Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter July 22, 2021

Voluntary Association Involvement and Political Participation in South Korea

  • Won No ORCID logo EMAIL logo , Hyunrang Han and Lili Wang
From the journal Nonprofit Policy Forum

Abstract

While studies suggest that voluntary association involvement leads to more political participation in the U.S. and European countries, the relationship remains debatable in new democracies. Using the Current Social Integration Survey from 2015 to 2018 in South Korea, this study examines the relationship between voluntary association engagement and participation in political activities based on the social capital theory and explores whether the results vary by the types of voluntary associations and multiple memberships in the associations. The results suggest that memberships in voluntary associations are positively associated with voting and engagement in political activities. Additionally, only memberships in certain types of associations are related to voting and engagement in political activities.

1 Introduction

A considerable number of studies have found that voluntary association involvement encourages political participation in the U.S. and European countries (Alexander et al. 2012; Li and Zhang 2017; Somma 2010; Wollebæk and Strømsnes 2008). The relationship between voluntary association involvement and political participation, however, has not been consistent when expanding the focus to new democracies (Kim 2005; Lee and Glasure 2007). New democracy, also called nascent democracy or unconsolidated democracy, refers to political regimes that have transitioned from authoritarian rules to democratic regimes since the 1970s (Cook and Savun 2016; Croissant and Völkel 2012; Kim 2005). It is worthwhile to explore new democracies because the former autocratic leadership and culture may still influence society even after the democratic reform (Cook and Savun 2016). Such continued powerful presence of autocratic force may cause civil conflict, such as complicating efforts to consolidate democracy (Cook and Savun 2016). Thus, this different context may yield different aspects of the relationship between voluntary association involvement and political participation.

South Korea is one of the new democracies which has successfully achieved its shift of political regime from authoritarian rule to democracy in the late 1980s (Croissant and Völkel 2012). Moreover, previous studies using the case of South Korea show mixed findings on the relationship between voluntary association involvement and political engagement. Some argue that associational engagement is negatively related to voting commitment (Kim 2005) and association membership plays a minor role in shaping political engagement in South Korea (Lee and Glasure 2007). Others, however, found that associational membership is a significant predictor of political activity such as voting (Lee 2010). It is noteworthy that those studies are based on data from about 20 years ago. In the past few decades, however, South Korea has witnessed tremendous socio-economic and political development. The number of nonprofit organizations in the country has increased dramatically (Lee and Glasure 2007; Kim and Moon 2003; Ministry of Interior and Safety [MOIS] 2020), and the voter turnout patterns in different levels of the elections have changed to a great extent.

Considering the social and political changes in South Korea, especially those in the recent 20 years, it would be a good time to assess whether the relationship between voluntary association involvement and political engagement has evolved in the new democracy. There is still only a little empirical research devoted to investigating social capital in the context of new democracies that have emerged in the 1980s and 1990s around the world (Fox 1996; Kim 2005; Lee and Glasure 2007; LiPuma and Koelble 2009; Seligson 1999). In this regard, this study aims to add to the existing literature by examining two research questions based on social capital theory. First, are membership and engagement in different types of voluntary associations related to citizen’s political participation? Second, if so, do the relationships vary by the types of voluntary associations and multiple memberships?

We constructed a pooled sample from a nationally representative survey, the Current Social Integration Survey (sahoe-tonghab-siltae-josa), from 2015 to 2018. Our findings suggest that memberships in voluntary organizations are, in general, positively associated with voting and engagement in political activities. When examining the relationship by the different types of voluntary associations, only certain types of voluntary associations are associated with voting and engagement in political activities.

This study makes the following contributions to the literature and the practice. First, the findings shed light on the theoretical debate regarding whether social capital theory (Putnam 1995) applies to new democracies. Second, we have advanced the measures of political participation by including more direct and comprehensive measures of voting, social communication and political participation in daily life, social trust, and perceived political performance. Third, understanding how associational membership and political participation are related and, particularly, what types of voluntary associations are related to increased political participation would be beneficial for those who are interested in improving participatory inputs in the policymaking process.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we review the literature on social capital and political participation, develop hypotheses on how voluntary association involvement may be associated with political participation in South Korea, and posit the potential influence of different types of voluntary association involvement on political engagement. Then we introduce the data, variables, and methods used in this study, followed by a report of the results. We conclude the paper with a discussion of the study’s findings, its contributions and limitations, and the implications for future research.

2 Case Background

2.1 The Nonprofit Sector, Voluntary Associations, and Civic Engagement in South Korea

In South Korea, the nonprofit sector has not emerged until the 1960s, primarily due to the solid government-centered administrative culture (Kim and Hwang 2002). Although rapid social and economic changes in the 1950s contributed to the establishment of democracy and the development of civil society, successive authoritarian regimes continued, and those military dictatorships during the 1960s and 1970s suppressed civil rights and freedom despite dramatic economic development (Kim and Kim 2015). In the 1980s, the rise of various voluntary associations, such as religious groups, unions, professional groups, and charities, helped establish the opposition forces toward the authoritarian government and shaped the nature of democratic consolidation (Lee and Glasure 2007). Particularly, critical civic groups like labor unions and college students organized political forces and played pivotal roles in fighting against the authoritarian political regime (Lee and Glasure 2007; Kim and Moon 2003). After the achievement of the political regime shift from authoritarian rule to democracy in 1987, there was also a sharp increase in the number of voluntary associations in the 1990s. This is because, starting in 1994, the establishment of nonprofit organizations only needed a simple registration and did not have to get approval from the government as they used to (Kim 2019).

As South Korea moves toward a robust democratic society, a continuing growth of civil society and civic engagement has been reported in the most recent statistics and research. The number of nonprofit organizations in South Korea has increased about six times, from 2524 in 2000 to 14,699 in 2019 (MOIS 2020). However, considering that Kim and Hwang (2002) estimated that registered nonprofit organizations would only account for about 18% of all nonprofit organizations, the total number of nonprofit organizations would be much more than the registered number. Similarly, the rate of voluntary association engagement in South Korea has risen over the past two decades, reaching 66.1% in 2019, a 43% increase from the rate of 23.1% in 1999 (Statistics Korea 2020).

The dramatic increase of nonprofit organizations was a powerful source of social and political effects for South Korean citizens (Oh 2012). As strong advocates for social changes, thousands of voluntary associations have engaged in or led to massive candlelight rallies (Oh 2012; Shin and Moon 2017). Notably, the largest demonstrations in Korean history, the 2016–17 candlelight rallies which demonstrated for President Park Geun-Hye’s impeachment, were often led by labor groups and social movement organizations (Shin and Moon 2017). However, millions of citizens, such as housewives and the elderly, also have vigorously engaged in the protests (Shin and Moon 2017). Those protest-led political reforms have been an important part of political development in Korean society over the past two decades (Shin and Moon 2017).

Additionally, the voter turnout rates (%) in South Korea over the same period show an interesting trend of citizen’s political participation. As presented in Figure 1, although the percentage of people who voted in presidential, parliamentary, and local elections tended to decrease until the late 2000s, the trend has rebounded since the 2010s (National Election Commission [NEC] 2020). More specifically, the voter turnout in presidential elections is 77% in 2017 compared with 71% in 2002. The voter turnout in parliamentary elections increased from 57% in 2000 to 66% in 2020. The voter turnout in local elections is 60% in 2018 compared with 49% in 2002 (NEC 2020).

Figure 1: 
Voter turnout in different levels of elections in South Korea.
Figure 1:

Voter turnout in different levels of elections in South Korea.

In sum, we see an immense expansion of civil society and increased electoral participation over the past two decades. This may imply that democracy in South Korea has enormously grown and matured compared to the early stage. In this regard, we claim a need to re-examine the relationship between associational involvement and political participation in South Korea.

3 Literature Review

3.1 Associational Involvement and Political Participation in South Korea

Previous studies on the relationship between associational involvement and political participation in South Korea presented mixed findings. Table 1 shows the comparisons of previous studies examining the relationship between social capital and political engagement in the country.

Table 1:

Comparisons of empirical studies on the relationship between social capital and political engagement in South Korea.

Publication Kim (2005) Park and Shin (2005) Lee and Glasure (2007) Lee (2010)
Data 2001 National survey on social capital 2003 East Asia Barometer survey 1990, 1996 World Values Surveys 2003 East Asia Barometer survey
Sample size 1500 1500 2500 1500
IV measures
  • – Associational involvement

  • – Social trust

  • – Associational involvement (informal, formal, full)

  • – Social trust (commitment-based, competence-based, generalized)

  • – Associational membership

  • – Trust

  • – Political cynicism

  • – Associational membership (formal, informal)

  • – Commitment

  • – Interaction

DV measures
  • – Political trust (trust in political institutions)

  • – Commitment to voting

  • – Democratic citizenship

  • – Support for democracy

  • – Political activism (political involvement, political efficacy, political participation)

  • – Protest potential

  • – Voting

  • – Campaign participation

Some researchers argue that associational involvement is negatively associated with voting commitment (Kim 2005), and association engagement plays a minor or no role in shaping political participation in South Korea (Lee and Glasure 2007; Park and Shin 2005). They interpreted that even though the level of democracy had advanced in South Korea, voluntary associations might not have matured enough to provide civic skills required for democratic citizenship, such as political participation (Kim 2005). This may have been because most voluntary associations tended to depend more on a few socially influential people or the media than their members to broadcast their issues and to magnify the impact of their efforts at that time (Lee and Glasure 2007). Additionally, although Korean civil society has been growing immensely, cooperative networks connecting civic organizations to interest groups would have been lacking (Lee and Glasure 2007).

On the contrary, a later study found that associational membership is a significant predictor of political participation and contributes to the development of democratic citizenship in South Korea (Lee 2010). In addition, associational interaction such as talking about politics among members appeared to be significant in fostering participation in election campaigns (Lee 2010). The author concluded that the impacts of social capital in South Korea could support Putnam’s notion that associational interactions facilitate democratic participation (Lee 2010).

Based on the review of previous studies and the recent social and political changes in South Korea, we examine the relationship between voluntary association involvement and political engagement by employing more advanced measures and more recent data. As the country has made significant progress in its transition to democracy (Sanborn 2015), particularly in the recent 20 years, as shown in the case background section above, we test whether the well-known positive relationship between voluntary association involvement and political engagement in the U.S. and European countries can be consistently applied in the case of South Korea. Also, we examine whether and how the relationship may vary by the types of voluntary associations in this context.

3.2 Associational Membership, Social Capital, and Political Participation

Ever since the milestone publication of Putnam’s (1995) study of America’s declining social capital and its consequences on democracy and political engagement, numerous scholars in various disciplines have paid attention to the relationship between associational membership and political participation (Alexander et al. 2012; La Due Lake and Huckfeldt 1998; Lim 2008; Quintelier 2008; Teney and Hanquinet 2012; Wollebæk and Strømsnes 2008). In the literature, there are at least two perspectives on the logic of such relationships. On the one hand, Putnam defined social capital as “features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (1995, 66). A large stock of social capital, such as networks of associational engagement, fosters coordination and communication among citizens, encourages norms of reciprocity and trust, and thus boost citizens’ capacity to engage in political actions for collective benefits (La Due Lake and Huckfeldt 1998; Putnam 1995; Teney and Hanquinet 2012).

On the other hand, voluntary associations would allow members to develop civil skills such as communication and organizational capacities necessary to participate in various political activities (Brady, Verba, and Schlozman 1995; Leighley 1996). Voluntary association members are more likely to be asked to engage in political activities as they are more visible and influential (Parry, Moyser, and Day 1992; Rosenstone and Hansen 2003). Clearly, individuals who participate in voluntary associations would have more opportunities to communicate with other people and develop strong social relationships; thus, they become more engaged in political life (Brady, Verba, and Schlozman 1995).

Some scholars suggest that the relationship between social capital or voluntary association memberships and political participation is not necessarily linear and may vary by cultural, political, and economic context and also change over time (LiPuma and Koelble 2009; Schneider 2009). In addition, theories of social capital centered on the U.S. and Europe may be only partially applicable to the emerging democracies, such as countries in Africa and the post colony (LiPuma and Koelble 2009). This is because the global and local political economy and the underdeveloped civil society in emerging democracies may influence the development of social capital differently compared to the well-formed and stable democracies in Northern America or Western Europe (LiPuma and Koelble 2009). In addition, the former autocratic leadership and culture may remain influential in society even after the democratic reform (Cook and Savun 2016). Such continued powerful presence of autocratic force may cause civil conflict, such as complicating efforts to consolidate democracy (Cook and Savun 2016). Those countries transitioning to democracy usually experience serious democratic deficits in the early stages of the transitions, such as low levels of political engagement, illegitimate elections, and low levels of public trust in governmental institutions (Carothers 2002).

Given the contextual background of the great progress made in its transitions to democracy, this study focuses on whether voluntary association involvement is positively associated with political engagement in new democracies such as the case of South Korea. In this regard, we hypothesize the relationship as follows.

H1:

People who are members of voluntary associations are more likely to take part in political participation than those who are non-members.

H2:

People who participate more actively in voluntary associations are more likely to take part in political participation than those who participate less actively.

The influences of different kinds of voluntary associations on political engagement appear to be different depending on social contexts (Stolle and Rochon 1998; Warren 2001). In the literature based on the U.S. and European countries, instrumental voluntary associations, such as vocational education clubs, school groups, and social movements, are most influential (Hanks 1981; Quintelier 2008). Instrumental voluntary associations tend to focus on the goals outside the groups, whereas expressive voluntary associations, such as hobby clubs and sports groups, tend to have more in-group objectives (Glanville 2004; Stoll 2001). Those expressive voluntary associations help create an interpersonal identity but are relatively easy to leave, so that less likely to help develop political skills that are helpful in political engagement (Warren 2001). Furthermore, people with multiple active memberships in voluntary associations are more likely to participate in political activities such as voting and campaign activities (Alexander et al. 2012; Verba and Nie 1972).

Similarly, within the context of Korean society, the effects of different kinds of voluntary association memberships and the degree of active engagement on political engagement may appear differently. For instance, advocacy groups such as CSOs and labor unions have mainly undertaken the roles of monitoring the government’s performances and led various social reforms in South Korea (Kim and Hwang 2002; Oh 2012; Shin and Moon 2017). CSOs are nonprofit organizations in the private sector that pursue public interests and aim at achieving social changes and social innovations (Geum and Kwon 2006). CSOs have expressed their opinions to advocate on social issues and significantly influenced the policy-making process (Kim 2011; Kim and Hwang 2002). Also, historically, CSOs have led social and political reforms by presenting or revising various reform laws and bills to facilitate social changes such as the reforms of the election law, the political funds law, and the political party law in South Korea (Kim 2011). By participating in such advocacy groups, the members would have more opportunities to learn civic skills (e.g. communication and organizational capacities) and to engage in political life. In addition, the labor union is another powerful actor affecting the government’s policy-making process. Labor groups often compete with the CSOs, but they sometimes coalesce together depending on issues (Kim and Hwang 2002). Thus, members of the advocacy groups may engage in political activities more than the members in social groups such as sports clubs.

Whether the voluntary associations are closely related to the government may make a difference as well. When classifying voluntary associations into government-affiliated (e.g. community organizations, volunteering/philanthropy organizations) and government-unaffiliated (e.g. CSOs), the members of the government-affiliated associations may be reluctant to engage in advocacy activities, particularly if the issues counter the government. In South Korea, for example, numerous volunteering/philanthropy organizations are government-affiliated as a large number of volunteer centers were established by the government since 1978 (Woo and Kim 2015). Since then, numerous volunteering/philanthropy organizations which provide social services and charities are government-sponsored (Woo and Kim 2015). In some cases, volunteering organizations become almost like government-organized organizations, also called sub-administrative organizations, closely related to the governments (Lee 2018). Thus, the members of government-affiliated associations may hesitate to counter the government not to risk losing the financial support from the government. Instead, they may prefer to participate in formal political activities, such as voting participation, compared to other government-unaffiliated groups.

Based on the literature review of the cases in Northern America or Western Europe and South Korea, we hypothesize as follows.

H3:

The relationship between associational membership and political participation would be different depending on the types of voluntary associations.

H4:

The relationship between active participation in voluntary associations and political participation would be different depending on the types of voluntary associations.

4 Data and Methods

We constructed a pooled sample based on the data from a nationally representative survey, the Current Social Integration Survey (sahoe-tonghab-siltae-josa) conducted by the KIPA from 2015 to 2018. Although the survey has been conducted every year since 2011, the main variables of our focus – memberships in volunteering/philanthropy organizations – have been added in 2015. A targeted sample of 8000 respondents (except in 2015, which was 7700) were selected through multi-stage probability ratio sampling each year. In other words, the first stage used the probability proportional systematic sampling method to sample survey areas, the second stage sampled households based on the systematic sampling method, and all the appropriate household members were surveyed in the third stage (KIPA 2018). The survey was conducted by having interviewers visiting the sampled households and interviewing the household members. To prevent oversampling of a certain group that is likely to be at home, the survey was continued by controlling the respondent characteristics, such as area, gender, and age groups, from the point of about 70% of completion (KIPA 2018). After cleaning missing values, our final sample includes 31,700 observations from 2015 to 2018. The survey was conducted in Korean.

4.1 Dependent Variables

We measured political participation using two variables: 1) political activities and 2) voting. First, in the survey, respondents were asked, “Have you done the following activities related to political/social issues?” and eight items were provided, including 1) Talking about political issues with the people around you, 2) Posting opinions on blogs/Twitter/Facebook/online forums, 3) Making suggestions to government or media, 4) Participating in the signature collection (including online), 5) Submitting petitions, 6) Participating in protests, 7) Making suggestions directly to public officials or politicians, and 8) Participating in boycotts. On each item, the survey provided a four-point rating scale from 1) I have done it in the last one year; 2) It wasn’t in the last year, but I have, a long time ago; 3) I have never done it, but I am willing to try it in the future; 4) I have never done it and not willing to try it either. We considered each of the political activities a binary variable; those who answered that “they have done it”—selected 1 and 2—are coded as 1, and the others who have no experience – selected 3 and 4 – are coded as 0. Then, we added up the binary measures of eight political activities; in other words, the resulting variable of political activities ranges from 0 to 8. Those who have not done any of the political activities were coded as 0, and those who have done all the political activities were coded as 8.

Second, voting was measured based on the survey question asking whether the respondent has voted in different levels of election (e.g. president, national assembly members, and local administrators) in recent years. If the respondent voted in any level of election, it is coded as 1, otherwise 0. However, to measure their most recent voting participation, we included the responses for the election of the last year from the response date. For example, in the 2015 and 2018 surveys, we considered whether respondents voted in the nationwide local election in 2014 and 2017, respectively. In the 2017 survey, the responses for the voting in the presidential election in 2016 were considered. And in the 2016 survey, we included the responses for the national assembly election, which was held in 2015. Figure 2 shows the percentage of the respondents who have engaged in political activities in the previous year.

Figure 2: 
Percentage of the respondents who have engaged in political activities and voting.
Figure 2:

Percentage of the respondents who have engaged in political activities and voting.

4.2 Independent Variables

Our key independent variables of interest are memberships and participation in voluntary associations. In the survey, respondents were asked, “to what extent do you participate in these social organizations?” and nine types of voluntary associations were listed, including political party, labor union or business association, religious organization, club (e.g. sports, leisure, culture), civil society organization, community organization (e.g. neighborhood association), alumni association, volunteering/philanthropy organization, and social economy organization (e.g. social enterprise, co-ops). For each type of voluntary association, the survey provided a five-point rating scale, including 1) I have never been a member, 2) I have been a member in the past but not anymore, 3) I am a member but do not participate in any activities, 4) I am a member and occasionally participate, and 5) I am a member and actively participate.

We considered three different variables for the memberships and participation in voluntary associations: 1) activeness of participation in each organization, 2) membership in each organization, and 3) the total number of memberships. First, we used the five-scale point responses to consider to what extent a respondent actively participates in each organization’s activities. Second, the activeness of participation was transferred to whether or not the respondent is a member of each organization. When the respondent answered that they are a member—in other words, selected 3, 4, or 5—their responses were re-coded as 1, and non-members, who selected 1 or 2, were re-coded as 0. We used this binary variable for the membership in each organization. Third, the total number of memberships was calculated by the sum of the membership in each organization.

4.3 Control Variables

Based on the literature, we controlled for the respondent’s perspectives on various political, social issues and activities, and demographic characteristics. The survey provided one’s belief on the importance of participating in various political/social activities (e.g. voting, paying taxes, complying with rules and laws, paying attention to what the government does, actively participating in social/political organizations) and political efficacy (e.g. to what extent the respondents think that ordinary citizens (they) can affect government affairs, the government is interested in their thoughts and opinions, they are well aware of current political issues, and others are aware of current political issues better than themselves) (Ardèvol-Abreu, Gil de Zúñiga, and Gámez 2020; Hu, Sun, and Wu 2015; Li and Zhang 2017; Vecchione and Caprara 2009). Related to social trust, we included respondents’ trust in different groups of people (Hu, Sun, and Wu 2015; Quintelier 2008; Wollebæk and Strømsnes 2008). A summative index of trust in individuals: trust in family, neighbors, friends, strangers whom they have met for the first time, and foreigners (people from different countries) was included in the analysis. In addition, we included respondents’ trust in different institutions (Huang et al. 2020) and to what extent they believe each institution is corrupted (Shaw, Roberts, and Baek 2021). We included three different summative indexes regarding trust in and perceived anti-corruption of institutions: central government, media (Television and newspaper), and civil society (labor unions and CSOs). In addition, we controlled for one’s demographic characteristics and socioeconomic status, such as gender (Alexander et al. 2012; Frisco, Muller, and Dodson 2004; Lee 2010; Li and Zhang 2017), age (Kim 2005; Lee 2010; Li and Zhang 2017; Park and Shin 2005), educational attainment (Brady et al. 1995; Kim 2005; Lee 2010; Li and Zhang 2017), marital status (Glanville 2004), household income (La Due Lake and Huckfeldt 1998; Lee and Glasure 2007; Li and Zhang 2017; Park and Shin 2005), region (Alexander et al. 2012; Frisco, Muller, and Dodson 2004), years lived in the area (Alexander et al. 2012; Glanville 2004), and living in the urban or rural area (Carreras and Bowler 2019; Frisco, Muller, and Dodson 2004; Lee 2010; Park and Shin 2005). Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of all variables we considered in the model.

Table 2:

Descriptive statistics of the variables (N = 31,700).

Variables % Mean S.D. Min Max
Political activities (index) 1.874 1.925 0 8
Total number of organizations holding a membership 1.402 1.553 0 9
Membership in
 Political parties 4.29
 Labor unions/Business associations 6.86
 Religious organizations 21.58
 Clubs 25.02
 CSOs 3.28
 Community organizations 14.26
 Volunteering/Philanthropy organizations 12.03
 Alumni associations 48.03
 Social economy organizations 4.80
Active participation in
 Political parties 1.144 0.530 1 5
 Labor unions/Business associations 1.222 0.684 1 5
 Religious organizations 1.724 1.269 1 5
 Clubs 1.845 1.303 1 5
 CSOs 1.112 0.507 1 5
 Community organizations 1.464 0.997 1 5
 Volunteering/Philanthropy organizations 1.419 0.972 1 5
 Alumni associations 2.472 1.476 1 5
 Social economy organizations 1.160 0.628 1 5
Importance of
 Voting 5.913 1.193 1 7
 Paying tax 6.084 1.050 1 7
 Complying with rules and laws 6.093 1.033 1 7
 Paying attention to government affairs 5.252 1.306 1 7
 Being aware of current social/political issues 4.409 1.602 1 7
Political efficacy
 Ordinary citizens can affect the gov’t affairs 3.237 0.986 1 5
 Gov’t is not interested in what citizens think 3.305 0.979 1 5
 I am aware of important political current issues 3.046 0.869 1 5
 Others know better than me about political current issues and government affairs 3.191 0.787 1 5
Trust in
 Individuals 2.536 0.405 1 4
 Central government 2.162 0.653 1 4
 Media 2.310 0.617 1 4
 Civil society 2.325 0.596 1 4
Gender
 Male 50.47
 Female 49.53
Age
 19–29 18.52
 The 30s 19.18
 The 40s 22.91
 The 50s 23.4
 The 60s 16
Household monthly income
 Less than 1 million (KRW) 5.70
 1–2 million 9.99
 2–3 million 17.06
 3–4 million 21.32
 4–5 million 17.91
 5–6 million 12.66
 More than 6 million 15.36
Education
 Less than elementary 4.65
 Middle-school graduate 6.74
 High-school graduate 46.25
 More than a college/university degree 42.36
Years lived in the area 3.954 1.275 1 5
Marital status
 Never married 25.41
 Married 67.17
 Widowed 3.78
 Divorced 3.64
Regions
 Seoul city 11.88
 Busan city 7.03
 Daegu city 6.11
 Incheon city 6.10
 Gwangju city 4.54
 Daejeon city 4.82
 Ulsan city 4.08
 Sejong city 1.77
 Gyeonggi province 12.62
 Gangwon province 4.34
 Chungbuk province 4.84
 Chungnam province 5.48
 Jeonbuk province 5.13
 Jeonnam province 5.15
 Gyeongbuk province 6.47
 Gyeongnam province 6.84
 Jeju province 2.80
Urban
 Urban 80.69
 Rural 19.31

5 Methods

To test our hypotheses, we examined six different models. The first set included three models considering the index of political activities, and the second set included three models examining voting participation. Considering the nature of dependent variables, we used regression analysis in the first set of the models and logistic regression analysis in the second set of the models.

6 Results

6.1 Political Activities and Voluntary Association Involvement

We tested our hypotheses on how engagement in political activities is affected by membership and active participation in voluntary associations. Table 3 shows the results of the regression analysis of the three models (see Appendix A for full results).

Table 3:

Regression analysis results: political activities and membership and participation in voluntary associations.

Model 1-1

(total membership)
Model 1-2

(membership)
Model 1-3

(active participation)
Coef. (robust std. err.)
Membership total 0.213a (0.008)
Political parties 0.394a (0.068) 0.174a (0.027)
Labor unions/Business associations 0.457a (0.048) 0.205a (0.019)
Religious organizations 0.109a (0.027) 0.038a (0.009)
Clubs 0.246a (0.026) 0.091a (0.009)
CSOs 0.428a (0.087) 0.152a (0.031)
Community organizations 0.152a (0.034) 0.065a (0.013)
Volunteering/Philanthropy organizations 0.388a (0.040) 0.140a (0.014)
Alumni associations −0.022 (0.022) −0.007 (0.007)
Social economy organizations 0.139b (0.067) 0.040 (0.023)
N 31,700 31,700 31,700
R 2 0.069 0.075 0.087
  1. a p < 0.01, b p < 0.05. The table shows the results of the main variables of our focus. See Appendix A for full results.

In model 1-1, we first considered the total number of voluntary associations that a respondent holds membership. This model shows how being a member of multiple voluntary associations affects one’s engagement in political activities. The result suggests that the total number of membership organizations is statistically significantly associated (p < 0.01) with one’s engagement in political activities. For each additional membership organization involved in, one would be engaging in about 0.212 more political activities on average, holding others constant.

In model 1-2, we examined how membership in different voluntary associations affects one’s engagement in political activities. The results suggest that most types of membership, but not all, are significantly and positively associated with engagement in political activities. People are more engaged in political activities than non-members if they are a member of political parties, labor unions/business associations, religious organizations, clubs, civil society organizations (CSOs), community organizations, volunteering/philanthropy organizations, and social economy organizations. The most influential memberships are the membership in labor unions/business associations (β = 0.059), and the least influential membership is the membership in religious organizations (β = 0.024).[1] Meanwhile, being a member of alumni associations does not have a statistically significant influence on political engagement.

In model 1-3, we considered how active participation in voluntary associations affects one’s engagement in political activities. Similar to model 1-2, activeness of the participation in most of the associations are significantly and positively associated (p < 0.01) with the engagement in political activities. People are more engaged in political activities when they more actively participate in political parties, labor unions/business associations, religious organizations, clubs, CSOs, community organizations, and volunteering/philanthropy organizations, compared to those who less actively participate. Among the different types of voluntary associations, labor unions/business associations are the most influential (β = 0.072), and religious organizations are the least (β = 0.026). Being a member of either alumni associations or social economy organizations does not significantly influence engagement in political activities.

6.2 Voting Participation and Voluntary Association Involvement

We also examined how voting participation is affected by membership and active participation in voluntary associations. Table 4 shows the three models’ logistic regression analysis results (see Appendix B for full results).

Table 4:

Logistic regression analysis results: voting and membership and participation in voluntary associations.

Model 2-1

(total membership)
Model 2-2

(membership)
Model 2-3

(active participation)
Odds ratio (std. err.)
Membership total 1.101a (0.013)
Political parties 1.355b (0.157) 1.104b (0.049)
Labor unions/Business associations 0.991 (0.074) 0.970 (0.028)
Religious orgs 1.095b (0.049) 1.028 (0.015)
Clubs 1.102b (0.047) 1.042b (0.015)
CSOs 0.814 (0.100) 0.952 (0.045)
Community orgs 1.286a (0.081) 1.099a (0.026)
Volunteering/Philanthropy orgs 1.249b (0.081) 1.070b (0.024)
Alumni associations 1.012 (0.036) 1.012 (0.013)
Social-economic orgs 1.123 (0.119) 1.044 (0.040)
N 31,700 31,700 31,700
Pseudo R 2 0.2106 0.2113 0.2115
  1. a p < 0.01, b p < 0.05. See Appendix A for full results with covariates.

Model 2-1 shows how being a member of multiple voluntary associations affects one’s voting participation. The result suggests that the total number of organizations is statistically significantly associated (p < 0.01) with whether or not the person votes in the election. More specifically, those who are a member of more voluntary associations are about 10.5% more likely to vote than their counterparts who hold a fewer number of voluntary association memberships.

In model 2-2, we examined how membership in different voluntary associations affects voting participation. The results suggest that only some types of membership are significantly and positively associated with voting. The odds of voting for members of political parties (36%, p < 0.05), clubs (9.6%, p < 0.05), community organizations (33.6%, p < 0.01), volunteering/philanthropy organizations (25.4%, p < 0.01), and religious organizations (24.9%, p < 0.05) are higher than non-members in each organization.

In model 2-3, we considered how active participation in voluntary associations affects voting. Similar to model 2-2, active participation in only some types of voluntary associations is significantly and positively associated with voting. Specifically, people are more likely to vote when they more actively participate in these voluntary associations than their counterparts in political parties (10.4%, p < 0.05), clubs (4%, p < 0.05), community organizations (11.5%, p < 0.01), and voluntary/philanthropy organizations (7.1%, p < 0.05).

In sum, the results show that our hypotheses, which posit positive relationships between 1) associational membership and political participation (H1) and 2) active participation and political participation (H2), are supported. In addition, depending on the types of voluntary association, the effects of associational membership (H3), and active participation (H4) on political participation appear differently, as expected.

7 Discussions and Conclusions

Our findings suggest that voluntary association involvement is positively associated with political participation in South Korea in general. More membership in voluntary associations is associated with more engagement in political activities and higher odds of voting. The findings of this study suggest that the civil society in South Korea may have been matured now and shifted with a stronger democracy so that Putnam (1995)’s notion—associational interactions facilitate democratic participation—could be applied.

We also found that membership and engagement in different types of voluntary associations affect political participation differently. It is worth noting that while engaging in political activities is positively associated with most of the voluntary association memberships we considered, voting in elections is only associated with membership in some voluntary associations. Most of the voluntary associations’ memberships—political parties, labor unions, religious organizations, clubs, CSOs, community organizations, and volunteering/philanthropy organizations—are positively associated with engaging in political activities in South Korea. When considering the extent of active participation, the significant associations appear similarly. Meanwhile, voting in elections is only positively related to membership in political parties, clubs, community organizations, and volunteering/philanthropy organizations. The significant relationships appear similarly when looking at the extent of active participation in each organization.

To explain the results of the relationship between voluntary association involvement and engagement in political activities, we may need to focus on how an individual becomes a member of such different voluntary associations. Except for alumni associations, all the significant relationships appear in the voluntary associations that one joins based on their interests, and the membership is entirely voluntary. Most of them are instrumental voluntary associations that tend to focus on the goals outside the groups (Glanville 2004; Stoll 2001). On the contrary, alumni association members are not grouped based on their interests but because they went to the same school or are from the same regions. Moreover, the school alumni associations’ memberships are often not that voluntary, and sometimes people are automatically joined once they graduate from the school. It means that the members are more likely to be diverse in their characteristics, interests, and beliefs than other voluntary associations. When the members are not homogeneous in their interests and beliefs, they are less likely to discuss their political perspectives (Bello and Rolfe 2014). In addition, the school alumni associations may be categorized as expressive voluntary associations, which tend to have more in-group objectives (Glanville 2004; Stoll 2001). Expressive voluntary associations help create an interpersonal identity but are relatively easy to leave, so that less likely to help develop political skills that are helpful in political engagement (Warren 2001). Therefore, membership and active participation in alumni associations may not be related to one’s engagement in political activities.

In addition, although membership in social economy organizations increases one’s political activities, active participation in social economy organizations is not associated with active engagement in political activities. Examples of social economy organizations are social enterprises and co-ops. Since most of these organizations aim at promoting social justice and supporting socially vulnerable groups of people by emphasizing solidarity (Kim and Jeong 2014), those who join social economy organizations as members are likely to have similar interests. However, the members, not the managers or employees, of social economy organizations may have less chance of meetings or gatherings than other voluntary associations. Therefore, active participation in social economy organizations may not be significantly associated with political activities, while membership in social economy organizations does.

Interestingly, voting in elections is only positively associated with membership in political parties, clubs, community organizations, and volunteering/philanthropy organizations. We may need to consider the different amounts of time and efforts that each political activity in daily life and voting require. In addition, people who join political parties would be more interested in political issues and willing to participate in political activities and voting than any others. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that members of community organizations and volunteering/philanthropy organizations are also more likely to vote. It aligns with the findings of Kwak (2007), which showed that participation in community organizations as a whole (e.g. neighborhood organizations, government community centers, community volunteering organizations) is positively related to voting. Since the members of community organizations and volunteering/philanthropy organizations are more likely to be based in the same region than other associations, they may have more opportunities to discuss similar social/political issues and the capability and qualifications of electoral candidates, which could lead to higher odds of voting. In addition, as many of the volunteering/philanthropy organizations are initiated and financially supported by the government (Woo and Kim 2015), the members of these organizations could be motivated to vote to seek either new or continued support from the government. Furthermore, although membership and active participation in CSOs are positively related to political activities, those are not significantly related to voting. This interesting finding may be explained by the characteristics of South Korean CSOs. As they have mainly undertaken the roles of monitoring the government’s performances and led various social reforms in South Korea (Kim and Hwang 2002; Oh 2012; Shin and Moon 2017), members of the CSOs may emphasize engaging in political activities directly to promote social changes more than voting, relatively.

Our study expands the understanding of the relationship between voluntary association involvement and political participation. In particular, our findings suggest that matured civil society can provide opportunities for citizens to engage in various political activities in daily life and voting in different levels of elections, even in new democracies. In addition, the findings provide policy implications for those who would like to foster political participation in society. To help people get more involved in political activities in daily life, it may be more effective to promote their engagement in voluntary associations. Based on our findings, we suggest focusing on those voluntary associations in which people more voluntarily engage with their common interests.

Despite its contributions, this study is not free from limitations. First, the survey items asking the respondent’s voluntary association involvement did not specify the exact membership period or when they have joined the association as a member. In the survey, participants were asked to report their memberships and participation in voluntary associations from the past, not just within the last year. To reduce possible buffers that may hinder clear relationships between voluntary association involvement and political participation, we limited the dependent variable, political participation, to participation in the last year from the response date. Second, although the data we used is a representative survey of multiple years, it is not longitudinal data tracking the same panel. Therefore, we could not examine the causal relationship between one’s voluntary association involvement and political participation. Although this study advances the literature by analyzing the data collected in multiple years, future studies could employ a longitudinal study so that we could further explore the causal relationship between voluntary association involvement and political participation.


Corresponding author: Won No, School of Public Economics and Administration, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai, China, E-mail:

Appendix A: Full Results of Regression Analyses: Political Activities and Membership/Participation in Voluntary Associations

Model 1-1

(total membership)
Model

1-2 (membership)
Model 1-3

(active participation)
Coef. (robust std. err.)
Membership total 0.213a (0.008)
Political parties 0.394a (0.068) 0.174a (0.027)
Labor unions/Business associations 0.457a (0.048) 0.205a (0.019)
Religious orgs 0.109a (0.027) 0.038a (0.009)
Clubs 0.246a (0.026) 0.091a (0.009)
CSOs 0.428a (0.087) 0.152a (0.031)
Community orgs 0.152a (0.034) 0.065a (0.013)
Volunteering/Philanthropy orgs 0.388a (0.040) 0.140a (0.014)
Alumni associations −0.022 (0.022) −0.007 (0.007)
Socio-economic orgs 0.139b (0.067) 0.040 (0.023)
Importance of
 Voting 0.044a (0.013) 0.048a (0.013) 0.044a (0.013)
 Paying tax −0.011 (0.017) −0.014 (0.017) −0.016 (0.016)
 Complying with rules and laws −0.029 (0.016) −0.023 (0.017) −0.026 (0.016)
 Paying attention to government affairs 0.040a (0.011) 0.036b (0.011) 0.034b (0.011)
 Being aware of current social/political issues −0.037a (0.008) −0.035a (0.008) −0.033a (0.008)
Political efficacy
 Ordinary citizens can affect the gov’t affairs −0.176a (0.015) −0.172a (0.015) −0.162a (0.015)
 Gov’t is not interested in what citizens think 0.036b (0.015) 0.036b (0.015) 0.033b (0.015)
 I am aware of important political current issues 0.191a (0.014) 0.185a (0.014) 0.171a (0.014)
 Others know better than me about political current issues and government affairs −0.105a (0.015) −0.102a (0.015) −0.098a (0.015)
Trust in
 Individuals 0.022 (0.029) 0.020 (0.029) 0.011 (0.028)
 Central government −0.117a (0.020) −0.118a (0.020) −0.115a (0.020)
 Media −0.178a (0.023) −0.165a (0.023) −0.169a (0.023)
 Civil society 0.136a (0.024) 0.139a (0.023) 0.135a (0.023)
Gender 0.008 (0.022) 0.017 (0.022) 0.008 (0.022)
Age 0.098a (0.011) −0.083a (0.011) −0.094a (0.011)
Household income 0.001b (0.007) 0.004 (0.007) 0.001 (0.007)
Education 0.044b (0.017) 0.051b (0.017) 0.042b (0.017)
Years lived in the area −0.059a (0.009) −0.058a (0.009) −0.055a (0.009)
Marital status 0.036 (0.021) 0.036 (0.021) 0.033 (0.021)
Regions −0.002 (0.001) −0.003 (0.001) −0.003b (0.001)
Urban 0.034 (0.029) 0.020 (0.029) 0.020 (0.029)
Year
 2016 −0.161a (0.032) −0.147a (0.032) −0.132a (0.032)
 2017 −0.017 (0.032) −0.005 (0.032) 0.003 (0.032)
 2018 −0.105b (0.032) −0.086b (0.032) −0.063b (0.032)
Cons 2.408a (0.160) 2.373a (0.160) 1.574a (0.162)
N 31,700 31,700 31,700
R 2 0.069 0.075 0.086
  1. a p < 0.01, b p < 0.05.

Appendix B: Full Results of Logistic Analyses: Voting and Membership/Participation in Voluntary Associations

Model 2–1 (total membership) Model 2-2 (membership) Model 2–3 (active participation)
Odds Ratio (Std. Err.)
Membership total 1.101a (0.013)
Political parties 1.355b (0.157) 1.104b (0.049)
Labor unions/Business associations 0.991 (0.074) 0.970 (0.028)
Religious orgs 1.095b (0.049) 1.028 (0.015)
Clubs 1.102b (0.047) 1.042b (0.015)
CSOs 0.814 (0.100) 0.952 (0.045)
Community orgs 1.286a (0.081) 1.099a (0.026)
Volunteering/Philanthropy orgs 1.249b (0.081) 1.070b (0.024)
Alumni associations 1.012 (0.036) 1.012 (0.013)
Socio-economic orgs 1.123 (0.119) 1.044 (0.040)
Importance of
 Voting 1.972a (0.033) 1.972a (0.033) 1.971a (0.033)
 Paying tax 0.978 (0.022) 0.976 (0.022) 0.973 (0.022)
 Complying with rules and laws 0.966 (0.022) 0.965 (0.022) 0.964 (0.022)
 Paying attention to government affairs 0.986 (0.017) 0.984 (0.017) 0.983 (0.017)
 Being aware of current social/political issues 0.951a (0.012) 0.953a (0.012) 0.954a (0.012)
Political efficacy
 Ordinary citizens can affect the gov’t affairs 0.941b (0.022) 0.943b (0.022) 0.944b (0.022)
 Gov’t is not interested in what citizens think 0.974 (0.023) 0.973 (0.022) 0.973 (0.022)
 I am aware of important political current issues 1.221a (0.025) 1.221a (0.025) 1.219a (0.025)
 Others know better than me about political current issues and government affairs 0.972 (0.022) 0.972 (0.022) 0.973 (0.022)
Trust in
 Individuals 1.487a (0.063) 1.480a (0.063) 1.478a (0.063)
 Central government 1.025 (0.032) 1.025 (0.032) 1.025 (0.032)
 Media 0.938 (0.035) 0.938 (0.035) 0.936 (0.035)
 Civil society 0.948 (0.036) 0.951 (0.036) 0.951 (0.036)
Gender 1.046 (0.035) 1.063 (0.036) 1.061 (0.036)
Age 1.574a (0.028) 1.571a (0.028) 1.565a (0.028)
Household income 1.063a (0.011) 1.065a (0.011) 1.063a (0.011)
Education 1.254a (0.032) 1.264a (0.033) 1.265a (0.033)
Years lived in the area 1.046a (0.014) 1.044a (0.014) 1.045b (0.014)
Marital status 1.100b (0.035) 1.101b (0.035) 1.102b (0.035)
Region 1.003 (0.002) 1.002 (0.002) 1.002 (0.002)
Urban 0.798a (0.038) 0.806a (0.039) 0.806a (0.039)
Year
 2016 1.466a (0.063) 1.470a (0.063) 1.472a (0.063)
 2017 4.394a (0.230) 4.413a (0.231) 4.399a (0.231)
 2018 1.702a (0.077) 1.711a (0.078) 1.715a (0.078)
Constant 0.003a (0.001) 0.003a (0.001) 0.002a (0.000)
N 31,700 31,700 31,700
Pseudo R 2 0.2096 0.2104 0.2105
  1. a p < 0.01, b p < 0.05.

References

Alexander, D. T., J. Barraket, J. M. Lewis, and M. Considine. 2012. “Civic Engagement and Associationalism: The Impact of Group Membership Scope versus Intensity of Participation.” European Sociological Review 28 (1): 43–58, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcq047.Search in Google Scholar

Ardèvol‐Abreu, A., H. Gil de Zúñiga, and E. Gámez. 2020. “The Influence of Conspiracy Beliefs on Conventional and Unconventional Forms of Political Participation: The Mediating Role of Political Efficacy.” British Journal of Social Psychology 59 (2): 549–69.Search in Google Scholar

Bello, J., and M. Rolfe. 2014. “Is Influence Mightierthan Selection? Forging Agreement in Political DiscussionNetworks during a Campaign.” Social Networks 36 (1): 134–46, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.06.001.Search in Google Scholar

Brady, H. E., S. Verba, and K. L. Schlozman. 1995. “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation.” American Political Science Review 89 (2): 271–94, https://doi.org/10.2307/2082425.Search in Google Scholar

Carothers, T. 2002. “The End of the Transition Paradigm.” Journal of Democracy 13 (1): 5–21, https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0003.Search in Google Scholar

Carreras, M., and S. Bowler. 2019. “Community Size, Social Capital, and Political Participation in Latin America.” Political Behavior 41 (3): 723–45, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9470-8.Search in Google Scholar

Croissant, A., and P. Völkel. 2012. “Party System Types and Party System Institutionalization: Comparing New Democracies in East and Southeast Asia.” Party Politics 18 (2): 235–65, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068810380096.Search in Google Scholar

Cook, S. J., and B. Savun. 2016. “New Democracies and the Risk of Civil Conflict: The Lasting Legacy of Military Rule.” Journal of Peace Research 53 (6): 745–57, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343316660756.Search in Google Scholar

Fox, J. 1996. “How Does Civil Society Thicken? The Political Construction of Social Capital in Rural Mexico.” World Development 24 (6): 1089–103, https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00025-3.Search in Google Scholar

Frisco, M. L., C. Muller, and K. Dodson. 2004. “Participation in Voluntary Youth‐Serving Associations and Early Adult Voting Behavior.” Social Science Quarterly 85 (3): 660–76, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00238.x.Search in Google Scholar

Geum, C., and O. Kwon. 2006. The Improvement of Relationship between Local Councils and NGO. Seoul: Korea Research Institute for Local Administration.Search in Google Scholar

Glanville, J. L. 2004. “Voluntary Associations and Social Network Structure: Why Organizational Location and Type Are Important.” Sociological Forum 19 (3): 465–91, https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SOFO.0000042557.56194.03.Search in Google Scholar

Hanks, M. 1981. “Youth, Voluntary Associations and Political Socialization.” Social Forces 60 (1): 211–23, https://doi.org/10.2307/2577941.Search in Google Scholar

Hu, R., I. Y. Sun, and Y. Wu. 2015. “Chinese Trust in the Police: The Impact of Political Efficacy and Participation.” Social Science Quarterly 96 (4): 1012–26, https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12196.Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Y.-H. C., Y. Lu, C. H. Y. Choy, L. Kao, and Y.-T. Chang. 2020. “How Responsiveness Works in Mainland China: Effects on Institutional Trust and Political Participation.” Public Relations Review 46 (1): 101855, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101855.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, J. 2005. “‘Bowling Together’ Isn’t a Cure-All: The Relationship between Social Capital and Political Trust in South Korea.” International Political Science Review 26 (2): 193–213, https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512105050381.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, P. S. 2011. “Civic Engagement, Politics and Policy in South Korea: Significant Developments but a Considerable Way to Go.” Public Administration and Development 31 (2): 83–90, https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.595.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, S. 2019. “The Less-Known History of the Voluntary Sector in an East Asian Welfare Regime: A South Korean Case.” Nonprofit Policy Forum 10 (1): 1–13, doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2018-0028.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, I., and C. Hwang. 2002. Defining the Nonprofit Sector: South Korea. http://sectorsource.ca/resource/file/defining-nonprofit-sector-south-korea (accessed May 20, 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Kim, D., and S. Jeong. 2014. “Improvement of Social Capital in Daejeon through Social Economy-organizations : Focusing on the Cases of Daejeon.” Journal of Social Science 25 (1): 281–306, doi:https://doi.org/10.16881/jss.2014.01.25.1.281.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, S. E., and Y. H. Kim. 2015. “Measuring the Growth of the Nonprofit Sector: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Public Administration Review 75 (2): 242–51, https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12306.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, P. S., and M. J. Moon. 2003. “NGOs as Incubator of Participative Democracy in South Korea: Political, Voluntary, and Policy Participation.” International Journal of Public Administration 26 (5): 549–67, https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120019235.Search in Google Scholar

Korea Institute of Public Administration (KIPA). 2018. Korea Social Integration Survey 2018. https://www.kipa.re.kr/site/kipa/research/selectBaseView.do?seSubCode=BIZ017A001&seqNo=BASE_000000000000488 (accessed April 14, 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Kwak, H. K. 2007. “A Study on the Influence of Local Community Social Capital on Voter Turnout: Comparison of Local Election in 2006 with National Assembly Election in 2004 as Well as Presidential Election in 2002.” Journal of Local Government Studies 19 (3): 5–30.Search in Google Scholar

La Due Lake, R., and R. Huckfeldt. 1998. “Social Capital, Social Networks, and Political Participation.” Political Psychology 19 (3): 567–84, https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00118.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, A-R. 2010. “The Quality of Social Capital and Political Participation in South Korea.” Journal of East Asian Studies 10 (3): 483–505, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1598240800003702.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, W.-J. 2018. “The Transition of Academic Interpretation of Volunteer Firefighting as the Sub-administrative Organization in Quasi-Public Organization.” Fire Science and Engineering 32 (4): 95–102, https://doi.org/10.7731/KIFSE.2018.32.4.095.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, A.-R., and Y. U. Glasure. 2007. “Social Capital and Political Participation in South Korea.” Asian Affairs: An American Review 34 (2): 101–18, https://doi.org/10.3200/AAFS.34.2.101-118.Search in Google Scholar

Leighley, J. 1996. “Group Membership and the Mobilization of Political Participation.” The Journal of Politics 58 (2): 447–63, https://doi.org/10.2307/2960234.Search in Google Scholar

Li, H., and J. Zhang. 2017. “How Do Civic Associations Foster Political Participation? The Role of Scope and Intensity of Organizational Involvement.” Nonprofit Policy Forum 8 (1): 3–24, https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2016-0010.Search in Google Scholar

Lim, C. 2008. “Social Networks and Political Participation: How Do Networks Matter?” Social Forces 87 (2): 961–82, https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0143.Search in Google Scholar

LiPuma, E., and T. A. Koelble. 2009. “Social Capital in Emerging Democracies.” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 20 (1): 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-008-9076-6.Search in Google Scholar

Ministry of Interior and Safety (MOIS). 2020. Biyongnimingandanche Deungnok [Non-Profit Organization Registration]. Also available at http://index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=2856.Search in Google Scholar

National Election Commission (NEC). 2020. Seongeo Tupyoyul [Voter Turnout]. Also available at http://www.index.go.kr/unify/idx-info.do?idxCd=4268.Search in Google Scholar

Oh, J. S. 2012. “Strong State and Strong Civil Society in Contemporary South Korea: Challenges to Democratic Governance.” Asian Survey 52 (3): 528–49, https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2012.52.3.528.Search in Google Scholar

Park, C.-M., and D. C. Shin. 2005. “Social Capital and Democratic Citizenship: The Case of South Korea.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 6 (1): 63–85, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1468109905001726.Search in Google Scholar

Parry, G., G. Moyser, and N. Day. 1992. Political Participation and Democracy in Britain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Putnam, R. D. 1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” Journal of Democracy 6 (1): 65–78.https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1995.0002.Search in Google Scholar

Quintelier, E. 2008. “Who Is Politically Active: The Athlete, the Scout Member or the Environmental Activist? Young People, Voluntary Engagement and Political Participation.” Acta Sociologica 51 (4): 355–70, https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699308097378.Search in Google Scholar

Rosenstone, S. J., and J. M. Hansen. 2003. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Sanborn, H. 2015. “Democratic Consolidation: Participation and Attitudes Toward Democracy in Taiwan and South Korea.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties 25 (1): 47–61, https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2014.996158.Search in Google Scholar

Schneider, J. A. 2009. “Organizational Social Capital and Nonprofits.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 38 (4): 643–62, https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009333956.Search in Google Scholar

Seligson, A. L. 1999. “Civic Association and Democratic Participation in Central America: A Test of the Putnam Thesis.” Comparative Political Studies 32 (3): 342–62, https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414099032003003.Search in Google Scholar

Shaw, D. R., B. E. Roberts, and M. Baek. 2021. “Perceived Corruption and Political Participation.” In The Appearance of Corruption, 83–104. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Shin, G.-W., and R. J. Moon. 2017. “South Korea after Impeachment.” Journal of Democracy 28 (4): 117–31, https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0072.Search in Google Scholar

Somma, N. M. 2010. “How Do Voluntary Organizations Foster Protest? The Role of Organizational Involvement on Individual Protest Participation.” The Sociological Quarterly 51 (3): 384–407, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2010.01178.x.Search in Google Scholar

Statistics Korea. 2020. Sahoedanche Chamyeoyul [Social Group Participation Rate]. Also available at http://www.index.go.kr/unify/idx-info.do?idxCd=4270.Search in Google Scholar

Stoll, M. A. 2001. “Race, Neighborhood Poverty, and Participation in Voluntary Associations.” Sociological Forum 16 (3): 529–57, https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011956632018.Search in Google Scholar

Stolle, D., and T. R. Rochon. 1998. “Are All Associations Alike? Member Diversity, Associational Type, and the Creation of Social Capital.” American Behavioral Scientist 42 (1): 47–65, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764298042001005.Search in Google Scholar

Teney, C., and L. Hanquinet. 2012. “High Political Participation, High Social Capital? A Relational Analysis of Youth Social Capital and Political Participation.” Social Science Research 41 (5): 1213–26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.012.Search in Google Scholar

Vecchione, M., and G. V. Caprara. 2009. “Personality Determinants of Political Participation: The Contribution of Traits and Self-Efficacy Beliefs.” Personality and Individual Differences 46 (4): 487–92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.021.Search in Google Scholar

Verba, S., and N. H. Nie. 1972. Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper & Row.Search in Google Scholar

Warren, M. E. 2001. Democracy and Association. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wollebæk, D., and K. Strømsnes. 2008. “Voluntary Associations, Trust, and Civic Engagement: A Multilevel Approach.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 37 (2): 249–63, https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764007304754.Search in Google Scholar

Woo, T. S., and C. L. Kim. 2015. “The Study on the Development of Administrative System through the Origin of the Volunteer Activity.” Korean Public Administration History Review 37: 103–37.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2021-01-07
Accepted: 2021-07-06
Published Online: 2021-07-22

© 2021 Won No et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 29.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/npf-2021-0002/html
Scroll to top button