratios) were entered into the multivariate analysis sequentially after the direct factors. Results show that: socialistic government strength has a negative effect on the ratio of rich to poor; conservative government strength has a positive effect on the rich to middle class ratio; the organizational (union) stength of the working class has no direct effect on income distribution; & across differing partisan control components, states with high export to gross domestic product ratios are more egalitarian in income distribution than those less dependent on international trade. The results of interactions between the direct factors & the complex relationships between the explanatory variables are presented & discussed. 7 Tables, 3 Figures, 59 References. M. Pflum
Causal inference in research testing rational choice models of unconventional political behavior has been hampered by the inability to use perceptions of the costs and benefits of participation at a given time to predict behavior that necessarily occurred in the past and by ambiguities associated with analyzing behavioral intentions instead of actual participation. Using panel data collected on a national sample in West Germany between 1987 and 1989, we show that variables from a "collective interest" model measured in 1987 - individuals' dissatisfaction with the provision of collective goods, beliefs that group actions can be successful, and beliefs in the importance of their own participation - predict subsequent participation in collective protest activities. Variables corresponding to the private "selective incentives" associated with protest are found to be less relevant. Furthermore, we find that engaging in protest changes many of the perceptions that influence future participation. We discuss the implications for theories of political mobilization. (American Political Science Review / FUB)
PREVIOUS EMPIRICAL RESEARCH CONCERNING POLITICAL PARTICIPATION HAS MADE EITHER ONE OF TWO ERRORS. IN THE FIRST CASE, THE RESEARCH HAS OMITTED AGGRESSIVE OR EXTRALEGAL FORMS OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION. IN THE SECOND CASE, THE RESEARCH INCLUDED AGGRESSIVE FORMS OF PARTICIPATION BUT ESTIMATED MODELS OF AGGRESIVE AND DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION SEPARATELY DESPITE THE STRONG POSITIVE CORRELATION BETWEEN THEM. EACH ERROR LEADS TO AN INCORRECTLY SPECIFIED MODEL OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION. TO CORRECT THIS SITUATION, WE SPECIFY A NONRECURSIVE MODEL AND TEST IT USING DATA FROM TWO DISPARATE SAMPLE SURVEYS. IN EACH TEST THE RESULTS INDICATE THAT EARLIER PARTICIPATION MODELS WERE INCORRECTLY SPECIFIED IN THAT AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IS A SIGNIFICANT CAUSE OF DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION WHILE THE REVERSE IS NOT TRUE.
THIS PAPER UNDERTAKES A CROSS-NATIONAL COMPARISON OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEASURES OF ANTISYSTEM POLITICAL BEHAVIOR AND TWO INDICATORS OF DIFFUSE POLITICAL SUPPORT, THE WELL-KNOWN TRUST IN GOVERNMENT INDEX, AND A POLITICAL SUPPORT-ALIENATION SCALE. THE FINDINGS SUGGEST THAT THE BEHAVIORAL RELEVANCE OF DIFFUSE POLITICAL SUPPORT DEPENDS ON HOW THAT CONCEPT IS DEFINED OPERATIONALLY.
PEOPLE WHO TAKE PART IN ACTS OF CIVIL DISPOBEDIENCE OR POLITICAL VIOLENCE AR E DISCONTENTED ABOUT SOMETHING. THAT IS A TRUISM. THE INTERESTING RESEARCH PROBLEM IS TO IDENTIFY PARTICULAR KINDS OF DISCONTENT THAT ARE ASSOCIATED SYSTEMATICALLY WITH AGGRESSIVE POLITICAL BEHAVIOR-DISCONTENT THAT OPERATES AS A 'PRECONDITION' OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IN CONTRAST TO DISCONTENT THAT IS PECULIAR TO PARTICULAR GROUPS AT PARTICULAR TIMES AND PLACES AND SERVES ONLY AS A 'PRECIPITANT' OF AGGRESIVE BEHAVIOUR. DURING THE PAST TWO DECADES A MULTITUDE OF STUDIES USING AGGREGATE, DATA HAVE INVESTIGATED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CIVIL STRIFE AND VARIOUS SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES POSTULATED TO PRODUCE DISCONTENT. DISCONTENT THAT FUNCTIONS AS A GENERAL CAUSE OF CIVIL STRIFE HAS BEEN ASSUMED TO ARISE FROM SUCH CONDITIONS AS INEQUALITY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND OR INCOME;1 VARIOUS PATTERNS OF CHANGE OVER TIME IN SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS;2 DISEQUILIBRIUM BETWEEN DIMENSIONS OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION, ESPECIALLY AN IMBALANCE BETWEEN HIGH EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND LOW OCCUPATIONAL STATUS;3 AND THIS IS AN ADUMBRATED LISTING. BUT THE MACRO-LEVEL TESTING OF HYPOTHESES IN WHICH DISCONTENT IS A HYPOTHETICAL UNMEASURED VARIABLE HAS YIELDED AMBIGUOUS AND CONTRADICTORY RESULTS.
