This article addresses the variation of anti-corruption and anti-elite salience in party positioning across Europe. It demonstrates that while anti-corruption salience is primarily related to the (regional) context in which a party operates, anti-elite salience is primarily a function of party ideology. Extreme left and extreme conservative (TAN) parties are significantly more likely to emphasize anti-elite views. Through its use of the new 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey wave, this article also introduces the dataset.

This article reports on the 2010 Chapel Hill expert surveys (CHES) and introduces the CHES trend file, which contains measures of national party positioning on European integration, ideology and several European Union (EU) and non-EU policies for 1999−2010. We examine the reliability of expert judgments and cross-validate the 2010 CHES data with data from the Comparative Manifesto Project and the 2009 European Elections Studies survey, and explore basic trends on party positioning since 1999. The dataset is available at the CHES website.

European integration has become considerably more salient and more divisive, though there are conjunctural swings and variation across party families and territory. 3 A second focus of the CHES data is to monitor ideological positioning of political parties on a general left/right dimension and, since 1999, on the economic left/right and socio-cultural gal/tan (or new politics) dimensions. The data enable us to track the changing relationship between general left/right

Some fifteen years after the collapse of communism, the uniting of Western and Eastern Europe through a substantial enlargement of the EU is perhaps the most important single policy instrument available to further a more stable and prosperous continent. Eight postcommunist states have concluded negotiations with the EU for full membership in 2002, and several more are poised to do so later. In this article, we seek to outline in the very broadest strokes the most important structural forces of national interest and influence underlying the dynamics of enlargement itself and its future consequences for EU governance. We do not claim our analysis is comprehensive, only that it seeks to capture the most significant of the underlying forces in play.The apparent success of enlargement and the terms on which it is taking place have surprised many analysts and aroused many critics. Most commentators treat enlargement as a radical break in the history of the EU. They find the prospect of enlargement itself mystifying and invoke idealistic motivations on the part of European governments to explain it. At the same time, many criticize the EU for taking too long to enlarge and for imposing burdensome conditions on the candidates. Still others fear that enlarge-42

No abstract