The Results - Some Tables and Figures

 

Here are some of the main results of the survey analysis. Once again, over 3000 young party members from 15 political parties in six countries have taken part, with 2919 valid questionnaires returned. Below are some of the tables which will help understand who these young party members are, what they believe in, what they want, and how they see their party, our political systems, and their own future. We do not provide results by specific party because samples impose us to look at the results with care, and because it would breach the relationship of trust and confidence under which individual parties and young party organisations accepted to take part in the project. However, we provide comparison by country, and comparison by main party families in the tables below. In the second type of comparison, we only include the Socialist/Social-Democratic, Conservative, and Liberal party families as the other party families represented (Greens, Extreme Right, Communists, etc) do not have enough parties included for their categorical results to be statistically robust. Here we go...

 

Tables 1 and 2 show how young party members can be classified into three types - moral, social, and professional minded, on the basis of principal incentives of their membership. We also see that moral-minded members are the most numerous, followed by social and professional-minded ones. There are a few differences across countries and party families when it comes to the distribution of young party members across the three groups...

 

Table 1: Factor Analysis of Party Membership Incentives

Results of the factor analysis of ten party membership incentives using varimax rotation.

1.1: Total Variance Explained: 

Component

Total Unrotated

Total Rotated

1

2

3

…

3.14

1.40

1.10

…

2.08

1.95

1.62

…

 

1.2: Factor Loadings – Rotated Components Matrix 

 

Component 1

MORAL

Component 2

SOCIAL

Component 3

PROFESSIONAL

Feel a good citizen

Help others

Meaningful life

Influence politics

0.77

0.76

0.73

0.48

-0.07

0.28

0.25

0.25

0.10

-0.04

0.12

0.10

Interesting people

Friends

Interesting discussions

0.13

0.16

0.23

0.78

0.73

0.70

0.16

0.18

-0.08

Positions and honours

Money and material

Become a politician

0.14

-0.02

0.13

0.14

-0.11

0.28

0.78

0.73

0.60

 

N=2919

 

Table 2: Types of Young Party Members

 

 

Moral

Social

Professional

 

OVERALL 

 

39.7

34.2

26.0

 

BY COUNTRY 

Spain

60.9

30.6

8.4

France

50.0

36.8

13.2

UK

47.5

22.5

30.0

Norway

41.5

33.1

25.4

Germany

31.1

38.4

30.5

Hungary

29.2

25.3

45.5

 

BY PARTY FAMILY

Socialist

42.7

33.3

24.0

Conservative

38.1

34.3

27.7

Liberal

30.4

38.5

31.2

 

N=2919
 

 

Tables 3, 4a, and 4b look at the distribution of young party members according to a very traditional distinction in political science between vote-seeking, policy-seeking, and office-seeking (in this case divided into offices for themselves and for the party leaders that they follow) objectives. We see that the three types of young party members we've identified (moral, social, and professional-minded) do tend to have different distributions over these objectives, as do respondents from different countries and party families...

 

Table 3: Party Priorities

 

 

Moral

Social

Professional

Vote

2.98 (1.06)

2.74 (1.11)

2.85 (1.07)

Politicians Office

1.95 (1.29)

1.65 (1.22)

1.90 (1.19)

Own Office

1.67 (1.28)

1.72 (1.26)

2.42 (1.23)

Policy

3.39 (1.08)

3.45 (0.99)

3.32 (1.10)

 

Note (for this table and all following tables comparing the three types of party members): BOLD figures represent the type of party member with the highest score, and ITALIC figures the type of party member with the lowest score. For example: Moral-minded members are the most vote seeking (score in bold) and social-minded members the least vote seeking (score in italic).

Table-specific notes: Score represent index value on a theoretical scale of 0-4.

N=2878


 

Table 4a: Ranking of Membership Objectives by Country

 

Country

Policy Objectives

Electoral Objectives

Own Place in Party Hierarchy

Individual Allegiance

France

3.55
(0.91)

3.12
(0.71)

1.07
(1.33)

1.91
(1.22)

Germany

3.54
(0.94)

2.54
(1.08)

2.41
(1.11)

1.62
(1.17)

Spain

3.48
(1.03)

3.02
(1.06)

1.30
(1.27)

1.65
(1.43)

Hungary

3.17
(1.15)

3.31
(1.01)

1.80
(1.36)

2.09
(1.27)

UK

3.15
(1.01)

3.13
(1.04)

2.05
(1.48)

2.35
(1.00)

Norway

3.13
(1.19)

3.09
(1.02)

1.50
(1.22)

2.17
(1.16)

ALL

3.39
(1.06)

2.86
(1.09)

1.88
(1.30)

1.83
(1.25)

 

 

Table 4b: Ranking of Membership Objectives by Party Family

 

Party Family

Policy Objectives

Electoral Objectives

Own Place in Party Hierarchy

Individual Allegiance

Socialist

3.50
(0.97)

2.75
(1.11)

1.89
(1.34)

1.74
(1.25)

Liberal

3.46
(1.03)

2.68
(1.02)

2.30
(1.13)

1.68
(1.20)

Conserv.

3.15
(1.19)

3.17
(1.04)

1.70
(1.26)

2.05
(1.23)

ALL

3.39
(1.06)

2.86
(1.09)

1.88
(1.30)

1.83
(1.25)

 

Notes: Respondents were to rank these objectives from most to least important to them, with the top choice given 4, the second choice 3, etc. The respondents could also decide that one of the proposed objectives was not an objective at all, in which case it received a score of 0.

N=2878

 

 

Tables 5, 6a, 6b, and 7 look at the main policy priorities of the young party members we surveyed. What do they care about? What social problems do they want to sort out? Beyond cross-national and cross-ideological differences, some priorities seem to unite most of them, particularly unemployment. Others vary by country and type of party. For example, French and German young party members care about Europe quite a lot, but their British and Hungarian counterparts are more worried about improving the quality of the environment. Social inequalities are high on the list of young party members in most countries, but low in Hungary and Norway. Similarly, socialist party members tend to put a higher 'priority tag' on social inequalities, conservative ones on fighting crime, and liberal ones on modernising tax systems. In the free answers reported in table 7, we see that a certain number of national themes impose themselves across party families, and that education and the condition of young people are spontaneously mentioned by large proportions of young members across parties and countries...
 

Table 5: Policy Priorities by Type of Member

 

 

Moral

Social

Professional

Unemployement

3.55
(0.66)
1

3.47
(0.77)
1

3.45
(0.74)
1

Taxes

2.25
(1.33)
6

2.34
(1.25)
6

2.48
(1.24)
6

Environment

3.11
(0.87)
3

2.93
(0.90)
2

2.83
(0.95)
2=

Europe

2.90
(1.00)
5

2.83
(0.99)
5

2.74
(1.03)
4

Crime

3.00
(0.95)
4

2.86
(0.94)
3

2.83
(0.91)
2=

Inequalitites

3.12
(1.13)
2

2.84
(1.22)
4

2.62
(1.27)
5

 

N=2903


Table 6a: Policy Priorities by Country:

 

Country

Unemploy

Environm

Crime

Inequalities

Europe

Taxes

France

3.70
(0.72)
2

3.22
(1.01)
4

2.63 (0.90)
5

3.73
(0.71)
1

3.28
(0.78)
3

1.28 (1.15)
6

Spain

3.70
(0.55)
1

3.28
(0.78)
4

3.29 (0.87)
3

3.66
(0.71)
2

3.04 (0.83)
5

2.10 (1.17)
6

Germany

3.59
(0.71)
1

2.84
(0.89)
3=

2.54
(0.95)
5

2.87
(1.20)
2

2.84
(0.98)
3=

2.12
(1.24)
6

Hungary

3.45
(0.73)
1

3.26
(0.75)
2

3.15 (0.83)
3

2.88
(1.01)
5

2.32 (1.03)
6

3.13
(0.84)
4

Norway

3.24
(0.74)
1=

2.88
(0.96)
3

3.24 (0.75)
1=

2.35
(1.30)
6

2.80 (1.09)
4

2.79 (1.30)
5

UK

2.95
(0.88)
2=

3.20
(1.02)
1

2.85 (0.80)
4

2.95
(1.11)
2=

2.53 (1.13)
5

1.83 (1.28)
6

ALL

3.50
(0.72)
1

2.98
(0.91)
2

2.91
(0.94)
3

2.90
(1.21)
4

2.83
(1.01)
5

2.34 (1.28)
6

 

 

Table 6b: Policy Priorities by Party Family:

 

P. Family

Unemploy

Environm

Crime

Inequalities

Europe

Taxes

Socialist

3.60
(0.64)
1

3.15
(0.84)
3

2.78
(0.96)
5

3.51
(0.81)
2

2.90 (0.94)
4

1.71 (1.15)
6

Liberal

3.49
(0.81)
1

2.67
(0.88)
3=

2.52
(0.85)
5

2.06
(1.33)
6

2.67 (1.04)
3=

3.00 (1.04)
2

Conserv.

3.31
(0.79)
2

2.80
(0.97)
4

3.34
(0.79)
1

2.16
(1.15)
6

2.78 (1.11)
5

3.20 (0.88)
3

ALL

3.50
(0.72)
1

2.98
(0.91)
2

2.91
(0.94)
3

2.90
(1.21)
4

2.83
(1.01)
5

2.34
(1.28)
6

 

Notes: All items on a 0-4 scale. Third entry is the rank out of six pre-proposed categories.

N=2903


Table 7: Main Other Objectives by Country and Party Family

 

 

Socialist

Liberal

Conservative

France

Education
Racism

 

 

Spain

Housing
Living Conditions
Immigration

 

Housing
Immigration
Terrorism&Regionalism

Germany

Family
Gender Equality
Education

Civil Liberties
Bureaucracy
Education

Patriotism
Family
Education

Hungary

Education
Youth

 

Education
Youth
Freedom

Norway

Education
Internatl Solidarity
Poverty

 

Education
Freedom

UK

 

Rights
Freedom

 

 

Answers to the open-ended ‘other’ question were pooled when very similar (e.g. education and universities, or war in Iraq and foreign policy). Answers are reported when they were spontaneously mentioned by at least 3% of any given cell.

 

 

Tables 8a, 8b, 9a, and 9b report both the 'objective' and the self-perceived levels of activism of young party members. The differences across types of young party members are obvious, differences across countries are also interesting, with, for example, a greater propensity to engage in more radical forms of participation in Spain and in France...
 

Table 8a: Levels of Activism by Type of Member – Types of Activities

 

 

Moral

Social

Professional

Posters

1.68 (1.20)

1.54 (1.09)

1.71 (1.08)

Flyers

1.92 (1.05)

1.81 (1.02)

1.95 (0.99)

Convince

2.38 (0.80)

2.24 (0.85)

2.28 (0.86)

Debate

2.09 (1.00)

2.00 (0.99)

2.10 (0.94)

Demonstrate

1.50 (1.09)

1.25 (1.06)

1.18 (1.02)

Fight others

1.23 (1.07)

0.94 (0.94)

1.14 (1.01)

 

 

Table 8b: Levels of Activism by Type of Member – Self-Perception Scores:

 

 

Moral

Social

Professional

Very/Quite Active

19.7%

26.3%

17.7%

Not very/at all Active

79.3%

72.1%

80.7%

Average Index Score

2.97
(1.19)

2.76
(1.25)

3.04
(1.16)

 

Notes: Table 9a theoretical range is 0-3. Table 9b: theoretical range of the index score is 0-4. Percentage categories total does not add up to 100 because of the don’t know intermediary category.

N=2896 (table 8a) and 2911 (table 8b)


 

Table 9a: Levels and Forms of Activism by Country:

 

Country

Level of Activism

Convince

Debate

Hand Out Flyers

Put Posters

Demonstrate

Fight Other Parties

Germany

3.13(1.11)

2.22(0.87)
2

2.29(0.86)
1

2.02(0.96)
3

1.71(1.16)
4

1.24
(1.02)
5

0.90(0.93)
6

Spain

3.11 (1.00)

2.38 (0.80)
1

2.32 (0.81)
2

2.01 (0.95)
4

2.00 (1.04)
5

2.22
(0.82)
3

1.63 (1.10)
6

Hungary

3.10 (0.97)

2.03 (0.94)
4

2.08 (0.88)
3

2.21 (0.93)
2

2.27 (0.88)
1

1.48
(0.97)
5

1.28 (1.08)
6

France

2.93 (1.21)

2.42 (0.74)
2

2.70 (0.55)
1

2.25 (1.01)
3

1.94 (1.00)
5

2.22
(0.87)
4

1.51 (0.99)
6

UK

2.75 (1.26)

2.45 (0.82)
1

2.28 (0.88)
2

1.98 (1.00)
3

1.35 (1.12)
5=

1.35
(0.89)
5=

1.48 (0.91)
4

Norway

2.39 (1.39)

2.44 (0.76)
1

1.41 (1.05)
3

1.44 (1.07)
2

1.06 (0.98)
4

0.74
(0.87)
6

0.98 (0.95)
5

ALL

2.91 (1.21)

2.30 (0.84)
1

2.06 (0.98)
2

1.89 (1.02)
3

1.63 (1.13)
4

1.33
(1.07)
5

1.11 (1.02)
6

 

 

Table 9b: Levels and Forms of Activism by Party Family:

 

Party Family

Level of Activism

Convince

Debate

Hand Out Flyers

Put Posters

Demonstrate

Fight Other Parties

Socialist

3.08(1.09)

2.25 (0.85)
1

2.24 (0.88)
2

1.97 (0.96)
3

1.75 (1.12)
4=

1.75
(0.98)
4=

1.28 (1.03)
6

Liberal

2.85 (1.25)

2.26 (0.88)
1

2.17 (0.92)
2

1.87 (1.04)
3

1.61 (1.13)
4

0.70
(0.79)
5

0.60 (0.81)
4

Conserv.

2.64 (1.34)

2.42 (0.79)
1

1.69 (1.08)
3

1.74 (1.10)
2

1.44 (1.12)
4

0.83
(0.98)
6

1.00 (0.99)
5

ALL

2.91 (1.21)

2.30 (0.84)
1

2.06 (0.98)
2

1.89 (1.02)
3

1.63 (1.13)
4

1.33
(1.07)
5

1.11 (1.02)
6

 

Notes: Level of activism on a 0-4 scale, specific activities on a 0-3 scale. Standard deviations in brackets. Figures in bold represent the party family with the highest level for each type of activity.

 N=2896

 

Table 10 looks at the level of efficacy of young party members, that is, their impression that they can matter within their party. It also explores attitudes towards internal party democracy, relationship with other members and politics in general. Note, for example, some important differences when it comes to assessing whether politics is a profession but also whether party membership is interesting...

 


Table 10: Efficacy and Democratic Perceptions by Type of Members

 

 

Moral

Social

Professional

Efficacy

2.51 (1.00)

2.34** (1.05)

2.60** (0.95)

 

Politics profession

2.50** (1.40)

2.55 (1.37)

2.83** (1.28)

May

2.30* (1.27)

2.20 (1.30)

2.11* (1.30)

Listen

2.33** (1.26)

2.04** (1.26)

2.04* (1.25)

Older[negative]

1.79 (1.39)

1.77 (1.39)

1.83 (1.40)

New things

3.68** (0.71)

3.48** (0.90)

3.49* (0.89)

Interesting

3.20** (1.03)

3.06 (1.06)

2.94** (1.17)

 

 **: ANOVA test sig<0.01; *ANOVA sig <0.05

N=2919

 

Finally, tables 11 and 12 look at the expected future of young party members. Here again, the differences across types of young party members are very important. Professional-minded ones are far more likely to see themselves progressively climbing the steps of party hierarchy and electoral politics, but much less likely to consider joining a pressure group or trade union. Social minded members are less likely to consider having any political future at all. Table 12 proposes a multivariate model explaining what makes a young party member more or less likely to consider that in ten years, they will still be a party member, have been elected, taken a position of leadership, or joined another organisation. Once again, the type of membership proves to be a crucial element when it comes to understanding these differences...


Table 11: Expected Future of Membership by Type of Young Party Member

 

 

Moral

Social

Professional

Party Member

2.74** (0.55)

2.64* (0.64)

2.66 (0.64)

Elected

1.61 (1.00)

1.47** (0.98)

1.98** (0.94)

Leader

1.68 (0.88)

1.52** (0.85)

1.96** (0.85)

Other

1.66** (1.16)

1.46 (1.15)

1.37** (1.13)

 

Notes : Theoretical range : 0-4. Index score corresponding to each type of respondents’ average self perceived likelihood that in ten years, they will (1) still be a party member, (2) will have been elected to a public office or will have run for election, (3) will have taken a position of leadership within the party, and (4) will be a member of another organisation than a political party (pressure group, union, etc).

**: ANOVA test sig<0.01; *ANOVA sig <0.05

N=2904


Table 12: Membership Type and the Future of Political Involvement

 

In ten years, how likely is it that you will be…

Regression 1

Regression 2

Regression 3

Regression 4

Party Member

Candidate in elections

Position of Responsibility in party

Member of other organisation/union

Professional

-0.03 (004)

-0.02

0.39 (0.05)

0.21**

0.35 (0.04)

0.20**

-0.10 (0.07)

0.04

Moral

0.07 (0.03)

0.06*

0.06 (0.05)

0.03

0.10 (0.04)

0.05**

0.21 (0.06)

0.10**

Time Membership

0.01 (0.01)

0.07*

0.02(0.01)

0.06*

0.01 (0.01)

0.02

0.04 (0.01)

0.12**

Activism

0.08 (0.01)

0.15**

0.20 (0.02)

0.24**

0.18 (0.02)

0.24**

-0.11 (0.03)

-0.11**

Executive Function

0.02 (0.03)

0.02

0.19 (0.05)

0.09**

0.17 (0.05)

0.10**

0.23 (0.07)

0.10**

Efficacy

0.08 (0.01)

0.13**

0.18 (0.02)

0.17**

0.15 (0.02)

0.18**

-0.01 (0.03)

-0.01

Sex

-0.01(0.03)

-0.00

0.19 (0.04)

0.09**

0.13 (0.04)

0.07**

-0.10 (0.06)

-0.04

Age

0.00 (0.01)

0.00

0.01 (0.01)

0.02

0.00 (0.01)

0.00

-0.04 (0.01)

-0.08**

Constant

2.17 (0.14)

 

0.15 (0.21)

 

0.35 (0.19)

 

2.46 (0.28)

 

                                                                               

Adjusted R2

0.07

0.24

0.22

0.04

Change in Adj. R2

+0.01

+0.05

+0.04

+0.01

 

Notes: **: sign<0.01, *: sig<0.05. For each regression, figures in the first column represent the unstandardised regression coefficient with standard error in brackets. The results in the second column represent the standardised regression coefficient. The last row of the table represents the change in the adjusted R2 when compared to the same regression run without the professional and moral dummy variables.

N=2904

More results will follow soon!...

English | Français | Deutsch | Español | Magyar | Norsk
© www.youngpm.org