April 2004 The Urban Future and Democracy: Modern Citizenship and Participation in a Metropolis Kasper M. Hansen (FIRST DRAFT!) Paper presented at ECPR - Joint Session of Workshops, Uppsala. April 12-18 2004. Workshop 23 - Governing the Metropolis - The Impact of Global Trends on Urban Governance University of Southern Denmark Department of Political Science and Public Management Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark +45 6550 2165 (phone) E-mail: kmh@sam.sdu.dk Web: www.sam.sdu.dk/staff/kmh
The Urban Future and Democracy: Modern Citizenship and Participation in a Metropolis Kasper M. Hansen In contemporary society the urban life in the city is the arena for political participation or lack of participation. Today about every second citizen live in an urban area. Within 30 years almost two out of three citizens will live in an urban area. This change of living challenges democratic participation as we know it. The Danish capital of Copenhagen is a miniature of a metropolis and has experienced a similar increase in population as we have seen across the world. Urban democracy in Copenhagen deviates in significant ways from democracy across Denmark. E.g. turnouts at public elections are significantly lower, and general speaking the citizens of Copenhagen are less enthusiastic when it come to voting in public election and participate much more in protests and demonstrations than other Danes. Nevertheless, the citizens of urban democracy in Copenhagen show a stronger interest in politics than other Danes and are generally satisfied with democracy. The findings indicate that urban democracy challenge local democracy and national issues seem to push away local issues of the urban citizens political agenda. Introduction In 1950 only 30 percent of the world population lived in urban areas, in 1970 the share had increased to 37 percent, and in 2000 the figure was 47 percent. But this is only the beginning, in 2030 no less than 60 percent of the world s population will live in cities (United Nations, 2002: 23), so the future is very much a future for the urban way of life, when it comes to work, housing, family structures, economics and democracy. This is one of the basic facts behind the growing research in the urban future. The future is urban 1 The expected increase in world population from 6 billion in 2000 to 8¼ billion in 2030 will almost entirely be located in the urban parts of the world. The population in urban areas will increase from 2.9 billion in 2000 to 5 billion in 2030 (United Nations, 2002: 5-6), indicating that numbers and especially size of the cities in the world are increasing. In 1950, only one city had more than 10 million inhabitants, but in 1975 New York was caught up by four other cities. In 2001 the world contained 17 mega-cities with more than 10 million inhabitants, with the Tokyo area as the largest with 26.5 million inhabitants, and with São Paulo and Mexico City on a split second place with 18.3 million each, followed by New York (16.8) and Bombay (16.5) (United Nations, 2002: 11). In the coming years, the growth of the cities will be found mostly within urban areas with 1 million to 5 1 Roger Buch provided a preliminary draft of the section on urban development. 2
million inhabitants, and urban areas with less than 500,000 inhabitants (table 1). In 2001 524 urban areas with more than 750,000 inhabitants can be identified. The growth will be much stronger in the less developed regions in the world, than in the more developed regions where the process of urbanization has been under way much longer. The high growth rates for the developed regions are found in the 1950s and 1960s whereas the less developed regions have highest growth rate from the mid 1980s (figure 1). The population in the more developed regions of the world will in the future be stable around 1.2 billion, while the population in the less developed regions will increase from 4.9 billion to 7.1 billion inhabitants (United Nations, 2002: 6). Table 1: Distribution of the world population by area and size of urban settlement (%) 1975 2000 2015 Urban area - 10 million and more 1.7 3.7 4.7-5 million to 10 million 3.0 2.8 3.7-1 million to 5 million 8.2 11.1 13.3-500,000 to 1 million 4.3 4.8 4.9 - Fewer than 500,000 20,8 24.8 27.1 Rural area 62.0 52.8 46.3 Total 100 100 100 (Number of inhabitants) (4.1 billion) (6.1 billion) (7.2 billion) Source: United Nations, 2002: 9. 3
Figure 1: Proportion of population living in urban areas of the world, the more developed regions and the less developed regions 1950-2030 (%) Source: United Nations, 2002: 23. Reference line = 2001, separating statistical data from estimates. The Danish capital of Copenhagen is a miniature of a metropolis in the most developed part of the world and had been through the similar historical development with large increase in number of inhabitants and the amount of land the municipality of Copenhagen covers. Since 1901, where the surrounding villages were included under the municipality, the size of Copenhagen has been the same. The case of Denmark and Copenhagen Comparing the general trends of increasing urbanization with the city of Copenhagen provides an interesting case for the studying urban future. As an old developed country the growth of the cities has been well under way for many centuries. Nevertheless, from 1960 the share of population living in the cities increased from 74 percent to 85 percent in 2002. As a small country with almost 5.4 million inhabitants in 2002 (4.6 millions in 1960), the cities are also small compared internationally. In 2002, the Copenhagen Municipality had exactly ½ million inhabitants after ten years of growth which followed a decline from 768.000 in 1950 to 465.000 in 1992. 4
The political-administrative system in Denmark is a three-level system created in a major reform in 1970 with 275 municipalities and 14 counties. Copenhagen has together with Frederiksberg a special status as suppliers of both municipal services (primary schools, child- and eldercare, social security etc.) and county services (hospitals, secondary schools etc.). From January 2003, the island of Bornholm also got this status after the merger of five municipalities and the county, bringing the number of municipalities down to 271. The regional and especially at the local level autonomy is very high in Denmark, creating large differences in taxation and service between different parts of the country and different municipalities, as illustrated in table 2. Table 2: Key economic figures for Copenhagen and all Danish Municipalities. Copenhagen All municipalities Minimum Average Maximum Expenditure on daycare 7,413 2,253 5,148 7,427 (Euro pr. child 0-10 years) Expenditure on primary 9,673 5,545 7,717 11,819 school (Euro pr. pupil Expenditure on care for the 9,216 4,031 6,860 10,329 elderly (Euro pr. person over 67 years) Local and regional tax 32.3 29.0 32.6 35.4 (Income tax) 1 euro = 7.42 DKR Source: The Ministry for the Interior and Health: Kommunale Nøgletal 2002. A source of these differences is the heterogeneity of the municipalities ranging form the island Læsø with 2,268 inhabitants to Copenhagen with 500,531 inhabitants, and with an average of 19,557 inhabitants. Excluding the four cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants the average drops to 15,656 inhabitants showing that many Danish municipalities are small, which is also illustrated in table 3. The municipality with up to 12,249 inhabitants amount to 61.5 percent of the municipalities, but does only contain 25 percent of the population. 5
Table 3: Numbers of municipalities with different numbers of inhabitants and the share of the population living within the groups of municipalities Numbers of municipalities Shares of municipalities Shares of Population Less than 5,000 inhabitants 16 5.9 1.1 5,000-7,249 inhabitants 64 23.2 7.6 7.250-9,999 inhabitants 54 19.7 8.7 10,000-12,249 inhabitants 35 12.7 7.3 12,250-14,999 inhabitants 18 6.5 4.6 15,000-19,999 inhabitants 26 9.5 8.4 20,000-29,999 inhabitants 23 8.4 9.9 30,000-49,999 inhabitants 22 8.0 16.1 50,000-99,999 inhabitants 13 4.7 15.2 More than 100,000 inhabitants 4 1.5 21.1 Sum 275 100.0 100.0 Source: Calculations on the basis of The Ministry for the Interior and Health: Kommunale Nøgletal 2002. A geographic view on the population shows that the regional parts of Denmark almost have been unchanged in their shares of the population. The western part (Jutland) have increased from 44.4 percent in 1970 to 46.2 percent in 2003, the eastern parts (Sealand outside the capital area, Funen and Bornholm) have had a similar increase from 40.7 percent in 1970 to 42.8 percent in 2003, and Copenhagen/Frederiksberg declined from 14.9 to 11.0 percent. The growth in the Island area have been in the northern and eastern parts of Zealand (Frederiksborg, Roskilde and partly West Zealand counties), while the central and southern parts (Copenhagen and Storstrøm county) have declined. Funen have been stable and Bornholm declining in share of population. The growth in Jutland have been mainly in the Århus County with Denmark s second largest city Århus, which alone account for around half of the increase in the county, more modest growth in Ribe, Vejle and Ringkøbing counties and stability in South Jutland, Viborg and North Jutland counties. Turning the focus onto Copenhagen the bridge which opened in 2000 between Copenhagen and the Swedish City of Malmø created a metropolis of 3.4 million people twice the size of e.g. the Stockholm region. Nevertheless, the expectation to the increased interaction between the Danes and the Swedes has not been fulfilled. Only 1% commuted to work across the border in 2002 mostly from Sweden to Copenhagen. Nevertheless, survey results and official statistics show a minor increase in the interaction between the two countries (Copenhagen Municipality, 2003). In this way the metropolis area are still expected to have significant impact on the region in the future. 6
The municipality of Copenhagen has one on the largest rate of commuters as many of citizens of the smaller surrounding municipalities work in Copenhagen, but lives outside the city. Secondly Copenhagen has many newcomers do to e.g. the many jobs in the higher public service. A consequence of the many commuters and newcomers is that the citizens of Copenhagen Municipality as well as people living in other municipalities surrounding Copenhagen both see themselves as urban citizens. That is the urban identity is expected not to be closely defined by the boarders of the municipality, but rather of individuals interdependence with urban life. That is e.g. the use of the different many culture events in Copenhagen or work insight the city. Table 4: Regional distribution of the Danish population. Share of population 1970-2003 1970-1974 1975-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2003 1970-2003 Copenhagen/Frederiksberg: 14.22 12.27 11.31 10.90 10.70 10.84 11.02 11.6 Island counties: 41.23 42.50 42.89 42.96 42.96 42.82 42.81 42.6 - Copenhagen 12.46 12.41 12.15 11.85 11.67 11.55 11.50 12.0 - Frederiksborg 5.44 6.16 6.46 6.61 6.67 6.77 6.89 6.4 - Roskilde 3.26 3.78 3.99 4.16 4.26 4.30 4.37 4.0 - West Zealand 5.26 5.34 5.43 5.50 5.52 5.52 5.56 5.4 - Storstrøm 5.09 5.06 5.06 5.02 4.98 4.89 4.86 5.0 - Bornholm 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.88 0.85 0.82 0.9 - Funen 8.78 8.82 8.86 8.91 8.97 8.93 8.82 8.9 Jutland counties: 44.55 45.23 45.80 46.14 46.35 46.34 46.17 45.8 - South Jutland 4.82 4.85 4.89 4.88 4.86 4.81 4.73 4.8 - Ribe 4.01 4.09 4.18 4.24 4.26 4.24 4.19 4.2 - Vejle 6.21 6.29 6.38 6.41 6.44 6.49 6.54 6.4 - Ringkøbing 4.92 5.05 5.15 5.19 5.20 5.15 5.11 5.1 - Århus 10.88 11.13 11.27 11.49 11.72 11.91 12.00 11.5 - Viborg 4.46 4.49 4.52 4.50 4.45 4.41 4.37 4.5 - North Jutland 9.25 9.33 9.36 9.42 9.43 9.33 9.24 9.3 SUM Source: Denmark s Statistics, Befolkningen i kommunerne, various years. Overall the regional developments in the population are very limited in the time span of 33 years presented in table 4. The main movements of population have been inside the regional areas, although also stability can be identified. The cities with more than 10.000 inhabitants have been stable since 1970, and the increase in urban population have mainly been in the cities with 1,000 to 9,999 inhabitants, which have double their share of the population (figure 2). Furthermore since the 1980s the development seems to be rather stable with almost no change between the areas. 7
Figure 2: The Danish population distributed areas and size of cities 1960-1996 (%) Source: Denmark s Statistics, Statistical Yearbook 2003 and 2002. Because of a change in statistics figures after 1996 are not comparable with earlier figures. Democratic life of the metropolis Democracy was born in the city - the ancient Greek city of Athens where the citizens gathered in the Assembly to decide on collective problems. The cities growth into nation and the direct model of participation in mass-meeting disappeared and the representative form of democracy as we know it emerged. The increasing urbanization, exemplified by urban development of Copenhagen, challenges the urban democracy as we know it. First of all the increasing urbanization has increased the number of different political activities the citizens can choose to take part in. In this way many different political activities compete for the citizen s limited attention. The competition is stronger the more urbanized the city is. The increasing urbanization also allows many minorities to take active part on the political life. That is the political scene is dominated by a number of different views. In the way the urban life are more pluralistic and conflicting oriented that everyday political of small municipalities. The pluralistic elements of urban life surface at local elections where the municipality of Copenhagen has be largest number of different parties running for office. 8
In this way the representative democracy meet a number of challenges as the urbanization increases. Some of these challenges surface when comparing Copenhagen with the democratic life of Denmark as a whole. First turnout for public election is explored. Secondly survey data is analyzed in order to bring more insight into the democratic challenges. Election turnout in the metropolis Copenhagen municipality has the lowest turnout in Denmark (c.f. table 5). Then it comes to national elections turnout in Copenhagen is about 4% lower and when it comes to local elections it is about 10% lower compared to the country as a whole. Thus, it can be argued that there is a democratic deficit or a problem with democratic legitimacy as the citizens do not provide their consent to the elected institutions (Hansen, 2004). The difference in turnout between Copenhagen and the rest of the country is two-three and sometimes even four times larger in local elections compared to national elections or national referenda. At a local referendum in Copenhagen in 1999 the turnout was as low as 40 percent. The only exception from the low turnouts is the elections to the European Parliament, where the turnout in Copenhagen is the same or higher than the national average. This could partly be interpreted as a sign of a more globalized and international oriented population in the cities. A more probable interpretation is due to the electoral system of the European Parliament. The electoral system to the European Parliament only have one electoral district, thus, the candidates concentrates their campaigning in the cities, which create higher relative turnout in the capital compared to other elections. 9
Table 5: Turnout at elections 1970-2001 Local elections: 1970 1974 1978 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 - Denmark 72.6 62.9 73.3 73.3 69.8 67.6 71.2 70.1 85,0 - Copenhagen 61.4 48.9 62.0 62.0 59.5 55.9 59.8 58.0 75.9 - Difference 11.2 14.0 11.3 11.3 10.3 11.7 11.4 11.9 9.1 National elections: 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1984 1987 1988 1990 1994 1998 2001 - Denmark 87.2 88.7 88.2 88.7 85.6 83.2 88.4 86.7 85.7 82.8 84.3 86.0 87.1 - Copenhagen 83.5 84.9 83.9 85.1 81.9 79.2 84.6 82.7 81.3 77.8 80.1 81.5 82.2 - Difference 3.7 3.8 4.3 3.6 3.7 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.4 5.0 4.2 5.0 4.9 National Referenda: 1971 1972 1978 1986 1992 1993 1998 2000 - Denmark 86.2 90.1 63.2 75.4 83.1 86.5 76.2 87.6 - Copenhagen 83.3 88.7 60.9 72.3 80.6 83.2 72.0 82.5 - Difference 2.9 1.4 2.3 3.1 2.5 3.3 4.2 5.1 Elections to the European Parliament: 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 - Denmark 47.8 52.4 46.2 52.9 50.5 - Copenhagen 49.8 52.4 47.9 52.6 50.6 - Difference +2.0 0.0 +1.7 0.3 +0.1 Source: Calculations on the basis of various publications from Denmark s Statistics. As table 5 shows it is especially at the local level that the metropolis Copenhagen deviates from the rest of the country. Throughout the period the citizens of Copenhagen vote significant less often that the rest of the country. The reason why the difference at the local level at 2001 is smaller is that the national election was held at the same time as election for the local level. Many citizens that usually only vote for national election found it convening to vote for the local election when they where at the voting booth anyway. What is the explanation for these differences in turnout? First of all many factors actually suggest higher turnout in Copenhagen than Denmark as a whole. At local election in Copenhagen there are more parties and candidates to choose between than in any other municipality in Denmark. The voters should in this way have less trouble finding a party or candidate which advocates the voters views. Secondly, at election there is shorter distance to the polls compared to other municipalities in Denmark. Thus, it should be less time consuming for the voters to carry though the actual voting procedure. Third, the council manages both municipal and county services, thus has actually a much larger jurisdiction than other municipalities in Denmark. This strong power should ceteris paribus encourage citizens to take part in the election as it shows that the election matter. Finally, the media, newspaper as well as television, paid much more attention to the larger municipality of Copenhagen than any other municipality. In this way the voter are more often confronted with news from the political life of the metropolis and thus the public sphere where opinions meet should increase any local identity increasing the turnout (Goul Andersen, 1993:50-51). 10
On the other hand Copenhagen has also relative many ethnic minorities and marginalized groups. These groups votes significant less than others groups. Furthermore analyzes based on the official election data show that the unmarried, citizens receiving different forms of income support from the state or live in ghettos have the lowest turnouts (Elklit et al., 2000). Both of these elements are present in Copenhagen. Other analyzes based on surveys have shown that social resources cannot explain the different in turnout. Nevertheless unemployed, blue-collar vote significant vote less than other groups (Goul Andersen, 1993; Mouritzen, 1997). Nevertheless, Elklit et al. (2000) concludes that the primarily reason why people tend not to vote is mainly due to the lack of having being exposed to the norm that voting is a norm of society. In this way the social-demographics found statistically relationship is partly due to a spurious effect hiding the lack of being exposed to the norm. The preliminary conclusion thus suggests that the difference in turnout is partly caused by difference in socio-demographics, but primarily do to the lack of being exposed to the voting norm of society. In order to provide more insight into why the turnout of Copenhagen is lower than the rest of the country survey data can be helpful. There is nevertheless one general of problem using survey data compared to official statistics when examining turnout. That is, that the responses strongly overestimate the turnout. See table 6. Table 6: Official election rapport compared with surveys results (%) Local elections: 2001 2001 Election study Survey s overestimation - Denmark 85.0 93.7 8.7 - Copenhagen 75.9 90.6 14.7 - Difference 9.1-3.1 National elections: - Denmark 87.1 96.0 8.9 - Copenhagen 82.2 95.6 13.4 - Difference 4.9-0.4 Note: N for the Election study is 2011 (Denmark) and 181 (Copenhagen). Table 6 compares the official turnout statistics with the result from the election study face-to-face survey conducted in 2001. It is notable now the citizens tend to claim that the voted when the official statistic tell us something else. One interpretation of this difference is that the citizens see voting as a duty - a democratic norm which they should comply (Elklit et al., 2000:16). Thus, the citizens tend to forget that they did not vote and thus complying with the norm saying that voting is a citizen s duty. 11
Furthermore, it is likely that the there is a selection bias build into the sampling. That is, those citizens who voted tend to be more interested in politics and thus more willing to participate in the election study focus on politics. Table 6 also tells us that the surveys overestimation is significant larger in Copenhagen that in Denmark as a whole. That is, the citizens of Copenhagen tend to comply more with the norm of voting as a duty in their responses and/or the sample is more bias in Copenhagen than elsewhere. 2 Yet another explanation might be that the citizens of Copenhagen feel dissatisfied with democracy and disempowered in relation to given their vote. Table 7 provides insight on this aspect. Table 7: Satisfaction with democracy (index) Voted with enthusiasm Politicians are concern with the voters Satisfied with democracy It matters who the citizens vote for Copenhagen 46 57 74 78 Denmark excl. Copenhagen 54 63 75 75 Note: N=170/181/181/181 (Copenhagen), N=1709/1845/1845/1845 (Denmark), Face-to-face interview 2001. The differences between Copenhagen and Denmark are statistical different a p<0.01. Except the last variable in the table. The index is calculated by giving 100 to with enthusiasm / strongly agree / very satisfied / it matter greatly who the citizens vote for and 0 to bad feeling / strongly disagreeing / very dissatisfied / it does not mater who the citizens vote for. The categories are evenly distributed on the scale. 50=Don t know. The citizens of Copenhagen vote with less enthusiasm and are more skeptical to that the politicians pay attention to the voters than the rest of Denmark. On the other hand no differences are found on the level of satisfaction with democracy or the importance of the citizens vote. In this way the argument that the low turnout is related to dissatisfaction with democracy is only partly supported in the survey data. The low turnout and the survey results present a puzzle. On the one hand the citizens of Copenhagen participate in election less often than other Danes. One the other hand they are not dissatisfied with democracy, even though less enthusiastic when having to cast their vote and are more skeptical toward the politicians. 2 It could be argued that survey should be weighted according to turnout. But doing so would give more weight to the citizens which openly in the survey do not comply with the norm saying that voting is a democratic duty. In this way in would give a strong say to the extreme viewpoint and in this way overestimation any differences in the analyses. In addition the weights tend to be rather large. The non-voters weight for Copenhagen at local election would be 2.6 ((100-75.9)/(100-90.6)) while the voters weight would be 0.8 (75.9/90.6). That is, the 17 respondents in the survey which claim they did not vote would count as 44 respondents. 12
One problem with the survey results is that it is not clear whether their answers refer to democracy on the national level or the local level. Table 8 provides insight into whether interest in politics to different levels of government might help explain the differences. Table 8: Interest in politics (index) Interest in General politics Local Domestic EU Foreign affairs Copenhagen 71 48 75 64 68 Denmark excl. Copenhagen 62 59 67 54 56 Note: N=181 (Copenhagen), N=1845 (Denmark), Face-to-face interview 2001. The differences between Copenhagen and Denmark are statistical different a p<0.000. Mean is calculated by giving 100=much interested, 66=somewhat interested, 33=only little interest, 0=not interested, 50=Don t know. Only on the local level interest in politics seems to be able to explain why the citizens of Copenhagen vote less often that the rest of the country. 3 In all the other aspects of interest in political the citizens of Copenhagen are significant more interested in politics. A pattern in the survey seems to be emerging. That high interest among the citizens of Copenhagen combined with high level of satisfaction with democracy is related to and interpreted by the respondents related to the national level. While the low interest in local politic and the weak enthusiasm help explain the low turnout to local election. That is, the citizens of Copenhagen are more focus on broader issues of society than everyday mattes of local politics. Table 9 supports this expectation. Table 9: Engaged in problems of everyday life or broader issues of society (%) Copenhagen Denmark excl. Copenhagen Mostly engaged in issues of my everyday life 9 19 9 11 30 31 24 19 Mostly engaged in issues problems of society 27 19 Don t Know 1 1 Mean (index) 63 52 Note: N=181 (Copenhagen), N=1845 (Denmark). The mean is significant difference at P<0.000. Mean is calculated by giving 0 = mostly engaged with problems of my everyday life, 25, 50, 75 and 100 to mostly engage with broader problems of society. From table 9 it shows that the citizens of Copenhagen are more focused on broader issues of society than the rest of the country. This helps understand why the urban citizens vote less to local election 3 That interest in politics to the local level is significant lower among the citizens of Copenhagen compared to the country as a whole goes against that the differences between Copenhagen and the rest of the country only is caused by larger biases in the sample in Copenhagen than the rest of the country. If this had been the case all the differences should have been in the same direction. 13
as well as why the turnout among the citizens in Copenhagen are relative higher to national election. Also table 10 and 11 supports this interpretation. Table 10: Have enough knowledge to take a position on what goes on in politics (index) Local Parliament EU Copenhagen 34 62 35 Denmark excl. Copenhagen 49 52 27 Note: N=181 (Copenhagen), N=1845 (Denmark), Face-to-face interview 2001. The differences between Copenhagen and Denmark are statistical different a p<0.000. The index is calculated by giving 100=have enough knowledge, 66=second position, 33=third position, 0=don t know enough, 50=don t know. Table 11: How easy or difficult is it to follow what goes on in politics (index) Local Parliament EU Copenhagen 43 61 32 Denmark excl. Copenhagen 56 53 29 Note: N=181 (Copenhagen), N=1845 (Denmark), Face-to-face interview 2001. The differences between Copenhagen and Denmark are statistical different a p<0.000 except when it comes to the EU. The index is calculated by giving 100=very easy, 66=fairly easy, 33=fairly difficult, 0=very difficult, 50=don t know. Table 10 and 11 shows that the citizens of Copenhagen on the one hand indicate to have higher selfassessed level of knowledge and find it easier to follow politics when it comes to parliament- and EU-affairs compared to the rest of the county. One the other hand when it comes to local politics the opposite is the case. It might be expect that it is the representative model of democracy the urban citizen at the local level expresses their discontent with, when they do not voting and at the same time indicate satisfaction with democracy (cf. table 7). That is, the explanation might partly be that the citizens of Copenhagen simply have a different view on democracy. That is, they might give more weight to the different aspect of democratic life than citizens living outside Copenhagen. In order to understand this aspect table 12 present the support to different ideal models of democracy. Table 12: View on democracy preferred choice between three ideal models (%) Elite Participatory Legal No Don t know Democracy Democracy Democracy one Copenhagen 28 44 19 2 7 Denmark excl. Copenhagen 31 39 20 2 8 Note: N = 259 (Copenhagen), N = 2344 (Denmark) CATI august 2000. Two surveys are pooled together in order to provide enough individual to carry through the comparison. The differences between Copenhagen and Denmark are not statistical different. Elite democracy: Democracy should for and foremost be a method of choosing leaders who will then make the necessary political decisions. Participatory democracy: Democracy should for and foremost be the citizens' active participation in making a great number of the political decisions. Legal democracy: Democracy should for and foremost protect the citizens against political decisions that are too wide-ranging. Through the constitution or in some other way, democracy should provide narrow and specific rules that govern what issues can be decided through a political process. 14
Table 12 presents the citizens first choice if they are to chose between three different views on democracy. Participatory democracy has the largest support followed by elite democracy and legal democracy. Nevertheless, there is no significant different between Copenhagen and Denmark, even though there is a slight indication that the citizens of Copenhagen believe more in participatory democracy than the rest of Denmark. Even through the Danes have different views on democracy it is not an issue which divides the urban citizens from the rest of the population. Nevertheless, looking at different forms of political activism provide partly a different picture. See table 13. Table 13: Political activism (index) Contacted a politician Within the last 5 years have you Participated in a protest or demonstration Worked together with other people in pursue of a common course Copenhagen 18 26 37 Denmark excl. Copenhagen 21 10 34 Note: N=181 (Copenhagen), N=1845 (Denmark), Face-to-face interview 2001. Only participation in a protest or demonstration is statistical different. The index is calculated by giving 100=Yes, 0=No, 50=don t know. Table 13 shows that the urban citizens more often participate in demonstrations and protests than the average citizen. In this way, the participatory democrats of the metropolis seem to surface. But another explanation should be mentioned. It can be argued that political activism can be divided into demand oriented activism and supply oriented activism. Demand oriented activism is based on initiative from the individual participating in the activity in order to fulfill an individual need. E.g. voice dissatisfaction with public service etc. Demand oriented activism is thus related to dissatisfaction to e.g. the political system, level of public service or a specific political issue. Supply oriented activism is activism, which the individual have not taken initiative to organize, but participate because it happens to be supply and the individual can take part in the activity with minimum cost. That is the supply oriented activism is link to the citizens mainly because of a link in time and place. As the urban citizens of Copenhagen are confronted with a large all-you-can-eat buffet of political activities combined with their large satisfaction with democracy much of the urban citizens activism must be understood as supply oriented activism. 15
Conclusion and discussion There are clearly many loose ends in order to understand urban democracy in Copenhagen. The official election statistics show that Copenhagen over the last 30 years has had a turnout about 11% less than the rest of the country on the local level and about 4% less at national elections. On the local level the turnout different can be understood as the urban citizens lack of interest in local politics and their focus on broader issues of society and to less extent to issues of everyday life. That is, that the so called identity of the everyday-maker (Bang et al., 2000; 1998) an individual focus on everyday issues within their local environment, with high intensity over a relative short period of time seems less prevalent among the average urban citizens than the citizens outside the capital. That is, of course not to argue that the everyday-maker identity cannot be strongly present within a minority among the urban citizens. But on average the identity seem to be more alive outside the capital. The jurisdiction the municipality of Copenhagen is defined to a certain geographic area, but urban citizenship is not. Many people commute to the city to work, but also to take active part in the many different cultural events the city offers. Thus, the urban citizens are not limited to the citizens living in the city. This may be the reason why the urban factor often withers away when trying to capture and understanding it. One major challenge to urban democracy is to create political units, which corresponding to the urban citizens identity. In the case of Copenhagen increasing the size of the municipality might be one solution as many people living in the surrounding municipalities identify themselves with the capital more than with their own municipality. What is the consequence of the presented findings? Even though we only with much care can generalize the picture of democracy in Copenhagen to a broader context some interesting and somewhat alarming consequences are worth pointing out. As the world become more urban we would expect a decrease in turnout especially on the local level. The urban citizens tend to call attention to the broader issues of society and are less interested in local politics. Partly it seems to be than the interest to national politics seems to push away interest to local politics. 16
References United Nations (2002). World Urbanization Prospects. The 2001 Revison, (United Nations Publication Sales No. E.02:XIII.16, New York: United Nations Publications. Pintor, Rafael López & Gratschew, Maria (2002). Voter turnout since 1945 - a global report. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA). Stockholm. Elklit, Jørgen, Birgit Møller, Palle Svensson & Lise Togeby (2000). Hvem stemte og hvem stemte ikke? Magtudredningen, Århus: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Mouritzen, Poul Erik (1997). I stemmeboksen: Hvem kommer dér og hvorfor?, pp. 262-294 i Jørgen Elklit & Roger Buch Jensen (red.), Kommunalvalg, Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag. Goul Andersen, Jørgen (1993). Politisk deltagelse i 1990 sammenligner med 1979, pp. 45-74 i Johannes Andersen et al., Medborgerskab demokratiet og politisk deltagelse, Herning: Systime. Copenhagen Municipality (2003). Different statistical publication. Copenhagen. Bang, H. P. and Sørensen, E. (1998). The everyday maker: a New challenge to Democratic Governance. COS-rapport nr. 3. 1998. København. Bang, Henrik P., Allan Dreyer Hansen, and Jens Hoff (2000). Demokrati fra neden: problematikker og teoretiske overvejelser. In Demokrati fra neden - Casestudier fra en dansk kommune. Edited by Henrik P. Bang, Allan Dreyer Hansen, and Jens Hoff. Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag. Hansen, Kasper M. (2004). Deliberative Democracy and Opinion Formation. Ph.D.-dissertation. University of Southern Denmark - Department of Political Science and Public Management. 17