Political Action Repertoires

Abstract

This article presents and tests a theoretical model to explain the attitudinal origins of political action. Consistent with recent work in political science and social psychology, a rational choice model is developed that claims that citizens weigh the costs and benefits of alternative paths of political action before deciding on a particular mode of participation. Such evaluations can be tapped by making a distinction between institutional and mobilization efficacy. Whereas institutional efficacy centers on beliefs about the utility of actions that are organized by the political system itself (e.g., campaigning), mobilization efficacy is concerned with subjective evaluations about direct action techniques (e.g., demonstrations). The model is tested using data that was collected in eight countries for an earlier study: Political Action. It is suggested that the model should resolve some of the inconsistencies that emerged in that research. The subjects in eight countries were divided into four action groups on the basis of their political behavior: inactives, conformists, dissidents, and pragmatists. Multiple classification analysis is used to build attitudinal and demographic profiles of each type that illustrate the congruence between motivations, evaluatons, and action. In addition, a logistic regression is performed that emphasizes the centrality of the two kinds of efficacy in explaining both institutional and mobilized political action.