Political Efficacy Research Paper

Efficacy represents a subjective assessment of the political system. It differs from objective measures of a citizen’s ability to affect a political system, such as political knowledge, or subjective measures of political engagement, such as political interest or civic obligation. One may feel politically efficacious while neither feeling motivated to participate in politics, nor judged by others to be capable of doing so.

Although political efficacy is generally measured at the individual level by social scientists, in practice it may also represent a propensity to draw upon collective social resources to effect political change. Political efficacy is significant not only because efficacious citizens have a greater propensity to engage in political action, but also because the presence of high levels of political efficacy within a population is important in creating a reservoir of citizen support for the political system.

1. Intellectual Context

Rooted in a social psychological theory of ‘ego strength’ (Lane 1959), Campbell et al. (1954) introduced political efficacy as one of several independent components of political engagement that predicted voter turnout but not voter preference. This basic role as a predictor of political participation has not changed much, although significant elaborations have been made in our understanding of that role.

Several years after its introduction as a predictor of political participation, scholars began to look at political efficacy as an indicator of existing and aspiring democratic systems. Almond and Verba (1963), attempting to understand the process by which aspiring democracies might achieve stability, conducted a comparative investigation of how political culture sustains existing liberal democracies. In order to connect the ‘civic culture’ concept, with its focus on political efficacy, to non-Western democracies, the authors included Mexico as one of five countries studied. Additional research by Indian scholars, with an awareness of the relative youth of Indian democracy, focused on the egalitarian distribution of political efficacy. They compared levels of political efficacy between different castes and between Hindus and Muslims. In particular, this research assessed whether lower castes had developed any sense of political efficacy since their inclusion in the Indian political system (Vir 1989).

Two separate lines of research have also used the concept of political efficacy as a yardstick to assess the health of mature liberal democracies. One is the differing levels of political engagement and participation by women and minorities, caused in part by differing levels of political efficacy (Abramson 1983). The second line emerged with the availability of repeated measures of political efficacy in the American National Election Studies (ANES). Converse (1972) showed decreasing levels of political trust and external (see below) political efficacy in the US, trends which continue to the present day. Easton’s (1965) concepts of diffuse and specific support for a political system were applied to research on declining levels of trust and efficacy. According to Easton, democracies could continue to function well in the face of public dissatisfaction with current ‘outputs’ as long as a sufficient reserve of diffuse support (support for the structure of the political system) existed. However, Easton predicted that persistent public dissatisfaction and lack of specific support could erode diffuse support over the long term. This added urgency to findings of declining trust and efficacy.

2. Conceptual Distinctions

The distinction between internal and external political efficacy represents one of the most significant conceptual changes in understandings of political efficacy since the 1970s. While both types of efficacy refer to beliefs about the relationship of citizen political participation to the political system, they identify different explanations for the presence or absence of political efficacy. Internal political efficacy represents beliefs about the impact a person may have on the political process as a result of their own skills and confidence (or people just like themself). External political efficacy represents the impact a person believes they may have on the political process as a consequence of political institutions’ responsiveness. This distinction was implicit in earlier definitions of political efficacy, which addressed both components with the understanding that the two were strongly related (Lane 1959): internal feelings of efficacy arose in part because the political system was responsive, and at the same time, people perceived a political system to be responsive because they believed their actions could influence it. Indeed, subsequent studies of internal and external efficacy always found a significant and positive relationship between the two. But it was the performance over time of specific items measuring political efficacy in the ANES that suggested that the two components could behave quite differently (Converse 1972).

Balch (1974) first demonstrated empirically that the four ANES political efficacy questions behaved in ways congruent with a distinction between internal and external efficacy. In particular, he found that internal, but not external, political efficacy items had significant positive correlations with political interest, knowledge, and activity. External, but not internal, political efficacy items correlated positively and significantly with political trust. In general, these patterns have held up in subsequent research, to the extent that correlations between political efficacy and political engagement, activity, and trust serve as checks on the external validity of proposed internal and external political efficacy measures (Craig et al. 1990). Although this distinction has gained widespread acceptance, scholars have too often treated political efficacy as a single construct.

The performance of both internal and external efficacy, both in the aggregate and on the individual level, over time points to similarities and differences in the nature of the two concepts. Internal political efficacy has largely remained stable since the late 1960s while external political efficacy has declined steadily. Both aspects of political efficacy are relatively stable at the individual level. Internal political efficacy is strongly related to changes in an individual’s socioeconomic background and life stage (Abramson 1983). By contrast, external political efficacy appears to be sensitive to changes in the political environment, but is less responsive to changes in individuals’ characteristics. While the presence or absence of specific elected officials may affect external political efficacy, individuals’ reactions appear to be heavily related to their partisanship. External efficacy rises for those whose favored party is in power, with the presidency representing this incumbency effect for the US (Craig 1993, Miller and Listhaug 1990). Such effects may be quite specific, even distinguishing between party control and local and federal levels (Stewart et al. 1992).

Some scholars distinguish between political trust as a judgment about governmental performance regardless of citizen participation, while external political efficacy is a judgment of the responsiveness of government to citizens’ expressed preferences. However, as Balch (1974) noted earlier, the correlation between political trust and external political efficacy is often higher than the association among political efficacy items. This persistent pattern has led some scholars to question the distinction between external political efficacy and political trust. As a result, external political efficacy and political trust have at times been treated as broad indicators of political system support. In part this is due to their similar pattern of decline over time among Western democracies (Craig 1993, Miller and Listhaug 1990).

3. Nature Of Political Efficacy

Prewitt’s (1968) assessment of the concept of ‘political efficacy’ focused on the personal antecedents as well as the consequences of political efficacy. Education, socioeconomic standing, and ethnic majority status were positively related to political efficacy. Higher levels of political efficacy in turn predicted higher levels of a range of political behaviors, voting being the central concern. Political efficacy was also thought to play a key role in general citizen support for a democratic system, although this hypothesis was largely untested. Subsequent research provides confirmation for some of these findings and broadens others. Education and socioeconomic standing continue to predict levels of political efficacy, while the disadvantage accrued to ethnic minority status appears to be dependent on local political context (Abramson 1983, Vir 1989).

Thus, the earliest studies of political efficacy examined personal antecedents and went on to argue that political efficacy affects the political system. One major trend in research on political efficacy has been to complete the circle of causation by examining the structural antecedents of political efficacy. Pateman’s work (1970) occupies a central place in this tradition. She drew on the work of liberal democratic theorists as well as findings by Almond and Verba (1963) to argue that all forms of participation, broadly conceived to include nonpolitical settings, could educate citizens to take part in self-government. Political efficacy was one measure of such educative effects and although her work suggests a specific focus on internal political efficacy, much research following her thesis has focused on external political efficacy.

Of special concern to Pateman were the effects of workplace conditions. Workplaces that emphasized democratic decision making would teach necessary skills for political participation and be intrinsically valuable, contributing to citizens’ self-development. But Pateman’s general thesis—that nonpolitical and political participation has educative effects in a democracy—has been tested mainly in areas besides work. Soss (1999), for example, successfully argued that how public policy is implemented has significant consequences for socializing political efficacy. Clients generalize from the responsiveness of administrators in public benefit programs, and from opportunities to shape the implementation of policy to responsiveness of government in general, producing an impact on external political efficacy that contributes to voting turnout.

Finkel (1985, 1987) tested Pateman’s underlying assertion that political participation has an educative effect on citizens. Using panel studies in the US and West Germany, he found that although levels of internal political efficacy affect conventional participation, the reverse is not true. By contrast, external political efficacy is affected more directly in a reciprocal manner by political participation.

Related research examined the effects of the larger political system on political efficacy. Scholars have identified persistent gender and race differences in internal political efficacy. Blacks, Hispanics, and women consistently report weaker feelings of internal and external political efficacy than whites and men. Abramson’s (1983) explanation of this difference with regard to schoolchildren has been mirrored in later studies of adults. Abramson’s basic argument, based on previous studies including his own with children, is that black children are influenced indirectly by the presence or absence of blacks in positions of political power. Differences among minorities with respect to political efficacy reflect actual low levels of political influence.

While some scholars emphasized the structural antecedents of political efficacy, others examined the causes and consequences of declining external political efficacy and trust. Gamson (1968) proposed that unconventional behavior would result among citizens whose sense of personal political efficacy was strong but trust in the political system was low. Subsequent evidence for this interaction effect between trust and political efficacy has been rather weak, however (Craig 1993; Sigelman and Feldman 1983). Scholars seeking to test Gamson’s thesis have disagreed on a number of issues concerning its operationalization. Greater support for Gamson’s hypothesis appears to lie in considering the context of unconventional behavior, especially the presence or absence of viable challengers to a political regime.

Other scholars have investigated the causes of declining levels of political support, including external political efficacy and political trust. Such work has been influenced by Easton’s (1965) analysis of the implications of specific and diffuse political support for a political system. There is disagreement over whether political trust measures specific support while external political efficacy measures diffuse support for a political system, or whether both are indicators of specific support. This research found multiple causes of the decline of political support but has assigned at least part of the blame to a general perception of governmental unresponsiveness. Craig (1993), who focuses on the importance of procedural values to the American public, argues that the gap between a growing sense of ‘democratic entitlement’ among the public and the failure of political elites to respond accordingly is the main cause of declining political support. Miller and Listhaug (1990), in a comparative study of Sweden, Norway, and the US, argue that a perceived lack of representation by the party system has led to an erosion of political support. Declining specific support for particular institutions and parties is translated into a lack of diffuse support for the party system in general.

4. Measurement Of Political Efficacy

The American National Election Study (ANES) has provided the most frequently used measures of political efficacy. The main advantage of these measures is their continuity. Three of the five original items used in 1952 have been asked on each ANES study, including two items that are taken as measures of external efficacy, and one that is taken as a measure of internal efficacy. Aside from this, a single potential measure of external political efficacy, asked on the General Social Survey since 1973, is the only other measure available over time.

Although many scholars have adopted the ANES measures, a number of different measures of political efficacy exist, often combining political trust or social alienation with political efficacy. The differentiation of efficacy by level of government (local, state, federal), and even specific governmental institutions appears to be the most useful recent innovation (Reef and Knoke 1999).

If the continuity of the ANES measures is their main advantage, the imprecision of these measures constitutes their main drawback. Craig et al. (1990) analyzed new efficacy and trust items alongside regular ANES efficacy and trust items in the 1987 pilot survey. Their results cast doubt on the separation of external political efficacy and trust, at least when both address incumbents rather than political procedures. While they validated one ANES item used consistently to measure internal political efficacy, their suggestions for additional internal political efficacy measures were not consistently adopted. In addition, a potential hazard to the use of ANES measures over time is a change in the response set. Beginning in 1988, respondents were also offered a ‘neither agree nor disagree’ option. Scholars who study these items suggest that the change has not substantively affected the continuity of these measures.

Political efficacy has proven to be exceptionally amenable to combining multiple investigative techniques. Such techniques include more qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews, open-ended questions in structured interviews, and even observational research, as well as quasi-experimental work (Almond and Verba 1963, Craig 1993, Soss 1999). This research generally involves using qualitative methods to generate hypotheses or illustrate trends in secondary data, and using quantitative analysis of secondary data to confirm hypotheses.

5. Future Directions

Recent trends in research on political efficacy focus on the relationship between specific political institutions and political efficacy as contrasted with political systems as a whole. Future research will likely rely on a reciprocal framework, examining the consequences of efficacy for support of specific institutions and the ‘educative effects’ of such institutions. This may include a focus on the implementation of public policy, along the lines of Soss’s (1999) work or specific governmental institutions, particularly local and state. Earlier work along these lines consistently found effects for external, but not internal, political efficacy.

The effect of political culture on political efficacy has been under-examined. The few comparative studies of political efficacy have consistently supported the basic findings about political efficacy, such as the effects of education. But such studies have also consistently found that political history plays a significant role, either in mediating the impact of events or of individual characteristics on political efficacy, or as an independent contributor to existing levels of political efficacy (Almond and Verba 1963; Finkel 1987; Miller and Listhaug 1990).

Future research is likely to compound fragmentation of a concept that has undergone at least one significant modification since the 1970s. At the same time, research that points to specific effects by government institutions or political culture may provide insight into the more general nature of political efficacy. In addition, recent focus on trust as a fundamental element of social capital suggests that it would be wise to incorporate political efficacy into the analysis. The fact that both trust and efficacy have declined significantly indicates that attempts to rebuild reservoirs of social capital ought to attend to both trust and efficacy.

Bibliography:

1. Abramson P R 1983 Political Attitudes in America: Formation and Change. Freeman, San Francisco
2. Almond G A, Verba S 1963 The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Fi e Nations. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
3. Balch G I 1974 Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept sense of political effi Political Methodology 1: 1–43
4. Campbell A, Gurin G, Miller W E 1954 The Voter Decides. Row, Peterson, Evanston, IL
5. Converse P E 1972 Change in the American electorate. In: Campbell A, Converse P E (eds.) The Human Meaning of Social Change. Sage, New York
6. Craig S C 1993 The Malevolent Leaders: Popular Discontent in America. Westview Press, Boulder, CO
7. Craig S C, Niemi R G, Silver G E 1990 Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior 12: 289–314
8. Easton D 1965 A Systems Analysis of Political Life. Wiley, New York
9. Finkel S E 1985 Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science 29: 891–913
10. Finkel S E 1987 The effects of participation and political efficacy and political support: Evidence from a West German panel. Journal of Politics 49: 441–64
11. Gamson W A 1968 Power and Discontent. Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL
12. Lane R E 1959 Political Life: Why People Get Involved in Politics. Free Press, Glencoe, IL
13. Miller A H, Listhaug O 1990 Political parties and confidence in government: A comparison of Norway, Sweden, and the United States. British Journal of Political Science 20: 357–86
14. Pateman C 1970 Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
15. Prewitt K 1968 Political effi In: Sills D L (ed.) International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Macmillan, New York
16. Reef M J, Knoke D 1999 Political alienation and effi In: Robinson J P, Shaver P R, Wrightsman L S (eds.) Measures of Political Attitudes. Academic Press, San Diego
17. Sigelman L, Feldman S 1983 Efficacy, mistrust, and political mobilization: A cross-national analysis. Comparati e Political Studies 16: 118–43
18. Soss J 1999 Lessons of welfare: policy design, political learning, and political action. American Political Science Review 93: 363–80
19. Stewart M C, Kornberg A, Clarke H D, Acock A 1992 Arenas and attitudes: A note on political efficacy in a federal system. Journal of Politics 54: 179–96
20. Vir D 1989 Political Efficacy in Urban India: A Sociological Exploration, 1st edn. Classical, New Delhi, India