Soc Indic Res

DOI 10.1007/s11205-013-0258-2

Youth Future Civic Participation in Europe: Differences

Between the East and the Rest

Plamen Mirazchiyski • Daniel H. Caro • Andrés Sandoval-Hernández

Accepted: 21 January 2013

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract European countries were economically and politically separated during the Cold
War, but since its end processes of globalization and the formation of the European Union
have contributed to blur the borders. Previous studies suggest that the social transformations
have affected differently civic participation of youths, but shortage of more recent data has
precluded researchers from examining the differences in a country-comparative fashion.
Along these lines, this paper has two main objectives: to explore the differences in the levels
of expected civic participation across Europe, and to evaluate the fit of a theoretical model of
civic participation in regard to the different points in time their democracies were established.
To achieve these goals, data from 22 European educational systems (9 post-communist and
13 established democracies) participating in the International Civic and Citizenship Study
(2009) conducted by International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achieve-
ment is used. The results, in accordance with the literature, suggest differentiated patterns of
future civic participation between the new and established democracies, but they are not that
clear, suggesting that convergence between the two groups is ongoing. However, the tested
empirical model of civic participation functions in a better way in the established than in the
new democracies. In contrast with previous findings, differences in levels of expected civic
participation seem to be related not only with the countries’ experience with democracy, but
also with their cultural similarities and common history.

Keywords Youth
Expected civic participation
ICCS
Post-communism
Democracy

1 Introduction

European countries were divided by the Iron Curtain for decades. During the communist
era, the East Bloc countries shared similar values and ideology and followed a similar

P. Mirazchiyski (&)
A. Sandoval-Hernández

IEA Data Processing and Research Center, Mexikoring 37, 22297 Hamburg, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]

D. H. Caro
Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment, 15 Norham Gardens, OX2 6PY Oxford, UK

123
 P. Mirazchiyski et al.

course of political and socioeconomic development. This was also reflected in civic par-
ticipation patterns that distinguished Eastern Europe from the rest of the continent—
regimes were forcing their citizens for mass civic participation in state-controlled activities
and organizations (Coffé and van der Lippe 2009; Howard 2002; Letki 2004). The fall of
communism brought many changes among the ‘‘brother nations’’, each one of them taking
a different path towards democratic changes in their societies. And yet, recent studies
indicate differences in civic outcomes between the post-communist countries and their
Western counterparts which continued at least until the end of the 1990s.
For example, using data from the Civic Education Study (CivED) 1999, conducted by
the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA),
Torney-Purta (2002a, b) found that adolescents in Eastern Europe had lower levels of
knowledge about civic issues and trust in governmental institutions compared to their peers
in West Europe. With data from 2002, Hoskins (2009) found lower rates of active par-
ticipation in South and East Europe compared to the rest of the continent, as well as
differences in various aspects of civic competencies between different regions in Europe.
About 20 years after the fall of communism in East Europe, data from the IEA’s
International Civic and Citizenship Study (ICCS 2009) provides us with a unique oppor-
tunity to reanalyze differences in civic participation and evaluate whether the influence of
the long communist period can still be observed. This study is exploratory in nature and its
main purpose is to identify the differences in expected civic participation of 14-years-old
students between the post-communist and the rest of the countries in Europe. The main
objectives are, firstly, to explore the levels of different dimensions of expected future civic
participation across the European countries participating in ICCS 2009. Secondly, to
evaluate the fit of a theoretical model of civic participation across the European countries
using predictors of participation that the relevant literature have found as being important.
The analyses use data from 22 European countries and results are examined in terms of the
countries’ experience with democracy, dividing countries into two groups: new European
democracies (9 post-communist countries—Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic and Slovenia) and 13 established
European democracies—Austria, Belgium (Flemish), Cyprus, Denmark, England, Finland,
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. In this study, the dis-
tinction between the new and established democracies is based on the countries experience
with democracy, assuming that societies experiencing democracy longer time would also
have better developed democratic institutions. The established democracies listed above
took paths towards democratic development around the World War II, when most of the
European countries disestablished the monarchy as a system of political rule in their
countries. The new democracies are the European countries which after World War II took
the path towards communism, and introduced democratic changes only after 1989 when
most communist regimes in Europe collapsed. The rationale behind this division is that
without the citizens’ involvement in the society, the democracy will lack legitimacy and
guiding force (for more details see Dalton 2008; Mondak and Gearing 1998), and the two
groups of countries will have different experience with democracy and civic participation
in particular. The outcome variables examined are the students’ future informal partici-
pation, future electoral participation and future political participation.
The research questions are:
1. What are the levels of expected future participation across the analyzed countries?
2. How and to what extent the expected future civic participation of students is related to
their personal characteristics, attitudes, behavior and perceptions?

123
Youth Future Civic Participation in Europe

3. Do the levels of participation and associations between those and student character-
istics vary between the new and established democracies in Europe?
This study has two main limitations. The first one is that the students are at grade 8
which might be too early age for establishing steady attitudes and perceptions towards
participation in society, especially concerning expectations about future. The second one is
that although 22 European countries’ data was used in the analyses, the results cannot be
considered as representative for all countries on the continent and therefore shall be
interpreted accordingly.

2 Contextual Background

During the Cold War communist countries were encapsulated behind the Iron Curtain
under authoritarian rule. There was an attempt for convergence in political, social,
demographic and economic development and social classes. Strong norms of civic
involvement and participation were promoted and imposed by the media, forcing
membership to youth organizations like the Young Pioneers and Comsomol being
mandatory. People had to participate in state-controlled organizations and autonomous
forms of civic participation were suppressed (Coffé and van der Lippe 2009; Flanagan
et al. 1993).
The newly emerged regimes forced people in post-communist societies to ‘‘relearn’’
civic and political behavior and to change their attitudes (Coffé and van der Lippe 2009).
The educational reforms in East and Central Europe required big and urgent changes
including mass hiring and preparation of new teachers in civic education. One of the
challenging tasks was the formal and informal political socialization of the previous
generation due to the political and economic changes (Torney-Purta 2002b).
In part related to these changes, there is some empirical evidence suggesting that
differences in civic engagement and participation between countries in East and West
Europe have reduced. Two main explanations have been provided to account for this trend:
first, that Eastern European countries have been trying to get in line with the West; and
second, the fact that levels of engagement and participation of youths in the West have
declined, especially with respect to political interest and voting (Listhaug and Grønflaten
2007; Torney-Purta 2002b; Whitely 2005).
Despite this trend, differences in civic engagement and participation still exist
between the two sets of countries. For example, data from the the CivED study indicate
that levels of trust in government-related institutions are lower in former East Bloc
countries and Portugal than the international average (Torney-Purta 2002a). Further-
more, in Western European countries highly institutionalized forms of civil society are
found, while in Southern and Eastern Europe it is more typical to find the less for-
malized forms of village community, extended clans or other types of social networks,
that is, less formalized organizations in comparison to the ones in the West (Immerfall
et al. 2010). Other studies (see Coffé and van der Lippe 2009) have also shown that
former East Bloc countries have lower levels of participation. These differences could
suggest that citizens from established democracies have more experience in principles
and practices of civic society and are more active, while the post-communist countries
have to get in line with the democratic traditions in the rest of Europe (Coffé and
van der Lippe 2009).

123
 P. Mirazchiyski et al.

3 Conceptual Framework

3.1 Definition of Civic Participation

There is no consensus on a single definition of civic participation, in part because it has

been often mixed with civic engagement (see Clougherty 2009; Wing 2009; Zaff et al.
2010 for detailed discussion).
This study adopts a working definition similar to the one provided by Starosta (2010),
which focuses on the manifestations of civic behaviors: Civic participation refers to
activities in the local community, politics or general society within the local country
context and includes formal and informal group or organization membership, individual
actions, voluntary activities, political activities aimed to bring improvement to the local,
societal or country-wide settings.

3.2 Predictors of Civic Participation

There are different agents that shape youth’s civic participation and engagement: for
example the family, school, peers, non-governmental organizations, religion and media
(Ménard 2010; Wing 2009), although in some cases, e.g. school and family, they overlap
(Schulz et al. 2009). The variables from these different dimensions can be organized into
two larger categories (Schulz et al. 2009):
• Antecedents: These variables affect the way students learn and acquire understanding
on civic phenomena and the way these phenomena take place. They cover aspects of
the educational system (school/classroom characteristics, composition and resources),
historical, cultural, family, students’ and social group contextual variables.
• Processes: These variables are related to civic learning and acquisition of understand-
ing, competences and disposition. These are contextual variables related with the
educational policies (instruction and governance), student socialization and learning,
political events, communication and activities at home.
The outcomes, according to Schulz et al. (2009), shape civic society and systems, civic
principles, civic participation and civic identities. In this model the antecedents exert
influence over and restrict both the processes and outcomes, but the link is one way—the
processes and outcomes do not influence the antecedents back. The processes and out-
comes can exert influence over each other.
The focus of this paper is not on the different models explaining civic participation and
the underlying processes. Rather we use the model described by Schulz et al. (2009), which
is more empirical and oriented towards the relationship between the background variables
and the outcomes in terms of civic participation, to evaluate the model fit across the new
European democracies and their counterparts. The variables falling within the aforemen-
tioned two large groups are divided in subgroups. Variables in each subgroup might belong
to one or both broader categories, for example, some family variables can be categorized as
antecedents or processes, but not as both.

3.2.1 Family Variables

Parent-youth political discussion has been found to show a strong impact on many different
areas of civic outcomes (Wing 2009) through giving the first meaningful experiences and
affecting self-assertion and self-confirmation by debating ideas (Ménard 2010), although it

123
Youth Future Civic Participation in Europe

can also have restraining effect on transformation processes (Wing 2009). Students from
families with higher interest in political and social issues tend to have higher civic
knowledge and engagement in civic participation (Schulz et al. 2009). Family income also
has also been found to have predictive power on civic participation of children–students
from low-income families tend to participate less (Foster-Bey 2008). In a similar manner,
empirical research suggests that a broader concept such as students’ socioeconomic status
(i.e. the family SES) tends to be a strong predictor of their volunteer participation (Smith
1994). Likewise, students with immigrant background may appear to be less civically
active compared to the native ones due to unfamiliarity with the country’s language, lack
of knowledge about culture or opportunities for participation in local community
(Foster-Bey 2008).

3.2.2 Student Variables

Positive relationship has been detected between civic knowledge and skills and civic
participation (Bradshow et al. 2007; Schulz et al. 2010; Torney-Purta 2002a). By acquiring
knowledge and skills students learn how to access and develop the mental capabilities
necessary for civic participation (Bradshow et al. 2007). Gender has been found to be
related to civic commitment and engagement in different kind of civic actions, being girls
more likely to participate than boys (Schulz et al. 2010). Spending time with peers has been
associated with both negative and positive influence on participation and knowledge
(Torney-Purta 2002a, b). According to Kahne and Sporte (2008), when peers help each
other in school-related matters, they share commitment and are more likely to engage in
civic participation. There are also some purely personal characteristics that are perceived
as important to civic participation. For example, trust and bonding to others (Bobek et al.
2009; Pattie et al. 2003) and trust in institutions (Torney-Purta et al. 2004) are considered
as necessary premises for participation and engagement. Student expectations for their
further education have been found to be a powerful predictor of civic knowledge and
competencies together with taking classes in civic education (Torney-Purta 2002a, b). As
Smith (1994) summarizes, it can be said that individuals with internal locus of control,
higher feeling of efficacy, self-esteem, empathy, morality and emotional stability are more
likely to get involved in volunteer participation.

3.2.3 School Variables

Schools can be effective in promoting students’ civic engagement through their formal
curriculum, classroom climate and school culture. As Torney-Purta (2002a, b) points out,
schools can help students to acquire civic knowledge and skills, by ensuring open class-
room discussions and providing opportunities for participation in school life.
Following Torney-Purta (2002b), teachers can also influence civic knowledge, attitudes
and behavior of students in schools. Teacher characteristics such as qualification, years
working as teachers and teachers’ morale can influence the academic development of the
students (Geske et al. 2006).
Teacher, parent and student participation at school are considered to promote schools’
understanding on students’ learning needs and securing parents’ and teachers’ commitment
in supporting educational activities (Schulz et al. 2009). The presence of civic learning
opportunities in schools and classrooms can also contribute to increase the level of civic
participation (Kahne and Sporte 2008). According to Bradshow et al. (2007) the current

123
 P. Mirazchiyski et al.

participation of youth and political interest today provides an insight on their future par-
ticipation as citizens.

3.2.4 Community and Neighborhood Variables

Some studies suggest that school interaction with the local community and local civic
institutions could foster student perceptions on their role in the society and the local
community (Schulz et al. 2010). Kahne and Sporte (2008) note that the neighborhood and
family are assumed to play an important role in developing civic orientation. Communities
that are civically active tend to shape young people that are active themselves. Social
capital plays a significant role within communities by fostering the norms and the social
networks which affect the effectiveness of democracy positively (Kahne and Sporte 2008).
In many cases, the extent to which children become interested in politics and are given the
opportunity for civic participation at school depends on the environment they live in
(Bradshow et al. 2007).

4 Data and Methods

The data used for this work comes from the IEA’s ICCS 2009 study. ICCS 2009 is an
international large-scale comparative study conducted in 38 Asian, European and Latin
American countries by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA). Its main objective is to investigate the ways young people are pre-
pared to undertake their role as citizens of their countries as adults. The study collected
data on grade 8 students’ civic knowledge and background data: civic attitudes, disposi-
tions and basic student, student family, teacher and school characteristics (Schulz et al.
2009).
The total number of European countries participating in ICCS 2009 is 26, but four
countries had to be excluded: The Netherlands due to low participation rates (see Schulz
et al. 2010) and in three countries because of the small number of sampled schools—
Liechtenstein (9), Luxemburg (31) and Malta (55)—which deterred us from performing
reliable analysis at school level. The final country sample included 9 new and 13 estab-
lished democracies. Table 1 presents the list of countries along with the sample and
population sizes of targeted students.
A set of Likert-type items reflected future participation levels of students. Three derived
scales are used as dependent variables: Students’ Expected Future Informal Political
Participation (5 items), Students’ Expected Adult Electoral Participation (3 items) and
Students’ Expected Adult Participation in Political Activities (4 items). The Rasch Partial
Credit Model (Masters and Wright 1997) was applied to constituent items (see Table 2) for
scaling. The resulting weighted likelihood estimates (Warm 1989) were transformed into
scales with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 for equally weighted ICCS national
samples that satisfied guidelines for sample participation (see Schulz and Friedman 2011).
The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients computed for the pooled data from all
countries for the three civic participation scales is above .80 (Schulz and Friedman 2011).
The analyses were divided in two parts. In a first step, the expected levels of future
participation of students across Europe are reported. For ease of interpretation, the
reports are based on single items collapsed into two categories (1 = ‘‘I will probably or
certainly do this’’; 2 = ‘‘I will probably or certainly not do this’’, see Table 2) instead of
the scales.

123
Youth Future Civic Participation in Europe

Table 1 Sample and population

Countries Number of Number of students
sizes of students per country
students in the in the population
sample (estimate)

New democracies
Bulgaria 3,257 63,557
Czech Republic 4,630 95,781
Estonia 2,743 11,748
Latvia 2,761 20,885
Lithuania 3,902 37,636
Poland 3,249 439,315
Russian Federation 4,295 1,271,558
Slovak Republic 2,970 51,643
Slovenia 3,070 17,295
Established democracies
Austria 3,385 88,528
Belgium (Flemish) 2,968 67,913
Cyprus 3,194 8,872
Denmark 4,508 62,234
England 2,916 552,108
Finland 3,307 62,768
Greece 3,153 100,804
Ireland 3,355 55,370
Italy 3,366 539,499
Norway 3,013 59,638
Spain 3,309 441,446
Sweden 3,464 106,712
Switzerland 2,924 83,210

Table 2 Variables used for construction of the derived scales

Scale Source questions

Future informal participation Talk to others about your views on political and social issues
Write to a newspaper about political and social issues
Contribute to an online discussion forum about social and
Political issues
Join an organization for a political or social cause
Future electoral participation Vote in local elections
Vote in national elections
Get information about candidates before voting in an election
Future political participation Help a candidate or party during an election campaign
Join a political party
Join a trade union
Stand as a candidate in local elections
Source Brese et al. (2011)

123
 P. Mirazchiyski et al.

In a second step, the fit of future civic participation models was evaluated with multiple
linear regression models performed with each country’s data separately. The dependent
variables of multivariate analyses are the derived continuous scales (students’ informal,
electoral and political participation). The analyses were performed using the IEA IDB
Analyzer (IEA 2012) which can handle the complex sample design and analysis issues.
The predictors in the multivariate models were selected using two criteria: theoretical
relevance and data reliability. Predictors with little variation between categories
(e.g. immigration status) were excluded from the analysis. The three aforementioned scales
were used as dependent variables. The regression analyses were preferred to Hierarchical
Linear Modeling (HLM) due to the very low intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) in
the outcome variables. We found that the ICC’s coefficients ranged between 0 and 0.06
across countries, indicating that responses within schools are highly independent and that
most variation occurs at the student level.
The independent variables used as predictors are listed below.
1. Student’s sex—boy: 0; girl: 1.
2. National Index of Socioeconomic Background (NISB)—continuous indicator of
family socio-economic status (SES); combines highest occupational status of parents,
highest parental education (as total number of years) and number of books at home.
The scale has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1 for all participating countries.
3. Civic knowledge—IRT continuous scale comprised by a set of five plausible values.
4. Students’ expected years of further education—expected further education level
recoded into years of education.
5. Index of students’ civic participation at school—continuous WLE scale derived from
questions about participation in various activities at school.
6. Index of students’ discussion of political and social issues outside of school—
continuous WLE scale derived from questions about participation in political and
social discussions with parents and friends outside of school.
7. Index of Parents’ interest in political and social issues—continuous WLE scale
derived from questions about mothers’ and fathers’ level of interest about political
and social issues.
8. Index of students’ trust in civic institutions—continuous WLE scale derived from
questions about level of trust in different social and political institutions within the
country.
9. Index of students’ sense of internal political efficacy—continuous WLE scale
derived from questions about students’ knowledge, understanding, intentions and
beliefs about their efficacy as citizens.
10. Index of students’ citizenship self-efficacy—continuous WLE scale derived from
questions about students’ feeling of own participation and influence on various social
issues.
11. Index of students’ perceptions of openness in classroom discussions—continuous
WLE scale derived from questions about students’ feeling towards the opportunity to
participate in open discussion in classrooms with peers and teachers.
All indices have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. The only exception is
NISB with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. For more information on the
scales and means of their construction see Brese et al. (2011) and Schulz and Friedman
(2011).

123
Youth Future Civic Participation in Europe

The independent variables used in the regression models reflect only student and their
families’ characteristics (see the theoretical background section) which here are provi-
sionally divided in three groups: student personal and family characteristics (1–4, 7);
students’ current civic behavior (5–6) and student attitudes and perceptions (8–11) related
with civic participation.

5 Results

5.1 Levels of Future Participation

The levels of expected future participation (the first stage of the analysis) are reported in
Table 3 of the Appendix where the new democracies appear first. The median percentages
for each group (i.e. new and established democracies) are provided at the bottom of the
table. If the country’s percentage is significantly higher or lower (p \ .05) than the median
percentage for all countries in the counter group, the percentage is flagged with a symbol
indicating the direction. The significance of the difference is tested using z-test for equality
between two proportions (binomial distribution).
As Table 3 in the Appendix indicates, the median percentages in both new and estab-
lished democracies are highest for the future electoral participation statements (81–88 %)
followed by the future informal ones (30–59 %) and lowest for the future political par-
ticipation (26–50 %). In general, all established democracies show higher anticipated
participation. And when comparing countries within the group of new democracies, it can
be observed that students from the Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovenia, Poland and Slovak
Republic (countries closer to the established democracies) have lower levels of expected
future participation than Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and the Russian Federation
(see Table 3 in the Appendix), but also lower than the established democracies, although
some exceptions exist. For example for the block of statements comprising the future
informal participation scale the aforementioned countries indicate consistently lower than
the established democracies’ percentages of students for writing to a newspaper, but sig-
nificantly higher for the online discussion forums. Also, for standing as a candidate in local
elections Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Poland have significantly higher percentages,
while Czech Republic has insignificant difference and Estonia has significantly lower
percentage. For joining an organization this group of countries exhibits mostly lack of
significant differences with the established democracies’ median except for Czech
Republic (lower) and Slovenia (higher).
On the other hand Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and the Russian Federation exhibit
consistently significantly higher percentages than the established democracies for all
statements of the future informal participation scale. For the future political participation
there is no clear pattern: Bulgaria and Latvia have significantly lower, while Lithuania
have significantly higher than the established democracies’ median percentages and the
Russian Federation does not show significant differences except for the voting in
national elections. For the future political participation the pattern within this set of
countries differs a lot: for joining political party and standing as candidates the per-
centages are significantly higher than the established democracies’ medians, while for
joining a trade union are mixed (higher, lower or insignificantly different) and for
helping a candidate no significant difference was found in almost all cases (see Table 3
in the Appendix).

123
 P. Mirazchiyski et al.

When comparing the individual new democracies’ percentages against the medians of
the established ones, almost perfect mirror image can be found: if the percentages in the
established democracies are lower than the medians of the new ones’, the new democra-
cies’ percentages are higher than the medians for the established. However, Greece and
Cyprus show a pattern that opposes the one for rest of the countries in their group. Both
countries indicate higher than the new democracies’ median percentages for all statements
comprising the future informal (Cyprus—69, 53, 58 and 58 %; Greece—77, 53, 58 and
64 %) and future political participation (Cyprus—59, 53, 52 and 56 %; Greece—51, 50, 65
and 46 %). It is interesting, that both countries do not exhibit consistently different per-
centages with the medians of the new democracies for the future electoral statements,
except for voting in national elections in Cyprus (85 %) and voting in local elections in
Greece (91 %) where the percentages are significantly higher, but the differences are very
small. Cyprus, Greece and Italy are the only established democracies who exhibit higher
than the new democracies’ medians for students’ anticipation to stand as candidates in
local elections (56, 46 and 34 %) with Cyprus and Greece having the highest percentages
across all countries (see Table 3 in the Appendix). Interestingly, Finnish students have the
lowest percentages for all the four statements comprising the future informal participation
scale among all countries, especially for the ones that are related with direct communi-
cation, followed by the Belgian (Flemish) ones.

5.2 Civic Participation Model Fit

The results of the regression models, second stage of the analysis, are presented in
Tables 4, 5, 6 in the Appendix. Here only statistically significant results (p \ 0.05) are
reported.
Student personal and family characteristics show different patterns of association
depending on the scale with which their relationship is tested. Students’ sex does show
different pattern in the two groups of countries depending on the outcome variable. While
only Poland indicates statistically significant and negative (-0.75) relationship with the
future informal participation (boys tend to anticipate higher informal participation), in all
other new democracies no significant results were found (see Table 4 in the Appendix). In
seven out of thirteen established democracies significant positive coefficients are found
(girls anticipate higher informal participation in future): Denmark (1.08), England (0.96),
Finland (1.16), Ireland (0.70), Norway (0.75), Sweden (1.24) and Switzerland (1.00). For
the future electoral participation scale in only five from the 22 countries in total statistically
significant coefficient of sex are present (see Table 5 in the Appendix). In Czech Republic,
Austria and England significant negative relationship is found (-0.76, -1.21 and -1.03)
and in Denmark and Sweden—a significant positive coefficient (1.11 in both countries).
The coefficient of student sex for the future political participation across the two groups of
countries differs a lot compared to the previous two scales. Only a significant negative
association is found in eight out of nine new and five out of thirteen established democ-
racies. In Bulgaria (-0.17), Belgium (Flemish) (-0.50), England (-0.17), Finland (0.21),
Ireland (-0.68), Norway (\0.01), Spain (-0.33) and Sweden (0.14) no significant asso-
ciation with sex is present (see Table 6 in the Appendix).
The association of civic knowledge with the civic participation also differs, depending
on the outcome variable. Positive significant association of civic knowledge with the
anticipated future informal participation is present only in the Czech Republic (the more
knowledgeable students anticipate higher participation), but the coefficient is very small
(\0.01). In all other countries where significant relationship is found, it is negative

123
Youth Future Civic Participation in Europe

(less knowledgeable students will participate more). No significant association is found in

Denmark, Greece, Poland, the Russian Federation and Slovak Republic where coefficients
are also very small (see Table 4 in the Appendix). As with the results for the future
informal participation scale, the future political participation models yield significant
negative relationships with the civic knowledge (see Table 6 in the Appendix). The only
country where significant negative relationship does not exist (less knowledgeable antic-
ipate higher participation) is Denmark (\0.01). While student civic knowledge is nega-
tively related to future informal and political participation, its relationship with future
electoral participation is positive in all countries included in this study without any
exceptions (see Table 5 in the Appendix).
The association with student socioeconomic background indicates no clear pattern.
The expected years of further education is significantly associated with future informal
participation (see Table 4 in the Appendix) in Slovak Republic (-0.21) and Finland
(-0.14) where negative relationship is found (the less years of education the students
expect to have, the more they expect to participate). A negative association with the
future political participation was found in Austria (-0.15) and positive in Estonia (0.16)
and England (0.27). The association with the future electoral participation is positive,
that is, the more years in further education the students expect for themselves, the higher
participation they anticipate (see Table 5 in the Appendix). Only two of the new
democracies indicate significant relationship—Slovak Republic (0.31) and Slovenia
(0.37). In contrast, in only four of the thirteen established democracies significant
positive relationship is not present—Austria (0.06), Belgium (Flemish) (-0.01), Cyprus
(-0.05) and Sweden (-0.01).
Parental interest in social and political issues is related significantly and positively
with future electoral participation in all countries. It is not related with future informal
participation in only two new democracies—Poland (0.40) and Slovenia (0.21), and in
six established democracies—Austria (0.31), Belgium (Flemish) (0.32), Finland (0.20),
Ireland (0.31), Sweden (0.32) and Switzerland (0.12). Conversely, in only three out of
thirteen established democracies—Austria (0.40), Greece (0.34) and Sweden (0.44)—a
positive significant relationship between the parental interest and the future political
participation is not found as well as in four new democracies (see Tables 4, 5 and 6 in
the Appendix)—Latvia (0.12), Lithuania (0.09), Poland (0.36) and Slovak Republic
(0.21).
Current participation at school is associated only positively (students who currently
participate more at school also anticipate higher participation in future) with pattern across
the countries depending on the outcome variable. Five out of nine new democracies
indicate positive relationship with the future informal participation (see Table 4 in the
Appendix)—Bulgaria (0.04), Czech Republic (0.06), Estonia (0.07), Poland (0.07) and
Slovenia (0.05), while in only two of the established democracies such relationship is
found—Cyprus (0.06) and Denmark (0.04). Similar to the future informal participation,
the future political participation (see Table 6 in the Appendix) is significantly and posi-
tively associated with the current participation in school in more new (Czech Republic—
0.05, Estonia—0.09, Latvia—0.06, Lithuania—0.05, Poland—0.06, and the Russian
Federation—0.10) than established democracies (Belgium—0.06, Cyprus—0.08, and
Norway—0.06). In comparison to the previous two scales, the number of countries that do
not exhibit significant relationship between the participation at school and future electoral
participation (see Table 5 in the Appendix) in both country groups is much smaller and no
distinctive pattern could be found.

123
 P. Mirazchiyski et al.

The social and political discussion outside the school is positively related to the
future informal scale (the more students discuss, the more likely they are to participate)
in all countries (see Table 4 in the Appendix). The relationship with the other two
future participation scales differs from the one with informal participation and is found
in much smaller number of countries without a distinctive pattern across the groups of
countries.
Compared to the groups of personal, family and behavioral variables, the relationship of
the attitudes and perceptions with civic participation is more coherent across the groups of
countries. Trust in civic institutions, sense of internal political internal efficacy and citi-
zenship all show positive and significant relationship with all the three different dependent
variables in all countries. The only exceptions are Denmark (0.03) and Italy (0.03) where
no significant relationship between the trust in civic institutions and the future informal
participation (see Table 4 in the Appendix) is present. The perception of openness of
classroom discussion indicates positive (the more opened the classroom is towards dis-
cussion, the higher participation the students tend to anticipate) and significant relationship
with future informal participation in Finland (0.04), Italy (0.06), Norway (0.07) and Poland
(0.04). The association with the future electoral (see Table 5 in the Appendix) participation
is positive in four of the new democracies (Estonia—0.04, Latvia—0.07, Lithuania—0.04
and the Russian Federation—0.05) and five of the established democracies (Denmark—
0.03, England—0.04, Greece—0.07, Italy—0.06 and Norway—0.06). A negative rela-
tionship is indicated in Switzerland (-0.08). Positive relationship with the future political
participation is found in Norway (0.05) and negative in Spain (-0.04) and Switzerland
(-0.06).
The median amount of variance explained by the model for the future informal par-
ticipation across all 22 countries is 33 %, with median of 31 % in the new democracies and
a slightly higher (34 %) in the established democracies. The highest amounts of explained
variance are in England (40 %), Italy (39 %), Ireland (39 %) and Finland (38 %) and the
lowest—in Estonia (28 %), Slovenia (28 %), Greece (28 %), Bulgaria (29 %) and Lith-
uania (29 %).
The median amount of explained variance by the model for the future electoral par-
ticipation across all 22 countries is 31 %, 26 % among the new democracies and 34 % in
the established democracies. The highest amounts of explained variance are in England
(41 %), Denmark (39 %), Austria (38 %) and Czech Republic (38 %), and the lowest—in
Latvia (22 %), Lithuania (24 %), the Russian Federation (24 %), Bulgaria (26 %),
Slovenia (26 %) and Greece (26 %).
The median amount of explained variance for the future political participation model
across all countries and within the two groups of countries is 24 %. The greatest amounts
of explained variance are in Ireland (29 %), Slovak Republic (29 %), England (28 %),
Cyprus (28 %), the Russian Federation (28 %) and Bulgaria (28 %) and the lowest—in
Denmark (21 %), Estonia (20 %) and Greece (20 %).

6 Summary and Discussion

The main objective of this paper was twofold: to explore the differences in the levels of
expected civic participation across European countries and to evaluate the empirical model
fit in regard to political division of the countries (new and established democracies) for
which data from ICCS 2009 exist.

123
Youth Future Civic Participation in Europe

In general, the new democracies do have lower levels of intended future participation
compared to the established European democracies as found by previous studies (see Coffé
and van der Lippe 2009 for a summary). However, this is not valid for all types of future
civic participation: students from the new democracies tend to have higher anticipated
informal participation. The latter could be explained with the existence of only formal,
strictly organized, state-controlled and mandatory civic participation in communist coun-
tries and the suppression of any autonomous activities by the state (see Coffé and van der
Lippe 2009; Letki 2004; Schwartz and Bardi 1997) which led to less formalized and
community-based forms of engagement (Immerfall et al. 2010). Even within a single
domain of civic participation the new democracies exhibit differences in regard to different
activities (higher or lower). Also, there are differences among the new democracies across
the different types of participation. In general, North-East European countries exhibit
higher expectations about their future electoral and political participation compared to the
established democracies.
The levels of participation found in this study do not seem to be related so much to
whether the states are new or established democracies. Rather, countries tend to cluster
more depending on their cultural similarities and common history that they share. Similar
pattern of between-country differences is also found by Torney-Purta (2002b). Also, apart
from the civic context, Caro and Mirazchiyski (2012) find patterns in socioeconomic
gradients across the new democracies that are similar to the ones were found in this study.
For example, most of the Central European new democracies exhibit traits similar to the
established ones.
The background and rationale of the differences among the new democracies and the
similarities between the Central European new and established democracies in Europe in
terms of culture, common history and educational systems are provided mainly by Cerych
(1997) and Kotásek (1996). First, Central European new democracies belong to the Roman
Catholic Church, while the East-European are mainly Orthodox with mixture of Protestant
and in the South-East part of Europe—mainly Orthodox with Roman Catholic and even
Islamic populations as well (Cerych 1997; Kotásek 1996; Schwartz and Bardi 1997).
Central European new democracies were part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the
influence of the Central European educational traditions, mainly Austrian (later Austrian-
Hungarian) and the German ones, on their educational systems still persists. The educa-
tional systems of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were under Soviet tutelage for more than
50 years. After 1989 they restored their previous relationships with Central European and
Scandinavian countries, also in regard to educational policies, almost immediately after the
collapse of the Soviet Union (Cerych 1997; Kotásek 1996).
Second, the introduction of communism differed between Central and East Europe. The
penetration of the regime in Central European countries met a greater resistance and
opposition compared to the East which may have resulted in different impact of com-
munism on the values (Schwartz and Bardi 1997).
Third, the transition from totalitarian to democratic regimes was characterized with
different pace and different quality of the democratic and economic institutions. In most
Central and some East European countries the communist regimes were abolished sud-
denly, even with revolutions, while in former Soviet Union such swift change was not
apparent (Mishler and Rose 2002).
Fourth, these differences among the new democracies can be also explained by the
divergence in political and socioeconomic development in the region after the fall of the
communist regimes. According to Cornia (2010) some countries built strong democracies
with equal rights and obligations for all, rigid tax systems, granting property rights and

123
 P. Mirazchiyski et al.

posing the rule of law (Central European countries). While others built liberal democracies
with limited freedom and fairness of the elections, limited rule of law and ineffective
administration that could not serve its citizens (former Soviet Union and Balkan countries).
According to Cornia (2010), a third group of countries remained authoritarian with no rule
of law (Central Asian countries and Belarus). The findings in this paper, to a large extent,
overlap with Cornia’s countries’ classification as well. Previous empirical studies
(see Howard 2002) have also found large discrepancies within the new democracies
indicating that the term ‘‘post-communism’’ is gradually losing its relevance. In sum, the
lack of robust patterns across the new democracies would suggest that convergence
between the two groups has already begun.
Besides the cultural, historical, educational and socioeconomic explanations of the
heterogeneity in both new and established democracies, the quality of democracy rather
than the duration of citizens’ experience with it could also have an explanatory power and
unveil different patterns. The aforementioned differentiating paths in historical, cultural,
political and educational developments may have led to different quality of the democratic
regimes across Europe regardless whether they are new or established. However, such
analysis goes beyond the purpose of this paper which is to compare the post- and non-post-
communist countries in Europe.
Regarding the second part of the analysis, namely to evaluate the empirical model fit in
regard to political division of the countries, the multivariate models reveal different
association of the predictors of future civic participation in Europe based on the country
grouping.
The personal and family characteristics of the students have varying predictive power
across different countries and outcome variables:
• While convincing association between students’ sex and the future informal
participation scale was not found in the new democracies, in more than half of the
established democracies (and mainly North-European countries) only significant
association favoring girls was apparent. The results for the future political participation
reveal completely different pattern—the relationship is only negative and is more
frequently found in the new democracies. No convincing evidence for gap between
boys and girls was found for the future electoral participation in both sets of countries.
• While better civic knowledge comes along with increased anticipation to participate in
future elections, and this is found in all countries in this study, as expected, for the
future informal and political participation it is surprisingly the opposite—the less
knowledgeable students are more likely to participate in future. This trend is observed
equally in both new and established democracies. For the future informal participation
scale this negative association appears to be apparent for fewer countries.
• Although theory points that the differences in student socioeconomic background have
important relationship with civic participation (Foster-Bey 2008; Torney-Purta 2002a),
this study did not find any convincing evidence in almost all countries, and no patterns
were found regardless whether the countries are new or established democracies or any
other classification.
• Similarly, the association of expected future education is rather weak with the future
informal and political participation in both groups of countries. Such distinction
between the new and established democracies, however, exists for the future electoral
participation: while the relationship in the new democracies is fairly weak, in the
established democracies is apparent in the majority of countries.

123
Youth Future Civic Participation in Europe

• Parental interest showed stronger association with the future informal participation in
the new democracies, and in the established democracies for the future political
participation. The association with future electoral participation is also significant, but
does not indicate any differential pattern across countries.
To a large extent, students’ current civic behavior reveals distinct patterns in the new
versus the established democracies: students’ current participation at school reveals dif-
ferences between the established and the new democracies for the future informal and
political participation: students’ current participation has a strong association in most of the
new, but not in the established democracies.
The association with student perceptions and attitudes exhibited almost uniform pattern
among all countries, regardless of the political division. However, in unreported analysis
we pooled the data from all countries together and interacted a dummy variable, indicating
whether the countries are new or established democracies, with each covariate. We found
that the trust in civic institutions has significantly weaker effect on students intentions for
informal and electoral participation in the established democracies compared to the new
ones. This result might mean that trust represents something different in the established and
new democracies. While in new democracies it still might relate to the lack of trust arising
from the former communist regimes that affects participation, in the established democ-
racies trust may not relate to lack of motivation to participate, but could be less relevant
concept for participation.
The explained variance for the future informal and future electoral participation models
is more or less the same across all countries in the study while the future political par-
ticipation model explains substantially lower amounts of variance. However, it has to be
borne in mind that compared to participation in informal civic activities and elections,
smaller number of people tends to be involved directly in politics. In general, the new
democracies tend to have lower amounts of explained variance for the future informal and
electoral participation (although not for the political) compared to their counterparts
indicating that these models fit better to the established democracies. It is not a surprise,
since the theories of civic participation have been developed mainly in the context of
Western societies, and most of the studies found in the literature review were conducted
there.

7 Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations. Participants are students in Grade 8, on average 14 year
old. At this age the majority of them may still have not yet developed a sense of critical
reflection about the dynamics of civil society nor may have fully understood and accepted
the rights and responsibilities that go with society membership. However, our analyses use
civic knowledge in the models and several studies (Torney-Purta 2002a, b) argue that civic
knowledge is related with civic participation, so we control for student civic competence.
Also, future participation scales are based on student subjective reports on anticipated
future participation and as such could be biased by social desirability, for example. The
data provided by ICCS 2009, however, do not include social desirability measures which
could have been used to control for in the regression models, or to produce adjusted levels
of future participation. Also, because ICCS has a cross-sectional design, the test–retest
(i.e. expected vs. actual participation) is unknown. However, other studies have found
future participation measures to be good predictors of actual participation; for example,

123
 P. Mirazchiyski et al.

based on data from a panel study, Campbell (2007) reported that 84 % of high-school
students who reported they expect to vote in elections really did 10 years later.
Another caveat should be borne in mind regarding regression models. Indeed, most
indices included as predictors proved to be significant, but effect sizes are rather small and
should not be overstated. Similar are the findings by Starosta (2010) who used European
Social Survey data. However, the amount of explained variance in the separate countries is
quite satisfying.
Yet another limitation is that the observational data of ICCS 2009 can provide evidence
of association but no causation. Students have not been randomly assigned to experimental
and control conditions. Analyses could suffer from omitted variables bias if unobserved
variables affect the predictor and outcome variable simultaneously. Therefore, our results
need carefully to be interpreted in terms of associations, only.
Finally, another caveat is that this study cannot and does not intend to represent the
European continent with the data of 22 countries utilized. The analytic sample includes
only the European countries that participated in ICCS 2009, but many European coun-
tries did not participate and their information could shed more light on the results. Due
to these limitations, the results should be interpreted with caution and not be easily
generalized.

Appendix

See Tables 3, 4, 5, 6.

123
 Table 3 Levels of future civic participation in Europe

Future Informal Participation Future Electoral Participation Future Political Participation

Help a
Get
Countries Online Vote in candidate or Stand as a
Talk about Write to a Join an Vote in local information Join a political Join a trade
discussion national party during an candidate in
own views newspaper organization elections about party union
forum elections election local elections
candidates
campaign
Bulgaria 63.85 (1.09) 45.30 (1.22) 56.12 (1.15) 42.57 (1.39) 85.71 (0.89) 77.06 (0.80) 79.20 (0.87) 48.68 (1.25) 34.86 (1.69) 32.35 (1.22) 40.06 (1.60)
Czech Republic 44.25 (0.99) 22.59 (0.94) 47.87 (0.81) 22.62 (0.89) 78.60 (0.72) 61.07 (1.06) 74.08 (0.87) 32.43 (0.92) 21.00 (0.86) 22.34 (0.82) 32.50 (0.92)
Estonia 55.60 (1.28) 21.98 (1.04) 40.70 (1.41) 32.10 (1.16) 82.44 (1.19) 77.49 (1.16) 71.10 (1.34) 34.05 (1.42) 21.37 (1.20) 30.46 (1.31) 24.01 (0.98)
Latvia 68.75 (1.02) 47.82 (1.22) 59.05 (1.35) 42.94 (1.28) 84.66 (0.88) 82.76 (0.94) 84.65 (1.01) 47.90 (1.36) 35.17 (1.38) 38.88 (1.29) 44.85 (1.44)
Lithuania 58.80 (0.92) 38.41 (1.08) 58.90 (0.97) 39.09 (1.12) 91.38 (0.67) 91.25 (0.64) 87.98 (0.77) 47.42 (1.11) 26.39 (0.97) 29.93 (1.00) 29.87 (1.17)
Poland 62.39 (1.15) 31.02 (1.05) 52.98 (1.07) 32.00 (0.96) 87.91 (0.77) 84.42 (0.88) 69.98 (1.27) 32.76 (1.18) 20.97 (1.05) 38.40 (1.08) 33.49 (1.14)
Russian Federation 69.62 (0.95) 51.49 (0.98) 57.35 (1.14) 52.82 (0.99) 93.15 (0.39) 88.11 (0.68) 80.83 (0.81) 53.39 (0.81) 47.00 (1.06) 44.40 (1.18) 45.39 (1.06)
Slovak Republic 58.18 (1.34) 28.28 (1.22) 42.31 (1.19) 32.10 (1.36) 79.99 (0.91) 80.72 (1.02) 81.72 (1.03) 35.86 (1.06) 24.98 (1.12) 20.72 (1.06) 34.41 (1.40)
Youth Future Civic Participation in Europe

Slovenia 51.67 (0.99) 30.00 (1.23) 42.88 (1.28) 57.93 (1.13) 86.22 (0.80) 86.35 (0.69) 81.64 (0.81) 39.53 (1.31) 28.24 (1.41) 30.41 (1.30) 44.19 (1.23)
Austria 56.90 (1.24) 37.61 (1.34) 39.82 (1.30) 40.27 (1.35) 87.85 (0.70) 86.58 (0.78) 88.02 (0.74) 53.68 (1.12) 37.18 (1.43) 38.73 (1.30) 40.53 (1.22)
Belgium (Flemish) 44.07 (1.41) 26.30 (1.24) 27.29 (1.53) 19.78 (1.11) 81.59 (0.91) 78.94 (1.08) 61.44 (1.40) 32.36 (1.63) 15.59 (1.20) 23.73 (1.22) 19.71 (1.35)
Cyprus 68.59 (0.97) 53.08 (1.24) 57.96 (1.00) 57.92 (1.10) 86.39 (0.69) 84.95 (0.71) 80.84 (0.86) 59.11 (1.00) 52.85 (1.07) 51.65 (1.43) 56.48 (1.19)
Denmark 53.34 (1.09) 20.60 (1.05) 31.64 (0.84) 24.67 (0.98) 84.69 (0.70) 92.51 (0.53) 74.69 (0.73) 30.37 (1.03) 25.67 (1.03) 67.87 (1.04) 14.83 (0.75)
England 53.26 (1.21) 36.37 (1.21) 38.78 (1.02) 29.63 (1.27) 80.82 (0.94) 76.95 (1.00) 75.08 (1.02) 40.25 (1.04) 25.17 (1.08) 26.31 (1.11) 23.73 (1.32)
Finland 31.48 (1.17) 14.65 (0.68) 23.24 (0.90) 12.61 (0.71) 88.04 (0.59) 87.50 (0.63) 79.90 (0.85) 15.40 (0.68) 16.12 (0.90) 33.59 (0.91) 10.75 (0.82)
Greece 77.21 (0.93) 52.97 (1.31) 57.99 (1.21) 63.69 (1.11) 90.56 (0.66) 84.15 (0.88) 82.24 (0.87) 50.63 (1.50) 49.70 (1.38) 65.04 (1.29) 45.94 (1.42)
Ireland 56.23 (1.21) 37.47 (1.15) 33.96 (1.28) 35.34 (1.20) 93.21 (0.52) 90.73 (0.53) 83.95 (0.73) 50.27 (1.25) 27.56 (1.15) 46.91 (1.53) 31.52 (1.32)
Italy 70.11 (1.09) 41.86 (1.41) 47.25 (1.30) 39.23 (1.40) 93.77 (0.53) 91.04 (0.56) 91.62 (0.56) 51.62 (1.21) 35.15 (1.11) 36.03 (1.28) 34.09 (1.11)
Norway 52.40 (1.33) 37.39 (1.38) 38.59 (1.21) 27.14 (1.38) 90.03 (0.67) 88.39 (0.84) 85.27 (0.91) 49.63 (1.14) 26.64 (1.29) 36.71 (1.51) 20.72 (1.17)
Spain 61.16 (0.99) 36.57 (1.23) 37.48 (1.10) 37.29 (1.34) 91.91 (0.61) 90.06 (0.61) 84.40 (0.76) 47.28 (1.15) 42.53 (1.18) 37.26 (1.27) 31.63 (1.42)
Sweden 53.04 (1.41) 27.95 (1.29) 35.07 (1.19) 21.24 (1.09) 85.31 (0.85) 89.38 (0.71) 80.82 (1.02) 35.59 (1.04) 23.11 (1.06) 35.31 (1.35) 29.78 (1.05)
Switzerland 54.56 (1.23) 21.91 (1.24) 31.05 (1.26) 26.62 (1.31) 76.38 (1.22) 75.94 (1.35) 84.83 (0.83) 50.79 (1.24) 29.32 (1.39) 25.62 (1.25) 24.83 (1.33)
Median (new democracies) 58.8 31.02 52.98 39.09 85.71 82.76 80.83 39.53 26.39 30.46 34.41
Median (established democracies) 54.04 36.47 36.98 32.48 86.9 87.04 82.97 49.95 30.92 36.03 30.65

() Standard errors appear in parentheses

m the percentage is significantly higher than the median of the counter group of countries (p \ .05, two-tailed)
. the percentage is significantly lower than the median of the counter group of countries (p \ .05, two-tailed)

123
 Table 4 Regression models for future informal participation scale
Countries R2 Constant Gender Civic knowledge Socio-economic Expected years Participation
background of further education at school

123
Austria 0.30 15.07 (1.86) 0.37 (0.36) -0.01* (\0.01) 0.08 (0.21) -0.02 (0.07) -0.01 (0.02)
Belgium (Flemish) 0.32 14.71 (1.77) 0.30 (0.3) -0.01* (\0.01) 0.17 (0.15) -0.01 (0.08) 0.02 (0.02)
Bulgaria 0.29 21.46 (2.39) -0.31 (0.37) -0.01* (\0.01) 0.08 (0.21) 0.03 (0.07) 0.04* (0.02)
Cyprus 0.35 13.01 (1.99) -0.04 (0.49) -0.01* (\0.01) 0.40 (0.22) -0.18 (0.1) 0.06* (0.02)
Czech Republic 0.32 7.41 (1.43) \0.01 (0.22) \0.01* (\0.01) 0.01 (0.16) -0.12 (0.09) 0.06* (0.02)
Denmark 0.34 14.77 (1.45) 1.08* (0.32) \0.01 (\0.01) -0.08 (0.15) -0.09 (0.08) 0.04* (0.01)
England 0.40 13.99 (1.72) 0.96* (0.31) -0.01* (\0.01) 0.27 (0.16) -0.13 -(0.13) 0.01 (0.02)
Estonia 0.28 13.66 (1.77) -0.17 (0.36) -0.01* (\0.01) \0.01 (0.17) 0.06 (0.08) 0.07* (0.02)
Finland 0.38 14.67 (1.58) 1.16* (0.25) -0.01* (\0.01) -0.01 (0.13) -0.14* (0.06) 0.01 (0.01)
Greece 0.28 16.83 (1.75) -0.12 (0.39) \0.01 (\0.01) 0.29 (0.21) -0.05 (0.10) 0.03 (0.02)
Ireland 0.39 11.84 (1.69) 0.70* (0.33) -0.01* (\0.01) 0.24 (0.16) 0.12 (0.07) 0.02 (0.02)
Italy 0.39 7.60 (1.67) 0.06 (0.3) \0.01* (\0.01) 0.29* (0.14) 0.08 (0.06) 0.03 (0.02)
Latvia 0.31 12.32 (2.19) -0.19 (0.35) -0.01* (\0.01) -0.26 (0.17) 0.02 (0.08) 0.01 (0.02)
Lithuania 0.29 17.00 (1.92) -0.01 (0.28) -0.01* (\0.01) 0.18 (0.14) 0.15 (0.10) \0.01 (0.02)
Norway 0.34 11.98 (2.19) 0.75* (0.36) -0.01* (\0.01) -0.01 (0.21) 0.09 (0.08) 0.05 (0.03)
Poland 0.33 9.51 (1.67) -0.75* (0.31) \0.01 (\0.01) 0.24 (0.16) 0.02 (0.08) 0.07* (0.02)
Russian Federation 0.37 7.07 (1.63) 0.44 (0.32) \0.01 (\0.01) -0.35* (0.13) -0.08 (0.09) 0.03 (0.02)
Slovak Republic 0.35 10.53 (2.01) -0.04 (0.28) \0.01 (\0.01) 0.26 (0.15) -0.21* (0.08) 0.03 (0.02)
Slovenia 0.28 21.37 (1.57) -0.33 (0.26) -0.01* (\0.01) -0.22 (0.19) -0.08 (0.1) 0.05* (0.02)
Spain 0.33 12.32 (1.56) 0.61 (0.34) -0.01* (\0.01) -0.06 (0.17) 0.07 (0.07) 0.04 (0.02)
Sweden 0.33 19.18 (1.56) 1.24* (0.32) \0.01* (\0.01) 0.06 (0.17) -0.17 (0.12) 0.03 (0.02)
Switzerland 0.30 15.60 (2.55) 1.00* (0.36) -0.01* (\0.01) 0.39 (0.23) -0.02 (0.06) 0.01 (0.02)
P. Mirazchiyski et al.
 Table 4 continued
Countries Social and political Parental interest Trust in civic Sense of internal Citizenship Perception of openness
discussion outside in social and institutions political efficacy self-efficacy in classroom discussion
school political issues

Austria 0.11* (0.02) 0.31 (0.33) 0.07* (0.02) 0.22* (0.03) 0.34* (0.03) 0.02 (0.02)
Belgium (Flemish) 0.12* (0.02) 0.32 (0.25) 0.09* (0.02) 0.24* (0.02) 0.29* (0.03) 0.03 (0.02)
Bulgaria 0.04* (0.02) 0.80* (0.27) 0.09* (0.02) 0.21* (0.02) 0.27* (0.03) 0.02 (0.02)
Cyprus 0.08* (0.02) 0.83* (0.28) 0.09* (0.02) 0.23* (0.03) 0.35* (0.03) 0.03 (0.02)
Czech Republic 0.08* (0.02) 0.86* (0.19) 0.08* (0.02) 0.26* (0.02) 0.29* (0.02) 0.01 (0.02)
Denmark 0.16* (0.02) 1.15* (0.22) 0.03 (0.02) 0.19* (0.02) 0.23* (0.03) \0.01 (0.02)
England 0.11* (0.03) 0.69* (0.27) 0.12* (0.02) 0.20* (0.03) 0.32* (0.02) 0.02 (0.02)
Youth Future Civic Participation in Europe

Estonia 0.10* (0.02) 0.58* (0.23) 0.09* (0.02) 0.23* (0.02) 0.25* (0.03) 0.03 (0.02)
Finland 0.10* (0.02) 0.20 (0.19) 0.04* (0.02) 0.28* (0.02) 0.27* (0.03) 0.04* (0.02)
Greece 0.05* (0.02) 0.89* (0.22) 0.06* (0.02) 0.21* (0.03) 0.31* (0.03) \0.01 (0.02)
Ireland 0.11* (0.02) 0.31 (0.22) 0.12* (0.02) 0.25* (0.02) 0.28* (0.02) 0.03 (0.02)
Italy 0.12* (0.02) 0.72* (0.24) 0.03 (0.02) 0.22* (0.02) 0.36* (0.02) 0.06* (0.02)
Latvia 0.11* (0.02) 0.64* (0.26) 0.14* (0.02) 0.24* (0.03) 0.35* (0.03) \0.01 (0.02)
Lithuania 0.06* (0.02) 0.45* (0.22) 0.10* (0.02) 0.28* (0.03) 0.30* (0.02) 0.03 (0.02)
Norway 0.09* (0.02) 0.93* (0.32) 0.08* (0.02) 0.24* (0.03) 0.24* (0.03) 0.07* (0.02)
Poland 0.07* (0.02) 0.40 (0.22) 0.08* (0.02) 0.19* (0.02) 0.33* (0.02) 0.04* (0.02)
Russian Federation 0.08* (0.02) 0.83* (0.22) 0.08* (0.02) 0.27* (0.03) 0.39* (0.03) 0.03 (0.02)
Slovak Republic 0.10* (0.02) 0.52* (0.24) 0.08* (0.02) 0.23* (0.03) 0.33* (0.03) 0.01 (0.02)
Slovenia 0.07* (0.02) 0.21 (0.29) 0.08* (0.02) 0.23* (0.02) 0.23* (0.02) \0.01 (0.02)
Spain 0.09* (0.02) 0.61* (0.25) 0.18* (0.02) 0.26* (0.02) 0.27* (0.03) -0.02 (0.02)
Sweden 0.12* (0.02) 0.32 (0.21) 0.05* (0.02) 0.19* (0.02) 0.22* (0.02) 0.02 (0.02)
Switzerland 0.09* (0.02) 0.12 (0.25) 0.06* (0.03) 0.28* (0.02) 0.25* (0.03) 0.02 (0.02)
() Standard errors appear in parentheses, * The coefficient is statistically significant (p \ .05)

123
 Table 5 Regression models for future electoral participation scale
Countries R2 Constant Gender Civic knowledge Socio-economic Expected years Participation at
background of further education school

123
Austria 0.38 4.68 (1.69) -0.76* (0.3) 0.03* (\0.01) 0.43* (0.17) 0.06 (0.07) 0.03 (0.02)
Belgium (Flemish) 0.30 2.52 (1.29) -0.39 (0.31) 0.02* (\0.01) 0.36* (0.18) -0.01 (0.06) 0.05* (0.02)
Bulgaria 0.26 1.01 (1.99) -0.01 (0.38) 0.03* (\0.01) -0.51* (0.16) 0.12 (0.07) 0.04 (0.02)
Cyprus 0.32 2.31 (1.93) -0.5 (0.36) 0.03* (\0.01) 0.11 (0.21) -0.05 (0.07) 0.05* (0.02)
Czech Republic 0.38 -9.37 (1.39) -1.21* (0.28) 0.04* (\0.01) 0.49* (0.15) 0.1 (0.10) 0.05* (0.02)
Denmark 0.39 3.50 (1.43) 1.11* (0.25) 0.01* (\0.01) 0.11 (0.16) 0.21* (0.08) 0.04* (0.01)
England 0.41 -0.88 (1.8) -1.03* (0.39) 0.02* (\0.01) 0.34 (0.22) 0.27* (0.13) 0.06* (0.02)
Estonia 0.29 0.61 (1.86) -0.16 (0.35) 0.02* (\0.01) 0.07 (0.18) 0.1 (0.07) 0.05* (0.02)
Finland 0.37 5.35 (1.6) 0.49 (0.35) 0.01* (\0.01) 0.42* (0.14) 0.19* (0.06) 0.06* (0.02)
Greece 0.26 2.35 (2.31) 0.02 (0.34) 0.03* (\0.01) 0.08 (0.24) 0.31* (0.10) 0.05 (0.02)
Ireland 0.34 6.96 (1.85) 0.52 (0.35) 0.03* (\0.01) 0.14 (0.18) 0.32* (0.08) 0.04* (0.02)
Italy 0.29 7.34 (1.98) -0.24 (0.31) 0.03* (\0.01) -0.13 (0.17) 0.27* (0.07) 0.03 (0.02)
Latvia 0.22 2.61 (2.25) -0.06 (0.38) 0.03* (\0.01) 0.33 (0.22) \0.01 (0.08) 0.03 (0.03)
Lithuania 0.24 1.62 (2.24) 0.41 (0.34) 0.03* (\0.01) 0.09 (0.18) 0.21 (0.11) 0.03 (0.02)
Norway 0.35 3.14 (2.38) 0.51 (0.35) 0.03* (\0.01) 0.47 (0.27) 0.38* (0.11) 0.09* (0.02)
Poland 0.29 1.43 (1.62) \0.01 (0.3) 0.02* (\0.01) 0.12 (0.17) 0.06 (0.10) 0.10* (0.02)
Russian Federation 0.24 4.31 (1.59) -0.02 (0.3) 0.02* (\0.01) -0.22 (0.16) 0.17 (0.10) 0.07* (0.02)
Slovak Republic 0.33 -3.54 (2.09) -0.29 (0.32) 0.03* (\0.01) 0.11 (0.20) 0.31* (0.10) 0.07* (0.02)
Slovenia 0.26 7.64 (2.03) -0.42 (0.41) 0.03* (\0.01) 0.18 (0.27) 0.37* (0.14) -0.01 (0.02)
Spain 0.29 5.21 (1.67) -0.61 (0.36) 0.02* (\0.01) -0.11 (0.17) 0.25* (0.09) 0.07* (0.03)
Sweden 0.35 9.04 (1.53) 1.11* (0.35) 0.02* (\0.01) 0.38 (0.20) -0.01 (0.10) 0.01 (0.02)
Switzerland 0.33 9.21 (1.99) -0.31 (0.44) 0.02* (\0.01) 0.58 (0.39) 0.42* (0.08) 0.03 (0.03)
P. Mirazchiyski et al.
 Table 5 continued
Countries Social and political Parental interest in Trust in civic Sense of internal Citizenship Perception of
discussion outside social and political institutions political efficacy self-efficacy openness in
school issues classroom
discussion

Austria 0.01 (0.02) 1.59* (0.25) 0.21* (0.02) 0.13* (0.02) 0.20* (0.02) 0.01 (0.02)
Belgium (Flemish) 0.05* (0.02) 1.35* (0.30) 0.19* (0.02) 0.17* (0.03) 0.15* (0.03) 0.01 (0.02)
Bulgaria 0.01 (0.02) 2.21* (0.30) 0.18* (0.03) 0.20* (0.03) 0.13* (0.03) 0.02 (0.02)
Cyprus \0.01 (0.02) 1.32* (0.27) 0.18* (0.03) 0.16* (0.03) 0.18* (0.03) 0.03 (0.02)
Czech Republic 0.04 (0.02) 2.77* (0.21) 0.16* (0.02) 0.22* (0.02) 0.12* (0.02) 0.02 (0.02)
Denmark 0.08* (0.02) 1.4* (0.21) 0.20* (0.01) 0.15* (0.02) 0.13* (0.02) 0.03* (0.02)
Youth Future Civic Participation in Europe

England 0.05* (0.02) 1.98* (0.25) 0.19* (0.03) 0.15* (0.02) 0.13* (0.02) 0.04* (0.02)
Estonia \0.01 (0.02) 1.59* (0.28) 0.21* (0.02) 0.18* (0.02) 0.16* (0.03) 0.04* (0.02)
Finland 0.07* (0.02) 2.27* (0.22) 0.23* (0.02) 0.10* (0.03) 0.14* (0.03) 0.02 (0.02)
Greece 0.01 (0.02) 0.71* (0.28) 0.20* (0.02) 0.20* (0.03) 0.09* (0.03) 0.07* (0.02)
Ireland 0.02 (0.02) 1.38* (0.23) 0.21* (0.02) 0.14* (0.02) 0.10* (0.02) 0.02 (0.01)
Italy -0.01 (0.02) 1.63* (0.26) 0.17* (0.03) 0.11* (0.02) 0.11* (0.02) 0.06* (0.02)
Latvia 0.05* (0.02) 0.77* (0.28) 0.21* (0.02) 0.12* (0.03) 0.20* (0.03) 0.07* (0.03)
Lithuania 0.04 (0.02) 1.61* (0.26) 0.24* (0.02) 0.15* (0.03) 0.14* (0.02) 0.04* (0.02)
Norway 0.04 (0.02) 1.72* (0.29) 0.18* (0.02) 0.11* (0.03) 0.08* (0.03) 0.06* (0.02)
Poland 0.05* (0.02) 1.67* (0.31) 0.18* (0.02) 0.08* (0.02) 0.21* (0.02) 0.04 (0.02)
Russian Federation 0.04 (0.02) 0.79* (0.24) 0.27* (0.02) 0.10* (0.02) 0.14* (0.02) 0.05* (0.02)
Slovak Republic 0.01 (0.02) 1.82* (0.29) 0.20* (0.02) 0.18* (0.02) 0.18* (0.03) 0.03 (0.02)
Slovenia 0.04* (0.02) 1.92* (0.32) 0.13* (0.02) 0.12* (0.02) 0.15* (0.02) 0.03 (0.03)
Spain 0.01 (0.02) 1.19* (0.27) 0.26* (0.02) 0.15* (0.02) 0.15* (0.02) -0.04 (0.02)
Sweden 0.06* (0.02) 1.3* (0.19) 0.17* (0.02) 0.14* (0.03) 0.13* (0.02) 0.02 (0.02)
Switzerland -0.02 (0.03) 2.02* (0.34) 0.15* (0.02) 0.26* (0.02) 0.08* (0.03) -0.08* (0.03)

() Standard errors appear in parentheses, * The coefficient is statistically significant (p \ .05)

123
 Table 6 Regression models for future political participation scale
Countries R2 Constant Gender Civic knowledge Socio-economic Expected years Participation at
background of further education school

123
Austria 0.24 30.93 (1.80) -1.68* (0.35) -0.02* (\0.01) 0.15 (0.21) -0.15* (0.07) 0.03 (0.02)
Belgium (Flemish) 0.24 25.35 (1.84) -0.50 (0.39) -0.02* (\0.01) 0.39* (0.18) \0.01 (0.08) 0.06* (0.02)
Bulgaria 0.28 27.14 (2.13) -0.17 (0.48) -0.02* (\0.01) -0.44* (0.22) 0.05 (0.07) 0.02 (0.02)
Cyprus 0.28 23.05 (1.94) -2.57* (0.40) -0.02* (\0.01) 0.31 (0.26) -0.07 (0.10) 0.08* (0.02)
Czech Republic 0.24 15.43 (1.63) -0.51* (0.26) -0.01* (\0.01) -0.18 (0.16) 0.07 (0.09) 0.05* (0.02)
Denmark 0.21 26.14 (1.46) 0.22 (0.30) \0.01 (\0.01) -0.29* (0.14) 0.08 (0.10) 0.02 (0.01)
England 0.28 20.81 (1.74) -0.17 (0.35) -0.01* (\0.01) -0.24 (0.19) 0.27* (0.13) 0.02 (0.02)
Estonia 0.20 22.61 (1.89) -1.50* (0.38) -0.01* (\0.01) -0.20 (0.19) 0.16* (0.07) 0.09* (0.02)
Finland 0.25 27.97 (1.56) 0.21 (0.32) -0.01* (\0.01) -0.10 (0.13) 0.05 (0.06) 0.02 (0.02)
Greece 0.20 27.50 (1.79) -1.03* (0.32) -0.02* (\0.01) 0.14 (0.22) 0.09 (0.09) 0.02 (0.02)
Ireland 0.29 21.94 (1.66) -0.68 (0.37) -0.01* (\0.01) -0.01 (0.20) 0.11 (0.09) 0.04 (0.02)
Italy 0.25 22.26 (2.13) -1.97* (0.34) -0.01* (\0.01) 0.22 (0.16) \0.01 (0.08) \0.01 (0.02)
Latvia 0.22 26.85 (2.51) -1.24* (0.52) -0.02* (\0.01) -0.02 (0.20) -0.01 (0.09) 0.06* (0.02)
Lithuania 0.23 27.07 (2.37) -1.59* (0.32) -0.03* (\0.01) 0.22 (0.13) 0.11 (0.11) 0.05* (0.02)
Norway 0.23 25.27 (2.35) \0.01 (0.30) -0.02* (\0.01) -0.02 (0.20) 0.17 (0.09) 0.06* (0.02)
Poland 0.22 24.45 (1.74) -2.32* (0.34) -0.02* (\0.01) -0.09 (0.19) 0.14 (0.09) 0.06* (0.02)
Russian Federation 0.28 18.46 (1.97) -1.70* (0.30) -0.02* (\0.01) -0.35* (0.16) 0.01 (0.09) 0.10* (0.02)
Slovak Republic 0.29 24.05 (2.09) -1.01* (0.27) -0.02* (\0.01) -0.33 (0.19) -0.02 (0.10) 0.04 (0.02)
Slovenia 0.24 27.72 (1.59) -2.03* (0.37) -0.02* (\0.01) -0.40 (0.20) 0.17 (0.13) 0.01 (0.02)
Spain 0.25 27.46 (1.64) -0.33 -(0.33) -0.02* (\0.01) -0.16 (0.20) 0.04 (0.07) 0.03 (0.02)
Sweden 0.22 29.66 (1.43) 0.14 (0.29) -0.01* (\0.01) 0.17 (0.18) -0.02 (0.11) 0.04 (0.02)
Switzerland 0.22 29.25 (2.12) -1.00* (0.44) -0.01* (\0.01) 0.20 (0.20) 0.10 (0.08) 0.02 (0.02)
P. Mirazchiyski et al.
 Table 6 continued
Countries Social and political Parental interest in Trust in civic Sense of internal Citizenship self- Perception of openness
discussion outside social and political institutions political efficacy efficacy in classroom
school issues discussion

Austria \0.01 (0.02) 0.40 (0.27) 0.17* (0.02) 0.14* (0.02) 0.27* (0.02) -0.03 (0.02)
Belgium (Flemish) 0.02 (0.02) 0.62* (0.26) 0.10* (0.02) 0.26* (0.03) 0.20* (0.03) \0.01 (0.02)
Bulgaria 0.01 (0.02) 0.90* (0.28) 0.18* (0.02) 0.25* (0.02) 0.17* (0.02) -0.02 (0.02)
Cyprus 0.02 (0.03) 0.99* (0.32) 0.17* (0.02) 0.22* (0.03) 0.25* (0.03) -0.03 (0.02)
Czech Republic 0.05* (0.02) 1.04* (0.20) 0.15* (0.02) 0.26* (0.02) 0.20* (0.02) \0.01 (0.02)
Denmark 0.04* (0.02) 0.80* (0.21) 0.08* (0.02) 0.19* (0.02) 0.14* (0.02) -0.01 (0.01)
England 0.04* (0.02) 0.75* (0.25) 0.18* (0.02) 0.19* (0.02) 0.20* (0.02) 0.01 (0.02)
Youth Future Civic Participation in Europe

Estonia -0.03 (0.02) 0.51* (0.23) 0.20* (0.02) 0.21* (0.02) 0.19* (0.03) 0.01 (0.02)
Finland \0.01 (0.01) 0.64* (0.29) 0.08* (0.02) 0.19* (0.02) 0.25* (0.03) -0.02 (0.02)
Greece -0.01 (0.02) 0.34 (0.23) 0.19* (0.02) 0.19* (0.02) 0.17* (0.03) 0.03 (0.02)
Ireland 0.02 (0.02) 0.70* (0.23) 0.19* (0.02) 0.23* (0.02) 0.19* (0.02) -0.02 (0.02)
Italy 0.04* (0.02) 0.87* (0.20) 0.08* (0.03) 0.25* (0.02) 0.25* (0.03) \0.01 (0.02)
Latvia 0.05* (0.02) 0.12 (0.31) 0.22* (0.02) 0.14* (0.03) 0.26* (0.03) -0.01 (0.02)
Lithuania 0.02 (0.02) 0.09 (0.27) 0.19* (0.03) 0.24* (0.03) 0.20* (0.03) 0.01 (0.02)
Norway 0.02 (0.02) 0.76* (0.32) 0.14* (0.02) 0.22* (0.02) 0.13* (0.02) 0.05* (0.02)
Poland 0.04* (0.02) 0.36 (0.26) 0.17* (0.02) 0.11* (0.02) 0.26* (0.02) \0.01 (0.02)
Russian Federation 0.01 (0.01) 0.69* (0.25) 0.16* (0.02) 0.20* (0.02) 0.34* (0.03) 0.01 (0.02)
Slovak Republic 0.01 (0.02) 0.21 (0.26) 0.16* (0.02) 0.25* (0.03) 0.27* (0.03) -0.04 (0.02)
Slovenia 0.05* (0.02) 0.91* (0.32) 0.15* (0.02) 0.23* (0.02) 0.16* (0.02) \0.01 (0.02)
Spain -0.01 (0.02) 1.06* (0.25) 0.22* (0.02) 0.21* (0.03) 0.24* (0.03) -0.04* (0.02)
Sweden 0.03 (0.02) 0.44 (0.25) 0.12* (0.02) 0.18* (0.02) 0.15* (0.02) \0.01 (0.02)
Switzerland -0.02 (0.02) 1.50* (0.29) 0.15* (0.02) 0.22* (0.02) 0.18* (0.03) -0.06* (0.02)

() Standard errors appear in parentheses, * The coefficient is statistically significant (p \ .05)

123
 P. Mirazchiyski et al.

References

Bobek, D., Zaff, J., Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components of
civic action: Towards an integrated measure of civic engagement. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 30, 615–627.
Bradshow, J., Hoelscher, P., & Richardson, D. (2007). An index of child well-being in the European Union.
Social Indicators Research, 80, 133–177.
Brese, F., Jung, M., Mirazchiyski, P., Schulz, W., & Zuehlke, O. (2011). ICCS 2009 User Guide for the
International Database. Supplement 3: Variables Derived from the Survey.
Campbell, D. E. (2007). Sticking together classroom diversity and civic education. American Politics
Research, 35(1), 57–78. doi:10.1177/1532673X06294503.
Caro, D. H., & Mirazchiyski, P. (2012). Socioeconomic Gradients in Eastern European Countries: evidence
from PIRLS 2006. European Educational Research Journal, 11(1), 96.
Cerych, L. (1997). Educational reforms in Central and Eastern Europe: Processes and outcomes. European
Journal of Education, 32(1), 75–96.
Clougherty, C. H. (2009). Critical evaluation of the nobis project—a creative process approach to service-
learning and global citizenship education (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Retrieved from
eThesis Repository (ID Code: 272).
Coffé, H., & van der Lippe, T. (2009). Citizenship norms in Eastern Europe. Social Indicators Research,
96(3), 479–496.
Cornia, G. A. (2010). Transition, structural divergence, and performance: Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union over 2000–2007 (Working Paper No. 2010/32). United Nations University
Working Paper. Retrieved from http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/2010/en_GB/
wp2010-32/_files/83199208506917095/default/2010-32.pdf.
Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies, 56,
76–98.
Flanagan, C. A., Bowes, J. M., Jonsson, B., Csapo, B., & Sheblanova, E. (1993). Ties that bind: Correlates of
adolescents’ civic commitments in seven countries. Journal of Social Issues, 54(3), 457–475.
Foster-Bey, J. (2008). Do race, ethnicity, citizenship and socio-economic status determine civic engagement.
(CIRCLE Working Paper No. #62). Boston: CIRCLE (The Center for Information & Research on
Civic Learning & Engagement). Retrieved from http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/
WP62_Foster.Bey.pdf.
Geske, A., Grinfelds, A., Dedze, I., & Zhang, Y. (2006). Family background, school quality and rural-urban
disparities in student learning achievement in Latvia. Prospects, XXXVI(4), 419–431.
Hoskins, B. (2009). Monitoring active citizenship in the European Union: The process, the results and initial
explanations. CAMDO, 1, 1–16. doi:10.3280/CAD2009-001008.
Howard, M. M. (2002). The weakness of postcommunist civil society. Journal of Democracy, 13(1),
157–169.
IEA. (2012). IEA IDB analyzer (version 2.0) [computer software]. Hamburg: IEA Data Processing and
Research Center.
Immerfall, S., Priller, E., & Delhey, J. (2010). Association and community. In S. Immerfall & G. Therborn
(Eds.), Handbook of European societies: Social transformations in the 21st century (pp. 7–35). New
York: Springer.
Kahne, J. E., & Sporte, S. E. (2008). Developing citizens: The impact of civic learning opportunities on
students’ commitment to civic participation. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 738–766.
Kotásek, J. (1996). Structure and organisation of secondary education in central and Eastern Europe.
European Journal of Education, 31(1), 25–42.
Letki, N. (2004). Socialization for participation? Trust, membership, and democratization in east-central
Europe. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 665–679. doi:10.1177/106591290405700414.
Listhaug, O., & Grønflaten, L. (2007). Civic decline? Trends in political involvement and participation in
Norway. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 272–299.
Masters, G. N., & Wright, B. D. (1997). The partial credit model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K.
Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 101–122). New York: Springer.
Ménard, M. (2010). Youth civic engagement. Ottawa: Parliamentary Information and Research Service,
Social Affairs Division.
Mishler, W., & Rose, W. (2002). Learning and re-learning regime support: The dynamics of post-communist
regimes. European Journal of Political Research, 41(1), 5–36.
Mondak, J. J., & Gearing, A. F. (1998). Civic engagement in a post-communist state. Political Psychology,
19(3), 615–637.

123
Youth Future Civic Participation in Europe

Pattie, C., Seyd, P., & Whiteley, P. (2003). Citizenship and civic engagement: Attitudes and behaviour in
Britain. Political Studies, 51, 443–468.
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (Eds.). (2010a). ICCS 2009 international report:
Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower secondary school students in 38 countries.
Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., & van de Gaer, E. (2010). Preparedness for active citizenship among lower sec-
ondary students in international comparison. Presented at the 4th IEA international research con-
ference, Gothenburg, Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.iea-irc.org/fileadmin/IRC_2010_papers/
CIVED_ICCS/Schulz_Ainley_Vandegaer.pdf.
Schulz, W., Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Losito, B., & Kerr, D. (Eds.). (2009). International civic and citizenship
education study: Assessment framework. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement.
Schulz, W., & Friedman, T. (2011). Scaling procedures for ICCS questionnaire items. In W. Schulz,
J. Ainley, & J. Fraillon (Eds.), International civic and citizenship education study: Technical report
(pp. 157–259). Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (1997). Influences of adaptation to communist rule on value priorities in
Eastern Europe. Political Psychology, 18(2), 385–410.
Smith, D. H. (1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volunteering: A literature
review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(3), 243–263.
Starosta, P. (2010). Civic participation in rural Europe. Przeglad Socjologiczny, 59(2), 77–108.
Torney-Purta, J. (2002a). The school’s role in developing civic engagement: A study of adolescents in
twenty-eight countries. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 203–212.
Torney-Purta, J. (2002b). Patterns in the civic knowledge, engagement, and attitudes of European adoles-
cents: The IEA civic education study. European Journal of Education, 37(2), 129–141.
Torney-Purta, J., Richardson, W., & Barber, C. H. (2004). Trust in government-related institutions and civic
engagement among adolescents: analysis of five countries from the IEA Civic Education Study
(Working Paper No. 17). College Park, MD: CIRCLE.
Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika,
54(3), 427–520.
Whitely, P. (2005). Citizenship education longitudinal study second literature review. (Research Report No.
631). Berkshire: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Wing, N. (2009). Transformation of students into active and participatory citizens: An exploratory study in
Hong Kong. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 8, 181–196.
Zaff, J., Boyd, M., Li, Y., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2010). Active and engaged citizenship: Multi-
group and longitudinal factorial analysis of an integrated construct of civic engagement. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 39, 736–750.

123