Electoral participation in the Netherlands: Individual and contextual influences

Abstract

Research into electoral participation has produced two traditions, one focusing mainly on individual level explanations while the second concentrates primarily on aggregate level explanations. By bringing these two research approaches together, we are not only able to explain individual electoral participation more thoroughly, but we also gain additional insight into the influence of aggregate level characteristics on individual behavior. We combine eight National Election Studies held in the Netherlands between 1971 and 1994 enabling us to study variation on the individual and the contextual (aggregate) level, including interactions between these two levels. Findings show that the addition of contextual characteristics form a significant improvement to an individual level model predicting electoral participation. Findings also confirm our expectation that the influence of individual characteristics such as education or political interest is dependent upon contextual characteristics describing for instance the salience of the election.

Dynamics of Power in Dutch Integration Politics : From Accommodation to Confrontation

“…Higher educational levels, for instance, correlate positively with electoral participation (e.g. Van Egmond et al 1998). Different levels of civil engagement could therefore result from differences in the class composition of immigrant communities.…”

The effect of socioeconomic factors on voter turnout in Finland: A register‐based study of 2.9 million voters

“…In particular, among working‐class citizens turnout declined very rapidly, and large differences in participation between different social classes can be observed (for Finland, see Table 1). Furthermore, in addition to high social class, other forms of social advantage (i.e., those associated with better education, higher income and greater wealth) are related to higher turnout (Lijphart 1997; see also, e.g., Egmond et al 1998; Goul Andersen & Hoff 2001; Leighley & Nagler 1992a, 1992b; Milbrath & Goel 1977; Shields & Goidel 1997; Teixeira 1987, 1992; Wolfinger & Rosenstone 1980).…”

“…Investigations to date have shown a strong association between level of education and turnout (see, e.g., Blais 2000; Schaffer 1981; Egmond et al 1998; Teixeira 1987; Wolfinger & Rosenstone 1980). For example, in the United States the difference in turnout between the least educated population group (less than five years of schooling) and the group with the highest level of education was 53 percentage points in the presidential elections of 1972 (Wolfinger & Rosenstone 1980: 17–18).…”

“…Previous individual‐level analyses of electoral participation show that socioeconomic factors predict voter turnout. However, it should be emphasized that most of these studies have been conducted in the United States (but see, e.g., Anduiza 2002; Egmond et al 1998; Goul Andersen & Hoff 2001; Lane & Ersson 1990). Consequently, one can expect that not all of the findings apply to Western European countries or Scandinavia, where the postwar project has been the building of a welfare state that aims at guaranteeing equality and reducing poverty.…”

The End of Voters in Europe? Electoral Turnout in Europe since WWII

“…The level of educational capital is now considered as particularly important. Van Egmond, de Graaf & Van Der Eijk (1998) have identified it to account for the differences in voter turnout in the Dutch case. Note however, the existence of a conflict of interpretations.…”