Indicators on Active Citizenship for Democracy - the social ...

Indicators on Active Citizenship for Democracy
– the social, cultural and economic domain















Hermann Josef ABS
German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF)
Frankfurt / Main, Germany

and

Ruud VELDHUIS
Education consultant, Public Administration Academy
Joure, the Netherlands
















Paper by order of the Council of Europe
for the CRELL-Network on Active Citizenship for Democracy
at the European Commission’s Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy

August 2006

---

Contents

Contents .......................................................................................................................1

Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3

2. Dimensions of citizenship ....................................................................................... 3

2.1 T.H. Marshall’s writings on citizenship .................................................................... 3
2.2 A fourth dimension of citizenship............................................................................. 4

3. Personal level outcomes: competences of citizens................................................ 5

4. Indicators for personal- and community-level outcomes ........................................ 8

4.1 Indicators for personal-level outcomes.................................................................... 8
4.2 Indicators for community-level outcomes............................................................... 14

5. Selecting indicators for participation ...................................................................... 21

6. Working on indicators............................................................................................. 22

6.1 Requirements in the construction of indicators ..................................................... 22

6.2 Examples of the work to be done .......................................................................... 23

6.2.1
Justifying the construction of a composite indicator ............................................ 23
6.2.2
Basic construction of a composite indicator ........................................................ 30
6.2.3
Verifying the mutual validity of measures from different surveys ........................ 39
6.2.4
Selecting frames of reference............................................................................. 43

6.3 Suggestions for measurement instruments in areas of special importance within
the European context (the European module within ICCES) ............................. 48

6.3.1
Instruments related to dealing with multiculturalism............................................ 48
6.3.2
Instruments related to dealing with conflicts ....................................................... 50
6.3.3
Instruments related to children/youth rights ........................................................ 51
6.3.4
Instruments related to critical thinking................................................................. 52

7. Next research needed .......................................................................................... 52

7.1 Conceptual and theoretical development on active citizenship for democracy ..... 52
7.2 Development of indicators and measurement options .......................................... 52
7.3. Usage and effects of indicators in political and educational contexts ................... 53

References ................................................................................................................. 55


1

---

Summary

This paper starts with a conceptual analysis of active citizenship, based on a functional approach
distinguishing four dimensions of citizenship: Firstly, the cultural function of citizenship which consists
of the tradition of patterns dealing with contingency. Secondly, the economic function which deals with
the efficient and sustainable allocation of material resources. Thirdly, the political function which is
directed to the process of generally binding decision-making. Fourthly, the social function which
consists of developing the human resources for living together in everyday life (chapter 2).

Active Citizenship for Democracy is described as a set of competencies and behaviours which are apt
to fulfil these functions. A comprehensive framework on possible indicators both for competencies and
for behaviour is laid down. Competencies as the personal level outcome of citizenship education,
enculturation and socialisation are divided up into knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and identity
aspects. A minimum package of such competencies is suggested (chapters 3, and 4.1). Behaviour
gets systematised according to the four functions above. In this we reproduce the idea that behaviour
can be systemised by the functional dimensions (chapter 4).

During the work on this paper the authors came to know clearly that the division of active citizenship
indicators into the political domain on the one hand and in the cultural, economical and social domain
on the other hand is dubious. So there really are arguments for taking the division into competencies
and behaviour as leading distinction of indicators in the course of composite indicator building
(chapters 2, 5 and 6.2.1).

The paper concentrates on the presentation of data and statistical methods in the course of
constructing a composite indicator on active citizenship behaviour. Public data available from the
following surveys is taken into account: Civic Education Study (IEA-CIVED); European Social Survey
(ESS) Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) and Word Value Survey (WVS). After presenting criteria
for indicators (chapter 6.1) the paper evaluates the multidimensionality of citizenship behaviour as the
central criterion for building a composite indicator (chapter 6.2.1.). Chapter 6.2.2. shows data on
several exemplary indicators and alternative ways of integrating them. This is followed by an
investigation in an important aspect for the compilation of data from different surveys: the mutual
validity of measurements (chapter 6.2.3.). Thereafter the use of different frames of reference in
indicator building is discussed (chapter 6.2.4).

As the authors don’t see sufficient theoretical and empirical basis for developing a composite indicator
on European active and democratic citizenship competencies, the paper presents two preliminary
achievements. First, minimum requirements are laid down (chapter 3), and second, instruments for a
European module within the IEA-International Civic and Citizenship Education Study are suggested
(chapter 6.3). These measurement options relate to the aspects of multiculturalism, dealing with
conflicts, children’s rights and critical thinking. The paper finishes with a documentation on further
research needs (chapter 7) related to conceptual and statistical analysis as well as to the usage of
indicators.

The work on this paper was divided between the authors. Ruud Veldhuis wrote chapters 1 to 4 and
Hermann Josef Abs wrote chapters 5 to 7.

The authors wish to thank the Council of Europe for a grant, which offered them the opportunity to
work on this paper. Many thanks to Bryony Hoskins and to two anonymous reviewers from CRELL for
their comments on a first draft. Further special thanks are due to Helge Sickmann, who prepared the
annex and helped on many ways during an internship at the German Institute for International
Research (DIPF).


2

---

1. Introduction

This paper is part of the research project ‘Active Citizenship for Democracy’. In this paper we will
propose indicators for active citizenship. Since a separate paper will be written about indicators for
political participation, this paper will focus on the other dimensions of citizenship, social, cultural and
economic. It will also formulate indicators for the outcome of the learning process, the indicators that
establish the competences that citizens need for participation in democratic society and citizenship
behaviour.

Citizenship is an essentially contested concept in the social sciences, which means that this
definition inevitably raises endless disputes (Heater 1990). The literature is overwhelming but we will
abstain from summarizing the discussion. We make an exception for the seminal work of T.H.
Marshall because we propose to distinguish four dimensions of citizenship contrary to the three that
are described by him.

The definition of active citizenship is contested as well but in this Crell-project agreement has been
reached about the following definition: “Participation in civil society, community and/or political life
characterised by mutual respect and non-violence and in accordance with human rights and
democracy” (Hoskins 2006).

We build the construction of indicators on a Crell working document with domains and principal
factors where we focus the construction of indicators on the ‘Personal Level Outcomes’ and
‘Community Level Outcomes’ (Crell 2006a)

Statistical options for working on indicators will be shown in an exemplary way using data form the
World Value Study the European Social Survey and the IEA-CIVED Study. We discuss the
construction of a multidimensional composite indicator, the mutual validity of data as a precondition
for using different surveys as database within one indicator, and the definition of suitable frames of
reference for indicators. Finally we document open questions for further research.



2. Dimensions
of
citizenship
2.1
T.H. Marshall’s writings on citizenship
Many authors base their approach of citizenship on the work of T.H. Marshall (1950). The conception
of citizenship that he introduced in his acclaimed publication was derived from membership in the
nation-state. He distinguished three dimensions of citizenship: civil, political and social. At the time his
concept of citizenship was a progressive one, since he saw these three citizenship dimensions
developing from the years of industrialization until the 20th century. Citizenship rights develop with the
increase of equality in the society. In the 18th century he saw the development of civil rights of
individuals; the development of political rights taking place in the 19th century; and the development of
social rights took place in the 20th century.

"Citizenship is a status bestowed on all those who are full members of a community. All who possess
the status are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the status is endowed. There are
not universal principles that determine what those rights and duties shall be, but societies, in which
citizenship is a developing institution, create an image of ideal citizenship against which achievement
can be directed. The urge forward along the path thus plotted is an urge toward a fuller measure of
equality, an enrichment of the stuff of which the status is bestowed... Citizenship requires a direct
sense of community membership based on loyalty to a civilization which is a common possession. It
is a loyalty of free men endowed with rights and protected by a common law. Its growth is stimulated
by the struggle to win those rights and their enjoyment when won." (Demaine,1996, 67)

The attractiveness of his approach of citizenship is that it is based upon the idea that membership in a
society rests on the principle of formal equality. Marshall introduced a tripartite distinction of
citizenship: civil, political and social.
The civil dimension of citizenship includes the rights to property, individual freedom and legal
protection (equality before the law).

3

---

The political dimension refers to participation in the public arena and includes the right to vote and
participate in the political decision-making process (formal equality).
The social dimension includes the right to income and decent housing, health care and education for
all (equality of opportunity).

Marshall has been criticized for his assumption that citizenship rights developed from civil to political
to social rights. He was also criticized because he focused on the male working class during the
industrial revolution in Britain. Nevertheless Marshall’s theory has been so influential “that many
scholars and activists equate genuine citizenship with the full possession of all three types of rights,
and use his theory as a framework for the study of political rights and democratic governance, as well
as a normative basis for the formulation of claims towards three institutions in modern societies
involved in the regulation of citizenship, namely the legal, governmental, and welfare systems of
modern western democracies.” (Bachman & Staerkle 2003)


2.2
A fourth dimension of citizenship
Marshall distinguishes three dimensions of citizenship, but we have three arguments to add economic
citizenship as a fourth dimension and rearrange the other three.

One argument is derived from feminist literature which introduced the concept of economic
citizenship. “[…] no one can enjoy civil and political rights without social and economic citizenship.”
The modern gender system made it difficult for women to become full citizens. While most
policymakers (including female ones) assumed that women were not, and should not be
breadwinners, some feminist authors state that to be a real citizen, one must earn (Kessler-Harris,
2001).

Another argument is that with the economic dimension of citizenship factors are included in the
‘personal level outcomes’ that would otherwise have been excluded or underestimated. The
globalization of the economy makes the economic subsystem exerting powerful influences on the
others, in particular on the political system.

The third argument is based on the sociological approach of Talcott Parsons (1951) who distinguishes
four dimensions in social systems.
Parsons is a functionalist who offered an analysis of social systems. He conceived social systems as
an open system constantly engaged in an exchange with environing systems. Parsons distinguishes
four functional requisites of any system of action:


1. The function of pattern maintenance: this refers to the maintaining of stability (family,
education, culture contribute to socialization and role commitment) (the cultural system)
2. The function of goal attainment: what is necessary for the functioning of the system (the
political system)
3. The function of adaptation: refers to the use of scarce resources (the economic system)
4. The function of integration: focuses at the system of legal norms and the legal system (courts,
police, law) (the social system)

In Parsons’ analysis the social system is divided in four distinctive subsystems.

On the basis of the afore-mentioned three arguments, we propose to distinguish four dimensions of
citizenship:

1. Political citizenship: citizens are a part of the decision-making systems that decides about
the distribution of scarce goods; this dimension deals with participation in formal (voting) and
(inter)active ways of political involvement at various levels (neighbourhood, local, regional,
national and European); this dimension refers to political rights and duties vis-à-vis the
political system, and includes the handling of the government bureaucracy.
2. Social citizenship: citizens have relations between each other and they have to contribute to
society as a whole; this dimension is about the functioning of an individual in the living
environment, in situation of (health)care and leisure; the participation in society demands
loyalty and solidarity.

4

---

3. Cultural citizenship: citizens are introduced in society, they are educated and receive the
norms and values which are shared in the society they live in; this dimension of citizenship
refers to consciousness of a common cultural heritage, the developing of an own identity and
the functioning in a multicultural society.
4. Economic citizenship: citizens are also workers and consumers; this dimension refers to the
relation of an individual towards the labour- and consumer market and implies the right to
work and citizenship within a company or enterprise.


The legal, European and global dimension can be added to every dimension. In the current CRELL-
project we propose to create European citizenship as a separate dimension.



3.
Personal level outcomes: competences of citizens

The definition of Education and training for active citizenship that is adopted in the Crell-project is:
‘Learning opportunities (formal, non-formal and informal) that occurs at any stage of the life cycle that
facilitates or encourages active citizenship’ (Hoskins 2006)

The definition of citizenship education which was introduced during the Council of Europe-project
‘Education for Democratic Citizenship’, is more specific:
"the set of practices and activities aimed at making young people and adults better equipped to
participate actively in democratic life by assuming and exercising their rights and responsibilities in
society" (Birzea, 1996. 16)

This definition includes the notion that citizenship education should extend knowledge, skills (social,
intellectual, technological), attitudes (respect for cultural and political diversity, respect for rational
argument, interest in community affairs) and values (justice, democracy, rule of law) and stimulate
participation.

The definition has the advantage to include social and political citizenship, which means participation
in the public space (voting, influencing policymaking, etc) and in the civil society (be an active
member of voluntary associations).

There are social-economic, cultural and political developments in societies for which citizens have to
be equipped with certain competences so that societies can cope with these developments.

In the political domain we see a declining participation of citizens in formal politics. Some politicians
and political scientists talk about a gap between citizens and politics. For a healthy democracy the
participation of citizens is seen as essential.

In the social domain we see a change of participation in civil society and a wish to fight the
phenomenon that a part of the population is (threatened to be) excluded from society. An older
phenomenon is the individualization of society. A new development is the participation of citizens in
so-called ‘light communities’. See also paragraph 4.2.

In the cultural domain we see the consequence of global migration streams and a desire and
necessity to better integrate migrants

In the economic domain the globalisation of the economy has a lot of consequences not only for
governments but also for citizens. An important consequence being that national governments have
only a marginal power to decide about the national economy. Real decisions are taken in international
bodies and international companies.

We propose the following forms of participation on society level as minimum requirements for a well
functioning society and for citizens well being. The minimum competences of citizens that are
mentioned hereafter should qualify citizens for active participation.

5

---

Minimally expected forms of participation
1. Political participation
Vote at local, regional, national or European election and in referenda
Influence decision-making when opportunities are offered or via
informal ways (lobbying)
Come up for citizens own interests by contacting civil servants or
politicians
2. Social participation
Become a member of voluntary associations
Become a member of the board of an association or take part in other
activities of the association
3. Cultural participation
Fight exclusion and discrimination
Promote social cohesion
4. Economic participation
Contribute to the production process: work
Become a member of the company’s workers council
Take action against unequal global distribution of wealth


What is the explanation for this approach?
Ad 1. Governments strive for participation of citizens in the political process in order to gain
legitimacy. From a poor participation a poor democracy may result (Putnam 2000).

Ad 2. Research indicates that under specific circumstances social participation can contribute to
political participation. It may be expected that citizens who are active in voluntary associations will
also participate in political decision-making (Van Deth 2001).

Ad 3. The European Union developed a policy to counteract exclusion and discrimination. Social
cohesion is explicitly mentioned in the draft EU-constitution (Draft Constitution 2003) Several EU-
member states with groups of, badly integrated like in the Netherlands, migrants and in size varying
groups of refugees and asylum seekers develop policies to prevent the outbreak of violence as in
some French ‘banlieus’ in 2006.

Ad 4. In most EU-countries participation in workers councils is a lawful right. There is extensive
evidence that involvement and democratic participation in the workplace increases not only
production, it can also increase satisfaction in work and can influence the sick rate.

In paragraph 4.1 we will suggest what indicators can measure the competences needed for that
participation.


Basic competences for participation
We now translate the socially expected participation in a minimum package of knowledge, attitudes
and skills. If we expect citizens to vote, to participate in (local) decision-making, to be active in civil
society, that they do not discriminate, and be active in their workplace what minimal information,
attitude and skills does a citizen then need?

Vote. In order to be able to vote, citizens need knowledge and insight in the essence of the
political system; in the way the representative system functions in a parliamentary democracy;
how the separation of powers is organized; what the role is of political parties; know the
differences between political parties; read party programmes; understand how election
campaigns function; they should know how votes are cast, how the counting and allocation of
seats in parliament works, how to establish a political party, how a new government is formed
after elections.

Influence decision-making. Citizens need to know how the formal and actual policy- and
decision-making takes place (at local, national and European level), what the role is of civil
servants, the elected, the (local) government, advisory councils, ways of influencing
policymaking; know how to contact officials, collect information, contact interest groups and
political parties; know how societal wishes are transferred in political demands; what the role
is of the media; know how the implementation of decisions can be influenced.

Bureaucracy. Know what institutions or organizations to contact for specific problems.

6

---

Civil society. Know what organizations play a role in society in between government and the
market economy. What their role is in the democratic process. How to become a member of
voluntary associations. Know how the boards of these associations function.

Exclusion. Fight discrimination in personal relations at the workplace, in the neighborhood, at
school etc.

Work. Know how countries provide in the needs of their citizens

Participate in the company decision-making process. Know the rights and duties of employers
and employees.

Underdevelopment. Worry about third world poverty. Fight inequality. Know what role national
and European governments play in relieving poverty. Know the role of voluntary organizations
in this field.

For citizenship education activities it is advisable to differentiate between types of citizens. Various
authors (Westheimer and Kahne 2004, Amna 2001, Schudson 1998) distinguish categories of citizens
and the differing needs in terms of knowledge, skills etc they have. Citizens who only monitor policy
making need different qualifications from citizens who wish to be active and influence decision-
making. We save time and space by abstaining from elaborating on the topic.

The Council of Europe invested quite considerably in developing a framework that describes these
competences for policymakers, teachers, trainers, and teacher trainers. Various scientists (Patrick,
2003, Himmelmann, 2005), task forces (NCSS, 2001) and working groups (2004) have been making
inventories of what competences citizens should possess in order to be a ‘good’ or ‘effective’ or
‘active’ citizen.

On the basis of the publications of these organizations and individuals we composed a minimum
package that citizens need in order to effectively participate in democratic society. We interpret the
list with ‘personal level outcomes’ in the Crell project as the maximum package of competences. In
paragraph 5.1. we suggest indicators for these competences.


An ‘active citizen’ needs the following competences

Knowledge of:
• key elements of the political and legal system (human) rights and duties,
parliamentary government, the importance of voting) (local, national, European level)
• the basics of democracy, political parties, election programs, the proceeding of
elections
• the role of the media in personal and social life
• social relations in society: social rights
• the history and cultural heritage of own country; of predominance of certain norms
and values
• different cultures in the school and in the country
• main events, trends and change agents of national, European and world history
• the work of voluntary groups

Attitudes:
• support for the political community
• acceptance of the rule of law
• strive for justice and the equality and equal treatment of citizens
• to respect gender - and religious differences
• negative about prejudice, racism and discrimination
• democratic attitude, feel responsible, political confident, trust in and loyal to
democratic principles and institutions,
• sense of belonging to the community
• tolerance and respect; open to change; able to adapt and to compromise
• preservation of the environment;

7

---

• respect for human rights (freedom, diversity, equality)
• respect for the dignity and freedom of every individual
• that it is important to be/become involved in society and in politics

Skills:
• to take part in political discussions; consciousness of current political issues; to be
able to evaluate a position or decision, take a position, defend a position
• to resolve conflicts in a peaceful way; ability to judge
• to interpret the media messages (interests and value systems that are involved etc.)
• to have media skills to look, choose, and ‘use the buttons’
• to have language competence, reading and writing;
• to be capable in critical handling of information and information technology;
• to
possess
communication
skills
• to know how to vote; to monitor and influence policies and decisions
• to use the media in an active way (not as consumer, but as producer of media
content)
• to participate in voluntary organisations;
• to build coalitions; to co-operate; to interact
• to be capable to handle multiculturalism


4.
Indicators for personal- and community-level outcomes
4.1
Indicators for personal-level outcomes

(# means: Survey questions available in annex)

Knowledge
Principal Factors
Sub-categories
Indicators
Human rights
♦
rights and
The percentage of the population that have
responsibilities of
knowledge of citizenship rights and duties.
citizenship
The proportion of persons that know the ‘right to

work’, that compulsory or forced labour is not
♦
global rights and
allowed, that just and favourable conditions of
responsibilities
work are essential.
The percentage of the population that have
knowledge of rights to be defended by the
international community; the number of persons
that act responsibly for underdeveloped
countries
Political literacy
♦
the political system
The percentage of the population that know
♦
party politics
where decisions are taken (in Parliament, by the

cabinet of ministers, by a president/king or
♦
principles of
queen)
democracy
The percentage of the population that know the

differences between ideologies of political

parties
♦
the election process
The percentage of the population that know
♦
EU political system
about the (importance of) the separation of
powers
The percentage of the population that have the
procedure of casting a vote and counting
The proportion of the people who know the
power centers in the EU, the voting system for
the European Parliament; the (lacking of the )
European party system

8

---

Historical knowledge
♦
events, trends and
The proportion of the people who have
agents of change
knowledge of the democratization after 1968,

the détente after 1989, flows of migration,
♦
political
globalising economy, regional conflicts, energy
ideas/practices in a
(oil) supplies scarcer, Muslim fundamentalism
European context
The proportion of the people who know that the
♦
European integration
European cooperation after world war II was
intended to prevent wars, have knowledge of
advantages and consequences (power shift) of
the EU
The proportion of the people who know the
background of the EU, the different phases from
EEG->EU, the enlargement process, the draft
‘constitution’, etc #
Current affairs
♦
Main events, trends
The proportion of the people who can answer
and change agents of correctly questions that test current issues
national, European
(national/European/global) #
and world history
The proportion of the people who follow politics
in the news on tv, radio or daily papers ##
The percentage of the people who know
consequences of industrial production.
European diversity
♦
Languages
The percentage of people who speak one or
♦
Religions
more foreign languages

The percentage of people who are familiar with
♦
Customs
different religions in the country and in Europe.

The percentage of people who know what
♦
Ethnicity
freedom of religion means
♦
Legal basis for
What numbers of people have knowledge of
European diversity
diversity of customs as a consequence of open
society and migration.
The percentage of people who have knowledge
of Europe as a multicultural society
The percentage of people who have knowledge
of diversity in the national constitution,
international conventions, and the draft EU-
constitution
Cultural heritage
♦
European and non-
The percentage of people who have knowledge
European cultures
of differing or converging norms and values
The percentage of people who have knowledge
of typical characteristics of the country The
percentage of people who know what the EU
has in common and what are differences with
non-European cultures.
Legal matters
♦
European legal
The percentage of people who know of the core
system
of the lawmaking process in the EU
♦
European and
The percentage of people who know of
national laws
European laws overruling national laws
How to influence policy
♦
The main channels of
The proportion of people that have basic
making and society
political and social
knowledge of the functioning of the political
influence
system: role of government, parliament,
advisory councils, political parties, media and
third sector
The proportion of people that know how to use
the media in order to influence decision-making


9

---