Main Findings

Did the reform affect turnout?

- How the lengthening of vocational upper secondary education from 2 to 3 years
affected voter turnout in the 2010 election
- There are substantial differences in electoral participation across different family
SES groups.
- Turnout is higher among those completing three-year vocational programs than
among those completing two-year programs
- The voting gap between the two educational groups is smaller for those individuals
from more advantaged backgrounds.
- Thus, having a longer time period for vocational voting programs might have
helped increase voter turnour, as well as equalize it.
o The reform had an effect on turnout on children from a low SES
background. A significant increase in voter turnour was observed.
o Children from higher SES usually don´t pursue vocational studies, so they
were less likely to be affected by the reform.
- The educational reform was a factor that helped lower the socioeconomic voting
gap by raising voter turnout among people with low SES.
- The return effect was more important than the resource effect in explaining the
shrinking of the social gap.
- This sugets than education might be a substitute for family social background in
the production of political participation. Education can help compensate for some
civic disadvantages crated by growing up in a lol SES family.

What the authors were able to find is that there are important differences in electoral
participation across family groups with different socioeconomic status.
- First, the study showed that students with a higher socioeconomic status usually
don´t pursue vocational studies, so they were much less likely to be affected by
the reform.
- On the other hand, within the students that were most affected by it, which
usually have a lower socioeconomic status, there was a higher voter turnout
within those completing three-year vocational programs than amongst those
completing two year programs.
- This means that having a longer study period for vocational programs might have
increase and equalize voter turnout among people with a low socioeconomic
background.
- It is also important to note that return effect was more important than the
resource effect in explaining the shrinking of the social gap.
- All of these findings suggest that education might act as a substitute for family
social background when it comes to civic education, which affects political
participation.

ROBUSTNESS
 - To prove the robustness of the analysis, the authors make sure to limit the effect
of the reform purely on the vocational program (as the academic program didn´t
go through any reform). By limiting the study to the vocational program, the
authors note that the reform effect increased from 3.1 to 4.5% for for the group of
low SES. The effect of the reform on individuals taking academic programs is
only .06%.
- There is no reform effect among those attending academic programs, which proves
that the findings were not due to unobserved trends at municipality level.
- The authors also try to test if there were any pre-reform (4 years) or post-reform
(8 years) trends in the data that could have affected the students ‘political turnout.
They found no statistically significant data that points to any pre-reform or post-
reform trends.
- The authors were careful in addressing the risk that the results might be affected
by the choice of grouping individuals in different quartiles accordint to their SES.
The authors resolve this doubt by analizing the variables in a continuous nature
instead of a discrete one (with the separation of quartiles). The results are the
same.
- The authors furthermore prove the robustness of the study by adding additional
sensitivity checks such asstudying more municipalities without vocational
programs and including individuals who didn not enroll in secondary school in the
analusis. The results are not affected by these checks.
- To prove that the findings were not due to unobserved trends at municipally
level, they compared the voter turnout within groups that studied the reformed
vocational program vs the ones that studied the academic program. There is no
significant effects on voter turnout within individuals taking academic programs,
meaning that the reform of vocational programs indeed affect voter turnout.
-

To prove the robustness of these results, the authors do a series of important checks and
controls.
- To test if there were any pre-reform or post-reform trends in the data that could
have affected the students ‘political turnout, the authors widened the years
studied in the sample. They found no statistically significant data that points to
any pre-reform or post-reform trends.
- The authors also addresses the risk that the results might be affected by the
choice of grouping individuals in different quartiles according to their Social
economic status. The authors discarded this by analizing the variables in a
continuous nature (with no quartile separation) instead of a discrete one (with
the separation of quartiles). The results were the same.

Mechanisms and implications

 - Now that the authors have found that extending education increases voter turnout
among low SES students, the question ow is what mechanisms explain this effect.
- There are other important unanswered questions:
o The findings can go beyond this particulas case of voting in Sweden?
o Is reducing the socioeconomic gap actually has important real-world
consequences? Do political attitudes and results change according to a
higher voter turnour caused by education?
Conclusion

- This paper addresses a common respond when academics get asked about how to
narrow the political opportunity gap: by improving educational opportunities.
- Howver, the particular importance of this paper is that this is the first study to
investigate the effect of education on voter turnout across different family
backgrounds.
- They provide proof that eual opportunities can help reduce political inequality.
- This is important on the real world as it shows the importance of well done
educational reforms that can target political opportunity gaps that currently
threaten democratic legitimacy in many countres.

- In conclusion, the paper addresses a common respond when academics get asked
about how to narrow the political opportunity gap: by improving educational
opportunities.

In conclusion, this paper gives empirical proof to a long-standing theory amongst

academics that improving educational oporunities is a factor that narrows the political
opportunity gap. Specifically, this study is important because it shows evidence of this
to investigate the effect of education on voter turnout across different family
backgrounds, not as a whole.

In conclusion, by investigating the effect of education on voter turnout across different

family backgrounds, this paper adds empirical proof to a long-standing theory amongst
academics: that improving educational oporunities is a factor that narrows the political
opportunity gap.
- This means that equal educational ooportunities are a factor that reduces
political inequality, which shows the important of developing well done
educational programs that target political opportunity gaps. this, hopefully,
might bring more democratic legitimacy to elections around the world
RESULTS

- The results show that students with a higher socioeconomic status usually don´t
pursue vocational studies, so they were less likely to be affected by the reform.
- On the other hand, within the students that were most affected by the reform,
which usually have a lower socioeconomic status, there was a higher voter
turnout within those completing three-year vocational programs than amongst
those completing two-year programs.
- This means that having a longer study period might equalize voter turnout
among people with a low socioeconomic background.
- It also suggest that education might act as a substitute for family social
background when it comes to civic education, which affects political
participation.

ROBUSTNESS

To prove the robustness of these results, the authors did a series of important checks and
controls. One important check they did is that, to test if there were any pre-reform or
post-reform trends in the data that could have affected the students ‘political turnout,
the authors widened the years studied in the sample. They found no statistically
significant data that points to any pre-reform or post-reform trends.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, by investigating the effect of education on voter turnout across different

family backgrounds, this paper adds empirical proof to a long-standing theory amongst
academics: that improving educational opportunities is a factor that narrows the
political opportunity gap.
- This shows the crucial importance of developing well done educational programs
that target these gaps, which hopefully contribute to building more legitimate
and strong democratic institutions across the world.