Could the Internet be a remedy for
the youth’s low political efficacy?
A study on the effects of the Internet on the youth in
Hungary and Sweden
Name: Ranita Mohammadi Student number: 10003870 Assignment: Bachelor thesis Supervisor: Fadi Hirzalla Date: 31-01-2014
1 Abstract
Using survey data from CivicWeb, this study looks at the relationship between the degree and type of Internet usage versus the political efficacy of the youth (15 to 25 years old) in Sweden (N=277) compared to Hungary (N=170). Comparing the results of these two countries with diverse political cultures, it firstly aims to assess the effect of the degree and type of Internet usage on the political efficacy of the youth, and secondly, it aims to assess how this effect is influenced by corruption. The only correlation that proved to be statistically significant is the positive correlation between the Internet usage for politically orientated websites and blogs versus the external political efficacy for the Hungarian sample. This paper thus concludes that Internet usage does not appear to have an impact on the political efficacy of the youth. Furthermore, this study suggests that corruption does not have an impact on neither internal or external political efficacy among the youth.
Introduction
Research has shown that during the last decades the youth has increasingly detached themselves from conventional (parliamentary) politics. Most of the related topics involve a declining political interest and a lower participation rate (Bakker & de Vreese, 2011). Furthermore, the decline in involvement in politics is not related to age, but may be related to a changing attitude towards politics (Calenda & Meijer, 2009). Calenda and Meijer (2009) claim that this is related to a more individualistic and hedonistic attitude, which results in less interest in politics. They say that young people are less interested in gathering information about their community, leading to the so-called thin citizenship. This entails that young people only follow the outlines of politics. In a lot of cases, young people refer from engaging in politics (Ibidem).
The Internet, however, might counteract this trend. The Internet has a huge influence on the youth as almost all countries show an age difference with regard to the spread of the Internet. In the youngest age group the Internet is being used almost universally. The European Social Survey of 2004 has shown that 82% of the respondents with an age between 18 and 29 had access to the Internet and had used it at least one time during the previous 12 months. For the ones older than 59, however, this was true for only 14% (Quentelier & Vissers, 2008).
Since young people spend an increasing amount of time on the Internet, one could argue that a part of their political participation would take place online (Calenda & Meijer, 2009). For example, Gibson, Lusoli and Ward (2005: 561) argue that: “The Internet is expanding the numbers of the politically active, specifically in reaching groups that are typically inactive or
2
less active in conventional or offline forms of politics.” However, not all social scientists think the Internet will have a positive influence on the political participation on the youth. Some think that only young people who are already politically involved will participate actively on the Internet (Kenski & Stroud, 2006).
The findings about the Internet’s influence on political participation have varied. Most of the research relating to this subject has focused on the political participation of the youth. This research, however, will focus on the influence the Internet has on the youth’s political efficacy, which is important because it is a determinant of political behavior. Moreover, it is essential since people have little motivation to participate in politics if they do not feel like they are competent enough to participate and if they do not believe that their actions are consequential (Ibidem).
The research question that will be answered in this paper is the following: What is the relation between the degree and type of Internet usage and the political efficacy of the youth in Sweden compared to Hungary? To answer this research question, this study uses the method of multiple regression analysis. The data is derived from CivicWeb, a project which analysed the potential of the Internet to promote civic engagement and participation among 3307 young persons (Hirzalla & Van Zoonen, 2008). Sweden and Hungary are being examined because they have two very different political cultures. In the Corruption Perception Index of 2011 Sweden was one of the countries with the least perceived corruption, while Hungary had a lot of perceived corruption (Corruption Perception Index, 2011). In theory, corruption breaks the very link of democracy – the link between collective decision making and the power of citizens to influence these decisions through speaking and voting. However, it is not clear how it affects the political efficacy of youth in countries with high levels of corruption in practice.
This paper begins with a theoretical framework to explore the relevant concepts, followed by the analysis in which the used data, method and the results will be discussed. Furthermore, a conclusion is formulated, in which the most important aspects of the research will be repeated. Additionally, the limitations and the social and academic implications are discussed.
3
The Internet, political efficacy and corruption
To acquire more understanding regarding the subject a theoretical framework is needed. This section will first explore the concept of political efficacy and why it is important. Moreover, the different theories about the relation between political efficacy and Internet usage will be reviewed. Finally, the possible effects that corruption can have on political efficacy will be discussed.
Political efficacy
As earlier stated, this paper’s main research topic is political efficacy. This concept is important since a low sense of political efficacy can be viewed as part of the attitudes of the politically apathetic, while a high sense of political efficacy is viewed as a prerequisite for widespread political participation. Political efficacy can also be understood as a norm which supports a democratic political regime (Balch, 1974). When this norm is embraced and internalized, people are less likely to distrust and to challenge the regime. When citizens have a high sense of political efficacy, it is less likely for these citizens to support demagogic, regime-challenging, leaders and it is less likely for them to engage in protest. A high sense of political efficacy also leads to a high level of trust towards the established regime and authorities. Further, it leads to a feeling of obligation to participate in electoral politics, a more allegiant stance to the nation-state, a preference to democratic norms and to more satisfaction regarding governmental policies (Ibidem).
In order to make a correct analysis the concept of political efficacy needs to be defined. Originally, the concept of politically efficacy was defined in uni-dimensional terms by Campbell et al. (1954: 187): “the feeling that individual political action does have, or can have, an impact upon the political process”. Since it is a uni-dimensional concept it does not distinguish between one’s sense of being able to cope with the political system and one’s feeling about whether the government is being responsive. This led to a lot of critique for its lack of reliability and validity. To overcome this limitation, the concept is usually divided into two separate components: internal and external political efficacy (Lee, 2006). Internal political efficacy refers to one’s own abilities to understand and to participate in politics. External political efficacy refers to one’s beliefs about the responsiveness of governmental authorities and institutions to the demands of citizens (Craig, Niemi & Silver, 1990). In other words, the first component is one’s subjective judgment of whether he or she is qualified
4
enough to successfully participate in political activities and processes. The second component refers to one’s judgment of whether his or her political system faithfully addresses or accommodates citizens’ opinions or voices (Lee, 2006).
There are different variables which influence political efficacy. Earlier research found that socio-demographic variables, including age, gender and education have a significant effect on political efficacy (Tolbert & McNeal, 2003). Other studies show that party identification and political interest have a significant effect on political efficacy (Kenski & Stroud, 2006). Moreover, internal and external political efficacies are linked with a range of aspects of political culture. Internal political efficacy is correlated with political interest, knowledge and engagement, while external political efficacy is correlated with trust in government and voter turnout (Sharoni, 2012).
Relationship between the Internet and political efficacy
This section will on the one hand focus on elaborating the relationship between the Internet and the youth’s political efficacy, and on the other hand, explaining the relationship between the Internet and citizens’ political efficacy in general.
A considerable amount of research is already available on ways the Internet generally influences citizens’ political efficacy (Bakker & de Vreese, 2011). However, there is less information available about the way the Internet specifically influences the youth’s political efficacy. The available literature does, however, provide several reasons that could suggest the Internet to have a positive influence on the youth’s political efficacy. Various scholars view the Internet as a new source of political socialization, which can bring the youth closer to the political process (Quintelier & Vissers, 2008).
Most of the literature mentions the Internet’s effect on political participation. Political efficacy, however, is an indicator of political participation, so one could assume that the Internet would have the same effect on political efficacy as well. The youth can be seen as disaffected members of society. The Internet provides an alternative way of participating, as the classic institutional mechanisms of participation fail to fit with the current needs of the youth. The Internet thus opens up an alternative way of participation which can act as a driving force for previously young inactive citizens (Anduiza et al., 2009).
5
Several studies suggest that the main reason why young people lack political efficacy and refrain from voting is their lack of information about the candidates and the political issues. The Internet can provide a lot of political information which has the power to increase one’s political efficacy, which is necessary to effectively participate in civic life and public discussion. The massive amounts of information will help to increase the knowledge about political issues and the political processes of the youth. The Internet can also help young citizens by promoting easy ways to engage in interactive activities, like communicating their opinions on blogs, chats, discussions forums, et cetera. These interactive opportunities might help to overcome the youth’s cynicism and low political efficacy, as it shows that their opinions and concerns are indeed important. The Internet may thus also lead to a higher level of external political efficacy (Tedesco, 2007).
Also, according to Sparks (2001) the Internet has the ability to guard against discrimination based on sex, race, or age. It provides a structural protection of these characteristics through anonymity. In particular, this may help young voters, who may feel disenfranchised or alienated by our current political system. For example, as young adults can mask their identities in online discussions, they do not have to face the stereotypes that can be attached to their messages. This might increase their external political efficacy as they could potentially feel like they are taken more seriously (Tedesco, 2007).
As mentioned earlier, more research has been done on the relationship between the Internet and citizens in general rather than on the relationship between the Internet and the youth. Obviously, it is still important to review the literature which describes the effect of the Internet on citizens as a whole, as young people are part of the population of citizens. Concerning this subject – there is a variety of contesting literature. These theories have developed into two schools of thought. On one hand there are those who contend that Internet exposure will lead to an increase in political efficacy, and on the other hand those who argue that the Internet has no or a negative effect on political efficacy (Kenski & Stroud, 2006). Optimistically, the Internet could enhance external political efficacy as it enables citizens to interact more with government representatives and public officials (Ibidem). The Internet can also potentially increase internal efficacy by providing individuals with access to lots of political information. This could create a politically informed and interested public (Johnson & Kaye, 2003). Cornfield (2003) thinks that one’s internal political efficacy may also be
6
increased because of the anonymity of the Internet. It can make people less anxious and ashamed about their political competence, because they do not have to fear public embarrassment. Tedesco and Kaid (2000) found that a high amount of online exposure to the websites of election candidates decreased participants’ political cynicism, which is known to be correlated to low levels of external efficacy (Niemi et al., 1991). Later Nisbet and Scheufele (2004) found that the political information available on the Internet combined with the possibility of online political discussion leads to an increase in political efficacy. Tedesco (2006) showed that exposure to interactive Web content significantly increased both internal and external efficacy for young participants. However, participants in the non-interactive exposure condition did show any significant increase in political efficacy (Tedesco, 2007). Horrigan, Garrett, and Resnick (2004) found that Internet usage related positively to the amount of arguments that people reported having heard about the US’ presidential candidates, which suggests that the Internet may thus be positively related to political knowledge, which in turn is positively related to internal political efficacy.
More pessimistically, the Internet could lead to a decline in political efficacy. For example, Johnson and Kaye (2003) think that people who try to contact public officials may be discouraged from receiving a formal letter or a general lack of response. Furthermore, the amount of political information available online may overwhelm people and will thus lead to a lower level of confidence in one’s personal ability to understand politics. This may especially be the case with people who are already less efficacious who tend to have a lack of education and are less familiar with the Internet (Kenski & Stroud, 2006). The Internet could also replicate current knowledge gaps, because individuals can largely determine their exposure to content. Individuals who are not so interested in politics will not seek out politics online. Only the already knowledgeable citizens will profit from the availability from political information, which might improve levels of internal efficacy (Ibidem). Quan-Haase, Wellman, Witte, and Hampton (2002) found that the Internet supplements political activities. However, it does not change people’s level of involvement. Lin and Lim (2002) found that the use of Internet was not positively related to political efficacy. Furthermore, Johnson and Kaye (2003) did not find significant results between the hours per week spent on the Internet to seek political information and the external political efficacy of these respondents. Bimber (2001) found that access to the Internet had no effect on the participation of voters. The political behavior of people with access to the Internet and online political information did
7
not differ from those who did not use the Internet to search for political information (Tolbert & McNeal, 2003). According to Scheufele and Nisbet (2002) the role of Internet in promoting active and informed citizenship is quite small. In fact, respondents who frequently used the Internet for entertainment purposes often feel less efficacious about their ability and their potential role in democratic processes (Scheufele & Nisbet, 2002).
There are several reasons for the difference in results. For example, several prior studies did not separate internal and external political efficacy, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the Internet’s influence on these distinct notions of political efficacy. Also, there are some inherent difficulties in studying the relationship between Internet usage and political efficacy, because people who use the Internet to look for political information typically report high levels of internal and external efficacy. Therefore, it is difficult to know whether the Internet caused these high levels of political efficacy or that individuals were already interested in politics and politically involved (Kenski & Stroud, 2006). Also, as discussed above, one’s level of political internal efficacy is dependent on the amount of one’s political knowledge. Moreover, some studies did not measure the amount of time which was spent online, which might influence political efficacy. The more time one spends on the Internet, the more it is likely that one accesses a political website, news website, or receives political emails, which could lead to an increase in one’s internal political efficacy (as this is dependent on the amount of political information and political knowledge one has) (Quintelier & Vissers, 2008). This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: The duration of Internet use correlates positively to the internal political efficacy of the youth.
Hypothesis 2: The duration of Internet use correlates positively to the external political efficacy of the youth.
Furthermore, not every study makes a distinction between the different kinds of Internet usage. As stated before, the research of Scheufele and Nisbet (2002) showed that respondents who frequently used the Internet for entertainment purposes often feel less efficacious about their ability and their potential role in the democratic process. The literature, however, does not give an explanation for this phenomenon. Furthermore, as Johnson and Kaye (2003) mentioned, when the Internet is being used information seeking purposes, it has the potential of having a positive effect on political efficacy. This research assumes that when the Internet
8
is being used for political purposes, it will also have a positive effect on political efficacy. This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3: Internet usage for political or information-seeking purposes correlates positively with the internal political efficacy of the youth.
Hypothesis 4: Internet usage for political or information-seeking purposes correlates positively with the external political efficacy of the youth.
Hypothesis 5: Internet usage for entertainment purposes correlates negatively with the internal political efficacy.
Hypothesis 6: Internet usage for entertainment purposes correlates negatively with the external political efficacy.
Relationship between corruption and political efficacy
As discussed above, not only does this paper focus on the relationship between the Internet and political efficacy, but also on corruption and the relationship between this concept, Internet usage and political efficacy. However, little has been written about this subject so the dynamics between these concepts are not fully clear. Furthermore, the theoretical arguments which are available only mention the political efficacy of citizens in general and do not focus on the youth, but one could assume they are also relevant for young citizens. Therefore, this paper assumes that corruption leads to a decrease in both internal and external political efficacy of citizens – and thus also among the youth.
This study uses Nye’s definition of corruption. Nye (1967) says corruption is: “behavior which deviates from the normal duties of a public role because of private-regarding (family, close private clique), pecuniary or status gains; or violates rules against the exercise of certain types of private-regarding influence. This includes such behavior as bribery (use of rewards to pervert the judgment of a person in a position of trust); nepotism (bestowal of patronage by reason of ascriptive relationship rather than merit); and misappropriation (illegal
appropriation of public resources for private-regarding uses)”
In this definition the misuse of public office for private gain is emphasized (Smit, 2009). In theory, corruption could have devastating effects on democracy. As mentioned - corruption breaks the very link of democracy, which is the link between collective decision making and the power of citizens to influence these decisions by speaking and voting (Warren, 2004).
9
Corruption has a negative influence on political efficacy of citizens: it leads to a decrease in the effectiveness of public action. Public agencies of collective action are being reduced to instruments of private benefit. This reduces the reach of democracy. One could assume that when collective action is not very effective anymore, one will lose his confidence in his ability to influence the government and thus refrain from participating in collective action. Corruption could thus lead to a lower level of external political efficacy. Furthermore, corruption is known to undermine the culture of democracy. Corruption leads to a loss of people’s confidence of the legitimacy of public decisions. People will start to question whether these public decisions are made with reasons that are publicly available and justifiable, which taints people’s external political efficacy. Corruption also leads to distrust of government and to more cynicism about people’s own capacities to act on public goods or purposes, and thus leads to lower levels of internal political efficacy. People will thus prefer to attend to more narrow domains of self-interests. These events lead to less collective action, which in turn leads to the diminishment of the domain of democracy. Corruption leads to an increased suspicion of citizens and an erosion of trust and reciprocity within civil society (Ibidem).
Even though these theoretical arguments seem compelling, little research on the relation between corruption and political efficacy has been done. Yet, some empirical information can be found about the relation between corruption and political trust, which is positively correlated with external efficacy (Craig et al., 1990). Mishler and Rose (2001) studied political trust across 10 East-Central European and found that higher levels of corruption were related to lower levels of political trust (Anderson & Tverdova, 2003). Furthermore, during a study in sixteen mature and newly established democracies, Anderson and Tverdova (2003) found that individuals in countries with higher levels of corruption are less trusting in civil servants. Despite the weak evidence that corruption correlates negatively with political trust, it gives some insight in the possible relation between the level of perceived corruption and the level of political efficacy. Keeping these studies in mind, one could assume that a high level of perceived corruption of an individual leads to a lower level of external efficacy.
As stated before, several researchers think that the Internet’s possibilities will have a positive influence on citizens’ political efficacy. However, this research assumes that the positive influence of Internet usage on one’s political efficacy will be reduced due to corruption. For this reason this study assumes that the duration of Internet use and Internet usage for political
10
and informative purposes leads to higher levels of political efficacy of the youth in Sweden compared to Hungary, because of the higher amount of perceived corruption in Hungary. As stated before, corruption leads to a lower level of internal political efficacy as corruption leads to more cynicism about people’s own capacities to act on public goods or purposes. Furthermore, based on the research of Mishler and Rose (2001) and Anderson and Tverdova (2003), this paper assumes one’s amount of perceived corruption determines one’s external efficacy: the higher one’s level of perceived corruption, the lower one’s level of external efficacy.Young Hungarians might thus feel like the new opportunities given by the Internet will not change their ability to influence the government. More formally, the last hypotheses are as follows:
Hypothesis 7: The duration of Internet use and Internet usage for informative and political purposes is stronger positively correlated with the internal political efficacy for the youth of Sweden than in Hungary.
Hypothesis 8: The duration of Internet use and Internet usage for informative and political purposes is stronger positively correlated with the external political efficacy for the youth of Sweden than in Hungary.
Method
Data collection
The data used for this research comes from CivicWeb, a research project funded by the European Union. The project analysed, among other things, if Internet could promote civic engagement and participation among 3307 young persons (aged 15-25). It also sought to understand which social groups of young people use the Internet and aimed to find out what kind of influence the Internet has on these groups. The project focused especially on the range of youth-oriented civic sites which are emerging on the Internet (Hirzalla & Van Zoonen, 2008). The project studied how the abovementioned developments vary across 6 European member states and Turkey. These are countries which have different political cultures. The partners in these seven countries managed to get popular and/or civic websites which are aimed at young people to put up a banner promoting the survey. Most of the sample countries respondents, however, came upon the survey via the music and entertainment websites for MTV (Ibidem).
11
their contrasting political cultures. The sphere of politics in Hungary is generally being seen as quite dirty and corrupt, which might have an effect on the feeling that one’s political action can be consequential (Banaji & Buckingham, 2010: 21). Hungary’s score in the Transparency International’s 2011 Corruption Perception Index was quite low: it scored a 4.6. Sweden, however, is ranked the 4th in the index and scored a 9.3, which makes it the one of the countries with the least perceived corruptness in the public sector (Corruption Perception Index, 2011). The final amounts of respondents in these two countries differ. The final amount of respondents in Sweden is a total of 277, whereas in Hungary this is an amount of 170 (Hirzalla & Van Zoonen, 2008).
Measurements
The variables which are used to test the hypotheses are divided into independent, dependent and control variables. The independent variables are the ‘duration of Internet use’ and ‘type of Internet usage’. The variable ‘duration of Internet use’ is measured by the following question: “On days you use the internet, how long do you use it on average?” The variable is measured on an 8-point scale, which ranges from “No time at all” to “More than 6 hours” (Hungary: M=5,02, SD=1,745; Sweden: M=5,97, SD=1,781). The variable ‘type of Internet usage’ is measured by this question: “How interesting are websites and blogs about the following subjects to you?” This paper assumes that when people are interested in a type of website or blog, they will visit these as well. The different subjects of interests are measured by a 5-point scale. The observed variables are reduced by Principal Component Analysis into a smaller number of principle components. This new number of principle component account for more of the variance in the observed variables (Abdi & Williams, 2010). This is done for the variables in all the observed countries, not only Hungary and Sweden, to test the reliability on a bigger scale. This leads to following principle components in three categories: • Political websites and blogs: political parties, government and elections (Cronbach’s
alpha: 0,93)
• Entertainment websites and blogs: music, movies and sports elections (Cronbach’s alpha: 0,60)
• Informative websites and blogs: news
There are two indicators for measuring the dependent variable ‘political efficacy’. The variable for ‘internal political efficacy’ is measured by the following question: “How often
12
does politics seem so complicated that you cannot really understand what is going on?” The variable is measured by a 5-point scale, ranging from "Never" to "Frequently" (Hungary: M=2,85, SD=1,070; Sweden: M=2,86, SD=1,109). The variable for the ‘external political efficacy’ of the youth is being measured with the following question: “Do you think that politicians care about what people like you think once the elections are over?” This variable is also measured on a 5-point scale, which ranges from “Hardly any politicians care what people like me think” to “Most politicians care what people like me think” (Hungary: M=2,04, SD=0,999; Sweden: M=2,64, SD=1,012).
This research used the following control variables: ‘age’, ‘gender’, ‘education’ and ‘political interest’. ‘Age’ is measured by the following question: “What is is your age?” (Hungary: M=18,80, SD=2,904; Sweden: M=17,87, SD=2,335) The dummy variable ‘gender’ is measured by the question: “Are you a boy/man or a girl/woman?” (Hungary: 47% female, 53% male; Sweden: 42% female, 58% male). The variable ‘level of education’ is measured in the following way: “How many years of full-time education have you completed?” (Hungary: M=12,11, SD=2,718; Sweden: M=7,49, SD=4,619) Lastly, ‘political interest’ is measured by the following 5-point scale question: “How interested would you say you are in politics?” Possible answers range from “Not interested at all” (1) to “Very interested” (5) (Hungary: M=2,43, SD=1,221; Sweden: M=2,44, SD=1,220)
Analysis
To attempt to prove the first six hypotheses, a total amount of 8 models are being tested, using the method of multiple regression analysis in SPSS. In these 8 models the following regressions will be made:
Table 1
Y: Internal political efficacy External political efficacy X: Internet use duration Type of internet use Internet use duration Type of internet use Hungary 1 2 5 6 Sweden 3 4 7 8
13
Firstly, hypothesis 1 will be tested by model 1 and 3, whereas hypothesis 2 will be tested by model 5 and 7. Hypothesis 3 is going to be tested by model 2 and 4. Furthermore, hypothesis 4 will be tested by model 6 and 8 and hypothesis 5 will be tested by model 2 and 4. Hypothesis 6 will be tested by model 6 and 8. The hypotheses will both be tested by 4 different models. Hypothesis 7 is tested by comparing model 1 and 2 to model 3 and 4. Lastly, hypothesis 8 is tested by comparing model 5 and 6 to model 7 and 8. More simplistically, it can be written down in the following way:
Hypothesis 1: model 1 and 3
Hypothesis 2: model 5 and 7
Hypothesis 3: model 2 and 4
Hypothesis 4: model 6 and 8
Hypothesis 5: model 2 and 4
Hypothesis 6: model 6 and 8
Hypothesis 7: model 1, 2 versus 3, 4
Hypothesis 8: model 5, 6 versus 7, 8
Results
In this section of the paper the results will be explained per hypothesis for both Hungary and Sweden. In table 2 the results of all the 8 models are shown.
14
Table 2
First of all, table 2 (model 1) indicates that, in Hungary, the duration of Internet use does not relate significantly to internal political efficacy (ß=.043, SE=.569, sig p>.05). Therefore, H1 is rejected for the Hungarian sample. Rather than Internet use duration, it is less education (ß=-.329, SE=.019, sig p<.05), higher age (ß=.397, SE=.003, sig p<.01) and more political interest (ß=.0441, SE=.000, sig p<.001) that have a positive significant impact on internal political efficacy. Furthermore, table 2 (model 3) shows that the duration of Internet use does not relate significantly to internal political efficacy for Sweden either (ß=-.043, SE=.462, sig p>.05). This means that H1 is also rejected for the Swedish sample. It appears that only political interest (ß=.425, SE=.000, sig p<.05) influences internal political efficacy in a positive way.
Table 2 (model 5) also indicates that the duration of the use of Internet does not relate significantly to the external political efficacy of the Hungarian sample (ß=-.061, SE=.457, sig p>.05). Hence, H2 can be rejected for Hungary. The only variable which has a (positive) significant impact on external political efficacy is political interest (ß=.228, SE=.006, sig p<.05). For Sweden, table 2 (model 7) shows that the duration of Internet usage does not relate significantly to external political efficacy either (ß=-.005, SE=.939, sig p>.05).
Y: X: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .043 -.043 -.061 .005 (.569) (.462) (.457) (.939) -.083 .041 -.073 .135 (.302) (.502) (.370) (.056) .170 .090 .235 .101 (.088) (.193) (.026)* (.201) -.032 .004 .090 .033 (.707) (.946) (.296) (.644) .441 .283 .425 .417 .228 .049 .215 .154 (.000)*** (.003)** (.000)*** (.000)*** (.006)** (.630) (.002)** (.053) -.329 -.179 .040 .043 .247 .350 -.118 -.076 (.019)* (.227) (.498) (.471) (.295) (.129) (.086) (.269) .397 .282 .030 .048 -.229 -.327 -.076 -0,087 (.003)** (.046)* (.614) (.419) (.297) (.135) (.272) (.207) .130 .081 .109 .069 .062 .010 .002 -.020 (.079) (.289) (.067) (.238) (.436) (.900) (.557) (.444) Adjusted R2 .194 .146 .219 .239 .063 .096 .033 .050 Years of education Age Gender *=sig .05, **=.01, ***=.001 Interest in informative websites and blogs Political interest
Interest in entertainment websites and blogs Interest in political websites and blogs
Internal political efficacy External political efficacy Duration of Internet
15
Consequently, H2 can also be rejected for the Swedish sample. Again, the only variable which has a positive significant impact on external political efficacy is political interest (ß=.215, SE=.002, sig p<.05).
Moreover, table 2 (model 2) shows that Internet usage for political (ß=.170, SE=.088, sig p>.05) or information-seeking purposes (ß=-.032, SE=.707, sig p>.05) is not significantly correlated to the internal political efficacy for Hungary, which means that H3 can be rejected for the Hungarian sample. Instead of Internet usage for political or information-seeking purposes, it is age (ß=.282, SE=.046, sig p<.05) and political interest (ß=.283, SE=.003, sig p<.05) that have a significant impact on internal political efficacy. Table 2 (model 4) shows that Internet usage for political (ß=.090, SE=.193, sig p>.05) or information-seeking purposes (ß=.004, SE=.946, sig p>.05) is not significantly correlated to the internal political efficacy of the Swedish sample either. Therefore, H3 can be rejected for Sweden. Solely political interest (ß=.417, SE=.000, sig p<.05) has a statistically significant impact on internal political efficacy in the Swedish sample.
Table 2 (model 6) indicates that H4 is partly accepted for Hungary. Model 6 shows that Internet usage for political purposes correlates positively with the external political efficacy in Hungary (ß=.235, SE=.026, sig p<.05). However, Internet usage for information-seeking purposes does not relate to external political efficacy (ß=.090, SE=.296, sig p>.05). Model 8 in table 2 indicates that neither Internet usage for political purposes (ß=.101, SE=.201, sig p>.05) or information-seeking purposes (ß=.033, SE=.644, sig p>.05) correlates with the external political efficacy of the Swedish sample. Therefore, H4 is rejected for Sweden. Also, table 2 (model 2 and 4) shows that using the Internet for entertainment purposes does not relate significantly to internal political efficacy in either Hungary (ß=-.083, SE=.302, sig p>.05) or Sweden (ß=.041, SE=.502, sig p>.05). H5 can thus be rejected for Hungary and Sweden. Moreover, model 6 and 8, which are shown in table 2, indicate that Internet usage for entertainment purposes does not significantly correlate with external political efficacy in Hungary (ß=-.073, SE=.370, sig p>.05), nor in Sweden (ß=.135, SE=.056, sig p>.05). Hence, H6 can also be rejected for both Hungary and Sweden.
Lastly, both H7 and H8, in which this paper hypothesized that the duration of Internet use and Internet usage for informative and political purposes is stronger positively correlated with the
16
internal political efficacy (hypothesis 7) and external political efficacy (hypothesis 8) for the youth of Sweden than in Hungary, can be rejected. The only factor which correlated with either internal or external political efficacy could be found in data of Hungary instead of Sweden.
In sum, it appears that the only factor which correlated significantly with either internal or external political efficacy could be found in the data of Hungary and not Sweden. The only hypothesized relationship (H4, model 6) that proved to be statistically significant is the relationship between the usage of the Internet for politically orientated websites and blogs and the external political efficacy of the Hungarian sample. The results of this study suggest that corruption does not appear to influence political efficacy at all.
Conclusion
The youth has increasingly detached themselves from conventional (parliamentary) politics. This is an alarming trend, because in time this could hinder the functioning of democracies. This research sought to understand the potential of the Internet to counteract this trend, as the Internet has a huge influence on the youth. Furthermore, this research aimed to understand how corruption affects the political efficacy of youth. For this reason the following research question has been answered: What is the relation between the degree and type of Internet usage and the political efficacy of the youth in Sweden compared to Hungary? These two countries have been chosen for their diverse political cultures. The Corruption Perception Index of 2011 showed that Sweden was one of the countries with the least perceived corruption, while the amount of perceived corruption in Hungary was very high.
This study used data from CivicWeb to test 8 hypotheses using multiple regression analysis. The only hypothesized correlation that proved to be statistically significant is the positive correlation between the usage of the Internet for politically orientated websites and blogs and the external political efficacy for the Hungarian sample. Besides this correlation, it turns out that neither the duration of Internet use, nor the type of Internet use has a significant impact on either internal or external political efficacy. The only variable which seems to influence both internal and external political efficacy in a positive way is ‘political interest’. Moreover, a higher age appears to influence internal efficacy as well. Furthermore, as almost all the correlations lack statistical significance and therefore display no perceptible differences in the
17
strength of the correlations, there is not enough evidence in this case to conclude that corruption influences political efficacy.
In accordance with the views of different researchers, the results suggest that the Internet does not influence the political efficacy of the youth. As mentioned, Kenski & Stroud (2006) give a possible explanation to why the Internet does not radically change one’s political efficacy – the Internet replicates current knowledge gaps. This explanation, however, could be slightly amended after taking the results of this study into consideration: the Internet replicates political knowledge and political interest gaps.
This research has a few limitations. One weakness of this study is the fact that it uses data from a cross-sectional survey, meaning that this survey has been done only in one point of time: this study cannot draw conclusions about the actual effects of variables. For this, a longitudinal survey needs to be used. One could also argue that CivicWeb is not a representative sample, which gives problems of generalizability. However, making generalizations about a larger population was never the aim of this study. This study was aimed at the examining behaviour of the youth by looking at the relations between the different variables: ‘internal political efficacy’, ‘external political efficacy’, ‘type of Internet usage’ and ‘duration of Internet use’.
Even though these countries appeared interesting to compare, Sweden and Hungary unfortunately has quite a small sample (N) compared to the other countries in the CivicWeb survey. The results might have been stronger if the sample had been bigger which might have led to a higher degree of statistical significance. To be sure about this, however, further research is needed.
Another weakness of this study is the way the influence of corruption on the youth’s political efficacy is examined. Unfortunately, CivicWeb did not measure the perceived amount of corruption in the seven examined countries. One could question the decision to ascribe the, now known non-existing, differences between the levels of the youth’s political efficacy in the two countries to Hungary’s higher level of perceived corruption.
Moreover, one can question the way the variable ‘type of Internet usage’ has been measured. As mentioned, respondents could give a number 1-5 to different sorts of websites and blogs
18
they found interesting. However, one could argue that finding a particular website or blog interesting does not necessarily measure the kind of websites or blogs respondents actually visit.
The Internet’s impact on the political behaviour of people has been a topic of much debate during the past two decades. When looking at the results of this study, it appears as if the empirical implications of this study lean towards the ones who think the Internet will not change the political behaviour of people. However, since this study used a cross-sectional survey, it cannot draw rock solid conclusions. Further research is thus needed, using a longitudinal survey. Additionally, further research is needed to assess the implications of corruption on political behaviour, including political efficacy. Also, to understand the dynamics between Internet usage and political efficacy, one should study the causal mechanisms of these variables with age and political interest, as these variables appear to influence on Internet usage and political efficacy.
19 Literature list
Abdi, Hervé & Williams, Lynne (2010) Principal Component Analysis. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2 (4): 433-459.
Anderson, Christopher & Tverdova, Yuliya (2003) Corruption, Political Allegiances, and Attitudes toward Government in Contemporary Democracies. American Journal of Political
Science, 47 (1): 91-109.
Anduiza, Eva, Cantijoch, Marta & Gallego, Aina (2009) Political Participation and the Internet. Information, Communication & Society, 12 (6) 860-878.
Bakker, Tom & de Vreese, Claes (2011) Good News for the Future? Young People, Internet Use, and Political Participation. Communication Research, 20 (10): 1-20.
Balch, George (1974) Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept “Sense of Political Efficacy”. Society for Political Methodology, 1 (2): 1-43.
Banaji, Shakuntala & Buckingham, David (2010) Young People, the Internet, and Civic Participation. International Journal of Learning and Media, 2 (1): 15-24.
Bimber, Bruce (2001) Information and Political Engagement in America: The Search for Effects of Information Technology at the Individual Level. Political Research Quarterly, 54 (1): 53-67.
Calenda, Davide & Meijer, Albert (2009) Young People, the Internet and Political Participation. Information, Communication & Society, 12 (6): 879-898.
Campbell, Angus, Gurin, Geraid & Miller, Warren (1954) The Voter Decides. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Co.
Cornfield, M. (2003) Adding in the Net: Making Citizenship Count in the Legal Age. In: Anderson, David M. & Cornfield, Michael (eds.) The Civic Web: Online Politics and
20
Craig, Stephen, Niemi, Richard & Silver, Glenn (1990) Political Efficacy and Trust: A Report on the NES Pilot Study Items. Political Behavior, 12 (3): 289-314.
Gibson, Rachel, Lusoli, Wainer, & Ward, Stephen. (2005). Online participation in the UK: Testing a “contextualized” model of Internet effects. Policy Studies Association, 7 (4): 561-583.
Hirzalla, Fadi & Van Zoonen, Liesbet (2008) CivicWeb Report: Uses of the Web for Civic
Participation.
[online] Available at:
http://www.civicweb.eu/images/stories/reports/wp9civicwebdeliverable8.pdf [Accessed: 7 Jan 2014).
Horrigan, John, Garrett, Kelly & Resnick, Paul (2004) The Internet and Democratic Debate. [online] Available at:
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2004/The-Internet-and-Democratic-Debate.aspx. Johnson, Thomas & Kaye, Barbara (2003) A Boost or Bust for Democracy? How the Web Influenced Political Attitudes and Behaviors in the 1996 and 2000 Presidential Elections.
Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8 (3): 9-34.
Kenski, Kate & Stroud, Natalie Jomini (2006) Connections Between Internet Use and Political Efficacy, Knowledge, and Participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 50 (2): 173-192.
Lee, Kwan Min (2006) Effects of Internet Use on College Students’ Political Efficacy.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9 (4): 415-422.
Lin, Yang & Lim, Sunhee (2002) Relationships of Media Use to Political Cynicism and Efficacy: A Preliminary Study of Young South Korean Voters. Asian Journal of
Communication, 12 (1): 25-39.
21
Institutional and Cultural Theories in Post-Communist Societies. Comparative Political
Studies, 34 (1): 30-62.
Niemi, Richard, Craig, Stephen & Mattei, Franco (1991) Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85 (4): 1407-1413.
Nisbet, Matthew & Scheufele, Dietram (2004) Political Talk as Catalyst for Online Citizenship. Journalism & Mass Communication, 81 (4): 877-896.
Nye, Joseph (1967) Corruption and Political Development. American Political Science
Review, 61 (2): 417-427.
Quan-Haase, Annabel, Wellman, Berry, Witte, James & Hampton, Keith (2002) Capitalizing on the Net: Social contact, civic engagement, and sense of community. In: Wellman, B. & Haythornthwaite (eds.) The Internet in everyday life. Malden: Blackwell, pp 291-324.
Quintelier, Ellen & Vissers, Sara (2008) The Effect of Internet Use on Political Participation: Analysis of Survey Results for 16-Year-Olds in Belgium. Social Science Computer Review, 26 (4): 411-427.
Scheufele, Dietram & Nisbet, Matthew (2002) Being a Citizen Online: New Opportunities and Dead Ends. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7 (3): 55-75.
Sharoni, Sari (2012) e-Citizenship. Electronic Media & Politics, 1 (8): 119-135.
Smit, Daniel Jordan (2009) Popular Participation in Corruption in Nigeria. In: Rottberg, Robert (ed) Corruption, Global Security and World Order. Baltimore: Brookings Institution Press, pp 283-309.
Sparks, Colin (2001) The Internet and the Global Public Sphere. In: Bennet, Lance & Entman Robert M. (eds.) Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future for Democracy.
22
Tedesco, John (2006) Web Interactivity and Young Adult Political Efficacy. In: Williams, Andrew Paul & John Tedesco (eds.) The Internet Election: Perspectives on the Web in
Campaign 2004. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp 187-202.
Tedesco, John (2007) Examining Internet Interactivity Effects on Young Adult Political Information Efficacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 50 (9): 1183-1194.
Tedesco, John & Kaid, Lynda Lee (2000) Candidate Web Sites and Voter Effects:
Investigating Uses and Gratifications. Paper presented at the National Communication
Association Convention, Seattle.
Tolbert, Caroline & McNeal, Ramona (2003) Unraveling the Effects of the Internet on Political Participation. Political Research Quarterly, 56 (2): 175-185.
Warren, Mark (2004) What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy? American Journal of
Political Science, 48 (2): 328-343.
Website IamExpat (2011) The Netherlands ranked 7th in the Corruption Perceptions Index
2011
[online] Available at: http://www.iamexpat.nl/read-and-discuss/expat-page/news/the netherlands-ranked-7th-in-the-corruption-perceptions-index-2011 [Accessed: 7 Jan 2014].
