PropertyValue
?:abstract
  • This paper studies the state and trends of democratic efficacy in democratic polities around the world. First, it uses data of an on-line survey conducted by DEMOS in 15 European countries to provide descriptive data on democratic efficacy. A first step to test the association of democratic efficacy indicators with populism was also made, showing that most of the items composing democratic efficacy have a negative association with populist attitudes. Second, the paper considers problems of a conceptual definition of democratic efficacy and suggests that it could be analysed following two conceptualisations: 1) more extensive (holistic), coupling political efficacy with citizens’ democratic capacities, and 2) less extensive (narrow), coupling political efficacy only with citizens’ support for important democratic values. Then the paper discusses the availability of measures of democratic efficacy in existing international survey data sets (ESS, ISSP, EVS, CSES, EES, and Eurobarometer). Further, the report empirically assesses the trends of democratic efficacy in a temporal comparative perspective using data from two waves (2004 and 2014) of the ISSP module ‘Citizenship’. Results show that the majority of the populations in the studied countries score low on both internal (a little more than 50 %) and external (a little more than 70 %) political efficacy and, overall, changes over the last decades are negligible. However, levels of political efficacy are quite different across countries and there is substantial cross-time variation for at least half of the studied countries. According to our data, there is a general tendency of lower levels of political efficacy in the CEE countries. Also, in some (mostly Western) countries political efficacy increased from 2004 to 2014. With regard to the support for values of liberal democracy we found that it is moderate (overall, only half the studied populations showed strong support for these values) and rather stable. However, at the country level, we found quite a lot of variation both across countries and over time. These cross-country and cross-time differences need to be further studied with multilevel models including macro (country) level explanatory variables. (xsd:string)
?:author
?:comment
  • https://doi.org/10.17203/kdk426. (ISSP) (xsd:string)
?:dataSource
  • ISSP-Bibliography (xsd:string)
?:dateModified
  • 2020 (xsd:gyear)
?:datePublished
  • 2020 (xsd:gyear)
?:doi
  • 10.17203/kdk426 ()
?:duplicate
is ?:hasPart of
?:inLanguage
  • english (xsd:string)
is ?:mainEntity of
?:name
  • Measuring Democratic Efficacy (xsd:string)
?:provider
?:publicationType
  • techreport (xsd:string)
?:reference
?:sourceInfo
  • Bibsonomy (xsd:string)
?:studyGroup
  • International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) (xsd:string)
?:tags
  • 2020 (xsd:string)
  • EB_contra (xsd:string)
  • EVS_contra (xsd:string)
  • FDZ_IUP (xsd:string)
  • ISSP (xsd:string)
  • ISSP2004 (xsd:string)
  • ISSP2014 (xsd:string)
  • ISSP_input2020 (xsd:string)
  • ISSP_pro (xsd:string)
  • ZA3950 (xsd:string)
  • ZA6670 (xsd:string)
  • checked (xsd:string)
  • datfeld (xsd:string)
  • english (xsd:string)
  • kbe (xsd:string)
  • techreport (xsd:string)
  • transfer20 (xsd:string)
rdf:type
?:url