IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v20y2002i6p829-851.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Municipal Size and Local Nonelectoral Participation: Findings from Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Lawrence E Rose

    (Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, PO Box 1097 Blindern, N-0317 Oslo, Norway)

Abstract

This paper undertakes an analysis of five forms of local nonelectoral participation in three European countries. The primary question of interest is whether or not there is any systematic relationship between these forms of nonelectoral participation and the size of local political – administrative units. It is argued that, to the extent it is reasonable to expect size to be relevant, the nature of the relationships is likely to vary from one form of participation to another. Analyses are based on survey data collected during the 1990s in each country by means of logistic regression with a common set of variables. Although the findings vary somewhat from one country to another, and are not always in keeping with theoretical expectations, they nonetheless indicate that size does indeed appear to make some difference, even after controlling for the effects of individual characteristics. The effect of size, in other words, is not merely a byproduct of the compositional characteristics of the individuals living in different sized municipalities, as is sometimes suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • Lawrence E Rose, 2002. "Municipal Size and Local Nonelectoral Participation: Findings from Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 20(6), pages 829-851, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:20:y:2002:i:6:p:829-851
    DOI: 10.1068/c0227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c0227
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c0227?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen Hansen & Thomas Palfrey & Howard Rosenthal, 1987. "The Downsian model of electoral participation: Formal theory and empirical analysis of the constituency size effect," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 15-33, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stephen Coate & Michael Conlin, 2002. "Voter Turnout: Theory and Evidence from Texas Liquor Referenda," NBER Working Papers 8720, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Alan Gerber & Mitchell Hoffman & John Morgan & Collin Raymond, 2020. "One in a Million: Field Experiments on Perceived Closeness of the Election and Voter Turnout," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 287-325, July.
    3. Arianna Degan & Antonio Merlo, 2011. "A Structural Model Of Turnout And Voting In Multiple Elections," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 209-245, April.
    4. Andrea Mattozzi & Antonio Merlo, 2007. "The Transparency of Politics and the Quality of Politicians," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 311-315, May.
    5. Antonio Merlo & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2018. "External validation of voter turnout models by concealed parameter recovery," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 297-314, July.
    6. Gersbach, Hans & Mamageishvili, Akaki & Tejada, Oriol, 2021. "The effect of handicaps on turnout for large electorates with an application to assessment voting," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    7. Marco Battaglini & Rebecca B. Morton & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2010. "The Swing Voter's Curse in the Laboratory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 77(1), pages 61-89.
    8. Levine, David K. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2007. "The Paradox of Voter Participation? A Laboratory Study," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(1), pages 143-158, February.
    9. Peter C. Ordeshook & Langche Zeng, 1997. "Rational Voters and Strategic Voting," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(2), pages 167-187, April.
    10. Arturas Rozenas, 2011. "Constituency size and stability of two-party systems," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(3), pages 344-358, July.
    11. Taylor, Curtis R. & Yildirim, Huseyin, 2010. "A unified analysis of rational voting with private values and group-specific costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 457-471, November.
    12. Claus Michelsen & Peter Boenisch & Benny Geys, 2014. "(De)Centralization and voter turnout: theory and evidence from German municipalities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 469-483, June.
    13. Aranson Peter H., 1990. "Rational Ignorance In Politics, Economics And Law," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-18, January.
    14. Gary J. Reid, 1990. "Perceived Government Waste and Government Structure: an Empirical Examination of Competing Explanations," Public Finance Review, , vol. 18(4), pages 395-419, October.
    15. Cameron Guage & Feng Fu, 2021. "Asymmetric Partisan Voter Turnout Games," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 738-758, December.
    16. Coate, Stephen & Conlin, Michael & Moro, Andrea, 2008. "The performance of pivotal-voter models in small-scale elections: Evidence from Texas liquor referenda," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(3-4), pages 582-596, April.
    17. Andrew Gelman & Nate Silver & Aaron Edlin, 2012. "What Is The Probability Your Vote Will Make A Difference?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(2), pages 321-326, April.
    18. Gersbach, Hans & Mamageishvili, Akaki & Tejada, Oriol, 2019. "The Effect of Handicaps on Turnout for Large Electorates: An Application to Assessment Voting," CEPR Discussion Papers 13921, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Andrew Gelman & Nate Silver & Aaron Edlin, 2009. "What is the probability your vote will make a difference?," NBER Working Papers 15220, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Bharatee Bhusana Dash & J. Stephen Ferris & Marcel-Cristian Voia, 2023. "Inequality, transaction costs and voter turnout: evidence from Canadian provinces and Indian states," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 194(3), pages 325-346, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:20:y:2002:i:6:p:829-851. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.