The idea that citizen collectives contribute to more active citizenship and a healthier democracy dates back to the work of philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville. Participation in a citizen collective is thought to function as a learning environment for broader political participation and engagement in the public good — in short, a spillover effect (Pateman, 1970). This is, of course, an appealing perspective for both citizen collectives and governments. Leaders of collectives can present it as an advantage in collaboration with public authorities, while politicians may view it as a way to stimulate political awareness and civic virtues. But is there scientific evidence that citizen collectives indeed foster more active citizenship?
In an early study on this topic, Edward Greenberg (1981) compared members of worker cooperatives with employees of conventional companies in the American wood-processing industry. His findings show that cooperative members do not necessarily vote more often in elections, but they do participate more frequently in public consultations and are more likely to contact politicians. Similar results emerge from recent research on collective housing projects (Berggren, 2017) and energy collectives (Yildiz et al., 2015). Through a meta-analysis — a type of research that combines statistical findings from many other studies — the relationship becomes even more convincing. Wolfgang Weber and colleagues (2020), for example, found that experienced participation in organizational decision-making has a positive effect on active citizenship. Notably, the effect of a cooperative structure — which formally assigns ownership and decision-making power to members — largely operates through members’ perceived participation in decision-making. In other words, it is even more important that members genuinely feel they have influence over decisions than that this influence is merely secured on paper. Moreover, if members of a citizen collective mainly have negative experiences with participation in decision-making, there may be little to no effect on active citizenship, or even a negative one (Carter, 2006).
The answer to the question therefore seems to be “yes, under certain conditions.” However, correlation alone is not sufficient to distinguish cause and effect. Research by Laura Schlachter and Kristinn Már (2020) attempts to address this. Their study also finds that cooperative members display more active citizenship than non-members. However, the researchers go a step further by examining what comes first: cooperative membership or active citizenship? Establishing causality remains difficult in non-experimental research, but Schlachter and Már find that “co-op enthusiasts” (people interested in cooperatives but not yet members) already tend to display higher levels of active citizenship. This self-selection effect suggests that active citizens are more likely to join citizen collectives. In addition, they found that once individuals become cooperative members, their broader civic engagement may actually decline — a substitution effect. This may sound discouraging, but the researchers also show that members tend to see their participation in the cooperative itself as a form of active citizenship. The substitution effect is therefore largely explained by limited time rather than a lack of motivation. Furthermore, members still tend to remain more civically active than non-members.
A tentative conclusion is therefore that active citizens are more likely to join citizen collectives. However, it does not appear that randomly placing individuals into a citizen collective would automatically make them more active citizens. The democratic value of citizen collectives may therefore lie more in other aspects: as an intrinsic good grounded in the freedom of association, as a counterbalance to the state, as a form of interest representation, as a driver of political debate, and in some cases as a way for citizens to gain direct control over tasks previously carried out by government institutions (Fung, 2003).
References
H.M. Berggren, 2017. Cohousing as civic society: Cohousing involvement and political participation in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 98(1), p. 57-72.
N. Carter, 2006. Political participation and the workplace: The spillover thesis revisited. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8(3), p. 410-426.
A. Fung, 2003. Associations and democracy: Between theories, hopes, and realities. Annual review of sociology, 29(1), p. 515-539.
E.S. Greenberg, 1981. Industrial democracy and the democratic citizen. The Journal of Politics, 43(4), p. 964-981.
C. Pateman, 1970. Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press.
L.H. Schlachter & K. Már, 2020. Spillover, Selection, or Substitution? Workplace and Civic Participation in Democratic Firms. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/684tf
W.G. Weber, C. Unterrainer & T. Höge, 2020. Psychological research on organisational democracy: A meta‐analysis of individual, organisational, and societal outcomes. Applied Psychology, 69(3), p. 1009-1071.
Ö. Yildiz, J. Rommel, S. Debor, L. Holstenkamp, F. Mey, J.R. Müller, ... & J. Rognli, 2015. Renewable energy cooperatives as gatekeepers or facilitators? Recent developments in Germany and a multidisciplinary research agenda. Energy Research & Social Science, 6, p. 59-73.