Voting Women, Protesting Men: A Multilevel Analysis of Corruption, Gender, and Political Participation

Abstract

Previous studies have been unable to establish the link between corruption perceptions and political participation. This is partly due to a disregard of different types of political participation, ignoring gender differences in how corruption perceptions affect political participation, and overlooking the importance of context. We therefore here examine gender differences in the links between corruption perceptions and three types of political participation: voting, institutionalized participation between elections, and noninstitutionalized participation between elections. We also examine how the context in the form of the national level of corruption affects these linkages. The data come from International Social Survey Program Citizenship II and includes 31 democracies, analyzed with multilevel regression models. Our results show that women become more likely to vote when faced with corruption, whereas men become more likely to engage in elite-challenging forms of participation when faced with corruption while women remain unaffected.

Perceptions of Inequality and Political Participation: The Moderating Role of Ideology

“…The results correspond to several previous studies, although this could not be taken for granted, considering the specific goal of the activities (Bäck and Christensen, 2016; Hooghe and Marien, 2013; Malmberg and Christensen, 2021). We find that two dimensions adequately captured the dimensionality, and these corresponded to a non-institutionalized dimension of political participation, where citizens take part on their own terms, and another dimension corresponding to IP, where the formal political system is the locus of participation.…”

“…We excluded violence beforehand since no respondents indicated using this to address social inequality, and, afterwards, also excluded wearing a badge and online activities since they had unclear loadings on the two extracted dimensions (the results still indicated two factors were suitable and the interpretations were similar). The results correspond to several previous studies, although this could not be taken for granted, considering the specific goal of the activities (Bäck and Christensen, 2016;Hooghe and Marien, 2013;Malmberg and Christensen, 2021). We find that two dimensions adequately captured the dimensionality, and these corresponded to a non-institutionalized dimension of political participation, where citizens take part on their own terms, and another dimension corresponding to IP, where the formal political system is the locus of participation.…”

“…It is important to note that, contrary to previous efforts that have examined the link between inequalities and political participation (Bäck and Christensen, 2020; Hooghe and Marien, 2013; Malmberg and Christensen, 2021; Marien et al, 2010), we explicitly focus on participation aimed at addressing social inequalities rather than general political participation, which may have other goals. To be able to do this, we first asked respondents whether they had performed a series of political activities without specifying the goal ( We now present different ways people can influence what is going on in society.…”

“…At least since the 1970s, the literature on political participation has recognized that participation is not unidimensional (Barnes and Kaase, 1979), although the proper dimensionality remains disputed (Theocharis and van Deth, 2018). However, a distinction is commonly made between institutionalized activities that are structurally embedded in the political system and regulated by the authorities, and NIP, that is, bottom-up activities that citizens use to challenge the status quo, such as demonstrations and political consumerism (Bäck and Christensen, 2016; Malmberg and Christensen, 2021; Marien et al, 2010; Stolle and Hooghe, 2011).…”

“…It may be that sociotropic concerns lead to greater mobilization in all forms of participation as people perceive the problems to be imminent. On the contrary, the link may be stronger to NIP, since these concerns challenge the existing order, which often leads to NIP (Malmberg and Christensen, 2021; Marien et al, 2010). Egocentric concerns, however, may be more tied to IP due to the traditional ties between economic concerns and voting (Kinder and Kiewiet, 1981), but it also may be that private natured concerns do not find an expression in political participation.…”