No abstract

No abstract

This study proposes the use of Bayesian item response theory models to measure aggregate public support for European integration. This approach addresses the limitations of other indicators and produces valid estimates of public attitudes over long time periods, even when available indicators change over time or present interruptions. I compare Bayesian item response theory models with alternative approaches used in the study of support for European integration, and demonstrate that they produce more accurate estimates of latent public opinion. The estimates are validated by showing their association both to alternative public opinion measures and to the vote share of Eurosceptic parties across Europe. I show that Bayesian models solve unaddressed issues like ensuring cross-country comparability of the estimates and modelling responses with multiple answer options.

This study proposes the use of Bayesian item response theory (IRT) models to measure public preferences towards Europe. IRT models address the limitations of single-question indicators and produce valid estimates of public latent attitudes over long time periods, even when available indicators change over time or present interruptions. The approach is compared with an alternative technique recently introduced in the study of EU public opinion, the Dyad Ratios algorithm. It shows that IRT models can both incorporate a more theoretically grounded individual-level model of response and produce more accurate estimates of latent public support for Europe. The measure is validated by showing its association both to alternative measures of EU support and to the vote share of Eurosceptic parties across Europe.

As non‐majoritarian institutions are deliberately insulated from electoral pressure and ministerial hierarchy, they face an accountability deficit. This deficit can be reduced by embedding the organizations in a wider accountability landscape with multiple forums. Of particular relevance in this landscape are the news media, who may not only serve as account‐holders, but can also reinforce other forms of accountability. Yet, we know little about the conditions under which the media cover non‐majoritarian governance, and the existence of “reinforced accountability”. Focusing empirically on news articles about the Bank of England (1997–2020), we trace coverage levels back to the announcement of key policy decisions and, to some extent, policy outcomes. We also find evidence of reinforced accountability, both in relation to parliamentary oversight and the Bank's own, voluntary account‐giving. These results provide reason for cautious optimism about non‐majoritarian accountability, at least in the case of a salient organization.