Has Italy Become a Tocquevillian Democracy?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF MILAN GRADUATE SCHOOL IN SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL STUDIES HAS ITALY BECOME A TOCQUEVILLIAN DEMOCRACY? A Longitudinal Analysis Of The Determinants Of Political Participation Monica POLETTI PH.D. IN SOCIOLOGY – 2012 Supervisor: Prof. Paolo Segatti Co-Supervisor: Prof. Gabriele Ballarino PhD Coordinator: Prof. Luisa Leonini Dottorato di Ricerca in Sociologia, Ciclo XXIV Settore Scientifico-Disciplinare: SPS/11 Data Discussione: 15 Marzo, 2012 – Università degli Studi di Milano Has Italy Become A Tocquevillian Democracy? HAS ITALY BECOME A TOCQUEVILLIAN DEMOCRACY? A Longitudinal Analysis Of The Determinants Of Political Participation Monica POLETTI PhD Thesis in Sociology Graduate School in Social and Political Science University of Milan, Italy – March, 2012 You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star Friedrich Nietzche Acknowledgments Acknowledgments There are many people who have supported me in the last three years that I would like to thank but they are far too many to mention them all by name. My warmest thanks goes to prof. Paolo Segatti, the supervisor of my dissertation, who has been very supportive and inspiring along the way. Without him this volume could not have been written. Thanks also for the advice of my co-supervisor prof. Gabriele Ballarino. Thanks must also go to all the professors of the ‘PhD board’, who have given me feedback at the stage of my proposal and to the PhD coordinators prof. Antonio Chiesi and prof. Luisa Leonini. Many thanks to prof. Hermann Schmitt, who supervised my theoretical and methodological work during my research visiting months at the Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung (MZES - University of Mannheim) and to prof. Jan van Deth, for reading early versions of the theoretical chapters. I would like to thank many people for their advice on methodological issues, but most of all I thank Cristiano Vezzoni and Ferruccio Biolcati, the Italian group of the research team of the True European Voter (TEV), as well as the rest of the TEV team that during think thanks and methodological winter schools have provided me with very helpful insights. I would also like to thank the people that motivated me at the very beginning to undertake a PhD degree and particularly to prof. Kees Brants, prof. Victor Sampedro and prof. Gianpietro Mazzoleni. Thanks also to my colleagues of the XXIV Cycle of the PhD in Sociology, Political Studies and Labour Studies, as well as my friends at the computer lab of the Department of Social and Political Science of the University of Milan, both for inspiring talks and for relieving academic stress. A particular thanks goes then also to Daniela for bureaucratic issues and to David for helping the improvement of my English. I also want to thank the inspiring places that hosted me during my studying, researching and writing of the PhD dissertation: the third floor of the Graduate School in Social and Political Sciences in Via Pace, the MZES of Mannheim, the University libraries of the London School of Economics and of the Goldsmith College in London. Finally, a special thanks for moral support goes to my family and to Jack, as well as to my yoga group, the Pink House, the Camino, the ECREA Tartu Summer School group, and to all of my friends living in many different places of the globe, whether they can thoroughly understand what it means to write a PhD dissertation or not. i Has Italy Become A Tocquevillian Democracy? Contents INTRODUCTION 1 PART I - THE WORLD OF PARTICIPATION AND DISAFFECTION CHAPTER 1. AN ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 27 CHAPTER 2. THE FOCUS OF THE RESEARCH 63 CHAPTER 3. PARTICIPATION AND EFFICACY: SOME DEFINITIONS 87 PART II - FROM THEORY TO DATA ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4. THE EVOLUTION OF THE ITALIAN CONTEXT 103 CHAPTER 5. THE ‘INDIVIDUAL MODERNIZATION’ THESIS 145 CHAPTER 6. ‘CHURCH-LIKE’ & ‘BOTTOM-UP’ ASSOCIATIONS ACROSS TIME 169 CHAPTER 7. THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFFICACY & PARTICIPATION 211 CHAPTER 8. THE POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION VS. THE SELF-SELECTION THESIS 235 CHAPTER 9. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 261 Appendix I. Surveys Question Wording 283 Appendix II. Associations Included in Each Category per Survey 303 Appendix III. Pooled Dataset Questions Wording: Education 305 Appendix IV. ITANES Panel Questions Wording 309 Appendix V. Methodological Note on ITANES Panel Excluded Cases 311 Appendix VI. ITANES Panel Respondents’ Characteristics 317 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DATASETS 319 BIBLIOGRAPHY 321 ii Tables And Figures Tables and Figures Tables Table 2.1 – Participation in voluntary associations (membership) 75 Table 4.1 – Main characteristics of survey datasets used 107 Table 4.2 – Available Datasets for Political Participation measures in Italy 108 Table 4.3 – Measures for Trade Unions and Social Participation in Italy in available datasets 109 Table 4.4 – Measures for Political Inefficacy in Italy in available datasets 109 Table 4.5 – Italians General Elections: % of turnout 113 Table 4.6 – Mean of Estimate for Turnout in 22 Countries, 1945–99 114 Table 4.7 – Membership in main Political Parties – First Republic (Until 1992) 116 Table 4.8 – Membership in main political parties – Second Republic (Since 1992) 118 Table 4.9 – International Perspective of Union density rate (n.of members–excluding non active–over n.of employees), adjusted data, 1950-2003 (%) 128 Table 4.10 – Social Associations registered in regional books at the 31st of December 2003 (%) 129 Table 4.11 – Social Associations per main area of activity 1995 - 2003 (%) 129 Table 4.12 – Membership and Voluntary Activity Participation (%) 135 Table 4.13 – Active and Passive Participation in Political and Social Association Across Europe (%) 137 Table 4.14 – Political Inefficacy in Italy, 1959-2008 (%) 139 Table 4.13 – Longitudinal Trend of Social Participation Membership 142 Table 4.14 – Longitudinal Trend of Political Participation Membership 143 Table 5.1 – The main features of the repeated cross-sectional surveys 147 Table 5.2 – Pooled Dataset Structure 148 Table 5.3 – The Investigated Relationship between Education and Time 152 Table 5.4 – The Coding of Educational Levels Pre and Post-School Reform 154 Table 5.6 – The Italian Political Generations 159 Table 5.7 – Distribution of Educational Levels per Political Cohort 160 iii Has Italy Become A Tocquevillian Democracy? Table 6.1 – Characteristics of Member of Church-Like Associations (Column %) 171 Table 6.2 – Characteristics of Member of Bottom-Up Associations (Column %) 172 Table 6.3 – The Distribution of Cohorts per Survey Years 177 Table 6.4 – The Distribution of Age Strata per Political Generations 178 Table 6.5 – Political Party Membership Models Estimates (Odds Ratio) 179 Table 6.6 – Political Party Membership Estimates per Political Cohorts (Odds Ratio) 181 Table 6.7 – Marginal Effects of Education on Political Party Membership per Political Cohort 182 Table 6.8 – Trade Union Membership Models Estimates (Odds Ratio) 187 Table 6.9 – Trade Unions Membership Estimates per Political Cohorts (Odds Ratio) 188 Table 6.10 – Marginal Effects of Education on Trade Union Membership per Political Cohort 188 Table 6.11 – Activist Associations Membership Model Estimates (Odds Ratio) 193 Table 6.12 – Activist Associations Membership per Political Cohort (Odds Ratio) 194 Table 6.13 – Marginal Effects of Education on Activist Membership per Political Cohort 194 Table 6.14 – Professional, Civic and Leisure Associations Membership Models Estimates (Odds Ratio) 199 Table 6.15 – Professional, Civic and Leisure Associations Estimates (Odds Ratio) 200 Table 6.16 – Marginal Effects of Education on Professional, Civic and Leisure Associations Membership per Political Cohort 201 Table 6.15 – Hypotheses Between Education and Time per Association Type 203 Table 7.1 – Variables in Panel 220 Table 7.2 – Strength of the link between different types of organizational participation 221 Table 7.3 – Fitting parameters of data to the two models in 2001 and 2004 222 Table 7.4 – Causal Links Description of the Structural Model for Party Membership and Voting Behaviour (H7.1-H7.4) 232 Table 7.5 – The importance of the politicization level of associations (H5) 232 Table 8.1 – Frequency of Efficacy and Participation (% over N) 235 Table 8.2 – Change of variables in the three panel waves (Column %) 236 Table 8.3 – Political Efficacy Among Participant and Non Participant (Column %) 236 Table 8.4 – Political Socialization Model for Party Membership (H7.1a) 237 iv Tables And Figures Table 8.5 – Political Socialization Model for Voting Behaviour (H7.1a) 239 Table 8.6 – Self-selection Model for party membership (H7.1b) 240 Table 8.7 – Self-selection Model for Voting (H7.1b) 241 Table 8.8 – Political Socialization (m1) vs. Self-Selection models (m2) for Party Membership (H7.1c) 241 Table 8.9 – Political Socialization (m1) vs. Self-Selection models (m2) for Voting (H7.1c) 242 Table 8.10 – Political Socialization & Self-Selection thesis (H7.2a); Reversal Causation thesis (H7.3b) 243 Table 8.11 – Self-Selection thesis: Political Efficacy Social Participation (H7.2b) 245 Table 8.12 – Reversal Causation (H7.4a) and Political Socialization (H7.4b) with education and political tradition 246 Table 8.13 – Self-Selection (H7.4c; H7.4d) with education and political tradition 247 Table 8.14 – Summary table of link between Participation and Political Efficacy 250 Table 8.15 – Profiles of Citizens’ Participation 251 Table 8.16 – The test of the Main Causal Theories linking Social and Political