Wuolah Free APUNTES

APUNTES.
pdf
Anónimo
Actores Políticos y Acción Colectiva
2º Grado en Filosofía, Política y Economía
Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas. Campus Getafe

Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Reservados todos los derechos.

No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL SCIENCIE
Political Science as a Vocation, Robert O.Keohane.
1. Is political science truly a science?

 Keohane’s definition of science: “publicly known set of procedures designed to make and
evaluate descriptive and causal interferences on the basis of the self-conscious application
of methods that are themselves subject to public evaluation”
 Differences between social and basic (natural) sciences
o Generalizations, not laws (a few exceptions)
o Predictions (imperfect at best) – understanding the relationships
o Objectivity but not value-neutrality (peace vs. war, democracy vs. authoritarianism)
 Uncertain conclusions subject to revision or refutation (King, Keohane, and Verba 1994, 7-9)
 Political science is the study of politics through the procedures of science
2. What is politics?
Definition by Keohane: “involving attempts to organize human groups to determine internal rules
and, externally, to compete and cooperate with other organized groups; and reactions to such
attempts”
Politics =(NO) political science
3. The science in Political Science
 Puzzles – anomalies, no naïve questions – if you are puzzled, ask
 Conceptualization – being clear about the meaning of concepts, clear definitions,
consistency
o Avoid conceptual stretching (Sartori, 1970)
 Descriptive inference – “Inference means drawing more general conclusions from
established premises plus a particular set of facts” – for example, ‘Wealthy countries are
better democracies’
o Generalizations about a wide set of cases, or statements about events at a particular
time and place
o Inferences about individuals, about behaviour of collective actors, about relationships,
cross-level
o Is it valid (properly defined and operationalized) and is it reliable (data source,
replicability)?
o Difference between wink (guiño) and twich (tic) Cliford Geertz (1973)
o Not simply a description – it involves inference, from known to unknown, rests on the
interpretation
4. Causal interference. Not only correlation but also a causal relationship. CORRELATION IS NOT
CAUSATION!!!
 Direction of causality – ENDOGENEITY – the chicken and egg question

 Omitted variable bias
 Counterfactual – what if…
 Testing hypotheses quantitatively (surveys) or experimentallyWhy people choose cooperate or
not
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-5492166
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
INTRODUCTION TO COLLECTIVE ACTION
1. What is collective action? Some people who cooperate for a common propouse
2. Why is important?
a. Public goods (different types): public transport (everybody has the right to take a bus)
i. Problems
3. Collective action problem. People mainly act because their own interest. Rational choice theory 
is difficult for people act together
4. Posible solutions: what leads people to act together?
1. What is it? Mobs, gangs, cartels are forms of collective action as well as neighbourhood
associations, charities, voting, and organizing political parties
a. Asssociations
b. Political parties
c. Social movements
d. Presure grous
e. Groups of Friends
f. Groups of people
 Several people
 Common interest/common objective (every group has one)
Empathy? Feelings? We tend to cooperate with people we know because we trust and love them. We
have several interactions with them, we have reciprocity.
2. Why is it important?
Collectie action problems: Collective interest =(NO) individual interest.
Go on strike? Cost of action (alone against your boss or together?) You dont know how many people will
go to the strike but if you succed everybody wins. Free riders: people who dont go to the strike but they
benefit about it. Rational cooperate. (Any costs but you gain if the objective goa is archievable).
There will be no collective benefit  problem
Ex. Union – higher wages, worker – higher personal income (depends also on the lenght of work)
Any situation in which there is a conflict between individual rationallity and social welfare…
… so that individuals working in isolation produce a worse outcome tan they might if they could find
a way to coordinate
Why we dont trust people? The outcome of self interest is optimum for everybody. If they act for the
common good the outcome will be better.
 Not acting has implications… SUBOPTIMAL RESULTS (Pareto inefficiency)

 Mutual defense, survival, obtention of rights, improvement of the qualitiy of life…
Prisioner’s dilema.
Rational agents. Shelfish? They thing how the groups will react. VS Cold robots sociopaths. Useful? Plenty
of behaviour. We act rational, we count with benefits and costs of our actions. Emotional ties with people 
limited. Act conciously? Depends on the importance of it. Social norms requies socialization?
Economists = rational choice
Political science = rational choice (¿) relative.
1 coin = 1 pdf sin publicidad

Actores Políticos y Acción C...
Banco de apuntes de la
THE PARADOX OF COLLECTIVE ACTION
Since the suboptimal joint outcome is an equilibrium, no one is independently motivated to change their
choice, given the predicted choices of all others.
If we don’t know how the other will act, we will act according to our own interest.
If it is good for all… why does it not happen more often?
 Why don’t the prisoners cooperate with each other
 Why don’t workers cooperate with each other
MANCUR OLSON: “rational, self-interest individuals will not act to achieve their common or group
interests”. It is rational not to cooperate!
You cannot take for granted that groups of individuals with common interests will acto n behalf of their
common interests much as single individuals acto n behalf of their personal interests.
Why is it rational not to cooperate?
 Difficulties of collective action:
Distrust
Limited information
No communication  COSTS
Lack of resources (time, skills…)
Other things to do…
 Free-rider problem
Example. Key in an elevator in a neighbourhood? Only people who pays? Or everybody has the
right? Even the 5th person who didn’t pay? Negative incentives?
COOPERATION INVOLVES COSTS (time, don’t catch by the pólice) any action involves costs!
Possible solutions…
Why do people act together when they do?
1. Humans are selfish and rational and need incentives imposed by thirds (state, market) so that
benefits overcome the costs. (M.Olson)
2. Boundedly rational, norm-based human behaviour. Icentives without intervention by thirds (self-
regulation): trust, reputation, reciprocity (E.Ostrom). Society with certain rules, norms. Individual has
benefits of following the rules.
3. Altruism and shifting involvement (Hirschman). Social movements change things.
Mancur Olson (1932-1998)
 “The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods ant the Theory of Groups” (1965)
 Only when the benefits outweight the costs
 The key are individual ans selective incentives imposed by thirds
 “if the members of a large groups rationally seek to maximize their personal welfare, they will not act
to advance their common or group objectives unless there is coerción to forcé them to do so, or
unless some separate incentive, distinct from the archievement…”

Example and consequences
State as a provider of public goods – available to everyone – cannot finance its most basic and vital
activities without resot to compulsión (taxes) even with all of the emotional resources at its command
(national identity, patriotism, culture, indispensability of law and order).
“Just as a state support itself by voluntary contributions, or by selling its basic services on the market,
neither neither can other large organizations support themselves without providing some sanction, or
some attraction distinct from the public good itself, that will lead individuals to help hear the burdens of
maintaining the organization”
For Trade Unions – some form os compulsory membership is, in most circumstances, indispensable to
unión survival. Ex: voting compulsory.
Examples of incentives (negative and positive)
 Rules, sanctions, fines

 Lower fines in early payment
 Gifts, rewards
 Tax excemptions
 Also: social pressure (think about Covid). Rules work if you follow them.
Elinor Ostrom (1933-2021)
 Nobel Prize winner in 2009

 “Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action” (1990)
 Common goods can be effectively administered by a group of people without the intervention of the
state/privatization (excluding third people, reaching agreements, introducing sanctions…)
 Reciprocity and reputations to build trust
 Bounded rationality
 Heuristics and norms. Our brainks works to minimize the cost of information. Short cuts according to
your experience.
Governing of the Commons (Ostrom)
 How real-world communities manage comunal resources, such as fisheries, land irrigation systems,
and framlands.
 More succesful if:
1. Resources have definable boundaries (e.g., land)
2. Perceptible threat of resource depletion, and it mus be difficult to find substitutes
3. Presence of a community; small and stable, thick social network and social norms promoting
conservation.
4. Appropriate community-based rules and procedures in place with built-in incentives for
responsible use and punishments for overuse.
Fig 8.3. A framework linking structural variables to the core relationship is a focal dilemma arena.
Each actor has its own interests  action plan enviroment.

Each country wants a different thing.

Albert O. Hirschman.
 Self-interest – dominant human motive.

 BUT accumulation of goods  a feeling of disappointment
 Consumption standards grow = people must work harder just to hold their place. Stress grow.
People become less willing to devote resources to the public sphere, which begins to deteriorate.
Against this backdrop, disenchanted customers become incrasingly receptive to appeals from
the organizers of social movements. Eventually, a tipping point is reached. In growing numbers,
people peel away from their private rat race to devote energy to collective goals. The free-rider
problema ceases to inhibit them, not only because they now assign less value to private
consumption, but also because they find satisfaction in the very act contributing to the common
good. Activities viewed as costs by self-interests models are thus seen as benefits instead.
 A similar dynamic governs the pursuit of collective action. Although social movements often
comman substantial allegiance for many years, at some point their supporters’ commitment begins
to falter. When growing numbers of people actively dedícate themselves to the pursuit of civic virtue,
it becomes harder to earn moral approval by volunteering. When some discouraged volunteers
abandon the socilal movemento to resume pursuing private accumulation, remaining adherents feel
increasing pressure to do likewise. And at that poin the cycle is set to repeat.
 Inspirated clearily in America. Against robots. We live:
1. In a society
2. In a context (who influes us)
Further Reading
 Ostrom, E. (2007). Collective action theory. In C.Boix & C.Strokes (Eds.)

 Collective action problem. Encyclopaedia Britannica.
 Hall, D. and Kaye S. (2020). From coronavirus to policing, we can tackle racism by going local. The
Independent, 19 June 2020.
 PBS Documentary on Elinor and Vicent Ostrom: “Actual World, Possible Future”
DATA & ANALYSIS
OBJECTIVES:
 Get you acquainted with 2 of the main sources of public opinión data (surveys) with information on
political attitudes and participation
 Basic analysis online (descriptive, hypothesis testing…) so that you can include them in some of
your posts
TYPES OF DATA
 Individual-level: public opinión surveys such as the Euroepan Social Survey (ESS), Comparative
Study of Electoral Systems (CSES), Eurobarometer, World Value Survey, etc. Unit of analysis:
individual. Large N.
 Aggregate-level: statiscal data gathered by Eurostat, World Bank, OECD, etc: datasets put up by
scholars: Comparative Political Data Set, ParlGov etc: expert surveys: Chapel Hill Expert Survey
(CHES), Populism and Political Parties Expert Survey (Poppa) etc. Unit of anaylisis: country, región,
city, polítical parties, etc. Medium N.
 Cross-section (at one point in time) VS. Longitudinal (several years, panels)
 For a list see:
1. 2 años después la gente no recuerda a quien vota

2. Cuando preguntan antes de las elecciones la gente suele mentir
SESSION 6:
Voting Behavior:
 Party-line voting. Si tu familia ha sido siempre republicana y tú siempre apoyarás al candidato

republicano.
 Rational choice. Which candidate is going to benefit you the most (for their own well-being)
 Retrospective voting. Según lo que han hecho, consideras que ha sido bueno el último trimestre
bajo su mando y por ello les votas. Basado en el pasado.

Prospective voting. “Serán mejores para el país en los próximos 4 años”. No piensas en ti como tu
propio beneficio, sino in the country as a whole. You’re looking prospectively and thinking about the
candidate you think is gonna do a better job, so I’m gonna vote for her/him.
“The economy has been growing under Clinton so he has my vote”  Retrospective voting
“I’m a lifelong Democrat so Obama has my vote”  Party-line voting
“Bush has ideas that will be really good for this country so I’m going to vote for him” 
Prospective voting
“I think Mitt Romney will lower my taxes so I’m going to vote for him”  Rational choice
It’s not that everyone’s behavior falls clearly into one of these categories. It often times will be a mix of
these categories. In fact, often someone might say, “Hey, I like Obama because he’s a Democrat and I
think he’s going to be good for me and things might’ve been good under him”. Combination of all of
these.
Germany’s elections
Why people choose parties? Continuity or change? CHANGE. The greens’ve won in Berlin. Certain level
of volability quite high. Fragmented parties. More disperse although big parties continue winning a lot.
Attachment to the biggest parties.
ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR (Individual citizens as political actors)
Models of voting
What’s a model?
 Abstract, conceptual representation about the phenomena or processes to be explained

 Goal is to describe, explain, and predict social/political processes
 Information about the final outcomes once there is information about the inputs
Useful explaining why people choose who to vote. Prediction. Theoretical models.
The basic problem in voting.Participating is not rational. Your vote is not going to change the result
of the election.
 The paradox of voting

 Are citizens able to make (more or less) informed decisions in mass politics?
 Do they have the knowledge, understanding, and interest necessary for making political decisions –
i.e., voting?
One answer: the 1950s
“Our findings reveal that the assumend basic requirements for the functioning of democracy are not
present in the daily and current functioning of the average voters. (…) Many citizens vote without any real
implication in the elections, (…) do not have information on the details of the campaign (…) In a very
rigorous sense, voters are not very rational”

Another answer: the 1960s
Voters … “are almost completely incapable of judging governmental actions with some level of rationality;
know very little about particular issues and policies, and are not able to judge the means to obtain certain
ends. “In short, they are cognitively incapable and unable to understand public matters”
1968 revolutions (?)
From the paradox of voting…
Three premises:
 Elections are of paramount importance for democratic politics

 Voters should need some basic information about their decision
 But, voters are not informed
One major question
 Then, how can voters vote without information about what they are voting for?
*we have limited information. How can we vote rationally?
… to a major democratic dilemma
 If voters are ignorant, how can they make wise electoral decisions?
 Is it possible for voters to behave rationally if they lack information about politics?
 How can democracies produce virtuous electoral outcomes when most voters are uninformed?
… to another critical question
 Does political information matter?

 And why?
1. for controlling goverments when making policy decisions,
2. for avoiding political manipulation by political elites,
3. for implementing the accountability (rendición de cuentas) of both the incumbent and the
challengers,
4. for producing better electoral outcomes
1. More welfare
2. More quality of democracy
Four models of voting
1. Sociological  social characteristics matter

a. After Second World War, panel surveys, marketing.Paul Lazarsfeld, Bureau of Applied Social
Research, Columbia University, mid-1940s, Voting
Social features determine voting preferences – “one votes for a party what he/she socially is”
i. The logic:
1. Social environment
2. Common interests (religious)
3. Political Predisposition Index (PPIs)
4. Shared demands
5. Vote
ii. Two problems
1. What if voting shifts in stable societies?
2. What if there is stability in voting patterns over time?
iii. Social cleavages and voting: some patterns
1. Why are there Christian Democratic parties in Belgium or the Netherlands,
and not in France or Spain?

2. Why Communist parties have received much stronger support in Italy or
France than in Denmark or Sweden?
3. Why are there regional parties in Belgium or Spain, and not in Switzerland or
Germany?
How cleavages were born in Western Europe?
Critical juncture Conflict which was Final cleavage

generated
Protestant Reform Catholics vs. Protestants Religion
State citizens vs. Church
subjects
Some cultural
Building of Nation-State communities vs. other
cultural communities
Dominant center vs. Ethnic, regional
periphery
Rural landowners vs.
Industrial revolution urban entrepreneurs
Bourgeoisie vs. (manual) Social class
workers
Cleavage (politics) : división, escisión. What’s a cleavage?
 Social divides into two opposite camps

 Development of political values and identity processes within each camp
 Building of political organizations (parties, trade unions)
 Establishing political alignments within their camps
 History (?)
Functions of cleavages. Social divide into two opposite camps…
Therefore…
 Link social structure and political order

 Are forces which both shape and condition electoral behaviour
 When strong
1. Inelasticity of electoral choice
2. Voters as prisoners inside their camps
3. No problems of information
What’s a ideology?
 A relatively coherent set of principles and values which oritent political action
 Works as a “organizer” power which unifies the myriad of public issues/preferences in modern
societies
 Those issues/preferences are connected with principles and values
 Ideology as a compass  coping with political life
 Ideology as a heuristic device  shortcut, cue for solving the problem of information
 Parties have ideologies – reputation
 Strong connection between ideology and voting
2. Psychological  identify with a given party matters

a. In the mid-1960s, University of Michigan, civic culture. (attachment), party identification
Cambell, converse, Miller, and Stokes, University of Michigan. The American Voter Unabridged Edition.

Inherited through family, strengthened with age – “ one votes the party with which he/she is identified
with”
 The logic:
1. Politics as complex phenomena
2. Party identification as both a mechanism for simplification and an emotional allegiance to a
party
3. Voting
4. The Michigan model of voting
5. Five positions
1. Most electors feel a general allegiance to a party – inherited from the family, learnt
from others, instilled by media…
2. Party identification strengthens with length of life
3. Main functions are to cope with politics and to know which party to vote for
4. Normal vote – expected results (if there are not short-terms forces against party)
5. Homing tendency – counteracting short-term forces for voting against party
*people in Europe don’t like to identify with a party. Tends not to affiliate.
- Problems:
What if dealignment, and party id. Weakens? [Realigment vs. Dealigment]
Which direction of causality?
3. Rational  rationality and economics matter

a. In the late 1950s, downs, disinformation as rational
b. State of the economy in the last few years
Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy, politics as economics
 Voting is (individually) instrumental – not expression of group interests. nor sign to loyalties
 The logic:
1. Voters as rational consumers  utility incomes, costs, calculus of party differentials  voting
2. Voters as omniscient vis-à-vis their voting decision
3. Voters as rationally ignorant
 The outcome  voters vote for the party which will bring them more benefits
 Voting is (individually) instrumental – not expression of group interests, nor sign to loyalties
 Problems
1. What if there is no perfect information?
2. What if there are emotions, passions, biases?
 Voters base their choice on particular issues that are salient at election. (immigration is not
interesting right now in Germany’s elections)
 Four conditions:
1. Voters have to have an opinion on a set of issues
2. Those issues should be salient for citizens
3. Citizens should have information about the party positions on that same set of issues
4. Parties should enjoy credibility
Edward Tufte (1978) on economic voting…
“When you think economics, think elections. And when you think elections, think economics”.
GDP decreases  people wants off the government
4. Bounded rationality  limits to voters’ information
a. In the late 1990s, heuristics, cues to overcome problems of information
b. Different solutions, rationality has limits.
Samuel Popkin, The reasoning voter, 1995, limitations to information and still possible to make a
rational/reasonable decision
Information is limited and is very difficult to be completely informed.
Voters have…
 Limited amount of information about politics

 Limited knowledge of how government works
 Limited ability to connect government action to consequences of immediate concern
But there are means to acquire and asses political information with low cost and time: shortcuts,
cues, heuristics
Low cost benefit action
Heuristics
 Is an adjective for experience-based techniques that help in problem solving, learning and discovery
 A heuristic model is particularly used to rapidly come to a solution that is hoped to be close to the
best possible answer, or “optimal solution”
 Heuristics are “rules of thumb”, educated guesses, intuitive judgments, or simply common sense
 Heuristic devices:
As a consequence, poor informed citizens can act as if they were well informed citizens
1. Partisanship or party identification

2. Ideological identification
3. Public opinion (through surveys, polls…)
4. Personal features of leaders (race, gender, occupation)
5. Endorsement by social organizations
6. Voting intermediaries – family, friends, neighbours, workmates --, and
7. Media, particularly in electoral campaigns
Ideology & Valence
Table 1: Voting considerations and voting behaviour models
Long term Short term

Ideological Ideological voting Issue voting (i.e.
considerations immigration)
Non-ideological Party loyalty Valence
considerations
Approaches to voting

APPROACHES FACTORS CHARACTERISTICS EXAMPLES
 Social class
POLITICAL Social position,  Exogeneous  Ethnic origin
SOCIOLOGY social and economic  Stable  Education level
Columbia School resources  Socio-economic
position
 Political interest
 Party id
 Primary and  Nationalism
secondary  Religiosity
POLITICAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Values, attitudes, socialization  Ideology
perceptions  Stable (left/right)
Michigan School
 Materialist/Post-
materialist values
 Evaluation of
 Utility results (economy)
POLITICAL maximization  Evaluation of how
ECONOMY Costs/benefits  Short term the
calculations context/institutions
Rational choice
affect the vote
Funnel of causality (US voter)
Long term determinants – short term determinants
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION I: ELECTORAL
What is political participation?
‘Political participation refers to those activities by private citizens that are more or less directly aimed at
influencing the selection of governmental personnel and/or the actions they take’ (Verba and Nie 1972:2) 
short. Assume that political participation is only governance.
‘Action by ordinary citizens directed toward influencing some political outcomes’ (Brady 1999)
Types of political participation
Electoral vs Non-electoral
 Electoral:
Vote
 Non-electoral:
Conventional (associations, contact)
Protest (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts…)

Difference between electoral and non-electoral  Costs
Intensity and frequency of participation.
Intensity
Low High
Frequency Low Parliamentary elections General strike
High Signing a petition at change.org Political activism
Figure 13.1. A typology of the modes of political participation. Teorell, Torcal and Montero: Representational
and extra-presentational/Exit-based and voice-based (Mechanism of influence/Channel of expression).
Dimensions and effects of political participation
 Multidimensionality of participation
 Different effects:
1. Initiative  big/small
2. Influence  high/low
3. Grade of conflict  high/low
4. Results  collective/individual
Why is it important?
Robert A. Dahl – Voice of the citizens. If they don’t speak, politicians will not hear. If some speak louder,
they will be more likely to be Heard.  inequality. Include everybody the inequality will be probably lower.
Verba et al. (1995:1) – ‘Citizen participation is at the heart of democracy. Indeed, democracy is unthinkable
without the ability of citizens to participate freely in the government process’
Participation and inequality. S.M.Lipset.
 Is participation necessary for democracy?

 Does it increase or decrease inequality?
 Participation depends on the resources (cognitive/material) at disposal
 Would it be good if all citizens participated?
Participatory theories VS Elitist theories
Participatory theories Elitist theories

Ancient Greece 18th century. Division of labour
Informed and active citizens Informed citizens choose more
wisely
Participation = better citizen VS Better candidates chosen

Insatisfaction leads to non- Non-participation can be a sign
participation of satisfaction with the system.
Free to abstain
Difficult to implement Mario Vargas Llosa
Not representative
Different forms of participation, different conceptions of democracy
 Representative vs. Participatory democracy

 Elitist democracy vs. Pluralist democracy
 Interest-based vs. Deliberative democracy
How to increase the quantity and quality of participation?
(1) Apathetics, or those withdrawn from the political

process
(2) Spectators, or those showing minimal
Level of enagement in politics (Milbtrath, 1977) involvement, who have decided to be engaged at a
basic level
(3) Gladiators, or “active combatants” in the political
system
Constant participants
Stability of engagement (Campbell at al.1960) Constant abstentionists
Intermittent participants/abstentionists
CONVENTIONAL – voting, informing oneself about
politics, contacting politicians, working for a party or
Types of participation – Active (Conformists, a candidate
Reformists, Contestors, Activists) VS. Inactive NON-CONVENTIONAL – mild civil disobedience
(Barnes&Kasse, 1979) (e.g. launching petitions, demonstrations, boycotts,
strikes) to forms of violent acts (e.g. occupying
buildings, public blockades, damage to property,
violence)
ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION
Individual and contextual explanations
Two ways of explaining electoral participation (or abstention). Social integration (you vote because of the
interest of your family, friends…). Anduiza: Interaction of the individual and contextual factors.
1. Individual characteristics: age, education, income, civil status, interest in politics, party id, etc.
Individual level
 Attitudes towards politics: interest, level of engagement
 Sociodemographic: people with fewer resources (education, income, experience) higher
costs  lower participation rates
 Likelihood of voting increases with age (up to a point), with income and social integration
(operationalized for example as civil status and religious services attendance)
Individual factors
 The impact of individual factors on abstention differs cross-nationally – bigger in Sweden,
Switzerland, Italy and Holland; smaller in Spain, Portugal, Greece or Ireland
 Stronger negative effects at the individual level where less abstention
 Related mostly to distribution of resources and the sense of civic duty
 Ideology and vote
2. Contextual factors: compulsory voting, proportional electoral system, competitiveness of elections

Political context
 Characteristics of elections (relevance and competitiveness)
 Characteristics of parties and party systems (number of parties, polarization)
 Characteristics of the electoral system (proportional representation, electoral tresholds,
voting on Sunday, postal)
Institutional incentives
 Compulsory voting in Greece and Belgium, partially in Austria and Switzerland, Australia,
Bolivia, Brazil etc. Reduces abstention about 9%
 Vote facilitating rules. Reduce abstention about 6%
i. Postal
ii. Anticipated
iii. Sunday
iv. Two days
v. Number of booths
Socio-economic context
vi. Participation tends to be higher in richer countries
vii. No clear relationship between turnout and state of the economy
viii. Clear relationship with the size of the country
Second order elections
Reasons: Outcomes:
 Higher abstention
 Less important  Less support for the incumbent
 Less at stake  Better results for small/niche parties
 Midterm elections/ European /Municipal  Window of opportunity for new parties
 Lower level of strategic voting

Gráfico 2. Participación en elecciones generales, autonómicas, municipales y europeas
Number of parties
Higher turnout with more parties?
Champús en el supermercado. ¿Mejor 3 que 15?
Conclusions of the graph: The probability of voting
Interaction between individual and contextual factors
 Preference expression (open electoral lists) x Educational level

 Sometimes same contextual factor (open electoral lists) can be a benefit for those with more
resources, and a cost for those with less resources
Electoral turnout levels are falling

Why is it?
One response: Theory of voting as a habit (Pultzer, Franklin) – electoral competitiveness
Voting is a habit (Converse, 1969; Plutzer, 2002; Franklin, 2004)
Voting is a habit. People learn the habit of voting, or not, based on experience in their first few
elections. Elections that do not stimulate high turnout among young adults leave a “footprint” of low
turnout in the age structure of the electorate as many individuals who were new at those elections
fail to vote at subsequent elections. (Franklin, 2004)
Other response: Citizens growingly critical (Norris) – cognitive mobilization (Dalton) – they choose
other forms of participation
* Less competitive elections, outside of home (because of studies, less pressure of our parents)
Rational choice and turnout
 Preferences (attitudes, values, beliefs) determine behaviour

 Rational choice theory = how do they do it?
 The vote is individually instrumental, given that the rational choice assumes that action is oriented at
obtaining results that are of highest utility for the individual. Vote as an investment to obtain one’s
goals
 The costs of participation in elections (instead of abstaining): getting and processing information,
deciding, costs related to registering and getting to the polls
 There also costs of abstention – what would people say? – they also have to be taken into account
to perform a rational decisions
Basic model of electoral rational choice
- If I vote, it’s better to support my preferred candidate

- It is rational to abstain if my preferred candidate will win or loose by more than one vote, and if he or
she wins by one vote
- If the result is a draw or if my candidate will loose by a single vote, it is rational to vote if the costs of
voting are lower than half of the utility of my preferred candidate winning
Calculus of voting
- Downs (1957), Riker y Ordeshook (1969)

- Probability of voting = P (probability of vote mattering) * B (utility benefit – differential of one
candidate winning over the other) + D (civic duty) – C (costs of voting)
- P is higher if elections are competitive. It also depends on the size of the constituency
- C is usually low, but it depends on resources
Shortcomings of basic rational choice model
- If we vote because of civic duty, it’s not only rational

- An instrumental vote model does not help to explain non-instrumental vote
- The paradox of not voting – it’s way more rational to abstain
Minimax regret models
- Ferejohn and Fiorina (1974,1975)

- People many times do not calculate the probabilities, sometimes they can’t
- Citizens are uncertain about choosing rationally optimal decision. If someone abstains, and his or
her candidate looses by one vote, the regret will be very strong. The minimax regret rule
incorporates this notion to the calculus
- The rule states that it is rational to vote if the costs of voting are lower than ¼ of utility

Shortcomings of minimax regret
- Still calculating probabilities

- What about voting for second preference candidate (something rational if we think that our first
preference has no way of winning)? Strategic voting
Aldrich: low-cost, low benefit
- Low cost
- Low-benefit
- Politicians are strategists
- Money put into the campaigns  higher turnout
- Why is turnout decreasing in the US?
- Lower party ID, lower political efficacy, governments not responsive, residential mobility
Q1: SHOULD VOTING BE COMPULSORY? (Martínez i Coma)
If voting is the most egalitarian form of participation… should voting be compulsory?
IN FAVOUR AGAINST
- It would reduce inequalities in - Coercion (against individual liberty), post-
representation authoritarian societies, enforced, sanctioned
- We would know the vote choice of all (no - Poor quality votes – lack of information –
silent majority) easy to convince by influencers
- Better representation and accountability to - Other forms of participation
all
Q2: SHOULD VOTING AT 16 BE ALLOWED?
Australia.
Last lab session (LAB 3). CIS – Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas

How the people who are your age perceive things compared to other age groups? Economy – health
(young people don’t care about COVID so they are more worried about economy).
Vote intention and age?
- They grow up with them (psicological model)

- Stability
- Social structure
- Want to keep their money (or not)
- Social cleavages  environment (things that older people lose in their thought and young people
start to think)
Turnout and age? Participation-age
Face setting questions. Hability bias.
Public opinion companies know there are people who is in one and another side and they have it on
account. Predicting behaviour is impossible. Make big mistakes. Estimation of the vote (US) is not sciencie,
instead of predictable variables. Most of the companies are kind of secret. Even the CIS is not transparent
on how they do it.
Some examples of hypotheses related to the 3 schools…
QUESTION 1: Which characteristics lead people to vote vs. abstain?
H1.1: Having more cognitive resources (education) increases the probablitiy to vote
H1.2: Being identified with a party increases the likelihood to vote
H1.3: Having a negative evaluation of the political/economic situation increases the probability to abstain
QUESTION 2: Which characteristics lead people to vote for PP?
H2.1: Belonging to an upper class increases the likelihood to vote for PP
H2.2: Positioning oneself towards the right of the ideological scale…
H2.3: Making a positive evaluation of the government’s actions…
Information (theory)  hypothesis  test it
SESSION 10.
Participacicón ciudadana y decisioens públicas: conceptos, experiencias y metodologías. (Joan Font)
“Movilización cognitiva”  no se conforman con desarrollar el rol pasivo, exigen más
Monopolio del saber de técnicos y políticos
“Públicos temáticos”  personas que actúan como el ciudadano perfecto (informado y activo) en algunos
temas o ámbitos políticos (medio ambiente, relaciones entre géneros…), a la vez que se comportan como
espectadores apáticos en muchas otras áreas.
“Crisis representativa” generada por cambios en los ciudadanos y la política.
Tiempo disponible finito, sometido a múltiples presiones  recurso preciado, valioso y a respetar.
“Podemos esperar que los ciudadanos participen, pero no que vivan para participar”.
Distribución radicalmente desigual factores: (muy desigual distribución social)  intensidad de

participación desigual (muy activos vs. Pasividad). Energías participativas limitadas y hay que ser
respetuoso con ellas.
1. Tiempo libre disponible (capacidad económica para “comprar tiempo libre”)

2. Recursos educativos
3. Capacidad de acceder y comprender informaciones políticas
4. Interés/sentimiento uno debe/es capaz de participar, el placer que se obtiene
Ciudadanos cada vez más preparados (educación secundaria) vs. Vida política cada vez más compleja.
1. Reforzar el sector asociativo

2. Buscar la participación del ciudadano no organizado
a. Democracia deliberativa
b. Redes informáticas (internet, jóvenes)
3. Potenciar un cambio hacia una cultura más participativa
Preferencias políticas:
1. Extensión
2. Intensidad

1. Mecanismos de consulta a las comunidades. Consejo o comisión generalmente con representación
municipal.
a. Alemania. Grandes ciudades, miembros elegidos directamente por los ciudadanos.
b. Francia, 1982, París, Lyon y Marsella. Composición mixta. Concejales y ciudadanos electos.
c. Suecia. Designados por los partidos en proporción con su peso electoral.
d. Noruega
i. Formados desde la sociedad civil
ii. Formados desde iniciativa municipal
e. Gran Bretaña. Plural
i. Consejos con miembros elegidos directamente por los ciudadanos
ii. Mixtas con miembros de asociaciones
2. Mecanismos deliberativos
3. Mecanismos de democracia directa
4. Otros mecanismos
Cuadro 1. Mecanismos aconsejables y deficitarios en función de varios criterios.
Criterio Aconsejable Deficitario

Representatividad Jurado Consejo consultivo
Encuesta deliberativa Internet (hoy)
Grado de información Consejo consultivo Referéndum
Jurado Encuestas
Capacidad educativa Presupuesto participativo Consejo consultivo
Planes estratégicos Referéndum
Extensión Referéndum Jurado
Presupuesto participativo Consejo consultivo
Coste/dificultad organizativa Consejo consultivo Encuesta deliberativa
Fórum ambiental Presupuesto participativo
Impacto en políticas Referéndum Encuesta deliberativa
Presupuesto participativo Internet
Political participation: Non-electoral
1. Social participation. Associations
SOCIAL vs. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
Definición de asociación:
“Grupo formalmente organizado y con un nombre, la mayoría de cuyos miembros (personas u

organizaciones) no están recompensados económicamente por su participación” (Morales y Mota, 2996;
Knoke 1986)
Un factor explicativo determinante: EL CAPITAL SOCIAL
1. Redes sociales (lazos de parentesco, redes comunitarias informales…)
Requieren inversión de tiempo y dedicación, pero permiten obtener beneficios en forma de flujos de
solidaridad, capacidad de defensa de intereses y derechos, obtención de información, etc.
2. Normas sociales que las alimentan

Relativas a voluntariedad, altruismo y derechos comúnmente aceptados
3. Vínculos sociales que generan

2. Garantizan un entramado de obligaciones y expectativas recíprocas
3. A su vez hacen posible la cooperación
Otro factor explicativo determinante: LA CONFIANZA SOCIAL

“Se puede confiar en la gente” vs. “Normalmente la gente trata de aprovecharse de mí”
Tipos:
 Particularizada: en gente que conocemos

 Generalizada: en gente que nos es ajena
 En personas (social trust)

 En instituciones (political trust)
Tipos o dimensiones de la participación política:
1. Voting
 Vote in partliamentary elections
 Abstain from voting out of protest
2. Involvement in political parties
 Have membership
 Participate in party activities
 Donate money
 Do voluntary work
3. Attempts to influence society
 Contact a politician
 Contact an organisation
 Contact a civil servant
 Work in a political party
 Work in a political action group
 Work in other organisation
 Wear or display badge/sticker
 Sign a petition
 Take part in a public demonstration
 Take part in a strike
 Boycott certain products
 Buy certain products
 Donate money
 Raise funds
 Contact/appear in the media
 Contact solicitor/judicial body
 Participate in illegal protest activities
 Attend a political meeting/rally
 Use internet to influence society
Figure 13.1 A typology of the modes of political participation (Teorell, Torcal and Montero)

Reading. The Cartel Party Thesis: A Restatement
The cartel party thesis holds that political parties increasingly function like cartels, employing the resources
of the state to limit political competition and ensure their own electoral success.
We put on the increasing dependence of parties in many countries on public financial subventions.
Interparty collusion or cooperation as well as competition, and as a way of emphasizing the influence of the
state on party development.
Parties without Partisans have suggested that the hypothesis is indeed valid, and that it is evidenced, inter
alia, by the sharp decline in party membership in the 1990s, by the consistently declining levels of party
identification, and by the more erratic but nonetheless pronounced falls in turnout.
First, parties are increasingly part of the state, and increasingly removed from society, and this new
situation encourages them, or even forces them, to cooperate with one another. Second, these parties
increasingly resemble one another; in terms of their electorates, policies, goals, styles, there is less and less
dividing them – their interests are now much more shared, and this also facilitates cooperation. A very
important part of their shared interest is to contain the cost of losing.
The rise of mass society and the welfare state (mass media and mass culture, mass education, near
universal provision for health care, unemployment, and old age insurance) reduced the value of appeals to
class or cultural solidarity  “cognitive mobilization” (Ronald Inglehart and Russell Dalton)
Cartels face two potential threats:
1. Defection
2. Challenge from new entrants
Structuring of institutions such as the financial subvention regime, ballot access requirements, and
media access in ways that disadvantage challengers from outside.
It is evident that the growing incorporation of parties within the state, their increasingly shared purpose and
identity, and the ever more visible gap that separates them from the wider society, have contributed to
provoking a degree of popular mistrust and disaffection that is without precedent in the post-war
experiences of the long-established democracies.
Do we see regulatory regimes concerning parties moving away from those imposed on all associations in
civil society and toward those normally deemed appropriate for state entities? Do we see the balance of
state resources going to parties currently in government versus those going to potentially but not currently
governing parties shifting toward greater equality? Do we see policies regarding such policies as state
subventions and ballot access that tend to favour parties in a cartel over those outside it?
Party strategies are much more likely to be conditioned by national contexts than by some more abstract or
transnational purpose or ideology.
The third research agenda addresses the questions of how democracy can be organized, legitimized, and
maintained under these emerging conditions.
The irony is that while the emergence of a cartel party system is generally seen as a danger to democratic
government, these non-political modes of governance are often presented as exemplary forms of
democratic politics, even though it is less than clear that they promise any more civic engagement or
accountability than political parties, however cartelized they may be.
Reading. The emergence of parties and party systems.
Political parties and Party Systems I
 What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you think about political parties?
Maximatim power, ideology in the agenda, representative organizations, membership, fight for
people’s interest, vote, etc.
 What is a political party?

 Antony Downs
“A political party is a team of men seeking to control the governing apparatus by gaining
office in a duly constituted election”
 Giovanni Sartori
“Any political group identified by an official label that runs in elections, and is capable of
placing, through election, candidates for public office”
 Carles Boix
“stable organizations through which politicians coordinate their political activity across
electoral districts, in parliamentary assemblies, and in executive or governmental
committees”(Institutional definition). For instance, Czchek republic, be stable? Present not
only in government but also parliament. PSOE congress this weekend.
 What makes it different from other organizations? What makes political parties different from other
collective actors such as social movements and pressure groups?
For instance, 15 M Podemos.
Objectives Votes, office, policies

Interests represented Public (vs private in political parties, i.e electric
lobbies who try to influence them)
Many (their voters)
Self-proclaimed
Function Aggregation of interests
Specialization None (general, they follow ideologies, different
branches of social activity)
Organization Formal (name, label, official register)
Efficacy
Hierarchical
Channels they use Conventional/Institutional
Elections
Relationship with members Rules
Origins of modern parties
The first: 1820s-1830s USA, 1850s UK; by WW I well-organized parties in all representative democracies.
Different from “factions” in the firs assemblies – more cohesion, discipline, program, mobilization.
2 sequences of party formation (Sartori, 1976):
1. Organizations that go search for votes outside Parliament (in-out; UK; Conservative; Liberal)
2. Organizations that articulate the political interests of different sectors in society (out-in; Denmark;
Socialists, Communist, Christian-democrats)
Linked to 2 historical phenomena:
 Transfer of power from the Monarchy to Parliament (Parliamentarization)

 Extension of voting rights (Reform Act [1832] in the UK, extended voting rights, but still not universal
suffrage)

 What is their main objective? Different objectives can be prioritized at different moments…
According to Rational Choice theory… parties are rational (obtain the most benefit they can)
1. Office seeking
 Coalitions: Any coalition is admissible, in principle. Greece (left and extreme
right)/Catalonia (nationalism)
 Parties want to maximize their control of elected office (government portfolios)
2. Policy seeking (most important)
 Policy-based coalition theory: coalitions will be made by parties that are “connected”
 Intra-party democracy: election of the candidate
3. Vote seeking
 Downs (1957)
Vote maximizers: they want to control government, but HOW? Spatial models of
party competition.
 Parties seek the “median voter”. There are more people in the middle.
 Median voter theorem: the outcome of majority voting is the option most
preferred by the median voter
 The third way (Tony Blair, Labour) the left should go to the center and they
gonna win and rule. And it worked. This shift left the Labour party in the
middle  differences. (According to the context). Mixt economy, centralism
and reformism.

Types of parties and evolution
1. CADRE
 19th c. Liberalism
 Nobles that are already in Parliament/Government
 They only mobilize for elections (limited suffrage – propertied men)
 Personal clienteles
 No specific program
2. MASS
 As right to suffrage expands (end 19th c.)
 Hightened role of the state
 Created by those excluded/in opposition (workers, religious minorities, national
minorities)
 They claim participation
 Permanent organization, many members, explicit program
 Socialist parties – trade unions endorsement
 Examples: SPD (Germany), Labour Party (UK)
“Iron law of Oligarchy” – Michels (1911)
 “Political parties” – SPD

 All parties, in practice, pyramidal and not very democratic
 Inevitable in all organization
 Regardless of participative and democratic practices
Reasons:
1. Specialization and organizational abilities of elites

2. Leaders from cohesive groups to reinforce their power position
3. Grass roots members tend to be apathetic and willing to follow leaders
According to McKenzie: it is parliamentary elites that control parties (1955)

3. CATCH-ALL
(Kirchhneimer, 1966)
 Welfare state, media, growth of middle classes, state funding of parties
 Aim at biggest number of voters possible (big voter coalitions vs. social class)
 Little emphasis on ideology and members. More emphasis on leaders and
unity/cohesion; Professionalization (increased costs of defeat)
 Parties as brokers among social groups and between social groups and the state, rather
than as the political arms of specific groups
 Examples: CDU (Germany), US, most parties today (also SPD and Labour Party)
4. CARTEL
(Katz and Mair, 1992)

“The cartel party thesis holds that political parties increasingly function like cartels, employing the
resources of the state to limit political competition and ensure their own electoral success”
 70s onwards  Parties “work for the State” (not for the people)
 Cartel: advantage position
o Other parties cannot enter
o Agreements on public policies
o Privileged access to state funding and media
 Big role of professional politicians in public office
 Marginal role of party members
 Parties decide on the laws and rules about parties  own security and survival
 Should parties be financed by the state? Transparent and accountable. US  dependence on

favours, influence private interests and lobbies (elites finance their favourites candidates).
 Can you imagine modern liberal democracy without parties?
George Washington arremetió contra los partidos políticos por permitir que "hombres astutos, ambiciosos y
sin principios" "subvertieran el poder del pueblo". Parece ser un fenómeno internacional. En Europa, por
ejemplo, los partidos de centro izquierda tradicionalmente poderosos están siendo acusados de ignorar a
sus votantes.Sitemas meritocráticos. Landmore: sería designar al azar a grupos de ciudadanos , elegidos
de manera similar a los jurados actuales, para dirigir el gobierno, mientras se rotan en términos fijos a
través de una "Casa del Pueblo" permanente. En 2019-20, Francia celebró una Convención de Ciudadanos
sobre el Clima, en la que se pidió a 150 ciudadanos elegidos al azar que ayudaran a idear formas
socialmente justas de reducir los gases de efecto invernadero. En diciembre de 2020, el presidente francés
acordó celebrar un referéndum sobre una de las sugerencias de la convención, la inclusión de la
protección del clima en la constitución nacional.
Y en 2016, el Parlamento irlandés reunió a 99 ciudadanos para deliberar sobre cuestiones difíciles, incluida
la prohibición constitucional del aborto. Una mayoría de la asamblea propuso que se anulara la prohibición,
después de lo cual un referéndum nacional confirmó el resultado y cambió la ley, todo logrado sin la
participación de los partidos políticos establecidos.
 Do parties need to be democratic inside (intraparty democracy) to run a high-quality democratic
government?
Para reducir aún más el riesgo de que las primarias aumenten la polarización, Shapiro propone que se
permita a los líderes de los partidos elegir candidatos si la participación en una elección primaria ha
caído por debajo del 75% de la participación en las elecciones generales anteriores. Los partidos
cumplen muchas otras funciones importantes, incluida la facilitación del compromiso, dice Russell
Muirhead.
Reading. Three is a crowd? Podemos, Ciudadanos and Vox: The End of Bipartisanship in Spain
80s: center-left PSOE/conservative PP  multipary system  emergence of three new parties:
1. Podemos. 2014 Europeann Parliament elections. Grow rapidly among the dissatisfied voters. 3rd
electoral position 2015 general elections
2. Liberal center Ciudadanos (4th political force). Corruption scandals PP’s + secession in Catalonia
3. Radical right Vox. PP’s Prime Minister after motion of no confidence. 15% parliament nov. 2019
Emergence of new parties after the Great Recession in Europe:
1. Movimiento Cinque Stelle (Italy, 2013)

2. La République En Marche (France, 2016)
3. Alternative for Germany (AfD, 2013)
Door for the entrance of these Spanish new parties:
1. Political factors (corruption scandals + crisis of traditional parties + catalan secession process 
territorial crisis)
2. Sociological factors (age + education)
*more proportional second-order (regional and European) elections
*cultural issues (gender and migration)
What is a party system?
 Regular interactions between parties (Stable)

 Maurice Duverger (1954) is the first one to use the term
 Criteria
 Number of parties
 Relative size
 Boycott/coalition potential
 Geographical arena
 Ideological distance (left-right)
 Dimensions of competition (cleavages); the way parties compete (religious, ethnic cleavage)
Why is it important to analyse them?
o System stability
o Facility to form government (party system, how many parties there are…) Netherlands
(proportional) vs. British, US (majority, bipartisanship), no-culture for coalition…
o Legitimacy
o Voting behaviour (strategic voting…)
Origins: Why do party systems differ?
 Sociological approach: social divisions (cleavages) (S.Lipset y S.Rokkan)

 (Neo)institutional approach: electoral systems (M.Duverger). Institution determine the way
parties interact between them.
Seymur Lipset y Stein Rokkan. Party systems and Voter Alignments: Cross National Perspectives (1967).
 Cleavages
o Divisions according to:
 Individuals ‘position in society’
 + the degree to which they feel that division
 + whether parties form along those lines
o * Industrial Revolution and Construction of Nation states XIX C.:
 Centre vs. periphery (Territorial)
 State vs. Church (Religious)
 Owner vs. worker (social class)
 Land vs. industry (Rural/urban)
o *Exogenous: they do not depend on the individual’s will (i.e. a catholic atheist of a protestant
state)
Duverger’s laws
Electoral (laws) systems and party systems are connected…they determine the electoral system’s shape.
1. Plurality (firs-past-the-post) leads to bipartisan systems

2. Double-ballot majority and proportional systems favour multi-partisan systems
This is the product of 2 effects:
 Mechanical (no seats to distribute)

 Psychological (voters anticipate that their votes will be wasted). Rural areas tend to vote
mainstream parties (it will have more impact).
In Spain if you don’t get the 50% of the votes, you’re under-represented. (IU’s history).
Changes in party systems
 Stability since the 20th to the 60s

 Defreezing of cleavages from the 70s on
 Liberals and Communists vanish or change (social class is less important), invasion
Czechoslovakia, Cuba…
 Crisis of Christian democrats and Social-democrats
 New parties: Green, Populist
 Volatility
Types of party systems.
Giovanni Sartori (“Parties and Party Systems”, 1976)
Criteria:
 Strength (% seats)
 Coalition/blackmail potential
 Polarization

*Belgium (5,7 parties), Poland.
Main indicators of party systems
1. COMPETITIVENESS. (Perceived) difference between the main two parties in an election.

2. CONCENTRATION. Sum of the votes of the 2 most voted parties.
3. PARTY FRAGMENTATION: “EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARTIES” (ENP)
How many parties the system would have if all the parties had the same size?
Laakso y Taagepera/Rae
 Weighted
 We can compare the nb of parties in different systems/elections
 The result will always be less than the real number of parties
4. VOLATILITY (how many people change between elections their vote)
 Comparison between elections
 Switch within (intra) /between (inter) blocs or… Total
 Aggregate/individual
5. POLARIZATION
 Distance between parties at the extremes (also, 2 main parties)
 Ideology, or other…
 Centripetal – centrifugal
 Parties – citizens (sometimes parties are more polarized than society, or the opposite)
 Weighted
 Advantages and disadvantages
Think… Where would you place the VOTERS of the main Spanish parties in terms of…
 Left/right ideology (0-10)

 More centralization or more decentralization (1-5)
POLARIZATION
Spain presents a contrasting case. The number of major parties

is comparable to Canada, but the Spanish parties were much
more polarized in 2004.
In the Slovenian election of 1996, the public positioned all the

major parties within a modest range along the Left-Right scale. In
constrast, the Czech party system in 2002 had approximately the
same effective number of parties, but the parties were much
more widely dispersed along the Left-Right scale. (Dalton,
2008)

Modalization if it’s not a radical party. Numbers matter  Four, five and six parties can mobilize people.
POPULISM
Why is it important to study populism?
 It is widely used: media, social, politicians

 Over-stretched concept: usually with a negative connotation
 Increased attention from social sciences
 The rise of populism is usually associated with the crisis of representative democracy &
globalization
What is populism?
 Discourse?
o “An anti-elite discourse in the name of the sovereign people”
o A “Manichaean discourse that identifies Good with unified will of the people and Evil with a
conspiring elite”
o Depicts the world as a dualistic, antagonistic struggle between two camps, the good and the
evil one
 Strategy/style?
o Populism as a political strategy employed by a charismatic leader who seeks to govern
based on direct and unmediated support from their followers
o Populism as folkloric style of politics used by leaders who behave improperly and break
taboos with the aim of building a connection between (certain segments of) the electorate
 Ideology?
o “a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two
homogenous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’ and which
argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the
people”
o While populism should be conceived of as a specific set of ideas, it is distinct from classical
ideologies such as fascism and liberalism, because it has a limited programmatic scope
o This is why we prefer to define populism as a thin-centered ideology- it can host other (more
or less radical ideologies- usually radical right or radical left- but also centrist populist parties
(technocratic populism in CEE)
 Origins
o Russia end of 19th century
o USA, Andrew Jackson, People’s Party, rural, end of 19th century
o Latin America- Brasil (Getúlio Vargas- 1930s), Peronismo in Argentina
 Characteristics
o Defense of the virtuous “people” against the corrupt “elites”
o Critical view of representative democracy
o Classic L-R division less important than the bottom-up one
o Charismatic leader representing the “voice of the people”
o Necessity of an enemy: responsible for the problems
o Populist attitudes: Manicheism, People-centrism and Anti-elitism
 Populism in Latin America
o Evo Morales in Bolivia
o Chávez & Maduro in Venezuela
o The Kirchner in Argentina
o Correa in Ecuador
o Bolsonaro in Brasil
o Kast in Chile
 Populism in Europe
o Not that recent, Alredy in te 1990s, Recently-rise
 Populist Radical Right Parties (Mudde, 2007)
o Nativist, can be defined as a ‘policy of favouring native inhabitants as opposed to
immigrants’ or ‘the political idea that people who were born in a country are more important
than immigrants’. It differs from the “crude” term of nationalism because it incorporates
xenophobia and, thus, discounts the liberal forms of nationalism. It is a border term than
racism, as the nativism division between “us” and “them” can be also based on culture or
religion. It can also broader than “anti-immigrant”, as it encompasses also the xenophobic
nationalist reactions to indigenous ethnic minorities (e.g. gypsies). Together with populism
and authoritarianism, nativism is one of the core concepts essential to the ideology of
populist radical right parties. Populist radical right parties give priority to attitudes towards
immigration, portraying migrants as a threat to national identify and values. Mobilizing
grievances over immigration makes these parties successful and it is the anti-immigration
attitude that unites their electoral bases.
o Authoritarian
o Populist
* Austria (FPO, BZO, TEAM STRONACH), Germany (Alternative für Deutschland), The Netherlands (PVV),
Sweden (Swedish Democrat), Greece, France (National front), Italia (Salvini), Spain (VOX), Poland &
Hungary Populists in Government
 Populist left-wing parties

o Anti-elitism (also economic), anti-globalization, anti-austerity
o Socialist
o Not exclusionary
o For European left populist parties see the works by Luke March
o For Latin American, see: Ernesto Laclau & Chantal Moufee, Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser
o Greece (SYRIZA and New Democracy), Spain (Unidas Podemos, Íñigo Errejón y Chantal
Mouffle)
Populism and democracy
 The relationship between populism and democracy is far from being settled
 On the one hand, this is due to the fact that few studies have empirically addressed the effect of
populist parties on the levels of democracy in a given country
 On the other hand, the findings regarding the attitudes towards democracy of those individuals with
high populist attitudes are inconclusive
 Disentangling the relationship between populism and democracy is even more difficult since most
populist forces in Europe belong to the family of populist right parties
 BUT (Populist) Radical Right =(NO) Extreme Right
o In this sense, concerning their relationship with the democratic regime, Mudde (2019)
distinguishes between extreme right and radical right formations
o The main difference between those two party families is that the latter are not per se anti-
democratic
o Radicalism calls for “root and branch” reform of the political and economic system but does
not explicitly seek the elimination of all forms of democracy. In contrast, extremism is directly
opposed to democracy.
o However, it can be said that, due to their exclusionary features, Populist Radical Right Parties
pose a strain on liberal democracy
Explanations of the rise of populism:
1. Economic grievances & globalization

a. As Kriesi et al. have pointed out, a recent and new social divide has generated two groups of
voters: the ‘losers’ and the ‘winners’ of globalization. “(…) the low-skilled, nationalistic ‘losers
of globalization’, are mainly mobilized by parties of the populist radical right, whereas high-
skilled, cosmopolitan winners of globalization, are mainly mobilized by green, liberal and

centre-left parties”. The Great Recession has intensified this social division between
“winners” and “losers” and new and existing parties (most of them belonging to the PRRP
category), have activated this cleavage since 2008.
b. The process of globalization has created a new political cleavage consisting on those who
are “winners” and those who are “losers” of he denationalization process. Following their
arguments, the increasing country’s cultural diversity (immigration), the process of European
political integration and the open global market, divide the society in two groups that, at the
same time, are articulated by parties of the “New Left” and the “New Right” or, in other
words, Left Wing Populist Parties (LWPP) and Right Wing Populist Parties (RWPP). BUT
populist radical parties are particularly successful in European countries marked by
economic prosperity, low unemployment, and generous social welfare policies (e.g Austria,
Netherlands and Switzerland). RELATIVE DEPRIVATION AND CULTURAL GRIEVANCES.
2. Cultural grievances & immigration

a. Cultural backlash
i. Simply stated, it holds that the rise of populist radical right parties is linekd to mass
immigration and multiculturalism, and support for these parties is mostly an
expression of nativism
ii. Many studies have demonstrated that the electorates of the (populist) radical right in
Western Europe are most concerned about the immigration issue, linked to other
issues such as the economy and security, and hold more negative attitudes toward
immigration and immigrants
iii. Cultural or Economic? Demand of Supply? Both!
Golder (2016): “demand-side explanations focus on the grievances that create the “demand” for far
right parties, whereas supply-side explanations focus on how the choices that far right parties make
and the political opportunity structure in which they act influence their success”. “Anti- immigrant
attitudes may be the result of economic, as opposed to cultural, concerns with immigration.
Attempts to distinguish between these two possibilities, however, indicate that economic and
cultural concerns matter for anti-immigrant attitudes”. Interaction between both sides and both
explanations.
Halikiopoulou D. and Valndas, T. (2020) When economic and cultural interests align: the anti-
immigration voter coalitions driving far right party success in Europe. European Political Science
Review:
“This article contests the view that the strong positive correlation between anti-immigration attitudes
and far right party success constitutes evidence in support of the cultural grievance thesis and
against the economic grievance thesis. We argue that far right party success depends on the ability
to mobilise a coalition of interests between their core supporters, i.e voters with cultural grievances
over immigration and then, often, larger group of voters with economic grievances over of far right
party support, those who dislike the impact of immigration on the economy are important to the far
right in numerical terms. Taken together, our findings suggest that economic grievances over
immigration remain pivotal within the context of the transnational cleavage.
R.Dancyngier: “without economic scarcity, there is no conflict”
3. Political crisis, Representative Democracy and Traditional Parties
The tension between responsiveness and responsibility: this argument has been advanced by the late Peter
Mair (2009,2013), who argued that the increasing influence of global and international institutions is
seriously limiting the maneuvering room of political actors at the national level. Consequently, political
parties feel increasing pressure to behave as responsive agents at the supranational level by implementing
policies that are not necessarily supported by the electorate, and in consequence, they have a hard time
justifying the extent to which their decisions respond to the real demands of their voters.

Peter Mair (2013): Technocracy, populism.
Foa and Mouk (2016): Youth & Democracy
Podemos.
Podemos supporters do not correspond to the conventional description of populist voters, the losers of
‘globalisation’ and the economic crisis. Instead, a combination of elements – protest, anti-mainstream
sentiment and unfulfilled expectations – distinguishes Podemos supporters from the established radical-left
electorate. Mix of highly skilled supporters with unfulfilled expectations and, more importantly anti-
mainstream protest by individuals who, disappointed by the mix of economic and political crises, are
targeting their anger at both the government and the mainstream opposition.
Is fascism always radical right?
PARTY COMPETITION AND POLITICAL CHANGE
Outline
1. Social and political cleavages

Seymur Lipset and Stein Rokkan: Party systems and Voter Alignments: Cross National Perspectives
(1967)
Cleavages:
- Divisions according to… ‘individuals’ positions in society: the degree to which they feel that division,
whether parties form along those lines
- *Industrial Revolution + nation states 19th c:
o Centre vs. periphery
o State vs. church
o Owner vs. worker
o Land vs. industry
- *Exogenous: they do not depend on the individual’s will
Social cleavages refer to distinctions in social and political values held between different social
groups such as social classes as well as ethnic and religious groups that may or may not be relevant
as the basis of political competition and hence political choice. (Bottom-up, change in social
structure shapes values).
Political cleavages, on the other hand, refer to divisions in political and social values that are directly
relevant to political competition and thus political choice. (Top-down, institution and elites shape
values, history of conservative parties)
a. Social Class. The Michigan Model stresses that class position helps account for perceptions
and attitudes which in turn shape political choices. It can explain, for example, why some
people endorse income distribution while others do not. Changes in the sizes of classes, the
evolution of the class structure, can help explain the menu of party choices available to
voters, as well as the consequences this has for their choices and whether they vote at all.
Concept:
 Marx: means of production
 Weber: class, status and power, prestige.
 Post-industrial: education and knowledge (Bell, Dahrendorf)
 Social class = occupation
 Manual vs. non-manual
 Qualified vs. non-qualified
 Level of authority
 Goldthorpe (7 categories)
 Subjective vs. objective social class

Scheme: Oesch’s class scheme (8 categories)
Class voting
 Traditionally working class more likely to vote for the left

 Highest levels of class voting in Scandinavia and Britain
 Lowest in Canada and the US
 Alford Index= % of manual workers that voted for left-wing parties- % of non-manual workers that
voted for these parties
 By the 1990s many commentators agreed that class voting in modern industrial societies had all
but disappeared because working class had become richer, white-collar workers had been
“proletarianized” and social mobility between classes had increased
Decline in class voting
b. Religion, religiosity. Religion shapes preferences in areas such as abortion, euthanasia, and
gay marriage. It can explain, for instance, why some people endorse income redistribution
while others do not. Changes in level of religiosity can likewise be expected to influence the
nature of party competition and the political choices presented to voters.
Decline in religiosity
Decline in religiosity voting. Modernization = secularization
In what is very much a “bottom-up” approach, the secularization thesis argues that the rising levels of
urbanization and education have increased the dominance of scientific rationality. Economic
development, on the other hand, is said to alleviate the economic vulnerabilities that underpin the
attractiveness of religion as a source of social support and security to marginalized socio-economic
groups.
Social change (both used to influence the way we vote, until when?)
 Social and geographic mobility

 Lower differences across classes, higher inside classes
 More complex societies – individualization, heterogeneity
 Growth of the tertiary sector
 Post-materialism, globalization, knowledge society, automation etc.
 Lower Party ID, affiliation, turnout
 Secularization
 Generational replacement of voters
Change in party systems
 Stability since the 1920s to the 1960s

 De-freezing of cleavages from the 1970s on
 Liberals and communists vanish or change; crisis of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats
 De-alignment: withering of party loyalties; diminishing role of cleavages in the explanation of
electoral behaviour. (Fall two major parties in Spain)
 Realignment: New Politics, Green, Populist, New Left, New Right (new parties in Spain), respond
to different divisions than the traditional L-R
 Volatility, fragmentation  complexity and uncertainty
 Increasing ability of party elites to activate and de-activate political cleavages by offering more or
less choice on relevant issue dimensions
 Long-term party loyalties  more fluid issue-based voting

Decline of party identification Decline of turnout rates
Increase of volatility Increase of fragmentation
Spatial voting (An economic theory of democracy, Anthony Downs)
 Maximization of utility
 Party-Voter proximity on the Left-Right scale
 Parties move towards the centre to search for more voters (economy: closest shop)
 Median voter theorem
 State intervention vs. Free market

2. New divisions/value “cleavages”
 Social cleavages  value cleavages (divides)
 Post-industrial “cleavages” such as gender, race, ethnicity, public vs. private sector, and various identity
groups had emerged and replaced class or religious-based conflict
 Rising levels of education had ostensibly produced voters who were calculating and “issue oriented”
rather than being driven by collective identities such as class or religion
 Value differences tend to cut across the traditional alignments based on the central cleavages, in
particular class and religion (Knutsen 1995:478).
What to put on the second dimension? (All are closely related)

a. Materialism/post-materialism dimension (Inglehart 1997, 1981, 1987)
Materialism Post-materialism
 Security  Self-expression
 Material  Identity politics
 Pleasure-seeking
The growing preoccupation with self-realization, harmony with nature, quality of life, health and fitness,
personal dignity, peace, human solidarity, metaphysical cravings, and so forth, indicates the shift from
“hard” economic interests toward “soft” cultural concerns and commitments. More recent studies have
confirmed that materialism vs. post-materialist value orientations are linked to party preference. Their
impact is not as strong as that of the issues that structure the (economic) left-right scale, but they exert a
systematic impact on voting choice that appears to have increased since the 1970s.
b. Libertarian/authoritarian (Kitschelt 1994). A second dimension structured by non-

economic issues of to the liberation vs. authoritarian value divide.
 The issues that are usually considered to polarize parties and citizens in this dimension relate to cultural
liberalism, traditional values, personal freedoms and rights, the national community and ethnic, religious
and other minorities, social hierarchy and tolerance for nonconformity.
 Authoritarians place much weight on hierarchy and reject those who deviate from conventional norms,
while libertarians have opposite values. Differences in values are usually conceptualized along two
dimensions: the economic and social (cultural). The economic dimension is usually understood to
provide a contrast between pro-market and anti-market views (for example, one being for lower taxation
and the other for greater distribution), whereas the social dimension is understood as a contrast
between liberal and authoritarian/conservative values.
Parties: GAL-TAN, Chapel Hill Expert Survey- Green Alternative Libertarian vs. Traditional Authoritarian
Nationalist.

Voters: Education and Class
c. Integration/demarcation (Kriesi et al. 2008) (European history in terms of globalization)

 National sovereignty. ‘Immigrants, foreign cultural influences, cosmopolitan elites, and international
agencies’ are perceived as threats to national sovereignty.
 Kriesi et al. (2006,2008) emphasize the national political consequences of globalization and
European integration. These processes lead to new conflicts between the ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ of
globalization and of the opening-up of borders
 In terms of the noneconomic dimension of electoral competition, these conflicts are related to
immigration, ethnic diversity, the national community and the process of European integration
 Transnational “cleavage”
d. Politics of advanced capitalism. Investment/consumption & universalism/particularism

(Beramendi et al. 2015)
 Political economy of changing capitalism
o Digitalization, automation
o Globalization
o Knowledge economy
 Changing social structure
o Gender, education
o New class structure (sociocultural professionals)
 Institutional legacies (constraints)/policies (supply side):
o 1st dimension: redistribution (extent of state intervention)
o 2nd dimension: investment/consumption (future or immediate)
 Political preferences (demand side):
o 1st dimension: state vs. market (economic L-R)
o 2nd dimension: universalism vs. particularism (welfare chauvinism)
The 2nd dimension is sometimes conceptualized as cultural but it is blurred, it involves a lot of economic
preferences about policies as well. These two dimensions are not economic and cultural, as both
dimensions involve both economic and cultural preferences.
3. Case study: Political change in Spain
Almost all countries. Slovakia no differences between L-R, only cultural one. Netherlands. Spain L-R is still a
key dimension. Adding new dimensions to understand how political parties work.
POLITICAL CULTURE, MODERNIZATION AND SOCIAL CAPITAL
Outline:
1. What is Political Culture?
What is culture? Global definition: ‘Culture or Civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that
complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and
habits acquired by man as a member of society’ (Tylor 1871, 1). Two broad strategies of conceptual
delimitation: socio-psychological and semiotic.
a. Socio-psychological, dominant in political science: ‘consists of attitudes, beliefs, values and

skills which are current in an entire population, as well as those special propensities and
patterns which may be found within separate parts of that population’ (Almond and Powell,
23). (Politically) relevant attitudes or ‘subjective political orientations’ are attributes of
individual minds and are composed of cognitive, evaluative, and emotive elements. They are
usually studied via surveys and interviews  Attitudes
b. Semiotic, culture as a meaning, ‘an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in
symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which
men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life’
(Geertz 1973, 89)  Content
What is Political Culture?
How do they relate?
Political culture – concept
 Set of attitudes toward politics/political objects

 Individual beliefs, orientations, and values
 Patterned and persistent – not opinions, not easy to change
 Mostly acquired through socialization (14 years old proxy you start to think about politics)
 Related concepts:
o Civic culture (Almond & Verba)
 The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (1963)
 The Civic Culture Revisited
 Participation is the best reliable thing to democracy’s stability
o Civil society (Alexander)
o Cultural capital (Bourdieu)
o Social capital (Putnam)
o Civilizational competence (Sztompka)

2. Values, ideology
Values (orthogonal: they do not overlap each other!)
a. Ideology: Left-Right
i. Coherent set of principles and values that guide citizens in politics (Mair, 2007)
ii. According to rational choice theories… information “shortcutr” (heuristic) that
simplifies reality and reduces the costs of choosing (Dalton, 2010)
1. i.e it helps choose parties (spatial theories)
iii. The meaning or left and right:
1. Origin in 1789 (French Revolution)
2. Meaning (Lipset et al., 1954)
a. Left: CHANGE in search for EQUALITY
b. Right: STABILITY and ORDER
3. Adaptation to new meanings: gender, environment, homosexual rights etc.
b. Materialism-postmaterialism
3. Modernization and postmaterialism
Modernization (Huntington, 1965)
 Rationalization (Parsons)
o Particularism  universalism
o Diffuseness  specifity
o Ascription  achievement
o Affectivity  affective neutrality
 National integration (Almond; Ward & Rustow)
o Nation-building
o Delimited basis for national community
 Democratization (Coleman; Frey)
o Pluralism
o Competitiveness
 Mobilization (Deutsch)
o Participation, politicization
o Cognitive (literacy, urbanization, mass media)
Modernization (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005)

Cultural
Technological Occupational Higher Higher change
innovation  specialization  education  income  (gender, sex,
authority,
participation,
critical, etc)
Industrialization  Bureaucratization
& secularization
Post- Emancipation
industrialization  from authority
CHANGE IN
SOCIOECONOMIC  CULTURE &
DEVELOPMENT POLITICAL LIFE
(?) Weber (The
Protestant Ethics)
Materialism/post-materialism dimension (Inglehart 1997, 1981, 1987)
Materialism Post-materialism
 Security  Self-expression
 Material  Identity politics
 Pleasure-seeking
The growing preoccupation with self-realization, harmony with nature, quality of life, health and fitness,
personal dignity, peace, human solidarity, metaphysical cravings, and so forth, indicates the shift from
“hard” economic interests toward “soft” cultural concerns and commitments.
Ronald Inglehart – Postmaterialism
 The Silent Revolution (1971)

 Social and historical events have an impact on people’s values (socialization)
 Better off/modern societies lead to postmaterialism values compared to the war and postwar period
o Maslow’s pyramid
o Education, cognitive mobilization

o New social movements (ecological, feminist, pacifist)
4. Social capital
Generally speaking, do you believe that
A) Most people can be trusted or

B) You can’t be too careful in dealing with people”
Definitions:
 The degree to which a community or society collaborates and cooperates to achieve mutual
benefits… through such mechanisms as networks, shared trust, norms and values.
 “Features of social life – networks, norms, and trust – that enable participants to act together more
effectively to pursue shared objectives… social capital, in short, refers to social connections and the
attendant norms and trust”
 The value of social networks that people can draw on to solve common problems… the benefits of
social capital flow form the trust, reciprocity, information, and cooperation associated with social
networks.
 Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions which underpin a society – it is the glue that holds
them together
What shape can it take?
 Information flows (e.g. learning about jobs, learning about candidates running for office, exchanging
ideas at college, “networking” …)
 Norms of reciprocity/mutual aid (e.g. if you help someone today, some day that person may help you
(karma); sharing tools instead of buying all, etc.)
 Collective action (e.g. the role that the black church played in the civic rights movement; collective
action also can foster new networks)
 Broader identities and solidarity (e.g. from an “I” mentality into a “we” mentality)
Examples: friendship networks, neighbourhoods, churches, schools, bridge clubs, civic associations, bars,
soccer clubs, birdwatching societies…
Relevance
 If there is no coordination and no mutual compromises that are credible… not cooperating is rational
(Remember the prisoner’s dilemma!)
 Increasing evidence shows that social cohesion is critical for societies to prosper economically and
for development to be sustainable (World Bank, OECD)
 Governments function in a more efficient way
o Respect of the rules

o Counterbalance of vested interests
o Aggregation of demands
o Collaboration in the implementation of policies, etc.
Referents in Social Capital theory
 Pierre Bourdieu. The Forms of Capital, in Richardson, John G., ed., Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood, 1986.
 James Coleman. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990

Robert Putman
o Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy
 The failure of some regional governments created in Italy during the 70s was mainly
due to
 Local traditions related to participation in associations
 These differences go back to the 11th century.
o Bowling Alone
 The vibrancy of American civil society has notably declined over the past several
decades. The key term employed by Putman to measure this vibrancy is social
capital. A decline in civic engagement leads to diminished vibrancy of representative
government.
o A critical approach to Putman’s proposals. His arguments are…
 Deterministic: whatever has not existed in history will never be able to be developed
later on. Putnam defense: social capital can be fostered through public policies.
 Endogenous: it is clear what is the cause an what is the consequence. Trust before
institutions? Institutions before trust?
Are all kinds of Social capital good?
BRIDGING BONDING
Ties that transcend various social VS. Ties amongst individuals that
divides (e.g. religion, ethnicity, belong to already homogeneous
socioeconomic status) groups (family, mafia, religion…)

Bridging and bonding SC  Economic growth?
Bonding and bridging SC are highly correlated. Which one would lead to a higher economic growth?
 Individually, each leads to higher growth

 However, in combination, bridging social capital spurs economic growth, while bonding reduces it,
when controlling for bridging
How do we measure Social Capital?
STRUCTURAL CULTURAL
 Membership in associations  Social trust
 Informal networks etc.  Shared values, etc.
Is modernization a one-way process?
Why are participation rates declining then?
Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit and authoritarian populism. (Pippa Norris, Ronald Inglehart)
What is the impact of religion on social capital?
What is the impact of social media on social capital?
What is missing from the modernization/social capital story?
INSTITUTIONS – Huntington (1965:386)
“It is useful to distinguish political development from modernization and to identify political development
with the institutionalization of political organizations and procedures. Rapid increase in mobilization and
participation, the principal political aspects of modernization, undermine political institutions. Rapid
modernization, in brief, produces not political development but political decay”.
Social movements: an introduction.
GRAPHIC 1 Lower income people lost a lot of rent in 2015 compared to 2008.
But the higher sectors of populations

those who were much were-off in 2015
GRAPHIC 2 unemployment: it is acute in youth unemployment (more than 15% young unemployed in 2012-
14)
15 May 2011
Civil society organisations organised a demonstration in the center of Madrid. No somos mercancías en
manos de políticos y banqueros y no nos representan. Join with hundreds of protestants (se fijaron en
Egipto) with assemblies and commissions.
This campaign is part of a broader sider of protests. A mobilization against the statu quo (specially against
the two major parties).
Protests concentrate in specific spatial and temporal contexts.
These clusters of events/concentrations of protests take the form of a cycle, with free spaces. First we have
a pre-mobilization stage (2007-2011) with some attempts to mobilize for certain issues (students, juventud
sin futuro, etc). Second, the peak stage that goes on until late 2013 and finally we have the stage of
demobilization, when the protests began to weaken.
social movements are a distinct social process where actors engaged in collective action:
 hold conflictual orientations to clearly identified opponents → they engage in conflict with opponents
(government, institutions, banks)
 dense, informal networks connect them → they are connected by networks: is a more or less stable
exchange of resources and interactions
 share a distinct collective identity: they create and share a identity, they feel they belong (in an
organisation they may not feel there is something that holds them together)
To discuss the repertoires of action (forms of action) = public displays that consists of WUNK (Worthiness,
unity (slogans, frame), numbers (of people, a minimum amount) and commitment (emotional investment,
time, money, for that cause); if there is not such combination of things, you don’t have the repertoire of
action that can take the form of protest-or not.
They are not stable, they are finite (not unlimited) but changing and adapting to the circumstances and
contexts, they are inherited but evolving.
The fact that they are national is limited: the social movements as a theory emerged from Charles Stilly,
who considers borned in the 1970, we had scattered rebellions, when they were not aware of what was
going on in the cities (not media, no phones, no google). They are becoming nationalized and autonomous
now: they used to be parochial and patronised.
Sometimes Social Movements try to prefigurate (reject: when 15m occupied the streets and create a miny-
city; horizontal society with the political realm they wanted to build), they invision alternative futures
Social Movements engage in political/cultural conflicts, meant to promote social change (i.e. LGTB rights)
or oppose social change too (i.e. Poland against abortion)
Protest: any kind of repertoire action that tends to be novel, disruptive and unconventional (voting is not; it
would need to be some extra-institutional behaviour)
Movements do NOT only protest (i.e. Plataforma de afectados por la hipoteca do scratches, caceroladas,
etc. but also promote advising fere and legal; they engage in legal actions as facing bank decisions when
they are kicking out families, engage in solidarity activities like rising hands to providing social rents or
offering home to people that have been kicked out)
NOT every protest is organised by a social movement. i.e. by a professional organisation with the support of
stable actors (thousands of policeman's strike against Ley Mordaza)
 More rejected but important concepts of Social Science
Motivations of protesting: why do people organise and how they get organised?
DEMAND (motivations who put people to the street)
Grievances (agravios): copiar definición powerpoint
objectives, causes (recession in aggregate level or the loss of your job at the individual level) → not only
that I lost my job but how I felt that (attitudinal and emotional consequences)
In social movements the supply side late 70’s-80’s dominated

Poor people’s movements: under certains occasions they get to mobilised-
Movements developing in times of crisis vs. in times of affluence
grievances are much more a trigger of action in crisis
are not mobising per se, they invite to it as long as I feel I relative to a benchmark that i am losing
As the general context, there is deep economic recession that affected youngs. On the top of that, you have
political corruption (people se mantiene lejos de los partidos tradicionales), movimiento social ya put on the
table against the government as repressing peaceful contexts (suddenly imposed grievances). And the
disruption of the quotidian (taken for granted routines, something I perceive is the normal and I cannot do it
anymore, such as going out every Friday).
Grievances that are meaning-laden: work of signification. Grievance is not an empty concept: my job does
not mean the same for me and for other people (Structural conditions, etc)
In practice, grievance theories do not work: their prediction is that in the lower or working classes they
should be more willing to protest, the same for less-educated people. Empirical research does not support
that.
So, how do these movements come to be?

 It happens a resource mobilization
 Political opportunities need to open up
 Build adequate frames from mobilization and identities
Supply side main critics for the demand side is that it does not mobilize who want to but who can do it
1. Resources mobilization theory

2. Political opportunities (most dominant)
Opening are key for mobilizations and protests to happen. Mainly in the institutional area but may be not.
This approach is particularly good to explain the movements in the conditions of a context of nation state,
party democracy and mature welfare state.
Tilly understood that the development of capitalist neoliberalism and the creation of national state were
2011: Zapatero neoliberal term of the socialist center so left wing electors feel betrayed, and there was not
other left wing winner alternative
Different culture of the understanding of protests in the sides of elites (Portugal is as an outcome of the
revolutionary period → they are seen as legitimate and that something they politicians should pay attention
to) but in Spain with the pacted transition orchestrated by the elite protests are regarded with much more
suspicion
Availability of allies: they know they are going to succeed because they will have support. Marchas de la
dignidad or Mareas ciudadanas. Mostly organised by assemblies who came from 15m, neighbourhoods,
etc. but also knew they had the main support of unions i.e. CCOO and UGT, they needed them, the support
of their people, their capacity to spread and their resources.
Level of policing and repression: in theory, repression should be hindering mobilization (the fact that you go
to a protests and it is likely that you are going to be repressed should be preventing you from doing that)
but in some contexts it can be an encouragement to do it (not in super repressive as North Korea).

Opportunities are created, they are not structurally existing, they should not be taken for granted. Actors
mobilize, then get a response from authorities, etc. Opportunities/threat spiral
3. Cultural turn
Usually associated to constructivist approaches and from the French school
nota: (constructivism ---------- new positivism)

Does social reality exist? And can it be aprehensible?
constructivism: There is no such way, it is not objective because it is a social construction, open to
reformulation.
new positivism: It can be explained with the laws of science
Touraine: Idea of a social movement in the search for IOT (identity of the actor, definition of the opponent
and the sense of cultural totality)
Development
 from movements and approaches trying to understand redistribution (s.XIX-1/3s.XX : labour
movement)
 60’s-70’s social liberation, advance of postmaterialist values, etc. looking for identity recognition
between people
Liquid society and the idea that identities are getting fragmented: i.e. I identify as a men who is white,
privileged, education, sensitivity to migration issues and not that much for climate change, etc. Culture as a
toolkit (caja de herramientas) that consists of the habits, skills, styles of living.
Collective identity: Boundary-making work; creating borders of what is inside and what outside. Recognition,
negotiation.
Frames for mobilization: interpretation from where you attribute meanings. My job is not the same for me
and for other reasons for estructural reasons but also for cultural, emotional.
Framing is a 3 stage process: which is the problem (diagnostic), which is the solution (pronostic), and which
are the alternatives to act and how to do it (motivational).
The political theory has tried to combine these three approaches. We have learned a lot from the supply
side, but take behind the importance of grievances.
social movement is not only the dependent variable, it can entail consequences.
YO:
What are social movements? “social movements as a distinct social process… actors engaged in collective
action”:
 Hold conflictual orientations to clearly identified opponents

 Dense, informal networks connect them
 Share a distinct collective identity
Repertories:
 SMs engage in political/cultural conflicts, meant to promote or oppose social change

 Protest
o Novel, unconventional, disruptive
o Particularly relevant for movements but
 Movements do also other activities
 Other actors other than movement do protest

 Finite but envolving
o Inherited & adapted
 Modern as nationalized and autonomous
o Rather than parochial and patronised
 Strategic and/or normative (prefiguration)
 Cycles, waves, tides, campaigns
 Imitating, learning, emulating, competing
 WUNC: public displays [worthiness, unity, numbers and commitment]
Grievances (i.e. the demand side)
Grievances are… “exogenous shocks–– i.e. objective situations, such as unemployment or income
deprivation–– plus the attitudinal and emotional consequences that these engender (in terms of social
discontent, fear or resentment), which might disrupt taken-for-granted routines and act as motivational
impulses for mobilisation… troublesome conditions and their associated sentiments and values can be
thought of as grievances” (Portos, 2021)
 Breakdown and strain approaches

 Poor people’s movements
 Movements of crisis vs movement of affluence
 Relative deprivation
 Suddenly imposed grievances
 Disruption of the quotidian: taken-for-granted routines
 Meaning-laden: result of signifying work
How movements come to be (i.e. the supply side)?
 Resource mobilisation
 Political opportunities
 The cultural turn: framing and identities
Resource mobilisation
 Rational, purposeful, and organized actions. “Participants in popular disturbances and activists in
opposition organizations will be recruited primarily from previously active and relatively well-
integrated individuals within the collectivity, whereas socially isolated, atomized, and uprooted
individuals will be underrepresented, at least until the movement has become substantial”
(Oberschall 1973: 135)
 VS social psychology of collective behaviour: resources must be mobilised
 Resources: money, time, education, networks, expertise, communication skills, etc.
o SMs: sustained exchanges of resources in pursue of common goods (conscious actors
making rational choices)
o Coordination and organisation (not disorganisation)
 Networks and interactions
o Facilitating conditions & product of collective action
o Individual + organisations
o Nodes and ties
o Relational properties
o Online vs offline
 Modes of coordination
o Dense, informal, broad, shifting boundaries
Political opportunities
 Political opportunities influence forms, size and effects of political participation

o Institutional openness vs closeness
o Cultural openness vs closeness

o POS: : “Consistent – but not necessarily formal or permanent – dimensions of the political
struggle that encourage people to engage in contentious politics” (Tarrow 1998)
 Capitalism and nation state (Tilly); electoral accountability (Eisinger); electoral instability (Piven and
Cloward); types of democracy & political traditions (Kriesi); availability of allies (McAdam); reforms
and concessions (Tarrow); policing and public order (della Porta); multi-level polities (della Porta,
O’Connor and Portos)
 Developed in a context of nation state; party democracy; mature welfare state, thus challenged by
globalisation (Held), changes in democratie d’élection (Rosanvallon); neoliberalism and market
dominance (Crouch)
 Threats: “the costs that a social group will incur from protest or that it expects to suffer if it does not
take action”
 From POS to relational opportunities and mechanisms?
o Opportunity/threat spirals (Karapin 2007, 2011)
o Contentious episodes (Kriesi et al. 2020a, 2020b)
o Dynamics of contention (McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly 2001)
Cultural turn
 New Social Movement approach: in search for the I-O-T [identity of the actor; definition of the
opponent; cultural totality] (Touraine 1985)
 From redistribution to identity recognition (Phillips, 1997), but risks of displacement and reification
(Fraser, 2000)
 Fragmented identities in a liquid society (Melucci 1996; Baumann 2000)
 Culture as a toolkit: habits/skills/styles (Swindler, 1986)
 Emotions: it was like a fever! (Polletta 1998; Goodwin and Jasper 2006)
 Collective identity (Polletta and Jasper 2001; Melucci 1996):
o Symbolic interactionism and relational construction
o a fluid, contingent, context-dependent social process
o with different audiences
o boundary making; recognition; negotiation
o at work
 Frames (Snow and Benford 1988, 1994; Gamson 1992; Benford and Snow 2000)
o Schemata of interpretation (locate, perceive, identify, claim) & meaning attribution –
o Framing as a 3-stage process –
 Diagnostic: define social problems (who can claim, who is the target) –
 Prognostic: provide a solution to the problem –
 Motivational: possibility to act, how to act –
o Salience; master frames (eg. anti-austerity, right to the city)
Political process
 Integrated framework: resource mobilisation + political opportunities + framig (+grievances!)

“While privileged attention has been given to the mobilisation of resources and the fluctuation of
political opportunities for the emergence of social movements since the 1970s (i.e. the supply side
of protest), the importance of strain-engendering and motivational factors was largely downplayed
(i.e. the demand side of protest behaviour)”
Outcomes and consequences
 Was it worth the effort? Not success but outcomes (Giugni 1998; Giugni, McAdam & Tilly 1999; Bosi,
Giugni & Uba 2016) –
 Where to look? –
o Policy: effective (access, agenda, laws, outcomes) -
o Politics: procedural, institutional (recognition) –
o Cultural (changing codes) –
 Many actors, inside and outside movements; many turns and twists in time; mixed results, hard to
isolate –
 What works? –
o Thinking big/thinking small –
o Disrupt/adapt –
o Spontaneous/organised
Eventful protests
‘Contentious and potentially subversive practices that challenge normalized practices, modes of
causation, or system of authority’ (Beissinger 2002).
 Critical juncture: -
o ‘(1) a major episode of institutional innovation, (2) occurring in distinct ways, (3) and
generating an enduring legacy’ (Collier and Munck 2017: 2). –
o cracking, as the production of sudden ruptures; vibrating, as contingently reproducing those
ruptures; sedimenting, as the stabilization of the legacy of the rupture –
 Eventful temporality: some (protest) events are a ‘relatively rare subclass of happenings that
significantly transform structure’ (Sewell 1996; McAdam and Sewell 2001) –
o Emotional, cognitive, relational mechanisms (della Porta 2008, 2018)
Further avenues & trends
 Diffussion and transnationalisation (Givan, Roberts & Soule 2011; della Porta and Tarrow 2005)
 Legacies and memories (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983; Zamponi 2018; della Porta et al. 2018)
 Communication, media & technology (Earl and Kimport, 2011; Rohlinger 2006, 2007)
 Democratic innovations (Baiocchi and Ganuza 2016; della Porta 2013, 2020)
 Generations and youth (Whittier 1997, 2013; Earl et al. 2017; della Porta 2019)
 NGOisation and institutionalisation (Lang 2013; Suh 2011)
 Ecologies and environment (Zhao 1998; Zhang and Zhao 2019)
 Intersectionalities: race, ethnicity, gender, disabilities, etc.
 Violence, extremism, radicalisation
 Global South…
THE IMPACT/CONSEQUENCES OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
What do SM have in common with political parties and pressure groups?
 Relative organizational stability:

 Members share common ideas, interests and objectives
 Coordinated dline of action
 Willingness to influence in political decisions
Differences with political parties
POLITICAL PARTIES SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

 Vertical organization  Horizontal organization/Network
 Members have a regulated relationship with  Participants more than “members”
the organization (rights and duties)  Usually representation of thematic
 Representation of general interests interests/specific issues
Differences with pressure groups
PRESSURE GROUPS SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

 Its aim is to be efficient in the fulfilment of its  Its organization is and “end in itself”
demands

 A formal and vertical organization is the  A horizontal organization – participation –
most efficient way to achieve its aims may not be efficient but it is “a way to
 Institutional/conventional forms understand the world”
 Representation of its members (express  Extra-institutional/non-conventional forms
will)  Representation of collective interests (self-
 Example: trade union proclaimed)
 Example: the workers movement
Old and new social movements
OLD NEW
 60-70s onwards
Labour movement (19th c)  Peace, feminism, environment, animal’s
right, anticapitalist, antiglobalization,
solidarity…
 Young people, high levels of education and  Opressed, disadvantaged
income  Improvement of material well-being
 Postmaterialist demands  Instrumental/specific, often material
 Expressive/they build a collective “identity” interests
 Independent from political parties and  Connected to the institutions and to
pressure groups conventional actors and forms of
 Informal, egalitarian, horizontal, participation
participatory, decentralized organization  Vertical, hierarchical organization
 Connection between the political/public and  Demands that affect the public/political
the individual/personal world
Other relevant concepts:
 Cycles/waves of protest (of contention): when contention spreads across and entire society – as it
sometimes does- we see a cycle of contention. When such a cycle is organized around opposed or
multiple sovereignties, the outcome is a revolution.
 Repertoires of action (of contention): petition, assemble, strike, march, occupation, obstruction of
traffic, setting fire, attack
Why some social movements have more impact than others?
 Limited theory
 Are the reasons the same that contributes to their emergence (4 theories)
 Or, on the contrary, what facilitates their emergence hinders their impact?
Mobilization =(NO) Impact
 Opportunities: decentralization, more potential allies but… more possible vetoes

 Resource mobilization: participative structures but… leaders offer short-cuts, participation in the
long term is too costly, the more people participate the more difficult it is to reach decisions…
 Interpretative frames: simple discourses mobilize but…, the reality they want to change is complex
What is “impact”?
 Explicit objectives: BUT beneficial unintended consequences

 Material, factual: BUT reputational, collective identity etc
 Is “impact” synonym of “success”?
o Challengers can do worse than failing; they can induce backlashes, such as repression or
increased policing
o Challengers may fail to achieve their stated program – and thus be deemed a failure – but
still win substantial new advantages for their constituents, a situation likely for challengers
with far-reaching goals

o Success is often contingent on goals, activities, and forms of organization
Political consequences VS. other types of impact
 Controlled by social movements

o Mobilizing constituents
o Creating collective identities
o Increasing individual and organizational capacities
o Altering the career trajectories of movement participants

External to social movements
o Political consequences
Kinds of impact
 Symbolic: opinions, attitudes, behaviours, collective identitites

 Interactive: new actors, alliances, forms of representation
 Institutional: new negotiations spaces, new procedures
 Substantive: changes in policies (new rights…)
Impact on: policy making, democratic rights, electoral processes, legal decisions, political parties, state
bureaucracies, public opinion
When should we measure impact?
 Short term
 Medium term
o Agenda setting
o Legislative change
o Implementation
 Long term
o Democratization
o Political party
o Change in mentality (“what is possible”)
The little we know…
 “The Political Consequences of Social Movements” E. Amenta, N. Caren, E. Chiarello and Y. Su,
Annual Review of Sociology, 2010, 36: 287-307.
 34 movements: workers, civil rights in the US, war veterans, feminists, nativists, enviromentalists
 The biggest impact:
o Big movements
o “Agenda setting”
o Mediated by other factors
o Single policies
Political consequences of movements
 Structural level
o Transformation of states
o Extension of democratic rights and practices
o Formation of new political parties
 Intermediate level
o Changes in policy
o Benefits to a movement’s constituency
o Enforce collective identities
o Aid challengers in struggles against targets not mainly state oriented

Impact is always mediated by the context
 Institutional allies: more successful when institutional political actors see benefit in aiding the
group the challenger represents
 Public opinion:
 Degree of democratic openness:
o Democracies: limited, symbolic actions may be enough
o Non-democracies: more “assertive” actions are needed
Impact is difficult if…
 Related to cleavages
 High levels of material and political resources at stake
 Military issues
 Strong public opinion against
 Democratic rights are very restricted
Successful challenge if…
 Advertises the vulnerability of authorities

 Provides a model for effective claim-making
 Identifies possible allies for other challengers
 Alters the existing relations of challengers and power holders to each other (at the extreme, turning
challengers into power holders)
 Thereby threatens the interests of yet other political actors who have stakes in the status quo, thus
activating them as well
Necessary to reach goals:
 A favourable partisan context

 Issue already on the agenda
 High challenger organization and mobilization
 Credible claims-making directed at elites and the general public
 Plausible assertive action such as electoral strategies that seek to punish policy opponents and aid
friends
Violence used by SM (Muñoz & Anduiza, 2019)
In otherwise nonviolent movements, some groups or radical flanks may resort to violent actions such as
street rioting. This article analyses the impact that these violent episodes can have on popular support for
the movement as a whole. Riots in Barcelona, 2016, 15-M movement.
Street violence episode reduced support for the 15-M movement by 12 percentage points on average.
Core supporters are the least affected by the violent outbreak. Weak supporters, opposers, and non-aligned
citizens reduce their support to a large extent.
Violence may have several unintended consequences such as enhancing the discourses of the elite based
on public order maintenance reinforcing the opponent facilitating repression from the state and
reducing the ability to remain resilient in the face of oppression.
Violence triggering SM (Williamson, Trump, Einstein, 2019)
Both resource mobilization and political opportunity structure variables predict BLM protest frequency.
Black lives Matter protests are more likely to occur in localities where more Black people have previously
been killed by police. Direct carceral contact reduces political engagement, but indirect, proximate carceral
contact can spur mobilization
 Felon disenfranchisement affects approximately 2.5% of the U.S. voting age population, including
7.4% of the Black voting age population; questioning and arrest without conviction also reduce
individuals’ political participation
 High rates of incarceration in a neighbourhood reduce political participation by fraying social ties
and
Political grievances theory suggests that, at least in some contexts and when resources and political
opportunity are present, levels of deprivation or injustice can in fact predict levels of protest.
INTEREST GROUPS
Definition
 Pressure groups=lobbies=interest groups

 Sociology: voluntary associations in which members are unpaid
 Economics: private interests, rational, mercantilist objectives, organizational aspects less important
 Political science:
o Recognizable organizations that aim at representing individuals or organizations that share
one or more common interests
o They have affiliated members that share those interests
o They seek to influence policy but do not seek to be elected
 They make claims but don’t seek office, just influence on the agenda
 Not all associations, to be considered an interest group the necessary functions are (Berry 1984):
o Represent its members
o Channel political participation
o Educate its members
o Influence the shaping of public agenda
o Follow policies to assure the interest is represented
 Different from corporations, professional lobbyists, lawyers (these are not exposed to collective
action problems)
Types of members
 Individual members
 Organizations as members
 At the aggregate level: density (quantity) and diversity (types)
Types of interests:
 Business (CEOE)
 Labor (Trade Unions)
 Proffesional (sectorial)
 Public interest (NGOs)

 (Inter) Governmental (Gov delegations)
Strategies:
 Lawsuits against governmental decisions

 Political confrontation, protest and medialization of the conflict
 Information strategies: meetings, communication, institutional sefting
 Strategies of influencing public opinion, electoral preferences, media campaigns
Lobbying: factors of success
 Resources: not only money, also expertise, information, legitimacy and networks
 Openness of the institutions: capacity to engage in political exchange
 Nature of the issue and type of costs:
o High in regulatory politics: concentrated benefits and diffuse costs
o Much lower in distribution or redistribution policies
Differences with social movements
INTEREST GROUPS SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

 Aims basically at being efficient in achieving  Organizational issues are also an aim
its demands  Organization is horizontal
 Formal and often hierarchical organization  Often non-conventional forms
 Conventional forms of interaction with  They are self-proclaimed representative of
institutions the interests of others
 They only represent those that have  Example: the workers movement,
expressed a will to be represented environment movement (for all the
 Example: trade union humanity)
Differences with political parties
INTEREST GROUPS POLITICAL PARTIES

 Focused on just one issue 
They have proposals for several issues
 They aspire to influence government 
They aspire to rue
 They aim at achieving private interests 
They aim at creating public goods that are
then distributed by the state
Países corruptos: los partidos actúan más como interest groups porque olvidan el crear bienes públicos.
Banco de España has political action problem? May be.
How are they formed?
 Classical logic: spontaneous reaction to social conflict

 Rational logic: cost/benefit calculus, incentives
 Relational logic: how to mobilize and maintain mobilization? Class, identity, culture, solidarity,
context
Why are they relevant?
 (+) one of the ways by which the government is informed of what society wants
 (+) they can act against the general interest when favouring private interests
 (-) their influence is not always transparent
Theories
 Pluralism & (Neo)Pluralism

o Power is distributed amongst different groups that have similar possibilities to access power
o The essence of political life is conflict amongst groups that freely compete amongst
themselves in search for their own interests (Group Theory of Politics)

o Robert Dahl (Who governs? 1961; a preface to democratic Theory, 1956)
o Neopluralism: the government has more power than the different groups and some have
more power than others
o Differences across countries (political culture, regulation, participation rates, social capital,
fragmentation of the interest groups system, institutional setting)
 Corporatism & (Neo)Corporatism
o Not all interests compete, there are strategic constellations of interests between the
government and key interest groups
o The governments try to get the approval from the most influential groups and gives them
some power in exchange, making them co-responsible for policies
o The most influential groups, then, convince their members to support the government
o Governments are not impartial actors
o Monopolies and hierarchy
o Corporatism – related to the welfare state after WWII, Keynes
o Neocorporativism – more decentralized, flexible, policy communities
PLURALISM/NEOPLURALISM CORPORATISM/STATISM
Definition  Different groups in  State intervention in
society check each other creating a level playing
 No recognition field
 Competition between  State recognition of key
interests for the attention interest groups
of decision makers  Strong policy
concertation
Examples USA, UK, EU, (“Brussels”) Austria, Germany, Norway,
Netherlands, France, Belgium,
Spain
Modes of collective action Lobbying (regulated)/Contentious Social dialogue/contentious
politics politics in more statist countries
(France/Spain)
Philip Smiter (?)
Impact
 As with SMOs, difficult to measure, plenty of actors and contrary interests; status quo vs. change;
putting an issue on the public agenda vs. changing the law
 Depends on :
o Institutional access: access to MPs, law-makers, being part of the policy network, policy
community, insiders
o Capacity to provide relevant information
o Resources: # or members, $ mobilizational capacity, social prestige
Ties between interest groups and other political actors: parties and candidates
 PACs: Political Action Commitees

 Citizens United vs. Federal Electoral Commission
o A non-profit group called Citizens United challenged campaign finance rules after the FEC
stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
too close to the presidential primaries
o A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court sided with CU, ruling that corporations and other
outside groups an spend unlimited $$$ on elections.
o Limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the
First Amendment right to free speech

o The ruling has ushered in massive increases in political spending from outside groups,
dramatically expanding the already outsized political influence of wealthy donors,
corporations, and special interest groups.
o Creation of super PACs, which empower the wealthiest donors, and the expansion of dark
money through shadowy non-profits that don’t disclose their donors
Development of interest groups in the EU
 50-60s: farming and employer interests

 70s: unions and environmental
organizations
 80s: territorial interests
 90: private companies and social NGOs
 Social dialogue
 2000: “civil society”: promoters of
participatory democracy, diversification and
expansion of the concept
 Regional…
How many in the UE?
TYPE OF INTEREST N
Companies & groups 807
Trade and business associations 1018
NGOs, networks and platforms 987
Trade unions and professional associations 277
Regional and local powers 184
Think tanks 161
Lawyers and consultants 129
Public affairs organisations 266
Religious groups 36
Spanish interests in the EU
TYPE OF INTEREST N
Companies & groups 60  But a weaker presence in Brussels
Trade and business associations 115  Smaller presence in consultations and in the
NGOs, networks and platforms 88 registry than expected by population
Trade unions and professional associations 22  Few collective organizations: mainly companies
Regional and local powers 29 and CCCA
Think tanks 24  Strong regional and local presence
Lawyers and consultants 56
The network of Spanish Brussels-based groups
 Relatively well connected small group of insiders

 Centrality of Banks and energy companies (2016 data)
 Diversity and competition?

Wuolah Free APUNTES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Wuolah Free APUNTES

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wuolah Free APUNTES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

APUNTES.

Actores Políticos y Acción Colectiva

2º Grado en Filosofía, Política y Economía

Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas. Campus Getafe

Reservados todos los derechos.

Political Science as a Vocation, Robert O.Keohane.

1. Is political science truly a science?

 Direction of causality – ENDOGENEITY – the chicken and egg question

Collectie action problems: Collective interest =(NO) individual interest.

There will be no collective benefit  problem

 Not acting has implications… SUBOPTIMAL RESULTS (Pareto inefficiency)

Economists = rational choice

Political science = rational choice (¿) relative.

1 coin = 1 pdf sin publicidad

If it is good for all… why does it not happen more often?

 Why don’t the prisoners cooperate with each other

Why is it rational not to cooperate?

 Difficulties of collective action:

Lack of resources (time, skills…)

Other things to do…

Why do people act together when they do?

Mancur Olson (1932-1998)

1 coin = 1 pdf sin publicidad

Examples of incentives (negative and positive)

 Rules, sanctions, fines

Elinor Ostrom (1933-2021)

 Nobel Prize winner in 2009

Governing of the Commons (Ostrom)

Each actor has its own interests  action plan enviroment.

1 coin = 1 pdf sin publicidad

 Self-interest – dominant human motive.

 Ostrom, E. (2007). Collective action theory. In C.Boix & C.Strokes (Eds.)

DATA & ANALYSIS

1. 2 años después la gente no recuerda a quien vota

 Party-line voting. Si tu familia ha sido siempre republicana y tú siempre apoyarás al candidato

“I’m a lifelong Democrat so Obama has my vote”  Party-line voting

ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR (Individual citizens as political actors)

 Abstract, conceptual representation about the phenomena or processes to be explained

 The paradox of voting

One answer: the 1950s

1 coin = 1 pdf sin publicidad

1968 revolutions (?)

From the paradox of voting…

 Elections are of paramount importance for democratic politics

One major question

*we have limited information. How can we vote rationally?

… to a major democratic dilemma

… to another critical question

 Does political information matter?

Four models of voting

1. Sociological  social characteristics matter

1 coin = 1 pdf sin publicidad

How cleavages were born in Western Europe?

Critical juncture Conflict which was Final cleavage

Cleavage (politics) : división, escisión. What’s a cleavage?

 Social divides into two opposite camps

Functions of cleavages. Social divide into two opposite camps…

 Link social structure and political order