Hubbry Logo
Civic engagementCivic engagementMain
Open search
Civic engagement
Community hub
Civic engagement
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Civic engagement
Civic engagement
Civic engagement
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Volunteering is an important type of civic engagement. Pictured are volunteers cleaning up after the 2012 Hurricane Sandy.

Civic engagement or civic participation is any individual or group activity addressing issues of public concern.[1] Civic engagement includes communities working together or individuals working alone in both political and non-political actions to protect public values or make a change in a community. The goal of civic engagement is to address public concerns and promote the quality of the community.

Civic engagement is "a process in which people take collective action to address issues of public concern" and is "instrumental to democracy".[2] Underrepresentation of groups in the government causes issues faced by groups such as minority, low-income, and younger groups to be overlooked or ignored. In turn, issues for higher voting groups are addressed more frequently, causing more bills to be passed to fix these problems.[3]

Forms

[edit]

Civic engagement can take many forms—from individual volunteerism, community engagement efforts, organizational involvement, and electoral participation. These engagements may include directly addressing a problem through personal work, community based, or work through the institutions of representative democracy.[4] Many individuals feel a sense of personal responsibility to actively engage in their community. "Youth civic engagement" has similar aims to develop the community environment and cultivate relationships, although youth civic engagement emphasizes on empowering youth. A study published by the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement at Tufts University categorized civic engagement into three categories: civic, electoral, and political voice.[5] Scholars of youth engagement online have called for a broader interpretation of civic engagement that focuses on the purpose behind current institutions and activities and includes emerging institutions and activities that achieve the same purposes.[6] A journal published by the Journal of Transformative Education suggests the gap in participation forms between different generations.[7] These civic engagement researchers suggest that the reduction of civic life into small sets of explicitly electoral behaviors may be insufficient to describe the full spectrum of public involvement in civic life.

Measures of civic engagement[5]
Civic Electoral Political voice
Community problem solving Regular voting Contacting officials
Regular volunteering for a non-electoral organization Persuading others to vote Contacting the print media
Active membership in a group or association Displaying buttons, signs, stickers Contacting the broadcast media
Participation in fund-raising run/walk/ride Campaign contributions Protesting
Other fund-raising for charity Volunteering for candidate or political organizations Email petitions
Run for Political office Registering voters Written petitions and canvassing
Symbolic Non-Participation Boycotting
An example of civic engagement, in the form of phone banking

Civic engagement reform arose at the beginning of the 21st century after Robert Putnam's book Bowling Alone brought to light changes in civic participation patterns. Putnam argued that despite rapid increases in higher education opportunities that may foster civic engagement, Americans were dropping out of political and organized community life. A number of studies suggested that while more youth are volunteering, fewer are voting or becoming politically engaged.[8]

Role of volunteerism in transforming governance

[edit]

The State of the World's Volunteerism Report 2015, the first global review of the power of volunteer voices to help improve the way people are governed, draws on evidence from countries as diverse as Brazil, Kenya, Lebanon and Bangladesh. The United Nations report shows how ordinary people are volunteering their time, energies and skills to improve the way they are governed and engaged at local, national and global levels. Better governance at every level is a pre-requisite for the success of the new set of targets for future international development, the Sustainable Development Goals, which has been agreed upon by the United Nations in September 2015.[9]

At the global level, for instance, a diverse group of 37 online volunteers from across the globe engaged in 4 months of intense collaboration with the United Nations Department of Economic Affairs (UN DESA) to process 386 research surveys carried out across 193 UN Member States for the 2014 UN E-Government Survey. The diversity of nationalities and languages of the online volunteers[10]—more than 65 languages, 15 nationalities, of which half are from developing countries—mirrors the mission of the survey.

Benefits and challenges

[edit]

Civic engagement, in general, can foster community participation and government involvement, according to ICMA: Leaders at the Core of Better Communities.

The specific benefits of civic engagement are:[11]

  • Achieving greater buy-in to decisions with fewer backlashes such as lawsuits, special elections, or a council recall.
  • Engendering trust between citizens and government, which improves public behavior at council meetings.
  • Attaining successful outcomes on complex issues, which helps elected officials avoid choosing between equally unappealing solutions.
  • Developing more creative ideas and better solutions.
  • Implementing ideas, programs, and policies faster and more easily.
  • Creating involved citizens than demanding customers.
  • Building a community within a city.
  • Making jobs easier and more relaxing.

While there are benefits to civic engagement, there are challenges to be considered. These challenges include the various factors the ICMA describes. For example, distrust, role clarification, and time all play a role in challenges of civic engagement:[12]

  • Civic engagement often takes longer to show results than direct government action. In the long run, public reactions to government policy or legal decisions can lead to faster change than government involvement in lawsuits or ballot initiatives.
  • For civic engagement to succeed, a layer of transparency and trust between the government and its citizens is needed.

Local civic engagement

[edit]

Within local communities, there are many opportunities for citizens to participate in civic engagement. Volunteering personal time to community projects is widely believed to support the growth of a community as a whole. Community engagement could be found at food pantries, community clean-up programs, and the like, bolstering efforts for a strong community bond.

Community collaboration

[edit]

Community collaboration includes democratic spaces where people are open to discussing concerns for particular issues regarding public interest and means to make the changes necessary. These spaces are often resource centers, such as neighborhood associations or school boards where citizens can obtain information regarding the community (upcoming changes, proposed solutions to existing problems, etc.). Colleges and universities are also offering more opportunities and expecting more students to engage in community volunteer work.[13]

According to a case study conducted in a U.S college in September 2014, there are pivotal leadership qualities that contribute to the development of civic engagement. The study mentions 3 main themes: active, adaptive, and resilient leadership, learning for leadership and engagement for the greater good as the main reasons for the success of The Democracy Commitment (TDC) in the college. TDC is a national initiative that intends to help U.S community colleges educate their students for democracy.[14]

Political participation is another key element that is practiced with regularity. Involvement in public council meeting sessions for discussions informs citizens of necessities and changes that need to be made. Casting an informed vote at the local level can change many things that affect day-to-day life.

Online engagement allows citizens to be involved in their local government that they would not have otherwise by allowing them to voice themselves from the comfort of their own homes. Online engagement involves things such as online voting and public discussion forums that give citizens the opportunity to voice their opinions on topics and offer solutions as well as find others with common interests and create the possibility of forming advocacy groups pertaining to particular interests. The use of the internet has allowed people to have access to information easily and has resulted in a better-informed public as well as creating a new sense of community for citizens.[15]

In the role of state government

[edit]

People who serve state governments learn what the community needs through listening to citizens and thus make nuanced decisions. According to Miriam Porter, "turmoil, suspicion, and reduction of public trust" occur with the lack of communication.[16] Civic engagement has an interrelated relationship within the various entities of the state.Values, knowledge, liberties, skills, ideas, attitudes, and beliefs the population holds are essential to civic engagement in terms of the representation of vast cultural, social, and economic identities.

Civic engagement applied within the state requires local civic engagement. Citizens are the basis of representative democracy. Application of this principle can be found within programs and laws that states have implemented based on a variety of areas concerning that particular state. Health, education, equality, immigration are a few examples of entities that civic engagement can shape within a state.

Application in health

[edit]

States implement public health programs to better benefit the needs of society. The State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), for example, is the largest public investment in child health care aiding over 12 million uninsured children in the United States. "This statewide health insurance program for low-income children was associated with improved access, utilization, and quality of care, suggesting that SCHIP has the potential to improve health care for low-income American children".[17] States take part in the program and sculpt it to better fit the needs of that state's demographics, making their healthcare and the civic engagement process of individuals that take part in the program as well help reform and fix it as part of the state's identity.

In comparison with other countries

[edit]

States practicing public involvement and implementing public health programs to better benefit the needs of the society is a concept that is shared by other countries, such as England. A study conducted by Department of Primary Care, University of Liverpool, the Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, the Department of Geography and Geology, McMaster Institute of Environment and Health, McMaster University, Avon Health Authority, the School of Journalism, Tom Hopkinson Centre for Media Research, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff University, and the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University stated that "There are a number of impulses towards public participation in health care decision making including instrumentalist, communitarian, educative and expressive impulses and the desire for increased accountability".[18]

Their research included a critical examination of the degree of involvement by the public in healthcare decision making. It is suggested that "public participation in decision making can promote goals, bind individuals or groups together, impart a sense of competence and responsibility and help express political or civic identity".[18] The action of the citizens aimed at influencing decisions of representatives ultimately affects the state as a whole. Voting is a key component in civic engagement for the voice of the masses to be heard.

Research done by Robert Putnam regarding the differences in social and civic engagement between northern and southern Italy since 1970 suggests that the presence of civic communities promotes political engagement by enhancing interest and education of political activities.[19] According to data from the Civic Culture surveys, "members of associations displayed more political sophistication, social trust, and political participation."[20] Sheri Berman's research done with the Weimar Republic in Germany following World War 1 suggests that civil engagement can be improved by increasing trust between people and political actors.[21]  

In foreign countries like Mozambique, Myanmar, Nigeria and Pakistan, where authoritarian governments are strictly in place and citizen engagement is most needed, political engagement is rare.[22] Additionally, "levels of mass participation are confirmed to be significantly lower in autocracies".[23] Many view common citizens engaging with politics as a "third force through which the traditional hierarchy of state and subject can be unseated."[24] However, foreign groups of non-politicians that participate in political engagement can also include potentially disruptive groups such as "the Russian Mafia."[25]

Importance of voter turnout

[edit]
"I Voted" sticker

The goal for state government in elections is to promote civic engagement. Director Regina Lawrence of Annette Strauss Institute for Civic Life states "Politics and all other forms of engagement are really about trying to make your community, your state, and your nation a better place to live."[26] Voter Turnout ensures civic engagement among the state with incentives that promises volunteer organizations, charity, and political involvement with everyone in the community who will have a voice to be heard.

The state can help promote civic engagement by ensuring fair voter and redistricting processes; by building partnerships among government agencies, non-profit organizations, and private citizens; and by maintaining networks of information about volunteer and charitable opportunities.[27]

One of the main factors that determine civic engagement among the people is voter turnout. Voter turnout gauges citizens' level of political involvement, an important component of civic engagement—and a prerequisite for maintaining public accountability.[27]

Example of high voter turnout

[edit]
  • The state can help promote civic engagement by ensuring fair voter and redistricting processes; by building partnerships among government agencies, non-profit organizations, and private citizens; and by maintaining networks of information about volunteer and charitable opportunities.[27]
  • Access to information about government activities, decision-making, solicit and use public input, and encourage public employees to donate and serve.[27]

Example of low voter turnout

[edit]
  • Low participation with politics in the state and local government can result in less community involvement such as a lack of funding and leadership directed toward that issue of community involvement.[28]

In marginalized communities

[edit]

Marginalized is defined as "to put or keep (someone) in a powerless or unimportant position within a society or group" according to Merriam-Webster.[29] In diverse communities it is perceived that awareness and participation according to a study, using three different types of community service for the interaction between diverse individuals and understanding each other's perspective and enhancing relationships within the community.[30] In addition, specifically black youth, there is an underlying gap of early civic education where there is lack of and where it thrives. According to Hope and Jagers, they studied civic engagement among black youth using data acquired from the Youth Culture Survey from the Black Youth Project. The assumption is that black youth who experience racial discrimination are fueled to be aware and participate in politics.[31]

Another study by Chan describes the effect of the association of development and environmental factors among a group of at-risk youth such as African-Americans and Latino participants who come from low-income families that dwell in inner-city neighborhoods. Their research resulted in variations according to their participants as the racial minority youth were motivated and had aspiring goals for their futures due to early participation in civic engagement activities, but there was no sufficient evidence that this type of mindset will follow them into their adulthood.[32] Looking into another oppressed group, Latinos, according to this report in the New York Times, states the number of Hispanics eligible to vote increased to an estimate of 10 million between 2000 and 2012, but there is a lack of taking an active approach toward dealing with the issues such as immigration and causing a stir within the Latino community. The Hispanic demographic is becoming a potential influence of power within political polls.[33] To expand on another group that is oppressed is immigrant parents and their children in Jensen's study their concentration is on Asia and Latin America. In its study. they sampled a small group from a metropolitan area, the difference between both generations varies as the children who were in high school which is 87.5% were stated to be civically engaged. The parents were not civically engaged in issues but developed "bicultural consciousness" such as sending money back to their original country of origin and these participants saw it as their duty in their current state of opportunity to be civically engaged.[34]

Technology

[edit]

Types

[edit]

Television use

[edit]

Social capital has been on the decline for years and Putnam looked into why this is. One of the areas the study covered was television and its effects on social and civic engagements. Shah writes that Putnam found the more TV a person watches, the less they are active in outside activities. This is shown with the rise of TV in the 1960s and the fall of civic engagements. They found that though news and educational programming can actually aide in a citizen's knowledge, but the lack of engaging in outside activities and social events hurts civic engagement in general.[35]

Nowadays, the internet has become the main social media outlet. Xenos and Moy found that the internet does help civic engagement but also give "unjustifiable euphoria, abrupt and equally unjustifiable skepticism, and gradual realization that web-based human interaction really does have unique and politically significant properties".[36] We have all the information we want about and candidate at our fingertips, and the wealth of information is creating a more informed body. But with this comes misinformation and the two collide and do the opposite, creating a public with clashing opinions.[37]

In relation to civic engagement and television use, there has been a push for civic engagement from television providers themselves. On September 22, 2020, WarnerMedia launched a nonpartisan voter engagement resource center, with the hopes of giving more citizens the access to vote and better understanding on how to do so.[38]

E-services

[edit]

The Knight Foundation outlines four different ways technology can assist in civic engagement. The four different ways include upgrading and providing e-services, making information more transparent, allowing e-democracy, and a service they call co-production.[39] E-services would allow digital technologies to improve the efficiency of urban services within a city. This would allow the services to become more effective as well as give the public a way to get involved. E-democracy and co-production would work by allowing citizens to shape public policy by allowing them to partake in actions through technology. The Knight Foundation claims technology can make information more transparent, allowing the public to access the information and get involved.

Social entrepreneurship

[edit]
Social media platforms as channels for citizen discussions and for governments to reach audiences

Social entrepreneurship has seen a major increase in activity in recent years. One example can be seen from Eric Gordon and Jessica Philippi, who released a study on their interactive online game for local engagement called Community PlanIt (CPI). The purpose of CPI is to improve civic engagement qualitatively, rather than focusing on increasing the number of citizens getting involved. The study concluded that CPI encourages reflective attitudes and mediates relationships of trust that are needed for functional and continued civic engagement.[40]

Social media

[edit]

There are handfuls of studies and journals that focus on the impact that social media has on civic engagement. In a study mentioned in a later section on civic engagement around the world, interviewees from Norway "generally use Facebook to invite people to some form of face-to-face meeting at the beginning of a community engagement - and to facilitate the ongoing engagement of participants".[12] Additional research demonstrates the capabilities of Facebook and other social networks in their enablement of civic participation. In Asia, a study was conducted focusing on the impact that the rise of Internet communication had on social capital. This study concluded that, while the Internet's role is to provide citizens with more opportunities to contact each other, it does not play a role in increasing different measures of social capital such as trust. Furthermore, the study concluded that "social capital developed through voluntary participation in social organization has the greatest effectiveness in promoting all sorts of civic engagement".[41]

Defining factors

[edit]

Efficiency and trust are observed to be the two main logics to effectively improve the effectiveness of the practical application of citizen technology in government projects. Communities can build consensus by reinforcing these two factors, reducing people's antipathy to public officials and social programs without removing legitimate skepticism, and reducing the distance that information barriers create when transmitting data.[42] The confidentiality and security of civic technologies are factors in determining whether online public conversations are supported and popularized by the public.[43]

Local technology has three levels of transformation and dynamic models, from information to participation and empowerment. Web portals, social media platforms, and mobile apps are effective models for reaching a wide range of audiences; Electronic monitoring and management, service efficiency improvement, and business training help ensure increased participation and smooth operation. Open and transparent feedback and data release are factors that encourage future engagement and data accuracy. Completion of this series of information transmission and summary promotes the improvement of the future civic participation model. Future government programs will be citizen-oriented, information-technology-themed, and measured by efficiency and clarity.[44] Besides, citizen audit provides grassroots organizers with a more durable and stable cooperative structure and strategic shift. It is a method to test the effectiveness of policies and get feedback from citizens, and it can effectively point out deficiencies in current policies and systems.[45]

Around the world

[edit]

Norway

[edit]

First, there is Norway with a study on "Local Newspapers, Facebook and Local Civic Engagement" by Malene Paulsen Lie. The study aimed to "[investigate] how a selection of the inhabitants of two Norwegian communities make use of the local press and Facebook..." and concluded that "both Facebook and the local press play important roles in civic engagement", illustrating the various mediums that citizens utilize. When looking at the demographics of each medium, this study also saw that the younger demographic strayed from local newspapers and preferred national or international news, while the older demographic prioritized the local newspaper.[46]

Poland

[edit]

In Poland, social media plays an important role in the level of civic engagement for mayoral elections. A study concluded that "successful engagement in social media accounts is also higher when the mayor operates in an active social media environment".[47]

Australia

[edit]

In Australia, a study was conducted, recognizing various forms of civic engagement such as "social protest and collective action, and specific organizations dedicated to lobbying and advocacy".[48] The study goes on to say that governments in Australia generally prefer to initiate processes of consultation of their own choosing rather than being perceived to be consulting only in response to pressure and social protest".[48]

South East Asia

[edit]

In South East Asia, a study was conducted focusing on civic engagement within mental health services, more specifically in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). In these countries, the study concluded that Civic Engagement interventions can be successfully implemented yet Western models should be adapted in order to better fit with local cultures and values. Furthermore, the communities in these LMICs that face armed conflict, natural disasters, or political suppression find community cohesion to be a common outcome of civic engagement initiatives. Focusing on the mental health impact, civic engagement allowed citizens to develop a better understanding of the problems and equip themselves with the necessary skills to meet the needs of their local mental health problems. The study refers to the 2004 Asian Tsunami crisis, where "trusted community volunteers played a key role in the delivery of much needed mental health services".[49]

China

[edit]

In China, participatory budgeting experiments, an example of civic empowerment including all members of society, promote a degree of transparency and fairness, as a vast majority of the budgeting takes place at local levels and smaller villages (He). In the next decade, China and the NPC plans to implement more participatory budgeting experiments and an increased amount of participation from citizens. However, the empowerment of local People's Congresses will remain constrained by the caution of the central leaders and resistance from local governments. In this same way, the government will remain controlling over citizen empowerment.[50]

Romania

[edit]

There are countries, like Romania, where the new technologies started to influence civic participation in the last years. New media is becoming a factor in increasing civic mobilization for the new generations. New studies about that, at Center for Civic Participation and Democracy from SNSPA.[51] Center for Civic Participation and Democracy (CPD) is a unit of research, analysis, and evaluation of citizen participation in the democratic process, both at the national and European level. Created at the National School of Political Science and Public Administration, CPD brings together experts in areas such as political science, sociology, administrative sciences, communications, international relations, and European studies, and it objectifies the SNSPA role and status of the school of governance. It is run by Remus Pricopie and Dan Sultanescu.[52]

Role of higher education

[edit]

It can be argued that a fundamental step in creating a functioning society begins with the civic education of children within the community. According to Diann Cameron Kelly, "When our young children serve their communities through volunteerism, political participation or through vocal activism, they are more likely to emerge...voting and serving all aspects of society".[53] Kelly argues that children should be taught how their community works and who chooses the rules we live by even before they enter school. Other voices maintain that civic education is a lifelong process, even for those who make decisions on behalf of the citizens they serve.

To answer this challenge, the incorporation of service-learning into collegiate course design has gained acceptance as a pedagogy that links curricular content with civic education. In a recent study, students who participated in service learning even one time appear to have made gains in knowledge of and commitment to civic engagement when compared to non-service learners.[54] Campus Compact, a coalition of nearly 1200 college presidents (as of 2013) promotes the development of citizenship skills by creating community partnerships and providing resources to train faculty to integrate civic and community-based learning into the curriculum.[55] Building on the acceptance of service learning and civic engagement in higher education, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement in Teaching created the Political Engagement Project in 2003 to develop the political knowledge and skills of college-aged students.[56] The American Democracy Project (ADP) was launched in the same year by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU).[57] The American Democracy Project was joined by the American Democracy Commitment,[58] a partnership of community colleges, to sponsor an annual national conference focused on higher education's role in preparing the next generation of informed, engaged citizens. The American Democracy Project also sponsors campus-based initiatives including voter registration, curriculum revision projects, and special days of action and reflection, such as the MLK Day of Service. In a report entitled, A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy's Future issued in 2012 by the National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, a joint project of the U.S. Department of Education and the American Association of Colleges and Universities, the authors argue that higher education must serve as an intellectual incubator and socially responsible partner in advancing civic learning and democratic engagement.

The report recommends four basic steps to build civic minded institutions:

  1. Foster a civic ethos across the campus culture.
  2. Make civic literacy a core expectation for all students.
  3. Practice civic inquiry across all fields of study.
  4. Advance civic action through transformative partnerships.[59]

These higher education-based initiatives endeavor to build in college students, a politically engaged identity while enhancing the capacity to evaluate the political landscape and make informed decisions about participation in our democracy.[60] As evidenced by the growth in coalitions, professional development opportunities and civic education research, institutions of higher education and their association partners are committed to help prepare the next generation of citizens to become tomorrow's "Stewards of Place".[57]

Many universities, like the University of Minnesota, have begun to focus on increasing the civic engagement of students and have mandated that educators begin incorporating it into several school activities. Edwin Fogelman, author of Civic Engagement at the University of Minnesota, states that true civic engagement can only be practiced by those living within a Democracy. According to Fogelman, civic engagement is largely shaped by schools. Education institutions have the skills to foster "civic competence, critical thinking, and Public Spirit, which empower citizens to become engaged". Many claim that civic engagement ought to become part of the curriculum and that higher education institutions should provide opportunities to become engaged such as internships, service-learning, and community based activities. Institutions also need to provide outlets where students can have open discussions over concerns and controversial issues.[61]

Some schools, such as Widener University, have made civic engagement a core goal of the university. The university strives to get students involved in the local community to become more aware and civically engaged. (Civic Engagement And Service Learning In A Metropolitan University: Multiple Approaches And Perspectives).[62]

Civic learning

[edit]

In January 2012, the U.S. Department of Education issued a road map titled Advancing Civic Learning and Engagement in Democracy that offers nine steps to enhancing the Department of Education's commitment to civic learning and engagement in democracy.

These steps include:

  1. Convene and catalyze schools and post-secondary institutions to increase and enhance high-quality civic learning and engagement
  2. Identify additional civic indicators
  3. Identify promising practices in civic learning and democratic engagement—and encourage further research to learn what works
  4. Leverage federal investments and public-private partnerships
  5. Encourage community-based work-study placements
  6. Encourage public service careers among college students and graduates
  7. Support civic learning for a well-rounded K–12 curriculum
  8. Engage historically black colleges and universities and other minority-serving institutions—including Hispanic-serving institutions, Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander–Serving Institutions, and tribal colleges and universities-in a national dialogue to identify best practices.
  9. Highlight and promote student and family participation in education programs and policies at the federal and local levels[63]

Civic learning, however, also has its challenges. From W. Lance Bennett's Young Citizens and New Media, the challenge of civic education and learning is the integration and adaptation to the more contemporary attitude toward politics, which revolves more around the quality of personal life, social recognition, and self esteem.[64]

Youth participation

[edit]

Youth participation has a critical impact on four aspects: democratic decision-making, community cohesion, equity, and personal development of youth themselves.[65] Domestic and transnational educational cooperation is conducive to sharing and promoting the transmission and popularization of information and may achieve the effect of promoting social advancement and improving the living conditions of citizens and the environment.[66] Public services and programs contribute to the mental development of rebellious and vulnerable youth groups and change government patterns in the future, as they mobilize the participation of the next generation of citizens. These educational programs aim to apply social science and psychology to stimulate the enthusiasm of the youth community to participate in government projects, thereby promoting the sustainable development of society.[67]

The design of such government projects remains neutral and open. It remains controversial whether the government has the right to guide teenagers to accept education of this nature. Experts suggest first identifying topics students value, followed by selecting a topic to discuss concrete actions and short-term goals that can be implemented and concluding with feedback and a summary. Teachers are encouraged to validate students' ideas and avoid bringing personal opinions and political stances into the classrooms.

The general attitude of college students towards online civic responsibility, engagement, learning, and expression is positive. The government may consider the option of strengthening the sense of autonomy of college students in performing their civic duties in reducing the inequalities that currently exist in the K-12 education system.[42] As part of the education system, college students may create accessible participation platforms for vulnerable groups and more through their educational resources or to speak for these groups through community visits and in-depth conversations.[68]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Civic engagement

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Civic engagement refers to the individual and collective actions by which citizens participate in public life to address community issues, influence governance, and shape societal norms, often through voluntary efforts that extend beyond personal gain. It manifests in various forms, including electoral participation such as voting, voluntarism like community service and charitable work, advocacy for policy changes, and involvement in civic organizations or discussions that promote collective problem-solving. Empirical studies demonstrate that higher levels of civic engagement correlate with strengthened social ties, increased awareness of societal challenges, and improved community outcomes, including enhanced public health and democratic stability, though participation rates vary by socioeconomic factors and have shown declines in traditional activities amid rising digital alternatives. While civic engagement underpins effective self-governance by enabling direct citizen input and accountability, disparities in access—often tied to financial security and education—highlight causal barriers to equitable participation, with data indicating financially stable individuals engage more frequently than others.

Definition and History

Conceptual Foundations

Civic engagement denotes the deliberate actions by individuals or groups to monitor, influence, or contribute to public and welfare, encompassing activities such as political , , and associational involvement. Scholarly accounts define it as voluntary efforts to identify and resolve public issues, distinct from mere private pursuits by virtue of their orientation toward collective benefit. This concept presupposes a framework of wherein individuals possess and reciprocal obligations to sustain the that enables personal . Philosophically, the foundations originate in ancient Greek thought, where Aristotle conceptualized citizenship as active participation in governance to realize human telos. In his Politics, Aristotle described the citizen as one who rules and is ruled in turn, arguing that such alternation fosters practical wisdom (phronesis) and prevents oligarchic or tyrannical distortions. This participatory ideal stems from the empirical observation of human sociability—man as a political animal—wherein isolation from communal deliberation undermines virtue and exposes individuals to vulnerability without collective defense. Aristotle's framework implies that civic disengagement correlates with polity decay, as evidenced by his analysis of historical regimes where apathetic elites or masses enabled factional strife. Building on classical precedents, 19th-century observers like Alexis de Tocqueville reframed civic engagement as a bulwark against democratic pathologies. In Democracy in America (1835–1840), Tocqueville documented how American townships and voluntary associations inculcated habits of cooperation, serving as counterweights to egalitarian individualism's tendency toward isolation. He posited that routine local involvement—such as jury service or mutual aid societies—trains citizens in self-restraint and foresight, empirically linking high associational density to resilient governance, as seen in early U.S. communities versus centralized European counterparts. Tocqueville's causal realism underscored that engagement generates social habits reinforcing liberty, whereas withdrawal invites administrative despotism. These foundations integrate into broader theories of , where engagement emerges from interdependent human needs for , , and , necessitating institutional maintenance through distributed agency. Empirical variances in participation rates across regimes affirm that robust civic cultures correlate with adaptive polities, though modern extensions must contend with scalability challenges in mass societies.

Historical Evolution from Antiquity to Modernity

In ancient , civic engagement manifested as beginning around 510 BCE under ' reforms, which reorganized the citizen body into demes and tribes to broaden participation among free adult males, excluding women, slaves, and foreigners. Male citizens, numbering roughly 30,000-60,000 out of a population of 300,000, engaged through the Ecclesia assembly, where up to 6,000 attended to vote on laws and war declarations, and via for the Boule council of 500. This system emphasized active involvement as a moral duty, with used to exile threats to the polity, reflecting a causal link between citizen vigilance and regime stability. The , established circa 509 BCE after expelling the monarchy, extended civic participation to male citizens through assemblies like the Centuriate and Tribal Assemblies for electing magistrates and approving laws, alongside the Senate's advisory role dominated by patricians. Citizenship rights included legal protections, property ownership, and obligations, initially limited to freeborn males but expanded via the in 90 BCE to Italian allies, granting voting and office-holding privileges to foster loyalty amid social wars. By 212 CE under the Edict of , citizenship was universalized to all free inhabitants of the empire, though practical engagement shifted toward imperial patronage as republican institutions waned, illustrating how expanded formal rights did not always sustain active involvement without institutional checks. During the Middle Ages, feudalism from the 9th to 15th centuries constrained broad civic engagement, prioritizing hierarchical oaths of fealty between lords and vassals over collective decision-making, with monarchs and nobility monopolizing governance. Urban guilds emerged as proto-civic bodies, particularly from the 11th century in Europe, regulating trades, providing mutual aid, training apprentices, and influencing local policies through chartered monopolies and dispute arbitration, as seen in the Hanseatic League's merchant networks. These associations, numbering thousands across cities like Florence and London, enforced quality standards and welfare funds, representing localized participation amid decentralized power, though exclusionary practices limited access to journeymen and marginalized groups. The Enlightenment (17th-18th centuries) revived civic ideals through theories, positing that legitimate authority derives from citizens' consent, as articulated by in (1689), which argued individuals surrender natural rights for protections, including participation in . Jean-Jacques Rousseau's (1762) emphasized direct , influencing revolutionary demands for citizen assemblies, while Montesquieu's in The Spirit of the Laws (1748) advocated balanced institutions to enable accountable engagement. These ideas causally underpinned transitions from absolutism, fostering as active consent rather than passive subjection. In modernity, from the onward, civic engagement expanded via reforms tied to industrialization and ; Britain's of 1832 and 1867 enfranchised middle-class males, increasing voters from 3% to 7% of adults, while the U.S. 15th Amendment (1870) prohibited racial voting barriers for males, though enforcement lagged until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. culminated in the 19th Amendment (1920) in the U.S., granting female citizens voting rights after campaigns documenting 56 referenda failures from 1867-1919, and globally in New Zealand's 1893 act for all adults. These extensions, affecting over half the population in democracies by mid-20th century, correlated with higher turnout and policy responsiveness, yet revealed tensions between formal inclusion and substantive participation amid urbanization.

Forms of Civic Engagement

Political Participation

Political participation encompasses citizen actions aimed at influencing decisions and policies, including electoral activities like voting and candidacy, as well as non-electoral efforts such as contacting representatives, protesting, and campaigning. These activities form a core component of civic engagement, enabling individuals to shape public outcomes through direct involvement in the political process. Voting stands as the most widespread form of political participation, with turnout rates serving as a key indicator of democratic vitality. , voter turnout among the voting-age population reached approximately 66.8% in the 2020 presidential election, marking a historic high but still ranking the country 31st out of 50 nations in recent national elections when measured against voting-age population. Globally, voter turnout varies significantly across countries, with averages hovering around 70% in recent parliamentary elections, though rates exceed 80% in nations like and due to factors including systems. Data from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) highlight that turnout is often calculated using voting-age population or registered voters, revealing disparities influenced by registration requirements and electoral incentives. Beyond voting, citizens engage through campaigning, such as volunteering for political parties or donating to candidates, and advocacy actions like signing petitions or attending rallies. Empirical studies indicate these non-electoral forms can complement or substitute for voting, particularly among younger demographics or in response to perceived inefficacy of ballots; for instance, protesting has surged in contexts of policy dissatisfaction, though participation rates remain lower than voting in stable democracies. Contacting elected officials via letters, calls, or digital platforms represents another accessible mode, with surveys showing it correlates with higher education levels and political efficacy. Running for office or joining political organizations further extends participation, though these demand greater resources and are less common, often concentrated among professionals and activists. Participation levels are shaped by institutional designs, such as systems that may boost compared to majoritarian ones, and socio-economic factors like and , which predict higher engagement across forms. While electoral participation dominates quantitative measures, qualitative data underscore the role of non-traditional avenues, including online , in broadening access amid declining conventional in some regions. Overall, robust political participation sustains , though points to persistent gaps by demographics, with minorities and exhibiting lower rates in many established democracies.

Volunteerism and Community Service

Volunteerism encompasses unpaid activities performed by individuals to address community needs, often through organized efforts or informal helping, distinct from political participation by focusing on direct service rather than influence. These efforts typically involve labor, skills, or resources contributed to non-profits, religious organizations, schools, or civic groups, fostering local problem-solving without financial compensation. In the United States, formal volunteerism—defined as organized service through groups—engaged 75.7 million adults in 2023, contributing approximately 5 billion hours valued at an estimated $184 billion based on an hourly rate of $34.79. The national rate stood at around 23% for formal , with leading at 27.2% participation, while dominated informal helping at 58.7%. Globally, formal volunteering rates averaged 6.5% in 2022, with informal rates at 14.3%, though participation varied widely by country, exceeding 40% in nations like and but remaining low in and . Common forms include environmental cleanups, food distribution at pantries, mentoring in educational programs, and support for vulnerable populations such as the elderly or homeless. Skills-based volunteering, where professionals apply expertise like or IT support, has grown as a subset, enhancing organizational capacity without requiring manual labor. These activities often occur through established entities like the Red Cross for or for housing projects, though spontaneous community responses, such as post-storm debris removal, exemplify ad-hoc service. Demographic patterns reveal higher engagement among educated individuals, with U.S. graduates volunteering at rates up to 38%, compared to lower participation in urban versus rural areas. Religious motivations drive a significant portion, with faith-based organizations for over one-third of U.S. volunteer hours, underscoring volunteerism's role in sustaining institutions amid varying economic pressures.

Civic Associations and Philanthropy

Civic associations encompass voluntary, non-governmental organizations formed by individuals to advance shared interests, ranging from community service groups and recreational clubs to professional networks and mutual aid societies. These entities, distinct from primarily political bodies, facilitate collective action outside state or market spheres, promoting self-reliance and local problem-solving. In the United States, Alexis de Tocqueville observed in 1835 that such associations proliferated due to egalitarian conditions, serving as a counterweight to democratic individualism by cultivating habits of cooperation and public spiritedness. As of 2023, the U.S. counted approximately 1.85 million nonprofit organizations, a significant portion of which function as civic associations under tax-exempt statuses like 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4), enabling tax-deductible contributions and operational autonomy. Empirical evidence links participation in civic associations to measurable social benefits, including heightened networks and interpersonal trust. A 2020 study found that active members reported stronger social ties compared to passive or non-participants, with effects amplified by regular involvement in group activities. Longitudinal data further show that prior predicts a 24.4% increased likelihood of joining organizations, underscoring associations' role in sustaining ongoing civic habits. For older adults, engagement correlates with reduced cognitive decline risk, as evidenced by cohort analyses of individuals over 60. These outcomes align with causal mechanisms where associations build reciprocal norms and skills in , essential for broader democratic stability, though benefits vary by association type and participant . Philanthropy intersects with civic associations by channeling private funds to sustain their initiatives, often funding programs in , , and local . In 2023, U.S. charitable giving totaled $557.16 billion, with individuals accounting for 67% ($374.4 billion), directed predominantly toward religious (23%), (14%), and educational (14%) causes—many delivered via civic nonprofits. This influx, influenced by economic factors like GDP growth and market performance, enables associations to scale efforts beyond member dues, as seen in foundations supporting community grants. While philanthropy amplifies civic reach, its efficacy depends on donor alignment with organizational missions, with data indicating sustained giving correlates with tangible community outcomes like improved local and social cohesion.

Empirical Benefits

Individual Outcomes

Civic engagement, encompassing activities such as , political participation, and community involvement, correlates with improved individual across multiple dimensions. Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies demonstrate associations with higher self-reported and , particularly among older adults. For instance, analysis of data from the European Social Survey involving 114,331 individuals aged 50 and older across 14 countries revealed that civic participants exhibited significantly higher odds of reporting good (odds ratio 1.09), , and , with variations by region such as stronger effects in Mediterranean countries. These findings hold after controlling for socioeconomic factors, though primarily correlational, suggesting bidirectional influences where engagement may foster purpose and social connections contributing to . Mental health outcomes show consistent positive links, especially for volunteerism and group membership. A systematic review of 53 studies on young adults (ages 18-25) found volunteerism associated with better psychological in 27 of 41 cases, including reduced depressive symptoms and enhanced resilience, while yielded mixed results with 26 positive associations but potential stress from high-intensity efforts. Longitudinal data from U.S. national samples further indicate that sustained civic involvement from into young adulthood predicts lower depression and improved health behaviors, mediated by factors like and social mattering. Voting, as a form of electoral engagement, correlates with positive in 11 of 17 studies reviewed, potentially through increased , though evidence is sparser than for . Limitations include reliance on samples and correlational designs, which may confound with self-selection by healthier individuals. Physical health benefits include reduced mortality , particularly from . A of 40 studies involving older adults (minimum age 55) reported that volunteers had a 24% lower mortality after adjusting for demographics, status, and other confounders, compared to non-volunteers, with unadjusted effects reaching 47%. This survival advantage persists in able-bodied populations and aligns with broader evidence linking civic activities to healthier behaviors and networks that buffer physical decline. Civic engagement also associates with higher and lower chronic factors, as seen in surveys tying participation to self-reported physical functioning. However, benefits may not extend uniformly, with null effects observed among those with disabilities or in short-term engagements. Overall, these outcomes underscore civic engagement's role in promoting and , though requires caution due to potential reverse .

Societal and Economic Impacts

Civic engagement fosters societal cohesion through enhanced , encompassing networks, norms of reciprocity, and trust that facilitate and problem-solving. Empirical analyses indicate that higher levels of civic participation correlate with elevated interpersonal trust and , as evidenced by studies linking and associational involvement to improved partnership building and in local communities. In regions with robust civic traditions, such as those measured by membership in voluntary organizations, societies exhibit lower rates of social fragmentation and greater efficacy in addressing public goods provision. On crime reduction, causal evidence from natural experiments demonstrates that interventions boosting social connectedness—often through civic activities like neighborhood associations—yield elastic reductions in rates, with estimates ranging from 10-20% decreases in violent offenses per standard deviation increase in connectedness. This effect stems from informal monitoring and norm enforcement enabled by engaged citizenry, particularly in disadvantaged areas where targeted community-building initiatives have lowered without relying solely on formal policing. Longitudinal data further support that sustained civic involvement mitigates victimization risks, as higher buffers against robbery and other property crimes. Economically, volunteering—a core form of civic engagement—generates substantial direct value equivalent to 1.9% of GDP across nations, reflecting unpaid labor in services like , , and as of 2024 estimates. In specific contexts, such contributions translate to $14 billion annually in (1.4% of GDP) and £39.6 billion in the UK (1.5% of gross value added), underscoring the sector's role in supplementing public expenditures. Indirectly, civic engagement enhances by promoting accountable and , enabling governments to curb during downturns through citizen-driven innovations and local efficiencies. Globally, volunteer outputs exceed $11 trillion in services, amplifying productivity via skill-building networks and entrepreneurial spillovers. These impacts arise causally from engagement's role in cultivating and institutional trust, though benefits accrue most where participation is widespread rather than concentrated among elites.

Challenges and Declines

Participation rates in traditional forms of civic engagement, such as voting, through formal organizations, and membership in civic associations, have generally declined in the and since the mid-20th century, with some fluctuations and partial recoveries in recent years. In the , for presidential elections, measured as a of the voting-eligible population, averaged around 58% from 1960 to 2000 but reached a modern high of 66% in 2020 amid heightened polarization; midterm elections, however, consistently lag, with rates below 50% in recent cycles like 2018 (50%) and 2022 (46%). European countries have seen similar erosion in since the 1950s, with averages dropping from over 70% in many nations during the era to around 50-60% in recent national elections, attributed in part to disillusionment with political institutions. Formal volunteering rates in the , which involve organized service through nonprofits or groups, peaked at approximately 28.8% of adults in 2005 but fell to a record low of 23.2% (affecting 60.7 million people) in 2020-2021 during the , reflecting disruptions in community activities. By 2023, rates rebounded to 28.3% (75.7 million volunteers), a 5.1 increase from , though still below pre-pandemic levels and indicative of a longer-term downward trajectory from the early . Informal helping behaviors, such as aiding neighbors, remain more resilient, with 51% of reporting such activities in 2020-2021, rising slightly to 54.2% by 2023. Membership in civic associations, including unions, fraternal organizations, and parent-teacher groups, has experienced a pronounced decline since the 1960s, with aggregate participation halving by the 1990s according to analyses of data; for instance, union membership dropped from 32% of the in 1953 to under 11% by 2022. This trend persists into the , with fewer Americans engaging in regular community or religious group activities, though some studies note stability or slight upticks in alternative forms like political commenting (median 17% globally in ). Among youth, conventional engagement has waned, but participation has increased in some cohorts, potentially offsetting broader declines.
Form of EngagementPeak/High PointRecent Low/TrendSource
Presidential Voter Turnout (VEP %)~63% (1960)51% (2000); 66% (2020 rebound)
US Formal Volunteering Rate (%)28.8% (2005)23.2% (2021); 28.3% (2023)
Civic Association MembershipHigh in 1950s-1960sHalved by 1990s; ongoing decline

Causal Factors Behind Declines

Empirical research attributes the decline in civic engagement primarily to structural shifts in work, family, and leisure patterns that erode time and incentives for communal participation. Robert Putnam's analysis documents a marked drop in U.S. associational life from the 1960s onward, with group memberships halving by the 1990s, driven by longer average work hours—rising from 40 to over 45 per week for many households—and the suburbanization of populations, which increased commuting times by up to 50% in metropolitan areas and fragmented local networks. These changes reduced opportunities for spontaneous interactions, as isolated residential patterns supplanted dense urban or rural communities conducive to mutual aid. Family structure transformations further constrain participation; the surge in female labor force entry, from 34% in 1950 to 57% by 1990, alongside declining birth rates and higher prevalence, has curtailed household availability for and club activities, with dual-earner families reporting 20-30% less free time for civic pursuits compared to single-income norms of prior decades. Economic pressures amplify this, as income inequality correlates with reduced : a 2024 study found that areas with higher Gini coefficients (measuring inequality) exhibit 10-15% lower participation rates, while recessions like 2008-2009 saw national drop by 5-7 percentage points, persisting into the amid and job . Media and technology consumption displaces interpersonal engagement; television's dominance in the postwar era absorbed 2-3 hours daily by the 1970s, correlating with a 25% decline in social connectedness metrics, while the and era has intensified isolation, with heavy users (over 3 hours daily) showing 15-20% lower rates of offline civic involvement, as virtual interactions fail to build the trust required for sustained associations. Generational turnover exacerbates trends, as post-1960s cohorts prioritize over norms, evidenced by youth rates falling from 36% in 2005 to under 25% by 2022, though service mandates in schools partially offset this in contexts. Declining institutional trust, rooted in perceived inefficacy and scandals, reinforces withdrawal; surveys indicate trust in plummeted from 73% in 1958 to 17% by 2024, deterring participation amid beliefs that individual efforts yield negligible impact, particularly in polarized environments where economic elites dominate civic spheres. Cross-national data from mirrors these patterns, with reports noting a pre-COVID dip of 2-4% annually, accelerated by lockdowns that halved formal engagement in countries like the and .

Influencing Factors

Social Capital and Family Structures

Social capital, defined as the networks of relationships, trust, and norms that enable , underpins civic engagement by facilitating participation in community activities, , and political processes. Stable family structures contribute to higher levels of , as intact families provide environments that instill civic values, allocate time for communal involvement, and extend networks through institutions like schools and religious groups. In contrast, disruptions such as or single-parent households correlate with reduced , limiting individuals' capacity and inclination for broader civic participation. Empirical data indicate that married adults exhibit higher rates of civic engagement than unmarried individuals. For instance, married persons are more likely to vote and volunteer compared to singles, with parenthood further amplifying participation through involvement in parent-teacher associations and youth organizations. A 2020 analysis found that married adults with children perform regular favors for neighbors and engage in community discussions at rates exceeding those of childless or unmarried adults, attributing this to the relational commitments fostered by family life. Similarly, family stability during predicts sustained political engagement into adulthood, as parental modeling of civic behaviors transmits norms of responsibility and trust. Historical trends underscore the linkage: Since the , rising rates, delayed marriages, and increasing single-parent households—from 12% of children in to 27% in 2010—have paralleled declines in metrics, including reduced membership in civic groups. Robert Putnam's analysis in identifies these family transformations as key contributors to eroded social connectedness, alongside economic pressures, resulting in lower turnout for and associational life. Recent surveys confirm persistent gaps, with college-educated mothers joining parent groups at higher rates than less stable counterparts, highlighting how family intactness buffers against civic disengagement amid class divides. Causally, stable families enhance by promoting intergenerational transmission of engagement habits and providing emotional resources for public involvement, whereas instability diverts attention to immediate survival needs, reducing outward-oriented participation. This pattern holds across contexts, though academic emphases on economic factors sometimes overshadow family dynamics; however, multivariate studies controlling for affirm the independent effect of on and voting.

Role of Education

Higher levels of formal consistently correlate with greater civic participation, including higher , volunteering rates, and membership in civic organizations. For instance, individuals with a degree are more likely to vote and engage in community activities compared to those with only a high school , with studies showing this pattern persisting across cohorts born in the late . However, establishing causality remains challenging, as the association may reflect selection effects—such as pre-existing traits like or cognitive ability that both facilitate and predispose individuals to civic involvement—rather than education directly instilling civic habits. In K-12 settings, civic education programs, including classroom instruction on government structures and discussion-based learning, have demonstrated modest positive effects on civic knowledge and intended behaviors, though impacts on actual participation rates are often limited or short-term. A review of social science research identifies four key school factors influencing civic outcomes: open classroom climates for discussion, extracurricular activities like student government, service learning, and embedding civic skills in the curriculum, with the strongest evidence for experiential components like debates and simulations. For example, action civics interventions, such as the Generation Citizen program, have increased students' civic self-efficacy and commitment in randomized trials, but these gains do not always translate to sustained adult engagement without reinforcement. Recent analyses highlight inequalities in access to high-quality civic learning, with lower participation in such programs correlating with reduced future involvement, particularly among disadvantaged youth. At the higher education level, community-based engagement initiatives, including courses, yield benefits in , , and civic skills, with meta-analyses confirming positive civic outcomes from structured diversity and experiential programs. Yet, the civic premium of a degree appears to have weakened for recent cohorts, potentially due to broader societal shifts or diminished emphasis on civic curricula amid rising enrollment. From 2020 to 2025, trends indicate stagnant or declining civic education mandates in many U.S. states, coinciding with youth disengagement metrics, such as lower among high schoolers despite isolated program successes. Critically, while peer-reviewed studies from academic institutions provide the bulk of evidence, potential biases in self-reported data and underrepresentation of null findings warrant caution; for example, some interventions show no effect on voting after controlling for . Overall, education's role appears facilitative rather than transformative, amplifying innate civic inclinations through knowledge and networks but insufficient alone to reverse broader declines in participation.

Technology and Media Effects

Digital technologies, including and the , have expanded opportunities for civic engagement by lowering barriers to information access and mobilization. Studies indicate that use correlates with increased online political participation, such as content and signing petitions, due to reduced time and space constraints. For instance, a 2023 review found evidence that platforms like and facilitate civic participation, including offline activities like volunteering, though effects vary by platform and user demographics. has also been linked to higher political participation in contexts like , where it boosted turnout and engagement by enabling information dissemination. However, empirical evidence reveals limitations in translating online activity to substantive offline engagement, often termed "slacktivism," where low-effort digital actions substitute for deeper involvement. A 2022 systematic review of causal studies worldwide showed that while digital media engagement boosts political knowledge, it does not consistently enhance voting or , suggesting superficial impacts. Research from 2024 highlights a positive link between and citizen-led participation but no similar effect for government-led initiatives, indicating selective . Negative effects include heightened polarization and , which undermine trust in democratic processes. Social media algorithms promote echo chambers, exacerbating affective polarization and reducing cross-partisan dialogue essential for civic cohesion. A 2022 analysis attributed declining public confidence in partly to proliferation on digital platforms, disrupting informed participation. Time displacement theory posits that excessive , akin to earlier television effects, crowds out face-to-face civic interactions, contributing to observed declines in associational membership. Recent data from 2020-2025 underscores these tensions: during the , online civic tools surged, yet post-2020 surveys reported stagnant or declining offline , with digital divides persisting among lower-income groups. Peer-reviewed syntheses emphasize that while ICTs enhance awareness, causal pathways to sustained participation require bridging online-offline gaps, often hindered by platform design prioritizing over .

Government Policies and Interventions

Governments have implemented various policies to boost civic engagement, particularly and broader participation, with mixed empirical results. laws in countries like and achieve turnout rates exceeding 90%, compared to voluntary systems where rates often fall below 70%. However, such mandates increase quantity over quality, as coerced voters exhibit lower political knowledge and may cast uninformed ballots, potentially diluting representative outcomes. Automatic voter registration (AVR), adopted by over 20 U.S. states by 2023, streamlines enrollment during government interactions, raising registration rates by 5-10% and boosting turnout, especially among by 3.2 percentage points. Evidence from implementations shows sustained effects without partisan skew, though impacts vary by demographic, with stronger gains in urban and minority-heavy areas. Civic education initiatives in schools demonstrate positive causal links to future engagement. A 2025 study of high schools found that structured civic learning—such as discussions of current events and service projects—increased students' voting intentions and involvement by 15-20%. Similarly, programs emphasizing open classroom dialogue correlate with higher adult participation rates, though access remains unequal, favoring affluent districts. National service programs like foster long-term civic habits. Longitudinal data indicate participants are 25-30% more likely to volunteer and engage politically post-service, with effects persisting years later due to skill-building and social networks formed. Yet, expansive welfare policies may inadvertently reduce by promoting dependency, as cross-national analyses show higher benefits correlating with lower voluntary participation in some contexts. Overall, facilitative electoral reforms and targeted education yield reliable gains, while coercive measures like compulsory voting provide turnout boosts at the cost of deeper engagement, underscoring the need for policies addressing root causes like apathy rather than mere compliance.

Variations Across Contexts

Local and Grassroots Levels

Local civic engagement encompasses activities such as volunteering for community services, participating in neighborhood associations, attending town hall meetings, and informal neighbor assistance, which directly influence immediate surroundings and foster interpersonal trust. In the United States, formal volunteering rates reached 23.3% in 2023, marking a 5.1 percentage point increase from 2021 but remaining 1.7 points below 2019 pre-pandemic levels, with much of this activity concentrated in local contexts like food banks and cleanup efforts. Informal local aid, such as helping neighbors with errands or caregiving, engaged 54.2% of Americans in recent surveys, up from 51.7% previously, highlighting grassroots resilience despite broader declines. Grassroots efforts at this level often involve bottom-up organizing, including petitions, block watches, and community-led initiatives addressing issues like public safety or , which can achieve tangible outcomes due to their proximity to decision-makers. Participation in local events or meetings occurs at least a few times yearly for 43% of college-educated adults, compared to lower rates among non-college-educated groups, indicating socioeconomic variations that correlate with resource availability rather than inherent motivation. Unlike national engagement, local forms benefit from direct causal links between actions and results, such as neighborhood associations influencing decisions, though effectiveness depends on sustained participation amid competing demands. Trends from 2020 to 2025 show post-pandemic recovery in local volunteering, with flexible and virtual options emerging, yet persistent class divides limit broader access, as less-educated individuals report higher disconnection from structures. involvement includes 20% in local advocacy and 18% in demonstrations tied to issues, though socioeconomic barriers hinder scaling these efforts. Overall, local engagement sustains higher personal stakes and formation than national levels, where turnout peaked at 63% in 2020 elections but wanes in off-years, underscoring as a foundational layer for civic .

National and Electoral Engagement

National and electoral engagement refers to citizens' involvement in processes that determine at the country level, primarily through voting in presidential or parliamentary , but also including campaign , political donations, and affiliation. Unlike local participation, which often focuses on community-specific issues, national engagement addresses broader policy domains such as , economic regulation, and constitutional matters, drawing larger-scale mobilization due to heightened media scrutiny and perceived stakes. Empirical indicate that in national typically exceeds that in local contests, as national races benefit from extensive and partisan incentives, though absolute participation rates vary widely by institutional design. In established democracies, voter turnout in national elections has shown mixed trends from 2020 to 2025, with some spikes driven by polarization but an overall stagnation or decline signaling underlying apathy. For instance, the United States recorded 65.3% turnout of the voting-age population in the 2024 presidential election, down marginally from 66.6% in 2020, per U.S. Census Bureau figures, reflecting sustained but not exceptional engagement amid intense contestation. Globally, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) reports average parliamentary election turnout around 65-70% in recent years, with a noted 10 percentage point drop in credibility-perceived elections, linking lower participation to mistrust in outcomes. Institutional factors profoundly influence national electoral engagement, as evidenced by compulsory voting systems yielding consistently high rates. , enforcing fines for non-participation, achieved over 90% turnout in its 2022 federal election, contrasting voluntary regimes where turnout lags, such as the U.S. ranking 31st out of 50 peer countries in voting-age participation per analysis of recent cycles. Beyond voting, non-electoral national activities like petitioning legislatures or contacting representatives show decline; U.S. data from 2020-2024 indicate fewer citizens engaging in these amid rising institutional distrust, though campaign volunteering surged in polarized contests. Demographic patterns reveal inequities in national engagement, with higher turnout among older, financially secure, and educated voters, while and lower-income groups participate less, exacerbating representational gaps. IDEA's Database highlights that in 20% of recent national elections, post-vote disputes correlate with lower future turnout, underscoring causal links between perceived legitimacy and sustained participation. Interventions like automatic registration have modestly boosted U.S. rates, yet points to deeper drivers such as alienation over procedural barriers.

Engagement in Marginalized Communities

Civic engagement in marginalized communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, low-income groups, and immigrants, exhibits distinct patterns characterized by lower participation rates in formal institutions compared to the broader population, though sporadic spikes occur in issue-specific . In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, reached 62.6% among Black voting-eligible citizens, 53.7% among Hispanics, and 59.8% among Asians, versus 70.9% for , reflecting persistent racial disparities even amid record overall participation of 66.1%. These gaps narrowed slightly from prior cycles but widened in midterm elections; for example, nonwhite turnout trailed white turnout by 10-15 percentage points in 2018 and 2022, driven partly by socioeconomic barriers rather than solely legal restrictions. Non-electoral engagement, such as or joining civic associations, follows suit: only 20-25% of low-income adults report regular involvement, compared to 40% in higher-income brackets, with minorities overrepresented in the former due to competing demands like multiple jobs and childcare. Empirical studies attribute these lower rates to a confluence of structural and cultural factors, including deficits in —defined as networks of trust, norms of reciprocity, and associational ties—which are measurably weaker in high-poverty, minority-concentrated neighborhoods. For instance, research on urban and communities shows reduced participation in parent-teacher associations or neighborhood watches, linked to family instability: single-parent households, prevalent in 50-60% of families versus 20% of white families, correlate with diminished intergenerational transmission of civic habits, independent of income controls. levels exacerbate this; high school dropouts, disproportionately from marginalized groups, engage at rates 30-40% below college graduates, as formal schooling fosters skills in and . Barriers extend beyond economics to institutional distrust, where historical grievances amplify perceptions of inefficacy: surveys indicate 60-70% of respondents view as unresponsive, reducing incentives for conventional participation like petitioning or . However, this does not uniformly suppress all activity; minorities often exhibit higher in protest forms during perceived threats, such as 2020's demonstrations, where 18-20% of from affected communities participated, outpacing routine volunteering. For immigrants and ethnic enclaves, language isolation and fear of further deter formal involvement, with rates influencing turnout—only 50% of non-citizen Hispanics engage civically pre-. Academic analyses, while citing , frequently underemphasize proximal causes like disruption when controlling for confounders, as multivariate models reveal explains 60-80% of racial gaps in civic acts. Interventions targeting these communities yield mixed results, with organizing showing modest gains in localized turnout—e.g., in minority precincts boosted 2020 participation by 5-10% in targeted areas—but scalability falters without addressing underlying erosion. Recent data from 2020-2025 underscore that while digital tools enable micro-activism (e.g., online petitions), they substitute less for in-person ties, perpetuating divides: only 15-20% of low-SES minorities report sustained online civic roles, versus 35% in affluent groups. Overall, remains constrained by causal realities of fragmented communities, where fixes like expanded voting access overlook deeper requisites for sustained participation.

International Comparisons

Civic engagement levels differ substantially across , influenced by institutional design, cultural norms, and socioeconomic conditions. Developed democracies generally exhibit higher participation rates than developing nations, as evidenced by surveys measuring , political involvement, and activities. For instance, a Gallup analysis of 130 found adults in high-income nations were over twice as likely to report civic activities like voting or compared to those in low-income countries, a pattern persisting in more recent data despite regional variations. Voter turnout serves as a core indicator of electoral engagement, with compulsory voting systems yielding higher figures than voluntary ones. recorded 89.74% turnout in its 2022 federal election, while achieved 84.21% in 2022 parliamentary voting; in contrast, Japan's 2024 lower house election saw only 53.84%, and Nigeria's 2019 presidential election 32.14%. The reported 70.75% in the 2020 presidential contest, exceeding Canada's 62.25% in 2021 but trailing European peers like at 76.58% in 2021. These disparities reflect not only legal mandates but also trust in institutions, with benefiting from strong social cohesion. Volunteering rates highlight philanthropic dimensions, often decoupled from electoral metrics. The Charities Aid Foundation's 2024, based on surveys from 142 countries, ranks first with 65% of adults time, followed by and ; the places sixth overall, with higher than many European nations but lower monetary giving in some cases. Developing countries like and score highly in informal helping behaviors, potentially driven by necessities rather than formalized civic structures.
MetricHigh-Performing Countries (Recent Data)Low-Performing Countries (Recent Data)
Voter Turnout (89.74%, 2022), (84.21%, 2022) (32.14%, 2019), (53.84%, 2024)
Volunteering Rate (65%, 2024), (high, 2024)Varies; lower formalized rates in parts of vs. high informal in
Nordic nations consistently lead in broader civic participation, including membership in organizations and petitions, per cross-national studies, attributing this to egalitarian welfare systems fostering trust. In contrast, developing regions face barriers like weak institutions and economic pressures, yielding sporadic elite-challenging actions (e.g., protests) over sustained engagement. shows heterogeneity, with high in contrasting Japan's low turnout, while Latin America's (79.2% turnout, 2022) outperforms expectations amid inequality. These patterns underscore that engagement thrives where causal factors like outweigh disincentives such as distrust or coercion.

Measurement and Evidence

Key Metrics and Indices

Civic engagement is quantified through metrics such as , rates, and participation in civic organizations, which capture electoral, communal, and associational activities. , often measured as the percentage of the voting-eligible population that casts ballots in national elections, serves as a primary indicator of electoral participation; globally, rates vary widely, with the ranking 31st out of 50 countries in recent elections based on voting-age population turnout. rates, tracked via surveys like the U.S. Census Bureau's Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement, reflect informal and formal contributions; in 2023, the U.S. national formal rate reached 28%, rebounding 5.1 percentage points from 2021 but remaining 1.7 points below pre-2020 levels. Membership in civic groups or associations, including unions and nonprofits, gauges sustained involvement; data from 2017–2023 indicate that 25% of Americans participated in such groups in 2023, with state-level variations tied to demographic factors. Composite indices aggregate these metrics for cross-national or longitudinal comparisons. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) Global State of Democracy Indices include a Civic Engagement sub-index, assessing involvement in political associations, trade unions, and efforts; in its 2025 report, it highlights declines in many due to polarization. CIVICUS Monitor evaluates civic space through five dimensions—enabling environment, expression, assembly, information, and resources—classifying countries as "open," "narrowed," or "closed" based on ; its 2024 global findings report only 3.5% of the world's population in "open" civic spaces. The Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Civil Society Participation Index measures active involvement in organizations influencing , scoring countries from 0 to 1; the 2023 global average was 0.641, with at 0.985 and at the low end.
IndexDescriptionKey FocusSource
IDEA Civic Engagement IndexAggregates data on associational membership, union participation, and involvement for democratic health assessment.Political and non-political mobilizationInternational IDEA (2025)
CIVICUS MonitorTracks civic space restrictions and freedoms via expert assessments and media monitoring.Enabling environment for assembly and expressionCIVICUS (2024)
V-Dem Civil Society Participation IndexExpert-coded measure of citizen activity in diverse policy-influencing organizations.Organizational depthV-Dem Project (2023)
These metrics and indices, often derived from surveys like the or national censuses, face challenges in comparability due to self-reporting biases and varying definitions of , though official sources like OECD's at a Glance provide standardized indicators across member states.

Recent Studies and Data (2020-2025)

In the United States, voter turnout in the 2020 presidential election achieved 66.8% among citizens aged 18 and older, the highest rate in the 21st century. Turnout slightly declined to 65.3% in the 2024 presidential election, reflecting sustained high participation amid partisan mobilization efforts. Despite these increases from prior decades, U.S. turnout continues to lag behind many peer democracies when measured against the voting-age population. Volunteering rates in the U.S. rebounded post-COVID-19, with 28.3% of the aged 16 and older formally through organizations between 2022 and 2023, approaching pre- levels of around 30%. This recovery followed a sharp decline during the pandemic, attributed to restrictions on in-person activities, though emerged as a new modality tracked for the first time in recent surveys. Civic engagement metrics, including informal helping and involvement, showed stability from 2022 to 2024 across most age groups, except for a decrease among from 56% to lower levels. Youth civic engagement studies from 2020-2025 highlight persistent activity despite barriers. A 2025 CIRCLE analysis found that 20% of engaged in issue and 18% participated in demonstrations, driven by social issues like LGBTQ+ rights and , though financially struggling faced lower participation rates (19% in local groups vs. 30% for stable peers). disruptions reduced in-person opportunities but did not eliminate action; scoping reviews indicate young people sustained involvement, with civically active reporting higher amid lockdowns. Internationally, the 2024 elections saw turnout rise to approximately 51%, the highest in 30 years, signaling renewed interest possibly linked to geopolitical concerns, though under 25 participated at only 36%.
ElectionTurnout (%)Source
U.S. 2020 Presidential66.8U.S. Census Bureau
U.S. 2024 Presidential65.3U.S. Census Bureau
EU 2024 Parliament~51

Controversies and Critiques

Astroturfing and Fake Grassroots Movements

Astroturfing refers to orchestrated campaigns that simulate spontaneous grassroots support for political, corporate, or ideological objectives, often involving paid actors, front organizations, or automated online activity to manufacture the appearance of widespread public endorsement. The term derives from "Astroturf," a brand of artificial grass, contrasting with authentic "grassroots" movements arising organically from civil society. Historically, astroturfing emerged in the mid-20th century alongside evolving state-civil society dynamics, with early documented cases in the 1970s when the tobacco industry funded ostensibly independent citizen groups to oppose smoking regulations, mobilizing thousands of letters to legislators under the guise of public outcry. In contemporary civic engagement, astroturfing frequently leverages digital tools, including social media bots, coordinated posting shifts, and fake testimonials, to amplify messages across platforms. A 2022 study analyzing Twitter activity identified consistent coordination patterns—such as synchronized posting volumes and lexical similarities—in astroturfing operations spanning 14 platforms and diverse political contexts, including pro- and anti-vaccine campaigns during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, in the lead-up to Australia's 2025 federal election, researchers documented a surge in astroturfing via online political ads, where sponsors masked affiliations to mimic grassroots groups advocating for or against policy changes, often blending with disinformation to influence voter perceptions. Such tactics extend to U.S. politics, where corporate-backed entities have simulated citizen opposition to environmental regulations, as seen in energy sector efforts against carbon pricing initiatives in the early 2020s. Empirical research demonstrates that exposure to astroturfing erodes public trust in advocacy and diminishes authentic civic participation. Experimental studies conducted in 2017 and replicated in subsequent analyses found that when participants learned of astroturf tactics—such as paid mobilization by lobbyists—perceptions of organizational authenticity dropped by up to 25%, fostering broader cynicism toward all grassroots claims and reducing willingness to engage in collective action. A 2022 field experiment further showed that astroturf revelations led to generalized distrust in advocacy groups, with participants 15-20% less likely to support policies from any perceived movement, irrespective of ideology, thereby chilling genuine civic mobilization. This effect persists online, where algorithmic amplification of coordinated fake engagement can drown out organic discourse, as evidenced by reduced participation rates in forums following detected bot swarms during 2020 U.S. election-related debates. While astroturfing occurs across ideological spectra, its detection remains challenging without transparency mandates, complicating efforts to safeguard unmanipulated public involvement.

Elite Capture and Co-optation

Elite capture occurs when influential actors, such as local powerholders or economic elites, dominate civic engagement mechanisms designed for broad participation, redirecting resources or outcomes to serve narrow interests rather than public welfare. In participatory initiatives, this manifests as elites exerting control over , often by leveraging pre-existing social networks or to marginalize less privileged voices. Empirical studies from developing contexts highlight how such capture undermines community-driven projects, with elites shaping rules to limit wider involvement and prioritize their preferences. Co-optation complements capture by enabling elites to absorb movements, transforming their momentum into tools that reinforce existing hierarchies. analyses describe this as elites selectively incorporating movement demands or leaders into institutional frameworks, thereby diluting transformative potential while maintaining surface-level legitimacy. For example, in response to social protests, elites may offer concessions or alliances that strip movements of independent agency, as observed in cases where initial elite dominance in participatory initiatives is later challenged through organized resistance by non-elites. Historical instances illustrate these dynamics in civic contexts. During the 2011 protests, which began as decentralized critiques of financial inequality, commentators warned of co-optation risks, noting historical patterns where campaigns are redirected by elite interests through funding or policy integration to preserve systemic advantages. Similarly, the movement, emerging from community responses to police violence in 2013, faced elite co-optation via substantial corporate ; by 2020, foundations linked to major corporations had donated millions, prompting concerns that such funding could align movement priorities with donor agendas rather than demands for structural change. In programs, intended to foster civic input on public spending, has been documented through field experiments showing skewed toward elite-favored projects. A 2007-2008 study in Indonesian villages found that influence led to 20-30% fewer targeted welfare benefits reaching intended poor households, as local leaders manipulated selection processes. Resistance strategies, such as building cross-class coalitions or transparent monitoring, have shown partial success in mitigating capture over time, though entrenched power asymmetries often persist. These processes erode trust in civic institutions, as captured engagement yields outcomes misaligned with participants' expectations, potentially discouraging future involvement. While academic sources emphasize reforms like mechanisms to counter capture, critiques note that such solutions may overlook deeper causal factors, including unequal access to and influence, which favor regardless of formal rules. Sources from development-focused institutions, while rigorous in data, sometimes underplay agency due to institutional incentives favoring incremental rather than disruptive reforms.

Downsides of Mandated or Top-Down Engagement

Mandated civic engagement, such as or required , often results in superficial participation rather than genuine commitment, as individuals comply minimally to avoid penalties rather than out of intrinsic motivation. Empirical analyses of systems, like Australia's since 1924, reveal elevated invalid or "donkey" votes—ballots cast randomly or left blank—which reached 5.5% in the 2016 federal election and up to 11% in some state contests, distorting electoral outcomes without reflecting informed preferences. Similarly, research indicates that coerced participation dilutes the quality of democratic expression, as less interested voters contribute noise rather than signal, potentially shifting results toward the but at the cost of representing extreme or minority views less accurately. Required community service programs, prevalent in U.S. high schools affecting over 20% of districts by 2010, frequently breed resentment and skepticism toward voluntarism, undermining the intended cultivation of civic habits. Participants often view such mandates as coercive impositions that shame rather than inspire, leading to short-term compliance without sustained engagement; for instance, working students or those with family obligations face added burdens, reducing overall program efficacy and fostering alienation from civic ideals. Although some studies report neutral or slightly positive post-participation attitudes, the coercive framing risks reactance—psychological resistance to perceived threats to autonomy—resulting in lower future voluntary involvement compared to organic initiatives. Top-down civic programs, driven by government or institutional directives, exhibit high failure rates due to lacking , which hampers and authentic buy-in. Evaluations of such efforts highlight dependency creation and low long-term impact, as participants engage transactionally to meet quotas rather than addressing root needs, often yielding inefficient ; for example, projects imposed from above generate tensions and superficial outcomes, contrasting with bottom-up approaches that garner greater acceptance and persistence. in these contexts amplifies , habituating individuals to compliance while eroding voluntary norms, as evidenced by broader patterns where forced participation correlates with diminished intrinsic motivation and heightened over time.

References

  1. https://www.unomaha.edu/international-studies-and-programs/_files/docs/adler-goggin-civic-engagement.pdf
  2. https://www.elon.edu/u/civic-engagement/definitions/
  3. https://www.apa.org/education-career/undergrad/civic-engagement
  4. https://civicengagement.illinoisstate.edu/faculty-staff/engagement-types/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9298745/
  6. https://www.aamchealthjustice.org/news/polling/civic-engagement
  7. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/youth-are-taking-civic-action-need-opportunities-and-support-overcome-socioeconomic
  8. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/civic-engagement-higher-among-americans-who-are-financially-secure
  9. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17448689.2025.2508191
  10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304520375_The_Philosophical_Foundations_of_Civic_Education
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369844981_Civil_Society_Theory_Aristotle
  12. https://philarchive.org/archive/PRIADTv1
  13. https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/foundations-of-civic-engagement-9780761881568/
  14. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/humaff-2017-0022/html?lang=en
  15. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Political_Science_and_Civics/Building_Democracy_for_All%253A_Interactive_Explorations_of_Government_and_Civic_Life_%28Maloy_and_Trust%29/01%253A_The_Philosophical_Foundations_of_the_United_States_Political_System/1.01%253A_The_Government_of_Ancient_Athens
  16. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/democracy-ancient-greece/
  17. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/03/learning-about-democracy-in-ancient-greece
  18. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/859/roman-citizenship/
  19. https://www.ushistory.org/civ/6a.asp
  20. https://historyguild.org/medieval-life/
  21. https://www.worldhistory.org/Medieval_Guilds/
  22. https://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/articles/se_77021364.pdf
  23. https://iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
  24. https://www.history.com/articles/voting-rights-timeline
  25. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/19th-amendment-explained
  26. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/woman-suffrage
  27. https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-political-participation-definition-forms-examples.html
  28. https://www.thepolicycircle.org/briefs/civic-engagement/
  29. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/01/turnout-in-u-s-has-soared-in-recent-elections-but-by-some-measures-still-trails-that-of-many-other-countries/
  30. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/society-at-a-glance-2024_918d8db3-en/full-report/voting_4cc36656.html
  31. https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout-database
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/political-participation
  33. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/06/political-efficacy-and-participation_af53e904/4548cad8-en.pdf
  34. https://oru.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:517176/FULLTEXT01
  35. https://www.fairvote.ca/factcheckvoterturnout/
  36. https://www.undp.org/blog/beyond-ballot-case-rigorous-statistics-political-participation
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9177044/
  38. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2024/11/civic-engagement-and-volunteerism.html
  39. https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-volunteer-the-most/
  40. https://independentsector.org/research/value-of-volunteer-time/
  41. https://activategood.org/volunteering-statistics-2025/
  42. https://360matchpro.com/volunteering-statistics/
  43. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-05459-2
  44. https://www.galaxydigital.com/blog/what-is-civic-engagement
  45. https://blog.catchafire.org/civic-engagement-and-skills-based-volunteering
  46. https://ntccorporate.com/blog/different-types-of-volunteering/
  47. https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/volunteer-statistics
  48. https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/805328.html
  49. https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/articles/alexis-de-tocqueville-and-the-art-of-association
  50. https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/resource/growth-of-the-nonprofit-sector-more-charities-better-solutions/
  51. https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-nonprofits-are-there-in-the-us/
  52. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11266-020-00274-x
  53. https://dogood.umd.edu/news/new-research-reveals-linkages-between-volunteerism-social-connections-0
  54. https://odphp.health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health/literature-summaries/civic-participation
  55. https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817939628_59.pdf
  56. https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-u-s-charitable-giving-totaled-557-16-billion-in-2023/
  57. https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/
  58. https://www.impact.upenn.edu/democracy/civic-engagement/
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9186013/
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11068018/
  61. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2017.1326825
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23421326/
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5971845/
  64. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3163.html
  65. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504622.2022.2135688
  66. https://ncoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2013EconomyCHI.pdf
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8460118/
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268121004078
  69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1756061612000432
  70. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/12/unleashing-the-potential-of-volunteering-for-local-development_719f94b6/deab71bd-en.pdf
  71. https://volunteer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/discussion-paper-attaching-economic-value-volunteer-contribution.pdf
  72. https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/voluntary-sectors-economic-contribution-almost-twice-its-official-value-research-finds/policy-and-politics/article/1926758
  73. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/02/6-ways-volunteering-can-make-you-a-better-entrepreneur/
  74. https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/21/1/665/6482042
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3158614/
  76. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/745820/IPOL_STU%282023%29745820_EN.pdf
  77. https://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present
  78. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter-turnout-2018-2022/
  79. https://dogood.umd.edu/news/fewer-americans-are-volunteering-and-giving-any-time-last-two-decades
  80. https://www.americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/volunteering-civic-life-america-research-summary.pdf
  81. https://www.nonprofitpro.com/article/more-than-75-7m-people-volunteered-in-america-americorps-reports/
  82. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/01/volunteering-and-civic-life-in-america.html
  83. https://www.beyondintractability.org/bksum/putnam-bowling
  84. https://wiki.communitydata.science/Communication_and_Social_Networks_%28Spring_2024%29/Putnam_summary
  85. https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/disconnected-places-and-spaces/
  86. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2018/10/17/international-political-engagement/
  87. http://bowlingalone.com/
  88. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/16643
  89. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08997640241264264
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7343248/
  91. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/americas-civic-condition-a-glance-at-the-evidence/
  92. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/americas-crisis-of-civic-virtue/
  93. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04996-4
  94. https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-marriage-and-parenthood-shape-our-community-interactions
  95. https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2906&context=gradschool_dissertations
  96. https://circle.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/2019-12/FS_MaritalStatusandCivicEngagement_2007.pdf
  97. https://ifstudies.org/blog/and-a-child-shall-lead-them-to-the-polls-family-formation-and-voting
  98. https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/101/1/227/6369004
  99. https://www.cftompkins.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Putnam-article.pdf
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5451158/
  101. https://www.openpsychologyjournal.com/VOLUME/16/ELOCATOR/e187435012302170/FULLTEXT/
  102. https://cosm.aei.org/the-societal-cost-of-the-marriage-decline/
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3249762/
  104. https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/assessing-the-civic-campus/
  105. https://civxnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/What-Social-Scientists-Have-Learned-About-Civic-Education-1.pdf
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5654523/
  107. https://iop.harvard.edu/press-releases/groundbreaking-report-released-educating-americas-youth-civic-political
  108. https://www.aacu.org/research/the-effects-of-community-based-engagement-in-higher-education
  109. https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/promoting-participation-diverse-democracy-college-diversity-civic-engagement/
  110. https://compact.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/Effects-of-Community-based-and-Civic-Engagement.pdf
  111. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/02/civic-education-as-a-pathway-to-inclusive-societies_6d52238a/3f128be8-en.pdf
  112. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-need-for-civic-education-in-21st-century-schools/
  113. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/2019-02/6621developing_citizens_aerj_final.pdf
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11392036/
  115. https://www.e-jps.org/archive/view_article?pid=jps-40-1-65
  116. https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/strategies-and-solutions/what-works-for-health/strategies/social-media-for-civic-participation
  117. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19029/revisions/w19029.rev0.pdf
  118. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01460-1
  119. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08944393241277555
  120. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/misinformation-is-eroding-the-publics-confidence-in-democracy/
  121. https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/view/4779/4779.html
  122. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/2/40
  123. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X24000467
  124. https://effectivegov.uchicago.edu/primers/compulsory-voting
  125. https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/compulsory_voting.pdf
  126. https://irpp.org/research-studies/policy-matters-vol8-no3/
  127. https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/automatic-voter-registration
  128. https://youngamericans.berkeley.edu/2024/09/easy-as-clicking-yes-how-automatic-voter-registration-is-powering-up-youth-votes/
  129. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7449689/
  130. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/race-and-rurality-shape-impact-facilitative-election-laws
  131. https://www.civicsurvey.org/publications/developing-citizens
  132. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/does-civics-education-make-more-engaged-citizens/
  133. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122996119
  134. https://www.americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/2023%2520SOE%2520Report_090123_final_508_0.pdf
  135. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2771575/
  136. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247530297_Bringing_Government_Back_into_Civic_Engagement_Considering_the_Role_of_Public_Policy
  137. https://info.legistorm.com/blog/grassroots-activities-examples
  138. https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/ncr-article/civic-engagement-in-local-planning-and-problem-solving-three-examples/
  139. https://www.urbanaffairsreview.com/uar-archive/social-ties-community-events
  140. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2016/11/03/civic-engagement-strongly-tied-to-local-news-habits/
  141. https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/ncr-article/increasing-voter-turnout-in-local-elections/
  142. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/2024-presidential-election-voting-registration-tables.html
  143. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voter-turnout-2020-2024/
  144. https://www.idea.int/news/credibility-elections-under-threat-worldwide
  145. https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/voter-turnout-trends-around-world
  146. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/voter-turnout-by-country
  147. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/12/14/key-findings-about-voter-engagement-in-the-2020-election/
  148. https://bringbackdata.com/alarming-decline-voter-turnout-trends-in-2025/
  149. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/growing-racial-disparities-voter-turnout-2008-2022
  150. https://www.communitycommons.org/entities/4b187a85-fe90-4a21-8277-20dec0c4866a
  151. https://sociology.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/165/2016/12/Youth-Society-2016-Gaby.pdf
  152. https://www.civic-commons.org/scorecard/democracy
  153. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/black-youth-are-invested-their-communities-encounter-barriers-voting
  154. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12134-024-01154-9
  155. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4192036/
  156. https://www.aamchealthjustice.org/news/polling/get-out-vote
  157. https://news.gallup.com/poll/145589/civic-engagement-highest-developed-countries.aspx
  158. https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/inside-giving/wgi/wgi_2024_report.pdf
  159. https://www.cafonline.org/home/about-us/press-office/record-levels-of-global-generosity
  160. https://data.americorps.gov/stories/s/AmeriCorps-Civic-Engagement-and-Volunteering-CEV-D/62w6-z7xa/
  161. https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/html/global-state-democracy-2025-democracy-move
  162. https://monitor.civicus.org/
  163. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/civil_society_participation_index/
  164. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/government-at-a-glance-2025_0efd0bcd-en/full-report/citizen-participation-and-deliberation_52b90285.html
  165. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html
  166. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11758488/
  167. https://results.elections.europa.eu/en/turnout/
  168. https://feps-europe.eu/youth-turnout-in-the-2024-european-elections-a-closer-look-at-the-under-25-vote/
  169. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-astroturfing-definition-and-examples-5082082
  170. https://politicaldictionary.com/words/astroturfing/
  171. https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/01/69-Stan-L-Rev-201.pdf
  172. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/sites/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/2023-02/Scott.pdf
  173. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-08404-9
  174. https://theconversation.com/what-political-ads-are-australians-seeing-online-astroturfing-fake-grassroots-groups-and-outright-falsehoods-255225
  175. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318731879_The_Consequences_of_Astroturf_Lobbying_for_Trust_and_Authenticity_Findings_and_Implications_from_an_Experiment
  176. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23294965221123808
  177. https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/pp/46/4/article-p645.xml
  178. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/397181468137726436/pdf/430830BRI001NO1ing0the0Conversation.pdf
  179. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14742837.2019.1577133
  180. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X1300034X
  181. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/15/occupy-global-elite
  182. https://theconversation.com/black-lives-matter-must-avoid-being-co-opted-by-american-corporate-philanthropy-141927
  183. https://research.mysociety.org/html/elite-capture/elite-capture.pdf
  184. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/remahanna/files/6_elite_capture.pdf
  185. https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/view/57442
  186. https://pide.org.pk/research/understanding-elite-capture/
  187. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379416300531
  188. https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/forcing-people-vote-doesnt-change-outcome
  189. https://manhattan.institute/article/the-mess-of-mandatory-volunteerism
  190. https://hclamponline.com/5037/opinion/the-paradox-of-mandatory-volunteerism/
  191. https://dornsife.usc.edu/nina-eliasoph/wp-content/uploads/sites/356/2023/10/top-down_civic_vs._vol_in_voluntas.pdf
  192. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629622004273
  193. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11698-020-00207-0
  194. https://communityledcp.org/guide/chapter-1/1-2-limits-of-top-down-expert-driven-approaches
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.