Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-8p85h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-13T22:19:56.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A track too far? The effect of general versus vocational upper secondary education on voter turnout

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2026

Marcus Österman*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Uppsala University, Sweden
Jonas Larsson Taghizadeh
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Uppsala University, Sweden
*
Corresponding author: Marcus Österman; Email: marcus.osterman@statsvet.uu.se
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the wealth of research on how education affects political participation, there are few studies that successfully identify the effects of different types of education or different educational tracks. In this article, using a regression discontinuity (RD) design, we present evidence on how electoral participation is affected by pursuing a general (academic) versus a vocational programme in upper secondary education. These two pathways represent a fundamental educational differentiation in most European countries. By exploiting Swedish register data and the admission process for upper secondary education, we provide robust support for causal inference. In contrast to previous research, we do not find positive effects from attending a general programme on voter turnout. In fact, in our RD analysis, our estimates suggest negative effects. This analysis focuses on students who apply for general and vocational programmes – a group with average academic skills. The negative effects appear related to that these students perform poorly in general programmes and risk dropping out. Furthermore, in a population-level analysis relying on within-family comparisons, we predominantly find null effects on turnout of attending a general programme, compared to a vocational one. We conclude that there are no universal positive effects of starting a general rather than a vocational secondary education – and that effects can turn negative for students who start an education that is too demanding. This finding implies that it is important to design secondary education such that it matches the abilities of different students, not only for labour market prospects, but also for their political inclusion.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of European Consortium for Political Research
Figure 0

Figure 1. Share with vocational education and enrolment to vocational upper secondary education in Europe.The dashed lines indicate the mean levels across countries. Vocational education in the population is coded dichotomously, so the complement represents the share with general education. Cumulative ESS data 2010–2020 (ESS 2023); respondents with at least upper secondary schooling. See Online Appendix A for variable definitions.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Voter turnout among young adults with general and vocational education in Europe: 2010–2020 ESS data. Ordered by turnout difference between programmes (largest to smallest).The dashed lines indicate the mean turnout levels for the different types of education. Self-reported turnout in the last national election among respondents 18–35 years old.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Proportions and means in the RD sample compared to the population of students applying to upper secondary school.

Figure 3

Figure 4. RD plots of the upper secondary programme and falsification tests.The upper panel portrays the relationship between the running variable and whether a student starts and finishes a general programme or a vocational one. The lower panel demonstrates two falsification tests: ‘Parental education’ is the mean education between the mother and the father using a 7-level indicator, standardised to run from 0 to 1. ‘Parental turnout 2010’ portrays the mean turnout for parents in the national election of 2010.

Figure 4

Table 1. RD estimates on education outcomes and falsification tests: Students starting upper secondary school 2008–2016

Figure 5

Figure 5. The difference in future turnout between students starting general compared to vocational programmes, 2011–2016.Socio-economic controls add dummies/FEs for gender, birth year, foreign-born, foreign-born father, foreign-born mother, 7 levels of parental education (separately for mother and father), and parental earnings in deciles (separately for mother and father). Parental turnout in Model (3) adds controls for the turnout of the mother and father in previous elections of the same type (2009 and 2010). See full results in Appendix: Tables E.1 and E.2.

Figure 6

Figure 6. RD plots on voter turnout. The effect of admission to a general versus a vocational programme among cohorts starting upper secondary school 2008–2016.The left-hand plots show a fourth-order polynomial, whereas the right-hand plots present separate linear regression lines on each side of the cutoff (95 per cent confidence intervals). The bandwidths of the right-hand plots are equal to the optimal bandwidths for the corresponding fuzzy RD models in Table 2 and apply a triangular kernel.

Figure 7

Table 2. The effect of starting a general versus a vocational programme on turning out to vote: fuzzy RD estimates. Cohorts starting upper secondary school 2008–2016

Figure 8

Table 3. The effect of starting a general versus a vocational programme on dropout risk, educational performance and inactivity; fuzzy RD estimates. Students starting upper secondary school 2008–2016

Figure 9

Table 4. Population estimates on voter turnout in European and national elections, relying on sibling comparisons, comparing students starting general and vocational programmes, 1998–2016

Supplementary material: File

Österman and Larsson Taghizadeh supplementary material

Österman and Larsson Taghizadeh supplementary material
Download Österman and Larsson Taghizadeh supplementary material(File)
File 608.5 KB