Using European Social Survey data, this article analyzes the extent to which individual autonomy and participation in decision making at the workplace are linked empirically to individual political behaviors in civil society. The results, which are consistent with the hypothesis of a positive outward democratic spillover from the workplace to the political arena, point to the possibility of a learning effect. Much of the literature studies small samples in a single country, whereas we analyze more than 14,000 workers across 27 countries. The results do not appear to be driven by specific countries, which suggests that this spillover effect is a general phenomenon across a variety of institutional contexts, although some features of a country’s electoral system moderate some of the results.
AbbottPamelaSapsfordRoger. 2006. Trust, confidence and social environment in post-Communist societies. Communist and Post-Communist Studies39(1): 59–71.
2.
AdmanPer. 2008. Does workplace experience enhance political participation? A critical test of a venerable hypothesis. Political Behavior30(1): 115–38.
3.
AlmondGabrielVerbaSidney. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
ArrighiBarbara A.MaumeDavid J.1994. Workplace control and political participation. Sociological Forces27(2): 147–59.
5.
AyalaLouis J.2000. Trained for democracy: The differing effects of voluntary and involuntary organizations on political participation. Political Research Quarterly53(1): 99–115.
6.
BhattiYosefDahlgaardJens OlavHansenJonas HedegaardHansenKasper M. Forthcoming. Is door-to-door canvassing effective in Europe? Evidence from a meta-study across six European countries. British Journal of Political Science. doi: 10.1017/S0007123416000521.
7.
BokDerek C.DunlopJohn T.1970. Labor and the American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
8.
BradyHenry E.VerbaSidneySchlozmanKay Lehman. 1995. Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review89(2): 271–94.
9.
BrysonAlexGomezRafaelKretschmerTobiasWillmanPaul. 2013. Workplace voice and civic engagement: What theory and data tell us about unions and their relationship to the democratic process. Osgoode Hall Law Journal50(4): 965–98.
10.
BrysonAlexGomezRafaelKretschmerTobiasWillmanPaul. 2014. What accounts for the union member advantage in voter turnout? Evidence from the European Union, 2002–2008. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations69(4): 732–65.
11.
BuddJohn W.ZagelmeyerStefan. 2010. Public policy and employee participation. In WilkinsonAdrianGollanPaul J.MarchingtonMickLewinDavid (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Participation in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199207268.003.0020.
12.
BurnShawn M.KonradAlison M.1987. Political participation: A matter of community, stress, job autonomy, and contact by political organizations. Political Psychology8(1): 125–38.
13.
DahlRobert A.1970. After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.
14.
D’ArtDarylTurnerTom. 2007. Trade unions and political participation in the European Union: Still providing a democratic dividend?British Journal of Industrial Relations45(1): 103–126.
15.
DelaneyJohnMastersMarick F.SchwochauSusan. 1988. Unionism and voter turnout. Journal of Labor Research9(3): 221–36.
16.
EldenJ. Maxwell. 1981. Political efficacy at work: The connection between more autonomous forms of workplace organization and a more participatory politics. American Political Science Review75(1): 43–58.
17.
European Social Survey. 2009. Round 5 Specification for Participating Countries. London: Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University London.
18.
European Social Survey. 2010. ESS Round 5 Translation Guidelines. Mannheim: European Social Survey GESIS.
19.
FarrellDavid M.2001. Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
20.
FreemanRichard. 2003. What do unions do . . . to voting?NBER Working Paper 9992. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
21.
GallagherMichael. 1991. Proportionality, disproportionality and electoral systems. Electoral Studies10(1): 33–51.
22.
GodardJohn. 2007. Is good work good for democracy? Work, change at work and political participation in Canada and England. British Journal of Industrial Relations45(4): 760–90.
23.
GreenbergEdward S.1986. Workplace Democracy: The Political Effects of Participation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
24.
GreenbergEdward S.LeonGrunbergDanielKelley. 1996. Industrial work and political participation: Beyond “simple spillover.”Political Research Quarterly49(2): 287–304.
25.
GreenbergerEllenO’NeilRobinNagelStacy K.1994. Linking workplace and homeplace: Relations between the nature of adults’ work and their parenting behaviors. Developmental Psychology30(6): 990–1002.
26.
Grimm-ThomasKarenPerry-JenkinsMaureen. 1994. All in a day’s work: Job experiences, self-esteem, and fathering in working-class families. Family Relations43(2): 174–81.
27.
HallPeter A.SoskiceDavid (Eds.). 2001. Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
HofstedeGeert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd edition.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
29.
JianGouweiJeffresLeo. 2008. Spanning the boundaries of work: Workplace participation, political efficacy, and political involvement. Communication Studies59(1): 35–50.
30.
JowellRoger. 1998. How comparative is comparative research?American Behavioral Scientist42(2): 168–77.
31.
JowellRogerRobertsCarolineFitzgeraldRoryEvaGillian (Eds.). 2007. Measuring Attitudes Cross-Nationally: Lessons from the European Social Survey. London: SAGE Publications.
32.
KarpJeffrey A.BanducciSusan A.2007. Party mobilization and political participation in new and old democracies. Party Politics13(2): 217–34.
33.
KarpJeffrey A.BanducciSusan A.2008. Political efficacy and participation in twenty-seven democracies: How electoral systems shape political behavior. British Journal of Political Science38(2): 311–34.
34.
KarpovAlexander. 2008. Mathematical modeling of voting systems and elections: Theory and applications. Mathematical and Computer Modelling48(9–10): 1421–38.
35.
KatzRichard S.1980. A Theory of Parties and Electoral Systems. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
36.
KeyserlingLeon H.1960. The Wagner Act: Its origin and current significance. George Washington Law Review29(1): 199–233.
37.
LaaksoMarkkuTaageperaRein. 1979. “Effective” number of parties: A measure with application to Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies12(1): 3–27.
38.
LetkiNatalia. 2004. Socialization for participation? Trust, membership, and democratization in East-Central Europe. Political Research Quarterly57(4): 665–79.
39.
LijphartArend. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40.
LopesHelenaLagoaSergioCalapezTeresa. 2014. Declining autonomy at work in the EU and its effect on civic behavior. Economic and Industrial Democracy35(2): 341–66.
41.
MainwaringScott. 1999. Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
42.
MarxKarl. (1867) 2007. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1. Part 1. New York: Cosimo Classics.
43.
MasonRonald M.1982. Participatory and Workplace Democracy: A Theoretical Development in Critique of Liberalism. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
44.
McMahonChristopher. 1994. Authority and Democracy: A General Theory of Government and Management. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
MontgomeryJames D.2000. The self as a fuzzy set of roles, role theory as a fuzzy system. Sociological Methodology30(1): 261–314.
46.
NorrisPippa. 2004. Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
PatemanCarole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
PetersonSteven A.1992. Workplace politicization and its political spillovers: A research note. Economic and Industrial Democracy13(4): 511–24.
49.
PutnamRobert D.2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
50.
RadcliffBenjamin. 2001. Organized labor and electoral participation in American national elections. Journal of Labor Research22: 405–14.
51.
RosenfeldJake. 2010. Economic determinants of voting in an era of union decline. Social Science Quarterly91(2): 379–95.
52.
RosenfeldJake. 2014. What Unions No Longer Do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
SchlozmanKay LehmanBurnsNancyVerbaSidney. 1999. What happened at work today? A multistage model of gender, employment, and political participation. Journal of Politics61(1): 29–53.
54.
SchneiderMartin R.PaunescuMihai. 2012. Changing varieties of capitalism and revealed comparative advantages from 1990 to 2005: A test of the Hall and Soskice claims. Socio-Economic Review10(4): 731–53.
55.
SchurLisa. 2003. Employment and the creation of an active citizenry. British Journal of Industrial Relations41(4): 751–71.
56.
SmithAdam. 1827. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
57.
SobelRichard. 1993. From occupational involvement to political participation: An exploratory analysis. Political Behavior15(4): 339–53.
58.
SojournerAaron. 2013. Do unions promote members’ electoral office holding? Evidence from correlates of state legislatures’ occupational shares. ILR Review66(2): 467–86.
59.
StoopInekeBillietJaakKochAchimFitzgeraldRory. 2010. Improving Survey Response: Lessons Learned from the European Social Survey. Chichester: Wiley.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
