Does socioeconomic factors affect political engagement?

So we’ve looked at age, specifically the youth, in regard to political engagement. But what about the bigger picture? It is an easy task to point fingers as to who doesn’t politically engage, but my blog is dedicated to exploring the relationship between complex issues and its relationship with political engagement; in order to spark a dialogue on these recurring issues within society.

This leads me onto the realm that is socio-economic factors, a concept that encompasses a plethora of issues within society. It is interesting to explore why it has such a great influence on individual actions, especially in regard to inequalities within political engagement. This is a large issue that cannot be solved in a mere blog post, so I will explore why socioeconomic factors affect political engagement in Britain.

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a representative of your position in the social and economic hierarchy, constituted by both objective material resources such as: capital; education; and occupation, and subjective experiences of those resources such as: their perceptions of their socioeconomic status and sense of placement within society (Brown-Iannuzzi et al, 2017).

SES is assessed through factors such as: wealth; education; and occupation (Brown-Iannuzzi et al, 2017), through six approximated social categories: A, B, C1, C2, D, E (Geographics, 2014), produced by the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS).

Fig 1: Social Grade Table with population figures (Dempsey and Johnston, 2018)

Economically, higher and lower SES individuals may behave differently due to the disparity within their means. For example, an individual with a high SES may be more likely to donate to a political campaign as they have the capital to do so (Brown-Iannuzzi et al, 2017).

In cultural terms, the way in which individuals are socialised gives future socioeconomic context. For example, growing up in a lower class family, individuals may be pushed more to save money (Brown-Iannuzzi et al, 2017).

For us to get deep into the crux of this issue, we need to further understand the relationship between socioeconomic status and political engagement.

Although democracy should represent all groups and their interests within society, research from IPPR’s 2013 Divided Democracy implies that people graded C2, D and E are more likely to feel like the British democratic system does not address their interest well, compared to individuals graded A, B, and C1 (Dempsey and Johnston, 2018). C2, D and E individuals also reported feelings of alienation from the system, and felt as if political parties did respond to their interests.  

This links to research by Brown-Iannuzzi and others (2017), concluding that individuals with a lower SES are in fact:

• less politically active
• less likely to vote and volunteer in a political campaign

than and individual of a higher SES, due to lack of money; time; and skills. People with a lower SES also lack of knowledge of politics, shown in the graph below.

Fig 2: Graph of Political Attitudes and Social Grades (Dempsey and Johnston, 2018)

In fact, research conducted by Ipsos MORI found an average of 68.5% of the ABC1 category voted in the 2017 General Election compared to 56.5% of C2 and DE categories.

Fig 3: Social Class and voting figures (Ipsos MORI, 2017)

In fact, research conducted by Ipsos MORI found similar results, as an average of 68.5% of the ABC1 category voted in the 2017 General Election compared to 56.5% of C2 and DE categories.

So why are there inequalities between socioeconomic status and political engagement? As mentioned in my previous blog post, education is compulsory in Britain, and with the educated youth play an important role in the future of politics (Ahmad, 2015), therefore the quality of education and political socialisation may have a correlation with the relationship between socioeconomic factors and political engagement.

There are two major elements within education that influence the political socialisation process: access to political learning, and the quality of teaching in reducing political engagement (Hoskins et al, 2017).

Research by Hoskins and others (2017) found that there is unequal access by social background in regard to political engagement though political engagement within schools. Consequently, youth with access to poor quality political learning opportunities within state schools become disadvantaged as they may lack political literacy which may affect adulthood and continue though generations (Hoskins et al, 2017).

This alludes to the concept of a postcode lottery, as young students from advantaged social backgrounds — such as private schooling, have access to better quality education compared to students from lower classed backgrounds (Hoskins et al, 2017, Natspec, 2019).

Political engagement can be enhanced though learning opportunities, for example the introduction of citizenship studies — the study of political institutions and various other ideologies targeted social and moral responsibility, community involvement and political literacy (Hoskins et al, 2017).

However, not only is this subject optional, there has been a reported lack of value within this subject by parents, student and teachers implying the lack of quality within politics in education (Hoskins et al, 2017). Looking back at my schooling experience, I cannot recall a period in which I was taught about politics, which I find deeply concerning.

My experience combined with previous research solidifies potential reasons behind inequalities between socioeconomic status and political engagement. So, could the quality of political literacy be the reason why there are disparities between individual socioeconomic status and rates of political engagement? What do you think?

Bibliography and references

Ahmad, S. (2015). Role of Socioeconomic Status and Political Participation in Construction of Apathy Among Youth. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 25(8), pp.801-809.

Brown-Iannuzzi, J., Lundberg, K. and McKee, S. (2017). The politics of socioeconomic status: how socioeconomic status may influence political attitudes and engagement. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, pp.11-14.

Dempsey, N. and Johnston, N. (2018). Political disengagement in the UK: who is disengaged?. House of Commons. [online] Available at: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7501 (Accessed 28 Feb. 2019).

Geographics, U. (2014). Social Grade A, B, C1, C2, D, E. [online] Ukgeographics.co.uk. Available at: https://www.ukgeographics.co.uk/blog/social-grade-a-b-c1-c2-d-e (Accessed 1 Mar. 2019).

Hoskins, B., Janmaat, J. and Melis, G. (2017). Tackling inequalities in political socialisation: A systematic analysis of access to and mitigation effects of learning citizenship at school. Social Science Research, 68, pp.88-101.

Ipsos MORI. (2017). How Britain voted in the 2017 election. [online] Available at: https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2017-election (Accessed 1 Mar. 2019).

Natspec. (2019). The postcode lottery of post-19 education provision. [online] Available at: https://natspec.org.uk/the-postcode-lottery-of-post-19-education-provision/ (Accessed 28 Feb. 2019).