Political consumerism: A meta-analysis
| Date | 01 January 2022 |
| Author | Shelley Boulianne,Lauren Copeland |
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512120905048 |
| Published date | 01 January 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120905048
International Political Science Review
2022, Vol. 43(1) 3 –18
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0192512120905048
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
Political consumerism:
A meta-analysis
Lauren Copeland
Baldwin Wallace University, United States
Shelley Boulianne
MacEwan University, Canada
Abstract
Political consumerism refers to the deliberate purchase or avoidance of products, goods, or services for
political reasons. For decades, researchers have studied the micro-level predictors of political consumerism
in many countries and across a variety of contexts. However, many questions remain. Do resource-based
models of political participation or theories of lifestyle politics best explain why some people are more
likely to engage in political consumerism? To answer this question, we conduct a meta-analysis of 66 studies
with more than 1000 tests. We find more support for theories of lifestyle politics. Political consumerism
is associated with political distrust, liberal ideology, and media use, as well as education, political interest,
and organizational membership. The findings help us understand the subset of people who are using their
purchasing power to express political opinions. They also help us identify gaps in existing research.
Keywords
Boycott, civic engagement, lifestyle politics, meta-analysis, political consumerism, protest
Introduction
Social scientists have long been interested in the key predictors of political participation, at least in
part because people who are more likely to participate can communicate their views to decision-
makers and have more influence on public policy. Most of the scholarly work on this topic has
focused on elite-directed participation, or activities aimed at influencing the government, and has
utilized resource-based theories of participation to explain why some people are more likely than
others to participate.
Corresponding author:
Shelley Boulianne, Department of Sociology, MacEwan University, 6-394, City Centre Campus, 10700 104 Avenue,
Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Email: bouliannes@macewan.ca
905048IPS0010.1177/0192512120905048International Political Science ReviewCopeland and Boulianne
research-article2020
Article
4 International Political Science Review 43(1)
The tendency to use resource-based models of participation to explain political behavior is
problematic because these models were developed to explain participation directed at the state.
Yet, political-participation repertoires have expanded over time to include elite-challenging acts,
as well as various forms of lifestyle politics, which target actors other than the state, blur the
boundaries between the public and private spheres, and rely heavily on digital-media use (Bennett,
2012; de Moor, 2017; Pickard, 2019; Theocharis and van Deth, 2018). Can we use existing theo-
ries of political participation, such as resource-based models, to understand participation in these
activities, or do we need alternative theories, such as lifestyle politics, to explain this form of
participation?
This question is important for acts such as political consumerism, or the use of one’s purchasing
power to express political views and affect change in the marketplace (Stolle and Micheletti, 2013).
As political consumers, people can boycott products, companies, or services for undesirable prac-
tices. They can also utilize labeling schemes and shopping guides to deliberately purchase, or
buycott, products or services that are consistent with their views (Stolle and Micheletti, 2013).1
Over the past few decades, researchers have examined the extent to which various micro-level
predictors of political participation matter for political consumerism. However, there are many
contradictory findings in the literature, and many questions remain. Here, we focus on whether
resource-based models of participation, such as the Civic Voluntarism Model (CVM) (Schlozman
et al., 2018; Verba et al., 1995), or theories of lifestyle politics best explain why some people are
more likely than others to engage in political consumerism.
To do so, we conduct the first meta-analysis of political consumerism, which includes 66 studies
with more than 1000 tests. This meta-analysis is valuable because it summarizes decades of research
findings on political consumerism across dozens of countries. In doing so, it helps researchers iden-
tify the extent to which various micro-level predictors are consistent across many studies, and in
turn, which models of participation best explain participation in political consumerism.
Conceptual framework
Political consumerism refers to the ‘use of the market as an arena for politics in order to change
institutional or market practices found to be ethically, environmentally, or politically objectiona-
ble’ or to reward companies for favorable practices (Stolle and Micheletti, 2013: 39). People can
boycott (or avoid purchasing) products or brands to punish companies for undesirable policies or
business practices. Alternatively, people can deliberately purchase (or buycott) products or ser-
vices to reward companies or brands for favorable business practices. For example, people may
choose to boycott Nike because the company made the controversial former quarterback for the
San Francisco 49ers (American football team) Colin Kaepernick the face of its ‘Just Do It’ cam-
paign (Moore, 2018). Conversely, people who support Nike’s decision may deliberately purchase
Nike products.2
Political consumerism is a popular form of participation. In the USA, approximately 35% of
Americans engage in political consumerism (Endres and Panagopoulos, 2017). Data from the
2016 European Social Survey show that the rates of political consumerism in Denmark (about
36%), Finland (about 37%), and France (about 32%) are comparable to those in the USA. Across
nine African countries, about 27% of people have engaged, or might engage, in consumer boy-
cotts (Adugu, 2016). In Brazil, about 19% of people participate in boycotts or buycotts (Echegaray,
2015). These figures speak to the global appeal of using one’s purchasing power to affect political
change.
Boycotts and buycotts are often conceptualized as forms of lifestyle politics. Lifestyle politics
refer to ‘the politicization of everyday life, including ethically, morally, or politically inspired
To continue reading
Request your trial