slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Amparo González-Ferrer (CSIC, Spain ) Laura Morales ( Univ. of Manchester, UK)

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18

Amparo González-Ferrer (CSIC, Spain ) Laura Morales ( Univ. of Manchester, UK) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 77 Views
  • Uploaded on

Does the citizenship regime matter? Turnout of immigrants and their children in local & national elections in Europe. Amparo González-Ferrer (CSIC, Spain ) Laura Morales ( Univ. of Manchester, UK). Research Question(s). Do citizenship regimes matter for electoral participation? If so...

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Amparo González-Ferrer (CSIC, Spain ) Laura Morales ( Univ. of Manchester, UK)' - maddy


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Does the citizenship regime matter? Turnout of immigrants and their children in local & national elections in Europe

Amparo González-Ferrer (CSIC, Spain)

Laura Morales (Univ. of Manchester, UK)

research question s
Research Question(s)
  • Do citizenship regimes matter for electoral participation?
  • If so...
    • Does its effect vary across generations?
    • Does its effect vary across electoral arenas?
introduction
Introduction
  • Citizenship regimes have been assumed to have significant effects on immigrants’ integration…
  • These effects have been demonstrated for some aspects of political integration (claims-making & collective mobilization)…
  • … but very little cross-national research for turnout, especially of children of immigrants
previous evidence on immigrant turnout
Previous Evidence on Immigrant Turnout
  • Substantial gaps in electoral turnout between immigrants and natives
  • Smaller gaps if immigrants are naturalized
  • Substantial cross-national variation…

maybe related to effects of citizenship regimes???

conceptual problems
Conceptual Problems
  • Citizenship regimes are multifaceted , not completely coherent & not completely immutable
  • However, some of their basic dimensions are expected to be crucial on immigrants’ turnout:
    • rules for citizenship acquisition
    • (sub-national) voting rights
    • antidiscrimination policies
in addition to citizenship regimes
In addition to citizenship regimes…

Otherfactors are expectedtoshapethe electoral behaviour of immigrant-originvoters:

  • Place of birth, age at migration & citizenship (i.e. GENERATION)
  • Electoral arena & mobilization:
    • Local vs. nationalissues
    • Electoral systems (candidates’ selection and voting rules)
    • Local Context (decentralization, immigration-relatedconflict, etc.)
hypotheses
Hypotheses
  • Turnout gap betw. 1st & 2nd Gen vs Natives will be largest in societies with more restrictive citizenship regimes
  • Turnout gap betw. 2nd Gen vs Natives will be smaller than betw. 1st Gen vs Natives , especially in countries that recognize ethnic identities and develop anti-discrimination policies
  • Immigrant turnout gaps will be largest for national than for local elections, especially in restrictive citizenship regimes
  • Immigrant turnout gaps in local elections will decline with higher decentralization, party arrangements to include ethnic minority members & preferential voting
  • Turnout will increase with education, interest in politics, length of residence, language proficiency, and associational engagement
slide8
Data
  • LocalmultidemInvidualSurvey, enlargedversion (includingtwinprojects in othercities)
  • Sub-sample of citieswithsubstantialsecondgenerationpopulations: Geneva, Zurich, Oslo, Lyon, London & Stockholm (diff. citizenshipregimes)
  • Largeinformationon socio-demogcharacteristics, group and contextual-level variables
dependent independent variables
Dependent & Independent Variables
  • DV: turnout in national & local elections
  • IV:
    • Generation (1st, 2nd ornative)
    • Citizenship (foreignornot)
    • Controlsfor socio-ec, migrationexperience & politicalattitudes (interest in politics) & behaviour (associat. Involvement)
  • Methods: logisticregressionbycity & type of election
results in national elections
Results in National Elections
  • Two extremes: eithersubstantial gaps forboth 1st & 2nd generations (in exclusionistregimeslike SWITZ & NOR) or no gap at all (in bothassimilationist & multicultural regimeslike FR & SE, respectively)
  • But…
    • Heterogeneitywithin Multicultural regime (London vs Stockholm)
    • Remarkablecross-cityvariation (Zurich vs. Geneva)
results in local elections
Results in Local Elections
  • Smaller gaps than in national elections
  • Systematically larger & significant gaps for foreigners than for naturalized and native-born immigrants
  • Relatively ‘better performance’ of exclusionist cities, which eliminate gaps for 2nd generation (Oslo) or 1st & 2nd (Zurich)
conclusions
Conclusions

H1: SUPPORTED: Turnout gap is larger societies with more restrictive citizenship regimes, which are not necessarily completely defined at the national level (Switzerland)

H2. Partially supported: Turnout gap of 2nd Gen is smaller than for their parents (YES) BUT NOT especially in countries that recognize ethnic identities and develop anti-discrimination policies (BECAUSE ALSO IN LYON & GEN)

H3: SUPPORTED: Immigrant turnout gaps will be largest for national than for local elections, especially in restrictive citizenship regimes (HOWEVER 1ST GEN IN OSLO STILL LARGE GAP IN LOCAL ELECTIONS)

H4. Partially supported: Immigrant turnout gaps in local elections will decline with higher decentralization, party arrangements to include ethnic minority members & preferential voting (YET, LARGE GAP IN OSLO FOR 1ST GEN: maybe because of 1.5 generation)

H5: Partially Supported: Turnout increases with interest in politics & associational engagement, but not necessarily with education or length of residence (INTERACTIONS NEEDED).

ad