Recent studies are calling attention to the emergence of new ways of civic and political participation in our societies (Riley, Morey & Griffin, 2010), although the majority of the literature continues to focus on the decrease of more conventional ways of participation (Curtice, 2005; Delli Caprini & Keerter, 1993; MacFarlane, 2005; Ostrom, 2000). These low levels of involvelment seem to be more evident in the case of young people and minority groups, such as migrants (Andolina, Jenkins, Galston, 2001; Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1989: Putnam, 2000). However, civic and political development is still a non-dominant topic on research youth and migrant studies (Jensen, & Flanagan, 2008), and therefore it is important to understand how and why young people in general and young migrants, in particular, participate. The present study focus on young people aged 16-18 years and 21-26 years from three groups: Portuguese national and two migrant groups from Angola and Brazil living in Portugal, to explore the topic of “youth” apathy and disengagement together with the link between disenfranchisement and social exclusion. Besides, civic and political participation and engagement of young migrants and nationals are analysed not only as a binary variable [presence or absence of involvement (Snell, 2010)], but based on a comprehensive participation typology. Explanatory theories of participation recognize several types of participation (conventional, non-conventional, legal and illegal); as well as the possibility that participation might occur at different levels (latent and manifest) and in different contexts (informal groups, politically organized communities and even international communities) (Berger, 2009; Ekman, & Amnã, 2009). Finally, the paper considers the role of relevant predictors of participation both at personal (e.g., political efficacy) and societal (e.g., institutional opportunities) levels.

Andolina, M. W., Jenkins, K., Keeter, S., Zukin, C. (2002). Searching for the Meaning of Youth Civic Engagement: Notes From the Field. Applied Developmental Science, 6, (4), 189–195. Berger, B. (2009). Political Theory, Political Science and the End of Civic Engagement. Perspectives on Politics, 7, (2), 335–350. Curtice, J. (2005). Turnout: electors stay home – again. In P. Norris & C. Wleizien (Eds.), Britain Votes (pp. 120-129). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Delli caprini, M., Keerter, S. (1993). Stability and change in the U.S. Public´s Knowledge of politics. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 583-612 Ekman, J., Amnã, E. (2009). Political Participation and Civic Engagement: Towards a New Typology. Youth & Society (Yes).Working paper: 2. Retrieved from Research on PIDOP.http://www.oru.se/PageFiles/14371/Ekman%20and%20Amn%C3%A5%202009-1.pdf Galston, W. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 217-34 Jensen, L. A. & Flanagan, C.A. (2008). Immigrant Civic Engagement: New Translations. Applied Development Science, 12,2, 55-56 MacFarlane, B. (2005). The disengaged academic: the retreat from citizenship. Higher Education Quarterly, 59, 296-312 Ostrom, E. (2000). Crowding out citizenship. Scandinavian Political Studies, 23, (1), 3-16. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Riley, S., More, Y., & Griffin, C. (2010). Participation The ‘pleasure citizen’: Analyzing partying as a form of social and political Participation. Young; 18, (1), 33. DOI: 10.1177/110330880901800104