A Comparative Test o f Inglehart ’s Theory o f Postmaterialism. Kenneth McKenzie, BA (Mod), Dub. A thesis presented for the degree ofPhD at Dublin City University, 2004. Declaration I declare that this thesis is my own composition and has not been accepted in a previous application for a degree. The academic sources of all work other than my own have been specifically acknowledged. Dublin, 28 June, 2004. This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Maud and Dave. Acknowledgments There are too many people to thank individually for their help during this thesis, but here goes.. .Firstly, I’d like to thank DCU for giving me a scholarship, office space and PC. I’d like to single out Cork’s finest, Gary Murphy, for taking a chance on a student who did not have the classical training for a Political Science postgrad. Gary was always approachable and encouraging. Staying within the walls of DCU, I owe a big debt to Robert Elgie, who probably wondered what he had taken on when he became my supervisor. Robert always had to take my vague ideas and bounce them back in cogent form, and his style o f thinking and working have left their mark on my thesis. The family - obviously. Never put pressure on me and always believed in my ability. Thanks to Ma, Da, and Nigel. A special mention for Denise who really drove me on. The office crew - John, Peter, James, Tom, - (and the blow-ins!) were class. Doing research is the most antisocial activity there is, and all too often, the only people who have a clue what you do or care about it are your fellow postgrads. Mary Coffey put food on the table when the scholarship ran out, and it was a real slice of luck when I picked up teaching in her department. The Crumlin boys did a superb job of distracting me and reminding me that doing a PhD is not a sufficient life in itself, so I’m looking forward to more homespun wisdom from them. Too many other friends were on hand throughout the last 4 years to keep me from worrying and working too much - a big thanks to them. Last but not least... Fiona. She’s only known me as a PhD student and has been patient and cajoling beyond belief in keeping me on track throughout. She’s also made me happy for the last 3 years, which is no mean feat. Hope you still like me now I’m not a student! A Comvarative Test of Inglehart’s Theory of Postm aterialism. Abstract Ronald Inglehart’s theory of postmaterialism contends that since the late nineteen sixties, a new type of politics is progressively taking over from the ‘old politics’ system. Inglehart’s case is built on steady changes in the postmaterialist index (PMI), where changes in public values are regularly assessed. Whereas ‘old politics’ consisted of debates over the place and scale o f redistribution and pitted class-based parties of left and right against each other, the new politics pivots on lifestyle issues, which do not fit clearly into the left and right camps. This thesis looks at the political implications of this detected value change, gathering new and existing criticisms of Inglehart’s model, and empirically tests his claims by means of a small-n case study with France and Ireland as comparators. We test four hypotheses derived from his works: (i) that class is less predictive of vote choice; (ii) that voter discontent has been increasing; (iii) that new parties have prospered in response to the new priorities, and (iv) that there has been a rise in unconventional political activity. W e find that there is at best, only partial support for Inglehart’s model, and conclude by outlining what this test of posmaterialism tells us about the link between political values and political change. Table of Contents Chapter 1: Ronald Jnglehart and Postmaterialism 1 1.1: Thesis structure 4 1.2: Historiography 6 1.2.1 : The European project and intergenerational value differences 7 1.2.2: Postmaterialism and its political effects 13 1.2.3: Culture-specific political forms 41 1.3: Summary and Conclusion 54 Chapter 2: Criticisms 56 2.1: Existing criticisms 56 2.1.1: Flanagan’s general criticisms 56 2.1.2: Specific points 60 2.2: New criticisms 73 2.2.1 : Inglehart and Industrial Sociology 75 2.2.2: Inglehart and Psychology 78 2.2.3: Postmaterialism as Postmodernism 88 2.2.4: Inglehart’s research into political culture 91 2.2.5: Summary of new criticisms 94 2.3: Conclusion 95 Chapter 3: Methodology 97 3.1: Formulating our hypotheses 96 3.2: The Theory-Informing Method and Comparative Political Science 100 3.3: The Small-n Aspect 102 3.4: Maximising value from the choice of cases 104 3.5: The Timeframe of the Thesis (1968-2002) 107 3.6: The case for aggregate data 108 3.7: Summary 109 Chapter 4: Class Voting 110 4.1: Inglehart’ s main claims 112 4.2: Testing the derived hypothesis 117 4.3: France 119 4.3.1: The votes of the working class 120 4.3.2: Advances in measuring the behaviour of all classes 124 4.3.3: Overall summary of the data for France 128 4.4: Ireland 128 4.4.1: Ireland as ‘sui generis’ on class voting 129 4.4.2: A reassessment of Ireland’s position 134 4.4.3: Still some social bases? 139 4.4.4: Overall summary of the data for Ireland 144 4.5: Conclusion 145 Chapter 5: Indicators of disaffection 150 5.1: Inglehart’s main claims 151 5.2: Testing the derived hypothesis 154 5.3: France 157 5.3.1: Closeness to party 157 5.3.2: Volatility and fragmentation 159 5.3.3: Party membership 164 5.3.4: Turnout 167 5.3.5: Spoilt ballots 171 5.3.6: Overall summary of the data for France 174 5.4: Ireland 175 5.4.1: Closeness to party 175 5.4.2: Volatility and fragmentation 177 5.4.3: Party membership 180 5.4.4: Turnout 183 5.4.5: Spoilt ballots 186 5.4.6: Overall summary of the evidence for Ireland 187 5.5: Conclusion 188 Chapter 6: New Parties 190 6.1 : Inglehart’s main claims 191 6.2: Testing the derived hypothesis 193 6.3: France 199 6.3.1: Level One change - the Parti Socialiste 199 6.3.2: Level Two change - the Parti Socialiste Unifié 218 6.3.3: Level Three change - Les Verts 228 6.3.4: Summary of the evidence for France 242 6.4: Ireland 243 6.4.1: Level Two change - Democratic Left 242 6.4.2: Level Three change - The Green Party 250 6.4.3: Summary of the evidence for Ireland 257 6.5: Conclusion 258 Chapter 7: Unconventional political behaviour and New Social Movements 264 7.1: Inglehart’s main claims 265 7.2: Testing the derived hypothesis 267 7.3: France 269 7.3.1: Issues and tactics of NSMs 269 7.3.2: The profile of an NSM supporter/activist 275 7.3.3: Has the relative impact of NSMs increased over time? 276 7.3.4: Summary of the evidence for France 281 7.4: Ireland 281 7.4.1 : Issues and tactics of NSMs 282 7.4.2: The profile of an NSM supporter/activist 291 7.4.3: Has the relative impact of NSMs increased over time? 292 7.4.4: Summary of the evidence for Ireland 295 7.5: Conclusion 296 Chapter 8: Conclusion 302 8.1: What this thesis tells us about PM 303 8.2: What this thesis tells us about PM in Politics 307 8.3: What this thesis tells us about PM in Political Science 313 8.4: Suggested research directions 315 Bibliography 317 List of tables Table 1.1: Cohort differences and post-bourgeois value type classification. 17 Table 4.1: The destination of the white- and blue-collar votes, 1965-2002. 122 Table 4.2: The strength of the link between class and voting in France over 125 five legislative elections. Table 4.3: Class voting odds-ratios in France for the left/right split, 127 first round o f legislative and presidential elections, 1967-2002. Table 4.4: The political distinctiveness of social classes in Galway West 136 at N ovem ber 1986. Table 4.5: Mathematical differences in voting behaviour between the unskilled 138 manual class and the five other Erikson-Goldthorpe classes at five general elections, 1981-90. Table 4.6: Percentage of first preference votes obtained by leftist parties, 140 Dail elections, 1987-92. Table 4.7: The effect on party support of class and trade union membership. 143 Table 5.1: French partisanship versus the European Community average 158 as collated in the Eurobarometer series, 1978-94. Table 5.2: The negative view of French parties - time series data collated 159 b y SO FR E S. Table 5.3: Total net volatility in French legislative elections, 1958-1997. 161 Table 5.4: Total net volatility in the first ballot French presidential 162 elections, 1965-95. Table 5.5: Rate of decline of membership of French parties. 165 Table 5.6: Estimated party membership in France since 1945 165 in numbers and as a percentage o f the registered electorate. Table 5.7: Abstention rates for the first and second round of 168 the French Presidential elections. Table 5.8: Fifth Republic first round abstention rates for the 170 Assemblée Nationale elections.