Repertoires of political participation: Macroeconomic conditions, socioeconomic resources, and participation gaps in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European economic crisis has stimulated a great deal of research linking contextual macroeconomic conditions and political outputs, as conventional and unconventional political participation. Nevertheless, such research has often treated forms of political participation as independent from each other, overlooking how citizens can choose from combinations of political actions to influence politics in contexts with varying levels of macroeconomic performance. This article, instead, focuses on two common forms of participation – voting and protesting – and studies whether engagement in “repertoires” of participation – the “disengaged” (abstaining and not protesting), the “duty-based” (voting and not protesting), the “protest” (abstaining and protesting), and the “all-round” (voting and protesting) repertoires – varies according to countries’ macroeconomic conditions in Europe in 30 countries over time. This article also considers that the effect of macroeconomic conditions on repertoires of participation might depend on citizens’ socioeconomic resources – such as education, employment status, and income – with consequences for participation gaps or inequalities. Using multilevel models and data from seven rounds of the European Social Survey, this article shows that in contexts where macroeconomic conditions are worse, the probability of engaging in the “protest” repertoire increases, while the probability of engaging in the other three repertoires does not depend on the economy. In addition, the article finds that participation gaps narrow in the “disengaged” and “duty-based” repertoires in contexts with poorer macroeconomic performance, while the gaps in the “protest” and “all-round” repertoires do not change across contexts with different economic conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".