POLITICAL PARTICIPATION: SOME
PROBLEMS OF CONCEPTUALIZATION
MATEUSZ WAJZER
E-mail: mmwajzer@interia.pl
A Working Paper
May 2015
1
Abstract
This paper identifies the major problems associated with the process of conceptualizing
political participation. Two of them are discussed in detail. The first problem is that
researchers ascribe political characteristics to any social behaviour, which is unsupported by
proper arguments that would relate the proposed concepts to the subject matter of political
science. The second one points to the strong presence of normative and crypto-normative
elements, especially in studies of democratic societies.
Keywords: conceptualization; political participation; political science; democracy; social
sciences and ideology.
Introduction
Over the past three decades, political participation has become one of the topics that are most
often discussed by political scientists, who study this phenomenon within different conceptual
frameworks. Why is that so? Among the main factors that determine the differences in
conceptualizing political participation are:
1) Object of research – the theoretical and methodological limitations result from the
specific nature of a given type of political system that is being studied. Initially the
concept of ‘political participation’ was only used to describe and explain the
phenomena that occurred in democratic systems (e.g. Eulau and Schneider, 1956;
Milbrath, 1969). Later this concept also started to be employed to study totalitarian
societies (e.g. Townsend, 1969; Friedgut, 1979) as well as those that were undergoing
modernization (e.g. Huntington and Nelson, 1976; Meyer and Ryszka, 1991).
2) Time of research – political characteristics are ascribed to ever newer kinds of social
behaviours as channels for articulating one’s interests become less formalized and less
institutionalized. In the mid-20th century the concept of ‘political participation’ only
encompassed voting and taking part in election campaigns (e.g. Lazarsfeld et al.,
1948; Berelson et al., 1954; Hirsch-Weber and Schütz, 1957). In the next decades, it
was expanded to include forms of activity that were typical of political protests (e.g.
Barnes and Kaase, 1979). Today this concept also encompasses activities that are
characteristic of social engagement (e.g. Norris, 2002; Stolle et al., 2005; Micheletti,
2002; Mider, 2008).
2
3) Sociocultural context in which a researcher functions – the system of values and
norms that shapes the complex network of interpersonal relationships in the society in
which a given researcher was raised has a potential impact on him or her. However,
researchers are not always sufficiently aware of this impact (see, e.g. Milbrath, 1969;
Verba and Nie, 1972; Parry et al., 1992; Opałek, 1978).
Figure 1: Factors in conceptualizing political participation.
This paper discusses the consequences of the last two factors, which are related to the
growing tendency among researchers to ascribe political characteristics to any social
behaviours (regardless of the nature of these behaviours) as well as to be guided by moral
considerations not only at the stage of selecting the object of study, but also at the stage of
justifying a given conception. Selected definitions of political participation are analysed for
the purpose of discussing these factors.
Defining political participation
The lack of consensus among researchers about the content and scope of this concept slightly
influences the way in which the definitions themselves are formulated. Let us analyse the
following definitions of political participation which describe it as:
‘[...] behavior which affects or is intended to affect the decisional outcomes of
government’ (Milbrath, 1969: 1);
‘[...] activity by private citizens designed to influence governmental decision-making’
(Huntington and Nelson, 1976: 4);
3
‘[…] all those activities through which the individual consciously becomes involved in
attempts to give a particular direction to the conduct of public affairs, excluding
activities of an occupational or compulsory nature’ (Townsend, 1969: 4);
‘[...] taking part in the processes of formulation, passage and implementation of public
policies’ (Parry et al., 1992: 16);
‘[...] legal acts by private citizens that are more or less directly aimed at influencing
the selection of governmental personnel and/or the actions that they take’ (Verba et al.,
1978: 1);
‘[...] all voluntary activities by individual citizens intended to influence either directly
or indirectly political choices at various levels of the political system’ (Kaase and
Marsh, 1979: 42);
‘[...] any dimensions of activity that are either designed directly to influence
government agencies and the policy process, or indirectly to impact civil society, or
which attempt to alter systematic patterns of social behavior’ (Norris, 2001: 16);
‘[...] being mentally and/or sensuously engaged in politics, i.e. thinking about politics
or dealing with it in a way that is noticeable in one’s behaviour’ (Radtke, 1976: 16)
[author’s translation];
‘[...] all voluntary activities by which individuals or groups want to influence the
selection of rulers and representatives and/or the making and outcome of public
policies’ (Meyer, 1991: 11);
‘[...] activities which are instrumental or expressive, voluntary or mobilized, legal
(legitimized) or illegal (non-legitimized) as well as conventional (legitimate) or
unconventional (illegitimate) and which are performed in a non-violent way or with
the use of violence by an individual who acts as a citizen or exercises political power
for either public or particularistic purposes; these activities are directed to state
authorities or other entities that exercise political power or have an influence on
politics’ (Mider, 2008: 15) [author’s translation].
Those who study political participation most often provide regulatory definitions
which consist of similar elements. Among these elements are:
1) Acting subjects – this element allows one to answer the question as to who undertakes
a particular activity and who participates in a given process. There is no consensus
among researchers about who participants in politics are. It is usually assumed that
4
they are individuals, individual citizens or private citizens. Some researchers also
mention citizens who are professionally involved in politics.
2) To whom activities are directed – this element answers the question as to whom
specific activities are aimed at. The above-mentioned definientia show that activities
that are carried out by participants in politics are usually addressed to authorities.
Thus, the question arises as to what kind of authorities these are and what levels they
operate at. For some, these will only be central government authorities. Others,
however, also include local government authorities as well as supranational and
administrative authorities in their definitions of those to whom these activities are
directed. They even talk about other states of which a participating individual is not a
citizen, other citizens, social groups, civil society, private sector institutions and non-
governmental organizations as well as the mass media.
3) Motives behind activities – this element allows one to learn about the intentions of a
subject who is undertaking a particular activity. Even a brief analysis shows that an
attempt to influence authorities’ political decisions and activities as well as to
determine who will come to power is one of the reasons behind participating in
politics that are mentioned most often. Certain researchers object to treating the
concept of influence as the principal reason for political participation. These authors
also include symbolic behaviours as well as the process of absorbing
5
Table 1: Components of definitions of political participation.
Acting subjects To whom activities are directed Motives behind activities Attributes of activities Effects of
activities
individuals; central government authorities; exogenous reasons (motives): the desire to for example: intended
individual citizens; local government authorities; influence authorities’ decisions ; instrumentality; effects;
private citizens; supranational authorities; endogenous reasons (motives), e.g. the need to autotelism; unintended
individuals who exercise political and economic international have a sense of fulfilment or identity; activeness; effects.
political power. institutions; passiveness;
other states of which a participating voluntariness;
individual is not a citizen; compulsoriness;
society; legality;
social groups; illegality;
private sector institutions and non- constitutionality;
governmental organizations; unconstitutionality;
the mass media.
6
information about politics and discussing political topics among the manifestations of
political participation. Therefore, some researchers believe that individuals participate
in politics for solely exogenous reasons, while others also note that people may act for
endogenous reasons, i.e. for the purpose of satisfying their internal needs, such as a
sense of fulfilment, identity or emotional closeness, or in order to channel their
dissatisfaction into political activity.
4) Attributes of activities – this element shows which activities can be referred to as
political participation. What attributes are these? Researchers are also divided on this
issue. Some of them primarily emphasize the instrumental dimension of political
participation as well as activeness, voluntariness, legality and constitutionality. Others,
however, also point to autotelic, passive, mobilized, illegal and unconstitutional
behaviour.
5) Effects of activities – this element makes it possible to differentiate between the
subjective category of projected (i.e. intended) effects and the objective effects of
activities (these are often unintended and unnoticed consequences). This division is
usually disregarded by researchers who study political participation (they are often
unaware of its existence).
The above-mentioned components of the definitions of this concept allow one to
formulate problems that are associated with conceptualization and that researchers have to
confront. Although it is impossible to discuss all of these issues in a paper that is limited in
length, one should focus on two such problems that are of crucial importance (they are briefly
described in the introduction). These problems are important not only for research on political
participation, but also for political science, when understood as an academic discipline. The
first problem is related to the consequences of the lack of distinction between what is political
and what is social.1 Discussions on this issue are part of a broader discourse on the subject
matter of political science, and therefore also on the place and role of this discipline among
the social sciences. The second problem indicates that the proposed concepts of ‘political
participation’ contain evaluative judgements.2
1
Weber (1922: 28–30) raised this issue as early as a hundred years ago.
2
The social sciences in particular face this problem, which was discussed by Andreski (1972).
7
Is everything political?
As non-standard channels for articulating one’s interests developed in response to the needs of
new social movements, some researchers began demanding that the scope of the concept of
‘political characteristics’ behind the analysed behaviours be expanded. Norris (2002: 192)
asserts that the old definitions of political participation are inadequate and incommensurate
with the contemporary world, which is multidimensional and complex. She proposes a
definition that takes into account the relevance of activities that have an impact on civil
society and are aimed to modify the established patterns of social behaviour. This researcher
notes, however, that such activities as raising funds for local hospitals, helping battered
women or protesting against conducting medical experiments on animals are not part of the
political sphere per se, but their social and economic consequences are not insignificant as far
as the political process is concerned.
The German researcher Radtke (1976: 16) went even further and proposed a very
blurred and imprecise definition. As a result, this author is able to classify manifestations of
human activity that are often radically different from one another as forms of political
participation, for example, voting and running for the position of staff representative in the
facility in which one is employed. Mider’s (2008: 70) conception of political participation
also involves a broad understanding of this concept; more specifically, the group of non-
government entities to which political activities can be directed is very diverse. In his opinion,
these are: 1) other states of which an individual is not a citizen; 2) political and economic
international institutions; 3) non-governmental organizations; 4) private sector institutions; 5)
society as a whole, groups that make up society, and other citizens; 6) the mass media.
Micheletti’s (2002; 2005) idea of political consumerism also entails a blurred division
between what is political and what is social. This political scientist form the Stockholm
University notes that socially responsible consumer behaviour influences multinational
corporations’ policy, and ultimately also the decisions of sovereign states. The tendency to
consider a lifestyle of health and sustainability to be one of the forms of political participation
is an extreme example of this trend (Aue, 2008).
The authors who are cited above seem to treat the concepts of ‘political participation’
and ‘social participation’ as synonymous, if not entirely, then at least in part. If we regard
these concepts as entirely synonymous, the sets of signifieds of both these phrases are
identical. Symbolically, this can be represented as:
8
However, if we consider these concepts to be only partially synonymous, then only some of
the signifieds of the former will also belong to the sets of signifieds of the latter, and the other
way round:
This practice, which is of dubious cognitive value, makes political behaviours lose their
specificity, or in a much broader context, causes the understanding of political phenomena as
such to become vague. Therefore, the need to distinguish between what is political and what
is social is justified if we do not want to drift into the theory of everything which does not
explain much (van Deth, 2001a). In order to draw such a distinction, one must first identify
political participation and social participation so as to obtain two disjoint sets of signifieds:
In other words, these concepts may not intersect. Thus, one can define social participation, for
example, by quoting van Deth’s (2001b: 208) words, as ‘any activities that citizens undertake
voluntarily by participating in social organizations’ [author’s translation]. However, as
Gabriel and Völkl (2005: 529) rightly point out, this approach puts emphasis on the most
important form of social engagement, i.e. participation in social organizations, and at the same
time ignores participation in informal groups, such as groups of friends or neighbours, and
being active on Internet forums. Therefore, these researchers propose the following definition:
‘Social participation is any voluntary activity which one carries out individually or together
with others, which is not done as part of one’s paid employment and which is aimed at
providing material or non-material goods, such as money, care, comfort, maintenance or
social contacts, free of charge to oneself or others’ [author’s translation].
The above definitions have several drawbacks, for example, the assumption that the
activities one undertakes must be voluntary. What is important, however, they do not refer to
exerting political influence on authorities, on their decisions, or on who will come to power,
which is characteristic of political participation. These definitions attach the greatest
importance to activities which are implemented (Holtkamp et al., 2006: 13) and which are
9
undertaken by participants in social organizations or other informal groups. According to van
Deth (2001b: 217), when understood in this way, social participation is a ‘school of
democracy’.
Definitions of political participation should not encompass behaviours that are not
political in nature, such as responsible consumer choices, which are one of the forms of social
or economic participation.
Ideologization of research
Before going on to the second problem, let us note that there are serious doubts as to whether
the scope of the concept of ‘political participation’ should be limited only to legal activities.
This is because such practices can be interpreted as an attempt at adopting a normative
approach to studying political systems (and it often takes on a crypto-normative form), which
means that a given system is treated as the best and most desirable one, i.e. as the target
system, and not as one of the many systems that might have possibly emerged in the course of
social evolution. This is what, for example, Milbrath (1969: 18, 27–28) does – he excludes
forms that are typical of political protests from the list of the analysed manifestations of
political participation. He argues that political protests contradict democratic ideals. Verba et
al. (1972: 3; 1978: 1–2) treat this form of political activity in a similar way. Even though these
authors recognize the importance of forms that are against the spirit of democracy, they leave
them out and treat them as a topic that should be dealt with separately.
Mobilized activities are also excluded as being beyond the scope of the concept of
‘political participation’. This approach is taken, for example, by Townsend (1969: 4), Kaase
and Marsh (1979: 42) as well as Meyer (1991: 11). However, doubts arise as to whether this
concept should be linked with a specific system of values. There are also methodological
doubts about the reasonableness of this approach because it is impossible to assess the role
that persuasion, manipulation and material incentives play in both democratic and non-
democratic systems. Additionally, it is extremely difficult to notice when autonomous
participation turns into mobilized participation in politics, and the other way round.
Huntington and Nelson (1976: 7–8) provide an example of a worker from Mexico City who
might have taken part in a demonstration which was sponsored by the PRI not because he was
motivated by inner convictions or coerced to do so, but because he was afraid of his
colleagues’ reaction. In 19th-century America, immigrants distributed political campaign
materials and voted not because they themselves believed it was right, but because they had
10
been explicitly told to do so by their employers. Unlike those American voters who were
guided by loyalty to a given party for utilitarian reasons, a voter in the Soviet Union might
have been motivated by inner convictions which resulted from his pride in and love for his
country and the party.
The above-mentioned difficulties in conceptualizing political participation are also due
to the fact that there are other forms of political activity on the scale between voluntary and
mobilized participation that are neither coerced by authorities nor fully autonomous. In this
regard, Garlicki (2005: 115–116) points to activities that are determined by cultural standards
and that result from organizational or associative entanglements. For example, on the one
hand, there is ritualized participation in different kinds of national celebrations and mandatory
voting on pain of legal sanctions, and on the other hand, there are strong family and
community ties that influence individuals’ participation in political parties.3
The Polish lawyer Opałek (1978) pointed to the ideological entanglement of the
concept of ‘political participation’ at the end of the 1970s. During the Cold War, political
scientists in the West used this concept in order to demonstrate the superiority of participation
in politics in capitalist societies over engagement in politics in socialist societies. This trend
was part of a much more extensive ideological struggle against Eastern bloc countries (the
social sciences which were treated instrumentally played an important role in this fight [see
Solovey and Cravens, 2012; Solovey, 2013]). However, a similar process occurred on the
other side of the fence. For example, Opałek himself committed the sin that he wrote about.
He attempted to demonstrate the superiority of participation in socialist politics over
participation in bourgeois politics in twenty pages of his article.4
3
Certain researchers are aware of these difficulties. For example, van Deth (2014: 345) points to the problems
with assessing the extent to which an individual is governed by his or her own will when undertaking a specific
activity. This is why he proposes to exclude only those activities that are observable coercion from the scope of
the concept of ‘political participation’. Here, operationalist assumptions allow this author to partially overcome
only the methodological difficulties. Importantly, he is not at all interested in the issue of the ideologization of
research.
4
Nowak (2008: 25) rightly observes that social science concepts are entangled in ideologies and perform various
functions: ‘Researchers’ entanglements in ideologies and the values they hold do not always have to disturb
cognitive processes and consequently decrease the methodological validity and substantive value of research
studies. However, ideological entanglements can have such consequences if a researcher is influenced by some
ideology or pressurized by a certain group to obtain results which are not true, but which are to serve the
interests of this group, for example, when these interests are justified by propaganda considerations, even at the
expense of presenting false or at least unclear results […] Then particular researchers may succumb to these
11
Today, serious objections are raised to such practices which, surprisingly, are
sometimes still followed by subsequent generations of researchers. On the one hand, such
methods tarnish political scientists’ reputation among representatives of other disciplines,
while on the other hand, they reduce the role of political science itself to that of social
engineering. In order to avoid pseudoscientific methods, especially at the early stages of the
research process, one should realize the following:
People have been participating in politics since political phenomena appeared, i.e. for
as many as 6,000 years.
‘Political participation’ is a concept that helps describe and explain complex human
behaviour in all possible forms of political systems that have emerged in the course of
social evolution with regard to Homo sapiens.
‘Political participation’ is not (and it cannot be) a phrase that promotes the values of a
specific ideology.
The concept of ‘political participation’ encompasses legal and illegal as well as
voluntary and mobilized or coerced activities.
Conclusions
Generally speaking, the phrase ‘political participation’ is used to denote a certain kind of
mental and physical activity which is undertaken by specific subjects who pursue their goals,
which is directed to particular entities and which has certain features that make it different
from other kinds of human activity as well as more or less tangible effects. Obviously, there is
no consensus among researchers about the content and scope of this concept. Anyway, one
can hardly expect that they will agree on this matter since the studies they conduct are based
on different assumptions and objectives. Problems arise only when a certain element of this
concept’s definitions is not precise enough or when the content or scope of the concept itself
has not been sufficiently determined. Then it becomes a catch-all term for everything that
comes to a researcher’s mind at a given moment. Radtke’s (1976: 16) definition of this
concept is a perfect example of this trend. The definition provided by Norris (2001: 16)
entails a slightly smaller number of possible interpretations.
As a result, the problem arises that this phrase is used to describe activities which are
hardly political in nature. Many researchers treat the distinction between the concept of
pressures to a greater or lesser extent and more or less consciously, which will distort research methods or
directly compromise the validity of results’ [author’s translation].
12
‘political participation’ and that of ‘social participation’ quite loosely and use them as
synonyms. It is impossible to say to what extent this results from being unaware of the
differences between these concepts and to what extent this is a consequence of copying the
patterns that are used in the scientific community in a poorly thought out or automatic
manner. This, in turn, blurs the distinction between what is political and what is social, and
ultimately may lead political scientists to lose their discipline-based identity.
The tendency among researchers to be guided by moral considerations not only when
choosing particular aspects of certain phenomena for analysis, but also when providing
explanations is no less controversial. This tendency is visible, for example in Milbrath’s
(1969) and Verba et al.’s (1972; 1978) books. However it is most clearly seen in the quote
from Parry, Moyser and Day (1992: 3): ‘Any book about political participation is also a book
about democracy’. Thus, these authors used this concept for ideological and propagandist
purposes. This trend may be caused by the following factors: the influence of particular
systems of values and the interests of different social groups; the desire to gain benefits, for
example, to get research grants or foreign scholarships and later also promotion; the inability
to differentiate between scientific knowledge and doctrinal knowledge; the lack of systematic
reflection on the origins of the analysed phenomena; and copying solutions that were
proposed by other researchers, especially by those who are regarded as authorities in a given
community.
Any changes will probably meet with resistance, primarily in the form of human
habits.
References
Andreski S (1972) Social Sciences as Sorcery. London: Andre Deutsch.
Aue S (2008) Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS). Eine neue Form politischer
Partizipation. Siegen: Grin Verlag.
Barnes SH and Kaase M (eds) (1979) Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western
Democracies. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Berelson BR, Lazarsfeld PF and McPhee WN (1954) Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation
in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
13
Eulau H and Schneider P (1956) Dimensions of political involvement. The Public Opinion
Quarterly 20(1): 128–142.
Friedgut TH (1979) Political Participation in the USSR. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Gabriel OW and Völkl K (2005) Politische und soziale Partizipation. In: Gabriel OW and
Holtmann E (eds) Handbuch Politisches System der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
München: Oldenbourg Verlag.
Garlicki J (2005) Demokracja i integracja europejska. Studium osobistych i politycznych
orientacji dwóch pokoleń Polaków. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek.
Hirsch-Weber W and Schütz K (1957) Wähler und Gewählte. Eine Untersuchung der
Bundestagswahlen 1953. Berlin: Verlag Franz Vahlen GmbH.
Holtkamp L, Bogumil J and Kissler L (2006) Kooperative Demokratie: Das demokratische
Potenzial von Bürgerengagement. Frankfurt/M: Campus Verlag.
Huntington SP and Nelson JM (1976) No Easy Choice: Political Participation in Developing
Countries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kaase M and Marsh A (1979) Political action: A theoretical perspective. In: Barnes SH and
Kaase M (eds) Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Lazarsfeld PF, Berelson BR and Gaudet H (1948) The People’s Choice: How The Voter
Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Meyer G (1991) Introduction: Two European nations in search of participatory democracy. In:
Meyer G and Ryszka F (eds) Political Participation and Democracy in Poland and
West Germany. Warsaw: Ośrodek Badań Społecznych.
Meyer G and Ryszka F (eds.) (1991) Political Participation and Democracy in Poland and
West Germany. Warsaw: Ośrodek Badań Społecznych.
Micheletti M (2002) Consumer choice as political participation. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift
105(3): 218–234. Available at:
http://journals.lub.lu.se/index.php/st/article/viewFile/2143/1721.
Mider D (2008) Partycypacja polityczna w internecie. Studium politologiczne. Warszawa:
Dom Wydawniczy Elipsa.
Milbrath LW (1969) Political Participation: How and Why Do People Get Involved in
Politics? Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.
Norris P (2001) Count Every Voice: Democratic Participation Worldwide. [Manuscript].
14
Norris P (2002) Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nowak S (2008) Metodologia badań społecznych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Opałek K (1978) Problematyka tzw. uczestnictwa w burżuazyjnej socjologii i nauce
politycznej. In: Opałek K (ed.) Z zagadnień teorii polityki. Warszawa: Państwowe
Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Parry G, Moyser G and Day N (1992) Political Participation and Democracy in Britain.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radtke GD (1976) Teilnahme an der Politik: Bestimmungsgründe der Bereitschaft zur
politischen Partizipation, ein empirischer Beitrag. Leverkusen: Heggen-Verlag.
Solovey M and Cravens H (eds) (2012) Cold War Social Science: Knowledge Production,
Liberal Democracy and Human Nature. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Solovey M (2013) Shaky Foundations: The Politics-Patronage-Social Science Nexus in Cold
War America. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Stolle D, Hooghe M and Micheletti M (2005) Politics in the supermarket: political
consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science
Review 26(3): 245–269. Available at:
https://www.csupomona.edu/~smemerson/busine ss318/supermarket.pdf.
Townsend JR (1969) Political Participation in Communist China. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Van Deth JW (2001a) Studying Political Participation: Towards a Theory of Everything?
[Paper presented at the joint sessions of workshops of the European Consortium for
Political Research workshop ‘Electronic Democracy: Mobilisation, Organisation and
Participation via New ICTs’, Grenoble, (6–11 April 2001)]. Available at:
http://www.academia.edu/2233354/STUDYING_POLITICAL_PARTICIPATION_T
OWARDS_A_THEORY_OF_EVERYTHING.
Van Deth JW (2001b) Soziale und politische Beteiligung: Alternativen, Ergänzungen oder
Zwillinge? In: Koch M, Wasmer M and Schmidt P (eds) Politische Partizipation in
der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Empirische Befunde und theoretische Erklärungen.
Opladen: Leske+Budrich. Available at:
https://www.academia.edu/2883650/Soziale_und_politische_Beteiligung_Alternativen
_Erg%C3%A4nzungen_oder_Zwillinge.
15
Van Deth JW (2014) A conceptual map of political participation. Acta Politica 49: 349–367.
Available at: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ap/journal/v49/n3/full/ap20146a.
html#ftnote9.
Verba S and Nie NH (1972) Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social
Equality. New York: Harper & Row.
Verba S, Nie NH and Kim J (1978) Participation and Political Equality. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Weber M (1922) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen: Verlag von J.C.B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck). Available at: https://ia700303.us.archive.org/33/items/wirtschaftundges00we
beuoft/wirtschaftundges00webeuoft.pdf.
16
