
“Enablers and barriers to youth participation” covers the factors that stimulate or inhibit participation. Current theories about youth political participation and social engagement consider factors at the macro level (e.g. historical, institutional, political, demographic), the social level (e.g. family, school, peer group, access to resources) as well as the personal and interpersonal level (e.g. collective efficacy, self-efficacy, trust) (Zani et al 2012). This chapter explores the current evidence base on the social and personal/interpersonal level and identifies factors that are linked to higher levels of youth engagement in political participation. These factors can be understood as enablers when they are present and barriers when they are not present. Demographic factors are explored in the chapter on inclusion and intersectionality.Personal and interpersonal level
Personal and interpersonal level
At the personal level, increased levels of political interest, political knowledge, perception of political self-efficacy, perceived effectiveness of specific forms of political and civic action political interest, and trust in political institutions are predictors of political participation (Campbell 2019; Levy et al 2019; Chryssochoou et al 2017; Zani et al 2012). Life satisfaction may also play a role (Lorenzini, 2015).
At the interpersonal level, development of ideologies and values, as well as a sense of identity connected to a collective group is important, as collective identity is integral for political participation at the collective level (Haugestad et al, 2021). It is through collective identifications that young people articulate common grievances or common goals that can politicise them and lead them to act together to change a situation (Chryssochoou et al 2016, Mansouri 2022). Personal commitment to a community is a psychological precursor to political involvement; the community is a context that is close to individual experiences but still connected to the political realm (Zani et al 2012). Young people tend to become politically active when concrete causes are linked to them autobiographically, allowing them to satisfy both personal and social aims simultaneously (Rossi 2009). Rossi (2009) argues there are four motivations for political involvement of young people:
- for personal realisation through helping others
- because of a personal problem
- for professional reasons
- to put ideals and principles into practice
Social level factors
At the social level, there are a range of factors positively affecting youth political participation:
- Family, including parental political interest, political knowledge, partisanship, civic, and political practices, as well as family values and climate (Deimer et al 2019, Barrett et al 2019, Mcintosh et al 2019).
- Peer group, including positive peer group relationships, having friends who are politically engaged, and having friends who provide social support (Barrett et al 2019).
- Level of education, as higher levels of attainment and/or years of education is widely established to be associated with higher levels of involvement (Barrett et al 2019).
Access to social and political resources
The resources within the environment a young person lives in may also be a substantial factor in their level of political participation. Characteristics of the place in which young people live mean that specific features associated with that place offer different kinds of opportunities for the development of youth participation (Barrett et al 2019). There are several types of community resources which have an impact on the participation of young people, where a young person has access to them.
Membership of youth, community, and/or religious organisations or associations has a modest but potentially long-lasting effect on political participation (Hooge et al 2005, Mcfarland 2006). See the chapter on civil society for further details on this.Participation in political or civic education, despite being frequently proposed as a policy response to promote the participation of young people, has only moderate evidence of impact. The body of research is small overall, and complicated by the terminological issues as well as other methodological challenges, making measurement and comparison of programmes highly challenging (Donbavand and Hoskins 2021; Keating et al. 2012; Enchikova et al 2019). On balance, there is evidence that citizen education provides a moderate impact with respect to influencing young people’s political attitudes and behavioural interventions related to political participation (see Campbell 2019 for an overview). There is some limited evidence that non-formal methods of education such as open classroom debate and deliberation (Lee et al 2015) can be more effective than didactic teaching (Pontes et al 2012, Torney-Purta 2002). Programmes which enable young people to put citizenship ideas into practice through practical means are also thought to be more effective than traditional teaching (Keating et al 2016). Negative experiences of school and extensive discipline within school are also known to discourage participation (Kupchik 2015). Although non-formal educational methods are seen to be more effective, it is argued that programmes in the non-formal sector (i.e. voluntary/extracurricular citizenship programmes) suffer from a self-selection bias. Participants who sign up for voluntary programmes are those more likely to politically participate (Qunintellier and Hooghe, 2013), which may mitigate their impact on aggregate.
Access to social media and internet use has a range of effects on the political participation of young people. As the internet rapidly becomes a key source of political news and connection to political movements for young people, (Ramos et al 2021) it has the potential to provide strong online pathways to participation. These pathways centre on news consumption and political expression via digital media technologies (Ida 2020; Lee 2012). A variety of studies in territories where internet access is less widespread have demonstrated intensity of social media use, access to political information via social networks, and social gaming are linked to increased political participation (Abdul Ruaf et al 2016; Mare 2015; Ahmed et al 2013; Skoric et al 2011).
The political identity and attitudes of young citizens are increasingly shaped by their interactions through the social networks which they themselves have had a significant part in constructing (Loader et al 2014). Online spaces facilitate connections between the personal and the political while highlighting the social aspects of youth participation (Literat et al 2018). Online political activity can be interest driven, friendship driven, or politically driven (Kahne et al 2013). Online political activity is identified as a gateway to offline political participation (Mohamad et al 2018; Kim et al 2017), including voting (Butt et al 2021). Furthermore, some forms of non-political online activity can also serve as a gateway to participation in civic and political life (Kayne et al 2013), though young people are more likely to engage in online collective action when they perceive it as being effective (Velasquez et al 2014).
The link between social media use and political participation is not universal amongst young people. The internet is therefore unlikely to provide a magic bullet solution to promoting youth participation. Not all young people use the internet for political purposes (Keating et al 2017). Many young people are more inclined to use news media for entertainment and social networking than for participation (Salman 2015). Many avoid news consumption and also exhibit low levels of participation when online (Edgerley et al 2017). As a result, a growing number of studies conclude the internet may be a less effective means of engaging disaffected young people than traditional routes, though it can be highly effective at mobilising the already interested (Livingstone 2008).