GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Multi-Hazards
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Professional development packs
    • Reports & literature reviews
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • Projects
  • About us
    • Our team
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»Document Library»Associations, active citizenship, and the quality of democracy in Brazil and Mexico

Associations, active citizenship, and the quality of democracy in Brazil and Mexico

Library
Peter P. Houtzager, Arnab K. Acharya
2010

Summary

To what extent does participation in associations increase active citizenship? How does associationalism impact on the quality of citizenship? Civic engagement theory suggests that associations empower members to engage in public politics and improve the quality of democracy. Empirical demonstration of this argument outside affluent countries is rare, however, and so this paper examines associationalism in São Paulo and Mexico City. It finds that associationalism leads to higher levels of active citizenship, but does not improve the quality of citizenship practices.

‘Active citizenship’ is defined as the effort to negotiate directly with state agents for access to goods and services legally mandated for public provision. This is a narrower concept than ‘civic engagement’, which encompasses any voluntary and public spirited activity.

A typology of citizenship practices is developed, in order to capture the ‘quality’ of citizenship. ‘Institutionalised petitioning’ is seen as most closely approximating the democratic ideal. ‘Informal brokerage’ through powerful third parties, ‘contentious collective action’ targeting agents of the state and ‘collective self-provisioning’ of public goods are practices that diminish the quality of citizenship.

The extent of active citizenship is found to vary between the two cities, but its positive relationship to associationalism does not. In addition, associationalism reinforces existing citizenship practices rather than stimulating new ones. Descriptive statistics show that:

  • In both cities, individuals who participate in associations have substantially higher levels of active citizenship than their counterparts who do not.
  • Individuals from lower classes are less likely to participate in associations than the rest of the population. However, associationalism has a greater impact on individuals from lower classes.
  • Associationalism is related to higher levels of active citizenship overall, but not to any particular types of citizenship practice. Associationalism in both cities appears to reinforce existing citizenship practices and, irrespective of class or gender positions, fails to improve or otherwise alter them.

Statistical analysis of the data reveals some characteristics of individuals that are determining factors to various forms of active citizenship. Education, labour market status, and associational participation contribute most strongly to people’s proclivity to become active citizens. Moreover:

  • The causal link flows from associations to active citizenship rather than the other way around.
  • The gender variable is not significant in the models. Women and men in both cities have the same proclivity to be active citizens.
  • In São Paulo, being inside the labour market is an important explanatory factor. In Mexico City it is the type of labour that matters: formal employment has a negative influence and owning a business a positive one.
  • Supporting associationalism among the lower classes would decrease inequalities in active citizenship.
  • Reducing educational inequality is likely to increase active citizenship.
  • It seems that the impact of associations on the quality of democracy is not a result of their impact on the behaviour of individual citizens. It is possible, however, that associationalism has important effects through the collective agency that it makes possible.

Source

Houtzager P., and Acharya, A., 2010, 'Associations, active citizenship, and the quality of democracy in Brazil and Mexico', Theory and Society

Related Content

Increasing Birth Registration for Children of Marginalised Groups in Pakistan
Helpdesk Report
2021
Youth initiatives supporting citizen engagement with government
Helpdesk Report
2017
State-society relations and citizenship
Topic Guide
2016
Citizen voice and action
E-Learning
2016

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2026; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2026; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2026

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".