Norms of citizenship - Views on good citizenship in four Nordic countries

Norms of citizenship - Views on good citizenship in four Nordic countries Åsa Bengtsson Department of Political Science Åbo Akademi University FINLAND asa.bengtsson@abo.fi Abstract: What does it mean to be a good citizen? The concept of citizenship has been thoroughly debated by political theorists for centuries (Denters et al. 2007), but not much effort has been devoted to the views held by citizens themselves. This study takes on the task to expand our knowledge about citizens expectations about civic virtues in the Nordic context. The aim is twofold. The first task is to map norms of citizenship and different dimensions of citizenship in four Nordic countries in the light of previous research and to explore similarities as well as differences. The second aim is to present the correlates of these norms. Are there systematic differences in the way different groups of citizens define good citizenship? The data analysed is from the citizenship module of the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) in 2004 and includes four Nordic countries Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Paper to be presented at the World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Santiago, Chile, July 12-16, 2009

INTRODUCTION What does it mean to be a good citizen? The concept of citizenship has been thoroughly debated by political theorists for centuries (Denters et al. 2007). The debate about what civic virtues that can be expected from good citizens has however to a large extent been elite centred, and the views held by citizens themselves were for a long time more or less ignored. During recent years, the debate about citizenship have however, evolved from a pure philosophical and academic issue to an important topic of the public discourse. The reason for the awaked interest in citizens views of citizenship can be traced back to changes in society, and in particular, to changes in the political behaviour and attitudes of citizens. Decreasing levels of turnout and party membership has increased speculations about withering citizen norms in democratic societies around the Western world, since it often is assumed that norms or views about civic virtues, is influencing the behaviour of citizens (van Deth 2007, 402f). It can hardly be disputed that the modernisation process of the Western world has had an impact, not only on the political behaviour and activity of citizens, but also on how they experience their role in society. Less dependence on group membership, greater individual autonomy as well as increased intellectual resources in terms of increased levels of education can all be expected to contribute to a redefinition of the norms of citizenship. In the Scandinavian academic debate, the concept of citizenship did not have its breakthrough until the late 1980s, with the seminal study of Helga Hernes (1988). Hernes describes Scandinavian citizenship as a social democratic model of citizenship, pertaining all areas of social life and characterized by being activist, participatory and egalitarian (ibid. 200). Not all have accepted this model, but a common understanding of the strong emphasize on participation in Scandinavian citizenship appear to exist (Andersen & Hoff 2001, 6f). The views held by Nordic citizens themselves have however, not been explored to a great extent and studies with a comparative approach are not to be found. This study takes on the task to expand our knowledge about citizens expectations about civic virtues in the Nordic context. The aim is twofold. The first task is to map norms of citizenship and different dimensions of citizenship in four Nordic countries in the light of previous research and to explore similarities as well as differences. The second aim is to present the correlates of these norms. Are there systematic differences in the way different groups of citizens define good citizenship? In line with Dalton we will define citizenship as a shared set of expectations about the citizen s role in politics (Dalton 2008a, 21). The data analysed is from the citizenship module of the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) in 2004 and includes four Nordic countries Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. NORMS OF CITIZENSHIP Evolving norms of citizenship? In the general discussion about the negative trends in turnout, party membership and political trust, witnessed in advanced democracies, it is common to put blame on citizens values and norms (Dalton 2008b). We often hear that citizens of today, and especially the younger generations, are out of touch with society and democracy and becoming increasingly individualized in their values. The feeling of belonging in society, the will to stand up for common interests and to work for others is not perceived as being as strong as before. It has 1

even been described as the extinction of good citizenship (Denters et al. 2007, 89). Or as Putnam describes the change among Americans and the disappearance of the civic generation : nowadays they bowl alone, or spend time in front of the TV or computer, instead of interacting with others in the community in civil organisations (Putman 2002). According to this view the decreasing turnout rates and the lower interest of joining political parties originates from a weaker willingness for working together with others, and a lower sense of duty concerning common public interests, such as politics. Others presents a more positive view, and claim that the public is still active and politically interested, but that the expectations on citizens are evolving, as is the way people engage in politics. Instead of voting in elections and being active in long term, overarching, strictly organised and continuous activities, such as party activity or social organisations, engagement appears to be more focused on specific goals and short-term actions (Selle et al. 2006; Togeby et al. 2003). As a result of societal modernisation citizens are claimed to be able to define their own place and role in democracy a role that might not look the same as before. The view of changing, rather than decreasing values, is supported by Dalton (2008a) who, in his study Good citizens studies civic-mindedness among Americans. One important finding by Dalton is that the young Americans of today define civic-mindedness and citizenship differently from their predecessors, which implies that democracy as such, as constituted by its members, is changing. When it comes to differences among the Nordic countries there might be intriguing variation to explore. The Nordic countries are often from an international perspective perceived and described as exceptional and very similar cases of politically stable welfare states, with high rates of participation, democratic corporatism and a consensual political climate (Strandberg 2006, Lane et al. 1993, Tingsten 1966). According to previous research there are, however, profound differences among the Nordic countries when it comes to turnout in election, trust in politicians and for democracy as a system (Andersen & Hoff 2001, Listhaug & Wiberg 1995, Dalton 2004). We also find differences in attitudes towards alternatives to representative democracy, such as the use of referendums, which is favored among Swedes, Danes and Norwegians to a higher extent than among the Finns (world value study 2006, Bengtsson & Mattila 2009). If these differences in attitudes and behavior originates from, or creates different patterns in norms of citizenship is hard to tell, we might however, expect support for certain norms to vary between the four countries. Previous research Citizenship is about the relationship between individual citizens and the state, and perceptions of good citizenship involves what can be expected from behalf of the members of a state in terms of behaviour and attitudes. Even though no consensus about the full model of good citizenship has been reached, there is a common understanding of its essence, in terms of two basic components: equality in terms of value and membership in society, and acknowledgement of both rights and duties (Petersson 1998, 10). The acceptance that citizenship is constituted by both rights and duties concerning legal, political, social as well as participation aspects of life (Janoski 1998), does however not solve the fact that different aspects are emphasized by different democratic traditions or theories. Liberals focus on autonomy and freedom of choice, social democrats on equality and 2

social rights, republicans on participation, and communitarian views of citizenship stress social integration and the building of social capital through participation and cooperation as well as deliberation (Andersen & Hoff 2001, 2). Yet another widely accepted view is that a democracy relies on both private and public engagement among its citizens (van Deth 2007, 404), what is often described as a distinction between vertical and horizontal citizenship (Andersen & Hoff 2001, 4). This is made explicit by Conover et al. (1991) who describes citizenship as by two relations: the relation between citizens and other members of society (vertical dimension) and the relation between the citizen and government (the horizontal dimension). Citizenship defines they way these two relations should function in order for a good democratic society to be realised. Empirical research on norms of citizenship is not very easy to come across, even tough they appear to have become more common during the last ten years. Two studies published recent years uses survey methodology to grasp norms of good citizenship. The first study by Denters, Gabriel and Torcal (2007) covers the topic from a European perspective, using comparative survey data from 12 European countries gathered in the project Citizenship, Involvement and Democracy (CID). Since the study is published in an anthology on participation and social capital, the study has a strong focus on the relationship between norms of citizenship and social interaction and trust. On a general level the study does presents results showing that European citizenship is constituted by three dimensions of citizenship: solidarity, critical and deliberative principles and law-abidingness, all of which are widely endorsed in all of the European countries that are included in their study (2007, 95), in particular in Western Europe. The second study of interest is Russell Daltons study The good citizen (2008a) that deals with norms of citizenship in America. The overarching theme of Dalton s study is that norms of citizenship are evolving rather than decreasing and that different types of civic virtues are valued by different generations. Rather than loosing touch with democratic values and norms, the younger generation as a result of modernization, the educational revolution and changing value priorities, is developing their own sense of good citizenship. A citizenship that gives greater emphasise to engagement rather than duty, for example being active in societal and political activities that are less tightened to the state, being empathetic towards and helping others, and try to influence society with consumer actions (Dalton 2008a, 27ff). In the Nordic context citizenship as a concept has played an important part in the public since the 1990s. A common feature of the studies of citizenships performed in the Nordic arena is, that they emphasize citizens behaviour and attitudes towards politics and most notably the aspect of participation, rather than what good citizenship entails in the eyes of voters (Rose & Pettersen 2002). Decreasing participation rates, a greater scepticism towards politics, and over all changed prerequisites for democracy, are all themes that have been scrutinized in Nordic research. Recent examples are the audits of power, set up by the governments of Norway, Denmark and Sweden in the end of the 1990s in order to review the conditions of democracy (Amnå 2007, 62). Although, not studying voters own view of citizenship, they all dealt with the changed participation patterns in the three countries and concluded that the Scandinavian model of strong participatory is evolving (Denmark), eroding (Norway) or something in-between (Sweden) (ibid., 62-3). Other examples of studies of citizenship, that choose to emphasize actual participation and ignoring voters expectations 3

civic virtues are Medborgerskab (Andersen et al. 1993) and Democracy and Citizenship in Scandinavia (Andersen & Hoff 2001). A few examples of empirical studies of voters views of citizenship have been performed in Sweden and Norway. In particular the design of the Swedish citizenship-studies carried out in three waves (1987, 1998 and 2002) have had substantial influence of later empirical studies of views of citizenship in a comparative perspective (Denters et al. 2007, Dalton 2008a). But the data gathered does not appear to have been explored to a great extent (see for example Peterson et al. 1989, Petersson et al. 1998). In the Norwegian context questions of norms of citizenship have been measured during the last two decades, and have been reported in more detail than the Swedish studies (se for example Rose & Pettersen 2002; Rose & Baldersheim 2005, Rose & Heidar 2007). In Norway it appears as if a slight increase in support for civic virtues in terms of engagement has taken place over time. Virtues dealing with respect for laws has dropped marginally and has a stronger support among women, older generations and citizens with lower education (Rose & Heidar 2007). Despite these above mentioned studies, the overall impression is, that our knowledge about norms of citizenship in the Nordic context, as well as their correlates and effects, leave a lot to be desired. From a comparative perspective the sparsely research on voters views of civic virtues gives the impression that norms of citizenship are not eroding among mass public. In all democracies normative considerations about solidarity, obeying laws, autonomy and electoral participation are widely endorsed and supported. But it also appears as if support for participation in voluntary associations or being politically active is not being considered as the most important features of good citizenship (for more examples: Theiss-Morse & Hibbing 2005; Gross 1997) and that there might be a change taking place over time when it comes to what types of norms that are considered as the most important (Dalton 2008a). Dimensions of citizenship In the relatively few attempts to link normative theories of citizenship with empirical research a common procedure to distinguish between four different sub-dimension of civic values or orientations has developed. The strategy is based on a classification introduced by the Swedish citizenship study in the 1980s (Petersson et al. 1998, 129-130) and the four dimensions are solidarity, participation, law obeying, and autonomy. The few studies that have measured norms of citizenship in a comparative perspective (ISSP, ESS, CID) have used the same four dimensions as the Swedish study, although with considerable lower number of items for each dimension (van Deth 2007, 409). The first dimension is constituted by participation, often claimed to lie at the heart of good citizenship. Participation is central to the philosophical literature on democracy and conceived as a prime criterion for defining the democratic citizen and the role of citizens in the democratic process. The view of participation as an important part of citizenship has been pronounced by Pateman (1970), Barber (1984) and Mansbridge (1980). Political participation can involve different types of actions, and certainly does so if we ask those proclaiming participatory democracy. Activity in civil society, for example in social or political organizations and to keep oneself informed about what is happening at the political arena is 4

often perceived as positive citizen values included in the aspect of participation, but most commonly we talk about voting in elections. The second dimension is autonomy. Autonomy implies that a good citizens should be able to form independent opinions, critically evaluate arguments, debate political matters, but also take into account and understand the opinions of others. Autonomy might also be labelled critical rationalism (Petersson et al. 1998). Discussions, deliberations, respect and understanding of others opinions are key features of autonomy. Autonomy is one part of the model that Almond and Verba describes in Civic Culture (1963). In order to meet the requirements of democratic politics citizens should be trusting and deferential but on the other hand, if they are to loyal, the risk of abuse from politicians becomes much higher. This is were autonomy comes in. A critical sense, interest and activism is needed in order to keep check on the political power. Social order is the third dimension and deals with the acceptance of state authority as a part of citizenship. A good citizen that highly values social order, puts weight on obeying laws and not cheating with state subsidies or taxes. Indirect this dimension deals with the question of if it is entitled to break the law if ones conscience demands, and it might also include willingness to serve in the military. The fourth and last dimension of citizenship is solidarity. This dimension clearly deals with the relation between citizens in a community or other parts of the world and is often emphasized by communitarians, but also by those proclaiming the participatory view of democracy (Denter et al. 2007, 92). The communitarian view highlights the importance of active citizenship and social activity for the good of society (Kymlicka & Norman 1995). Qualities that are emphasized under this dimension are to care for others than oneself and to prioritize the need of others before personal benefits. EMPIRICAL DESIGN In this study we will take a closer look at voters perceptions of good citizenship in the four Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. The study is one of the few empirical attempts to study norms of citizenship empirically, and the first to compare attitudes of civic virtues in the Nordic countries, often perceived as strong democracies with high levels of public support and participation. The first question to be dealt with is to what degree do voters in the Nordic countries agree with the ideals that are put forward by normative theories on citizenship and if we can we find differences among the countries in what virtues that are stressed. Yet another question of interest is if there, as Russell Dalton (2008a) claims, exists different dimensions of good citizenship, i.e. that there are systematic patterns in the way people comprehend different citizen virtues. And moreover, if these dimensions systematically correlate with certain socio-demographic factors, such as age, gender and education, as well as more general attitudes towards politics, for example political interest, trust and ideological leaning. Data used is from the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) from 2004 with approximately 5300 respondents in the Nordic countries. Each country is represented by 1186 (Denmark), 1295 (Sweden), 1354 (Finland) and 1404 (Norway) respondents, but in the analyses they are weighted equal. The norms of citizenship are grasped by 10 questions 5

concerning what it takes to be a good citizen, and are thus generally phrased rather than asking about personal behaviour. The different civic virtues are measured on a scale of 1 (not important) to 7 (very important). In the following empirical analyses we will begin by presenting descriptive data on the support for different civic duties in the four countries. In the next step the consistency of citizens views on good citizenship will be studied with the use of principal component analysis, in order to find out if there are well founded dimensions in the way people perceive civic virtues. The third and last section of the empirical analysis will study the correlates of the different dimensions of citizenship, using factor scores extracted from the principal component analysis as dependent variables and three different sets of independent variables (socio-demographics, political attitudes, country dummies) introduced block wise into the regression. In the analyses presented all independent variables are recoded on a of 0 to 1. For more information about operationalizations see appendix. EMPIRICAL ANALYSES Norms of citizenship in the Nordic sphere We will begin by mapping support for the 10 different civic virtues that are included in the ISSP. Support for different aspects are measured on a scale of 1 to 7 and in table 1 the share of the respondents that state that they are very important (6 or 7) are displayed, both in each country separately and all four countries jointly. Clearly there are distinct differences in the way in which the different virtues are considered by voters. Some, as voting in election are considered as very important for being a good citizen by a clear majority of all citizens, while others as for example being active in associations only are considered as a very important part of good citizenship by approximately 10 percent of all citizens. Overall it appears as if the ranking of the different virtues follows the same patters, with only slight variations, in all of the four countries. In three out of four countries voting in elections is still considered as the most important feature of good citizenship, and it is strongly supported by between 75 to 87 percent of the population in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Finland does however deviate from the general pattern, since only 56 percent that regards voting as an important part of good citizenship. Interestingly enough the ranking closely follows that of real turnout rates in the four countries. Denmark displays the highest levels of turnout in parliamentary elections, followed by Sweden, Norway and Finland that displays significantly lower turnout in parliamentary elections. Table 1 about here To obey laws is considered as the second most important feature for good citizenship, closely followed by not evade taxes, which in previous research has been described as parts of a law-abiding dimension of civic virtues (Rose & Pettersen 2002, Denters et al. 2007). Concerning differences among the four countries, it can be noted that Denmark has the 6

highest support for obeying laws as an important feature of good citizenship, and that both of the two law-abidingness norms in Finland are ranked substantially higher than voting in elections. Among the less important virtues of good citizenship we find activity in associations, that is ranked the lowest in all four countries. The virtues of civil society and its importance for the wellbeing of democratic societies often proclaimed by social scientists are obviously not widely recognised by the citizens in the Nordic countries. Norwegians gives more weight to activity in civil society than citizens in the other countries, and Finland does ones again score the lowest. Critical rationalism that is said to involve to keep an eye on what the government does is considered as an important part of good citizenship by half of the Nordic population. This figure does however, conceal substantial differences, that might have to do with the traditions of government formation. In the country that in practice comes closest to a two party system and that have a tradition of a strict bloc-politics Sweden 68 percent of voters considers to keep watch on government an important feature of good citizenship. In the country with traditions of surplus majority governments and rainbow coalitions Finland the corresponding figure is as low as 28 percent. It is thus likely that the importance that is contributed to following and critically evaluating the work of governments is connected to how difficult it is considered to be. In cases of clear responsibility patterns and when it is easy to assign accountability, it is probably considered as a more feasible and fruitful activity. About fifty percent considers it as an important part of good citizenship to show solidarity and help those who are worse of in the own country. The corresponding figure for helping people in other parts of the world is 35 percent. In both of these cases, Danes consider solidarity as more important than voters from the other three countries. A general interpretation of the results in table 1 is that traditional values, as voting in elections, obeying the law and not evade taxes still are considered as the most important virtues of citizenship in the Nordic countries. On the other hand there are relative distinct differences, concerning the level of importance and to some degree the order of the different items. Denmark and Finland stands out as deviating cases. While Danes gives higher priority to most of the virtues that are measured, voters from Finland score the lowest on most accounts, with the exceptions of law-abidingness and to be willing to serve in the military. Sweden and Norway appear as more alike, and fall somewhere in-between in most cases. Dimensions of citizenship The next task is to explored whether the attitudes presented above can be considered to represent a well structured set of values, that is, if they are well-founded or purely random of character. A common critique of public opinion research is that it measures attitudes without deep foundation, that can be considered as random rather than stable and well thought out opinions, especially when we are dealing with complex themes (Zaller & Feldman 1992). According to previous research, there are logical consistent dimensions in the way voters respond to questions about good citizenship (Dalton 2008a, Denters 2007, Rose & Pettersen 2002), which clearly indicates that the problem of randomness is not overwhelming. Yet another question is if voters views on civic virtues are consistent with the aspects that are discussed in the normative discussion. 7

The dimensions found in previous research have varied, partly due to different methodological approaches but also because the amount and type of questions used to grasp good citizenship differ from one study to another. While Dalton (2008a) in the American public end up with two dimensions after testing several alternative procedures, Rose and Pettersen (2002) find no less than five dimensions in the attitudes of Norwegians. At the European level Denters et al. (2007) finds three distinct dimensions. Since the data material (ISSP) used in this study is the same as in the study by Dalton, his study appears as the most natural comparison. In order to pin down the patterns that exist in citizen expectations about good citizenship we will use principal component analysis with oblimin rotation and extract the dimensions with eigenvalues above 1.0. The choice to use the oblique method direct oblimin rather than the more commonly found orthogonal method of varimax rotations is motivated by the fact that there is no a priori reason to expect the dimensions of civic virtues to be uncorrelated as assumed by the Varimax rotation. The procedure chosen is inline with the one used by Denters et al. (2007), but different than the strategy used by Dalton (2008a) who uses varimax rotation and chooses to extract only two dimensions rather than using a certain eigenvalue as cut-point. Variables with loadings above 0.5 will be considered to load strongly onto a dimension, and will be marked with bold. Loadings above 0.4 are marked by italics. Table 2 about here Results from the principal component analyses are presented in table 2, including results for all four countries and for each country separately. In all of the five analyses three different dimensions are extracted. The first and most stable dimension correspond well with what Dalton describes as engaged citizenship. The items that loads strongly into this dimension are solidarity with others, both in the own country and in the rest of the world, participation in terms of political consumerism (Stolle et al. 2005) and the autonomy norm of trying to understand the opinions of others. Compared to the analysis by Dalton (extracting only two dimensions with varimax rotation), it is only the item of being active in social or political organisations that is missing. When the corresponding analysis is performed on each of the four countries we do however, find that activity in social or political organisations loads strongly onto the dimension in Norway as well as Denmark. A simpler version of this dimension, including only two items, is by Denters et al. (2007, 94) found to be stable in most European countries as well. The second dimension that is extracted can be labelled law-abidingness and looks the same in all cases (jointly for all four countries, and for each of the countries separately), but with notably lower eigenvalues. This dimension deals with social order and involves the two items not evading taxes and obey laws that both loads strongly onto the dimension. A corresponding dimension is found to exist at the European level by Denters et al. (2007, 94) and can be considered as logically consistent. According to this result, paying taxes and obeying laws forms an important but independent dimension of good citizenship. 8

The last dimension, that can be named traditional, or duty-based norms of citizenship, is the least consistent of the three. In the analysis that includes all four countries it consists of three items: voting in elections, keep watch on the actions of government, and being active in political or social associations. An item that also loads onto this dimension, but at below the level of 0.5, is be willing to serve in military. Two aspects of this dimension deals with political activity that is directed towards the arena of representative democracy to vote in elections and to keep watch on government actions what in the debate often is presented as a withering activity and as part of civic virtues that are loosing support among the general public. To be active in social and political organisations is also considered as an activity that is becoming less popular, and less important. Turnout in elections does in many countries suffer from the same trend. As was mentioned, the last dimension appears as less stable than the other two. That is, it looks different to its content when we break down the analysis at the country level. Finland is the only case in which the dimension looks the same as in the overall analysis and thus includes the three variables of voting in elections, keep watch on the actions of government, and being active in social or political associations (with being willing to serve in the military falling just below the 0.5-level). Sweden more or less follows the same pattern, with the exception of military-duty as an additional item. Results for Denmark deviates in the sense that keep watch on government and being active in social or political associations falls below the 0.5-level and military-duty loads strongly onto the dimension. The third dimension for Norway does on the other hand only include the norm of serving in the military, that in the overall analysis falls short of the 0.5-criteria. Voting in elections and to keep watch on government loads onto this dimension, but only at 0.4 and being active in social or political associations does in Norway stand out as a part of engaged citizenship rather than duty-based norms, since it loads onto the first dimension. The same goes for Denmark. The three dimensions found in the way Nordic voters perceive norms of citizenship and what they expect out of a good citizen, appears as logical and are at least to some extent consistent between countries. They do, however, deviate from the two-dimensional pattern found by Dalton (2008a) in the United States using the same questions. 1 In the next step we will proceed by analysing the correlates of the three dimensions of good citizenship. In order to succeed with this task the factor loadings extracted from the principal component analysis above will be used as dependent variables. The determinants of norms of citizenship The question we will ask in the next section is to what determines norms of citizenship. Are they due to age, as Dalton (2008a) claims when he presents engaged citizenship as a norms developing among the younger generations, or are the norms we have dependent on other factors, such as our socio-economic background or attitudes towards politics? In the next analyses we will try to pin down and explain the support for the three different dimensions of good citizenship, found in the principal component analysis above. The dependent variables 1 The differences in results does, however, prove to be a result of different methodological approaches. If we choose to extract only two dimensions using varimax rotation in the Nordic sphere, we will find the same pattern as Dalton, i.e. a clear distinction in one engaged and one duty-based dimensions, where the last is a combination of the dimensions of law-abidingness and traditional norms that we find in the second and third dimensions presented in table 2. The only difference is that the less consistent item of activity in social an political associations fall into the dimension of engaged citizenship, in line with the result found in the USA. 9

analysed are constituted by the three factor scores extracted form the principal component analysis in table 2, i.e. norms of citizenship that either are based around law-abidingness, duty or engagement. The independent variables used to explain the three different emphasizes in civic duty held by citizens consists of three sets of variables that will be introduced block wise into the regression analysis. The first set of independent variables consists of socio-demographic factors. This involves age, gender, marital status and education, factors that nearly all empirical studies of political behaviour and attitudes rely on as explanations. According to Dalton (2008a) age is the key variable. Previous studies of norms of citizenship from Norway and Sweden indicates that there are relatively profound differences in the extent in which certain norms are endorsed according to age, gender and education (Rose & Pettersen 2002, Peterson et al. 1998). The second set of variables deals with citizens relation towards the political arena. This is a very broad set of aspects that in previous studies have been found to influence different types of political behaviour as well as views on political matters. Most of the factors included in this block estimates the extent to which individuals feel that politics is important and possible to influence. Political interest is examined based on the assumption that more interested citizens are likely to have generally higher expectations about civic virtues. A sense of political efficacy, the subjective feeling that citizens can affect politics, may also play a part in what we expect from citizens. This is commonly divided into two components: internal efficacy, which refers to beliefs about one s own competence to understand and participate effectively in political matters, and external efficacy, which concerns beliefs about the responsiveness of governmental authorities to the demands of citizens (Niemi et al. 1991, 1407-1408). Other factors, such as alienation from the political system, political cynicism and lack of trust in government have been considered as psychological determinants of individual participation (Stolle et al. 2005; Grönlund & Setälä 2007) and are likely to have an influence on the views on good citizenship as well. Political ideology is likely to play a part since different aspects of citizenship is stressed by different ideologists (see the discussion above), and has empirical support from the Norwegian case (Rose & Pettersen 2002). In this section concentration will be devoted to general patterns rather than breaking down the results into all of the four countries. In order to control for different attitudinal predispositions among the countries included in the analysis, country-dummies will be included in the model as a third set of variables. This choice is partly due to lack of space, but more importantly to the fact that the patterns concerning the determinants of each of the dimensions looks more or less the same in all countries. Results from the nine different regressions, i.e. three regression for each of the dependent variables using block wise inclusion of the independent variables, are presented in table 3. We will begin by discussing the correlates of each of the different norms of good citizenship and then move on to a comparison between the different norms. Looking first at the dimension of engagement it stands clear that the extent to which norms of engagement is endorsed varies according to socio-demographic background. Citizens of higher age and education are more inclined to emphasize these aspects as a part of good citizenship. Marital status also has a statistically significant effect in the first model, but when controls for political attitudes and country are introduced, the effect disappears. 10

According to the political variables introduced in the second block an engaged citizenry is supported by people with a positive view of politics. It is the politically interested, trusting, supportive of democracy and the responsiveness of the political system that values an engaged citizenry. Concerning ideological leaning left wing sympathisers are far more inclined than their right wing counterparts to support engaged citizenship, which can be viewed as inline with previous research as well as theoretical expectations. The last block with country dummies confirms what the descriptive data in table 1 indicated, i.e. that an engaged citizenry is the least endorsed by Finns (the reference category). The effect of all of the country dummies included in this analysis turns out to have a statistically significant and positive effect, with the strongest effect for Denmark. Table 3 about here The second norm of good citizenship that is analysed is the dimension of law-abidingness. Here we find that age is the most dominant explanatory factor with the strongest displayed effect in all of the three models analysed. Civic virtues in terms of following laws and not evading taxes clearly has a significantly stronger support among the older generations and also among women and citizens with lower levels of education. Among the political variables, three aspects turn out to be of importance. Trust in government and satisfaction with democracy correlates positively with support for law-abiding norms and left wing supporters also give a greater importance to these aspects of civic virtues. Political interest, subjective political competence or the view of the responsiveness of the political arena, does on the other hand not influence the extent to which law-abidingness is stressed as a part of good citizenship. When we consider differences between countries, we find large differences. Compared to the reference category (Finland) only Denmark has a significantly higher level. And the effect can be considered as modest. The third and last dimension that is analysed in table 3 deals with traditional, or dutybased norms of citizenship. The sense of that voting in elections, keeping watch on the actions of government, and being active in associations are important parts of civic virtues that are highly endorsed by the older generations. Thus, age ones more stand out as the most powerful predictor. Other socio-demographic factors of importance are marital status, education and to some extent gender. People who are married or living together as married are more inclined to attribute importance to this ideal, a result inline with research on actual behaviour such as turnout, where those living together with someone else have proven to be easier to mobilize. The result concerning education can at first sight appear as puzzling. In the first model the effect is positive, indicating that citizens with higher levels of education are more supportive of duty-based civic virtues. But when controls for political attitudes are introduced the effect of education becomes negative, which probably is due to a more positive view of politics among the older generations that in general has a lower education than their younger counterparts. In the first model men turn out to be more supportive of the traditional, or dutybased dimension of good citizenship. The effect of gender does however disappear in the second and third model. 11

Among the political controls political interest turns out to have the strongest and a positive effect. But other factors such as the subjective political competence (internal efficacy), view of the responsiveness of the system (external efficacy) and satisfaction with democracy also displays a positive effect. In general the results are not very surprising. Noteworthy is that duty-based norms of citizenship, in contrast to the other two dimensions, appears as ideologically neutral and that the trust variables do display a significant effect. The third and last model that controls for country-differences, confirms what the previously presented descriptive statistics suggested. Finland displays the lowest levels of support for duty-based norms of citizenship, Sweden the highest, Norway the second highest and Denmark turns out at third place. When we start to compare the results presented above for each of the three dimension of good citizenship there are interesting differences as well as similarities. The most striking similarity is the effect of age. Although with different strength the same tendency goes for all three dimensions: good citizenship of all kinds are more strongly endorsed by older generations. The effect is clearly much stronger when it comes to duty-based norms of citizenship in terms of voting, be active in associations and to keep an eye on the actions of government and for law-abidingness, but it also displays a positive effect for engaged civic virtues. The results found by Dalton in the American context, where he claims that the young attribute more importance to engaged norms of citizenship than the older is thus, not replicated in the Nordic countries. Assuming that we are dealing with generational effects, a rather pessimistic picture for the future of norms of citizenship is provided. If on the other hand, norms of citizenship evolve with age, changes over time might not be extensive. One of the interesting differences between the dimensions analysed is the effect of education. While an engaged citizenry is supported by the relatively highly educated, the result for law-abidingness and duty-based norms displays the opposite result. Education obviously strengthen values such as respect for the opinions of others, politically aware consumption and solidarity with others, where the two last might have to do with economic prerequisites following from higher education. Another difference has to do with the importance of political interest, where activity plays a part. Civic virtues that do not expect activity but rather stresses passive law-abidingness are not reinforced by an interest in political matters, while the effect is stronger the more close we come towards the arena of representative democracy. The effect is thus very strong for duty-based norms of citizenship, and positive but not as strong for engaged norms. Concerning ideological leaning there is a clear predisposition for left wing supporters to endorse engaged, as well as law-abiding norms, while duty-based norms are ideologically neutral. There are relatively distinct country differences between the three models of good citizenship. Overall, Finland displays the lowest values with the greatest difference concerning duty-based norms. The difference is less profound for engaged norms and not very significant concerning law-abidingness. In the other end of the scale we find Denmark. Both engaged civic virtues and law-abiding virtues are the more strongly endorsed by Danes compared to citizens in the other countries. The only exception from the general pattern is for duty-based norms, which Swedes and Norwegians gives higher priority than both Danes and Finns. 12

CONCLUSIONS Despite the nature and consequences of change, it is hard to reject the fact that changes are taking place in society and not the least in the relation between citizens and the political sphere as well as democracy as a system. And it is not happening without a reason, but rather as a natural reaction to the profound changes that has been taking place in society during the last decades. If the altered living standards, the educational revolution, the changes in social interaction, gender roles, social diversity and geographical movement would not have had an impact the way citizen view, and relate to the political sphere, as well as their fellow citizens, it would have been far more surprising. The questions we are faced with is rather what the nature of the changes are and not the least its consequences for society and in particularly democracy as a system. We do not have data that allows us to determine if the strong overall effect of age on norms of citizenship are of generational character or if we are dealing with life cycle effects. What we clearly can se is, however, that the engaged citizenship does not decrease with age among the Nordic public. The lower duty-based values, that appear to cause lower levels of turnout and interaction in civil society, is not replaced with, or compensated by a stronger sense of engaged citizenship among the younger cohorts. If this will undermine norms of citizenship in the future or not, only time can tell. On the whole the results do not send a very positive signal, and might be considered as problematic for the way representative democracy of today is organised. The differences found between norms in the Nordic countries indicates that norms are strongly connected to actual behaviour, with the most striking example being the importance attributed to the act of voting, that can be traced back to the different levels in turnout. In Finland, which displays significantly lower levels of turnout, the duty-based norms, and the importance of voting in particular, are attributed much lower importance than in the other Nordic countries. Naturally, we can not be sure of the causal relationship between norms of citizenship and political behaviour. We might expect values to influence the way voters choose to behave, but it also appears as likely that activity of certain kinds cause citizens to shift their values (Theiss-Morse & Hibbing 2005, 230). In order to pin down the importance of norms of citizenship, further studies will have to be carried out. 13

REFERENCES: Amnå, E., Ekman, T. and Almgren, E. (2007) The End of a Distinct Model of Democracy? Countrydiverse Orientations among Young Adult Scandinavians. Scandinavian Political Studies. 30(1): 61-86. Andersen, J. G. and Hoff, J. (2001) Democracy and Citizenship In Scandinavia. New York: Palgrave. Andersen, J., Christensen A-D., Langberg, K. Siim, B. and Torpe, L. (1993) Medborgerskap. Demokrati og politisk deltagelse. Herning: Systime. Almond, G. A. and Verba, S. (1963) The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes In Five Nations. Boston: Little, Brown. Barber, B. (1984) Strong democracy. Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bengtsson, Å. and Mattila, M. (2009) Democracy and its critics. Support for direct democracy and stealth democracy in Finland. West European Politics. (to be published in the september issue). Blais, A. (2007). Turnout in elections, in R.J Dalton and H-D. Klingemann (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, pp.621-635. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Conover, P. J., Searing D. D. (1991) The nature of citizenship in the United States and Great Britain: empirical comments on theoretical themes, Journal of Politics. 53:800-832. Dalton, R. J. (2004) Democratic Challenges. Democratic Choices. The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dalton, R. J. (2008a) The good citizen. How a young generation is reshaping American politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Dalton, R. J. (2008b). Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation. Political Studies. 56:76-98. Denters, B., Gabriel, O. and Torcal, M. (2007) Norms of good citizenship, in J.W. van Deth, J. R. Montero and A. Westholm (eds). Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies, pp..88-108. London: Routledge. Gray, M and Caul, M (2000) Declining voter turnout in advanced industrial democracies, 1950 to 1997: the effects of declining group mobilization. Comparative Political Studies. 33: 1091-1022. Gross, M.L. (1997). Ethics and Activism: The Theory and Practice of Political Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grönlund, K. and Setälä, M. (2007) Political Trust, Satisfaction and Voter Turnout, Comparative European Politics. 5: 400-422. Franklin, M. (2004) Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hernes, H. M. (1988) Scandinavian Citizenship Acta Sociologica. 31(3):199-215. Hooghe, M. (2003) Value congruence an convergence within voluntary associations: ethnocentrism in Belgian organizations. Political Behavior. 25:151-175. Janoski, T. (1998) Citizenship and Civil Society: A Framework of Rights and Obligation sin Liberal, Traditional, And Social Democratic Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kymlicka, W. and Norman, W. (1995) Return of the citizen: a survey on recent work on citizenship theory, in R. Beiner (ed) Theorizing Citizenship, pp. 283-322. Albany: State University of New York Press. Lane, J-E., Martikainen,T., Svensson, P, Vogt, G. & Valen, H. (1993). Scandinavian Exceptionalism Reconsidered. Journal of Theoretical Politics. 5(2): 195-203. Listhaug, O. and Wiberg, M. (1995) Confidence in Political and Private Institutions, in H-D. Klingemann and D. Fuchs (eds). Citizens and the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mansbridge, J. (1980) Beyond Adversarial Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Miller, W.E. and Shanks, M.J. (1996) The New American Voter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C. and Mattei, F. (1991) Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 national election study, American Political Science Review. 85, 1407-13. Pateman, C. (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Petersson, O., Hermansson, J., Micheletti, M., Teorell, J. and Westholm, A (1998) Demokrati och medborgarskap. Stockholm: SNS förlag. Petersson, O., Westholm, A., and Blomberg, G. (1989) Medborgarnas makt. Stockholm: Carlssons. 14