Citizenship and Civic Engagement: Attitudes and Behaviour in Britain

Analysis of patterns of participation revealed three dimensions of civic activism in modern Britain: individualistic activism; contact activism; and collective activism. Three alternative theories of participation were examined to account for these dimensions: general incentives; social capital; and civic voluntarism. None proved sufficient in itself to account for civic activism in modern Britain: each provided only part of the explanation.     

Political and Civic Engagement and Participation: Towards an Integrative Perspective

Abstract

This article presents an overview of current understandings in the study of political and civic engagement and participation, drawing in particular on innovations which have emerged from the Processes Influencing Democratic Ownership and Participation (PIDOP) project. For the purposes of the article, ‘engagement’ is defined as having an interest in, paying attention to, or having knowledge, beliefs, opinions, attitudes, or feelings about either political or civic matters, whereas ‘participation’ is defined in terms of political and civic participatory behaviours. The different forms that political and civic engagement and participation can take are outlined, and the factors that are related to different patterns of engagement and participation are reviewed. These factors operate at different levels, and include distal macro contextual factors, demographic factors, proximal social factors, and endogenous psychological factors. An integrative model covering all four levels of factors is outlined. Some findings from the secondary analysis of existing data-sets (including the European Social Survey and the International Social Survey Programme) in the PIDOP project are also reported. These findings show that engagement and participation vary as a function of complex interactions between macro, demographic, and psychological factors. It is argued that multi-level integrative theories, such as the one proposed in the current article, are required to understand the drivers of political and civic engagement and participation, and that policies and interventions aimed at enhancing citizens' levels of engagement and participation need to take this multi-level complexity into account.     

Nonprofits and Civic Engagement

There are approximately 800,000 501(c)(3) nonprofits large enough to register with the federal government. Add churches, foundations, and nonprofits too small to register, and the number is far higher than that. The potential for nonprofits to engage their clients and members in community affairs and public policy making is, in theory, enormous. Yet, perversely, nonprofits are regulated by the federal government in such a way that discourages the involvement of their followers in the public policymaking process. This is a problem, not simply because we social scientists believe civic engagement is a good thing, but because these regulatory standards sharply skew public participation. Although middle- and upper-class individuals have many organizations that engage and mobilize them, nonprofits usually are the only organizations that work on behalf of the poor, those without health insurance, immigrants, the disabled, and most other marginalized constituencies. Put bluntly, federal law works against the participation of the most disadvantaged in society.     

Civic Engagement and Sustainable Cities in the United States

Over the last decade, at least 42 U.S. cities have elected to pursue sustainable cities programs to improve their livability. Some programs are broad, involving smart growth efforts, and others are narrowly targeted, including bicycle ridership and pesticide-reduction programs. A recurring theme in these cities is the role of public participation in shaping and implementing these programs. In cities where the sustainable cities idea first emerged in local grassroots organizations, such as Seattle, these programs owe their existence to public involvement. Other cities have taken a top-down approach, treating sustainability as a matter for experts rather than ordinary citizens. Civic engagement is manifest both in the development of the sustainability program and as an explicit goal of the sustainability program. This article examines the role of civic engagement in these programs and defines a research agenda by identifying hypotheses about the importance of public involvement in sustainable cities programs.     

Introduction to the Symposium: Socialism and Ecology

Okay if you are worried about the greenhouse effect, if you want us to be responsible corporate citizens of the world, you must also understand we are a Third World nation and need the money. Give us 200 million PGK a year for our budget and you can be in charge of our forests.     

Civic Engagement and Public Policy Making in America

Larry N. Gerston, Public Policymaking in a Democratic Society: A Guide to Civic Engagement
Thomas A. Birkland, An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making
Mark E. Rushefsky, Public Policy in the United States: At the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century     

Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century: Toward a Scholarly and Practical Agenda

We understand civic engagement to mean people participating together for deliberation and collective action within an array of interests, institutions and networks, developing civic identity, and involving people in governance processes.     

Civic Engagement and Education: An Empirical Test of the Sorting Model

According to the sorting model of education, the impact of education on civic engagement is relative, rather than absolute. Education correlates with greater engagement because it is a marker of social status; the degree of status conferred by your level of education is determined by the average level of education within your environment. This article tests the sorting model by paying strict heed to its assumptions. The analysis confirms the model, but considerably narrows its reach. Sorting applies only to one particular type (electoral activity), only when the educational environment accounts for variation across age and place, and only when one models the interactive relationship between education at the individual and environmental levels. Furthermore, sorting applies more to men than women. The same analytical framework demonstrates that being in a more highly educated environment amplifies the relationship between education and democratic enlightenment (political knowledge and tolerance).     

Assessing Integrity Systems: Introduction to the Symposium

The following Symposium on Australia's national integrity systems, drawn from an Australian Research Council‐funded project conducted in 2002‐2004 by researchers from Griffith University, Charles Sturt University, University of Sydney, RMIT University, Monash University and the Australian National University, together with Transparency International Australia. The first three papers examine the public integrity regimes at federal, state (NSW) and local levels. The remaining four papers develop three themes as a framework for assessing strengths and weaknesses in Australia's major integrity regimes: consequences, capacity and coherence. The papers were originally presented in sessions of the Australasian Political Studies Association (University of Adelaide, September 2004) and the 5th National Investigation Symposium (NSW Ombudsman, Independent Commission Against Corruption and Institute of Public Administration Australia NSW, Sydney, November 2004).     

Active Citizenship in the UK: Assessing Institutional Political Strategies and Mechanisms of Civic Engagement

Abstract

Shaping active citizenship, motivating civic engagement, and increasing political participation of minority groups have become some of the key political priorities in the UK since at least the end of the 1980s. Academic research shows that this shift goes hand-in-hand with a review of the integration policies in the country. The ‘politics of integration’ correspond in fact to a policy response to various social problems (such as discrimination, racism, intolerance) that emerged in various areas, and represent a new political discourse regarding active citizenship. This reflects an overall strategy meant to reframe the basis for civic and political engagement and participation in Britain. Our article is thus meant to highlight the dynamics underlying the development of the concept of active citizenship in the UK by looking at the factors that intervene in its shaping and enhancement. We identify political priorities and key mechanisms of participation that enable engagement in the public sphere. This article first considers the development of the specific ‘British discourse’ regarding active citizenship by taking into consideration the political priorities that emerged as part of the New Right discourse in the 1980s and then New Labour after 1997. We then refer to a set of data collected during our field work conducted in the UK between 2010 and 2011 with civil society activists and policy-makers in order to underline the meaning, practices, and feasibility of active citizenship.     

Local Capitalism and Civic Engagement: The Potential of Locally Facing Firms

The twin forces of globalization and devolution have created administrative circumstances that strain the problem‐solving capacity of local governments and increase the importance of nongovernmental processes and institutions. The literature suggests that locally owned firms are more likely to engender higher levels of civic engagement critical to buttressing that problem‐solving capacity. This research adds an additional dimension, investigating to whom those firms sell and through which supply channels. Using survey results from hundreds of local firms across five study sites, this research demonstrates that locally facing firms—that is, firms that intentionally interface with community members and other local businesses—are associated with greater levels of civic and political engagement compared with locally owned firms that sell their products to customers elsewhere. Findings suggest that local governments should look beyond the local/nonlocal ownership binary to consider how private firms can be partners in serving and supporting their communities.     

Deliberative Civic Engagement at the Grassroots: An Exploration of Political Participation in Bangkok

This article explores conventional grassroots political participation in one of south-east Asia's largest cities, Bangkok. Thailand's reformist constitution, adopted in 1997 as part of its democratic consolidation, sharpened interest in local-level civic engagement and in political participation beyond its usually unpredictable national-level electoral politics. This paper explores some of the modes, motivations and determinants of political participation based on the results of survey data. The analysis suggests three things. First, that the modes of political participation of Bangkokians are more varied than may be commonly believed; secondly, that the issues and problems motivating Bangkokians into political participation are multidimensional in content and by objective; and, thirdly, that the factors that influence such political participation are a combination of the commonly known variables as well as some very contextual ones.     

Introduction to Jesse Burkhead Symposium

Government budgeting is one of the major processes by which the use of public resources is planned and controlled. To the extent that this is done well, governmental programs are brought increasingly to the service of its citizens, enhancing their material and cultural status.
The study of government budgeting is a study in applied economics—in the allocation of scarce resources. This study must look at operations and begin with organization and procedure, the routines which have been established for decision–making in government. It should extend to an examination of the influences, governmental and nongovernmental, that come to bear on the decision-making process.
Ours is both an organized society and a society of organizations. The significance of organization is nowhere more evident than in the public sector. Here organizational arrangements bring together the learning of all social scientists. The patterns for decision-making do not provide separate compartments for economic knowledge, for political knowledge, for social knowledge. These are merged in the organizational arrangements which have been established for the conduct of governmental affairs.1