Action in Governance

Civic Engagement is about whether citizens can and do take part in important civic activities that enable them to shape the society they live in. Voter turnout in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries has remained relatively stable since 2010-13 and was around 69% between 2016-19. By contrast, only 1 in 3 people in OECD countries feel that they have a say in what the government does. While older people are more likely to vote, the middle-aged are most likely to feel they have a say – though these patterns vary across OECD countries. 84% of people who have finished tertiary education say they voted, compared to 78% of those educated to secondary level. Gender differences are generally small – and parity has been reached for the OECD on average in both voter turnout and having a say in government. Nevertheless, some countries still have gender gaps in this domain, and these tend to favour women.

Voter turnout

Voter turnout in 2016-19 ranges from 91% in Australia, where electoral participation is compulsory, to 46.5% in Chile , On average, about two-thirds of people registered to vote in OECD countries cast a ballot in the last election (68.7%), a share that has remained stable since 2010-13. This stability masks gains of 5 or more percentage points in Austria, Canada, Colombia, Hungary and the Netherlands (mostly countries with above-average voter turnout rates already), and more substantial falls exceeding 7 percentage points in Japan, and 10 percentage points in Latvia and Slovenia.

Having a say in what the government does

The share of people who feel that they have a say in what the government does ranges from 9.6% in France to almost 70% in Lithuania and Greece and is 34% for OECD countries on average. Conversely, 46% of people, on average, feel they have no say, and the remaining 20% are ambivalent. Nordic countries, Chile, Lithuania, Greece, and the United States are the only OECD countries where the share of people declaring that they have a say in government exceeds the share of those who report having no say.

The latest available year is 2019 for Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Israel, Spain and South Africa; 2018 for Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey and the Russian Federation; 2017 for Austria, Chile, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom; 2016 for Australia, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, the Slovak Republic and the United States; 2015 for Canada, Poland, Portugal and Switzerland; and 2014 for Japan. The earliest available year is 2010 for Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Sweden and the United Kingdom; 2011 for Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, New Zealand, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey; 2012 for France, Greece, Japan, Korea, Lithuania, Mexico, the United States and the Russian Federation; and 2013 for Austria, Chile, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg and Norway.

Action in Governance platform is a Classroom-based tools that integrate participatory approaches such as experiential and problem-based learning that help educators connect civic learning more closely with their students’ lived experiences and adapt teaching and materials to their community’s unique challenges, assets, histories, cultures, languages, and systems.  Outside the classroom, Action in Governance direct-to-learner solutions have potential to bring communities together by fostering greater peer and intergenerational exchange and collaborationtechnology-enabled solutions that help learners acquire key civic skills and knowledge, including how to assess credibility of information, engage across differences, understand one’s own agency, and engage with issues of power, privilege, and injustice. Across settings, The platform  can integrate into practicing other durable skills like climate literacy, social justice and inclusion, and social-emotional competencies.

.

.

.

,

.

.

.

.