Competing Models of EU Legitimacy: the Test of Popular Expectations*

Ehin, Piret

doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2008.00794.x

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If the people were asked which sorts of decision-making rules most likely deliver satisfaction to them, they surely would prefer those that give them a saying and track preferences the closest. This notion is also in line with empirical work by Rohrschneider (2002;467) and Ehin (2008) who found people's perceptions of being represented at the European level to be a crucial determinant of EU-support even when controlling for a number of economic, political, social and individual aspects. However, they lack a theoretical explanation as to why multilayered systems of governance might inherently score lower on the ''representation scale''.…”

Section: Where We Start Fromsupporting

confidence: 73%

EU enlargement and satisfaction with democracy: a peculiar case of immiserizing growth

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies on EU enlargement mostly focus on its welfare-economic and much less so on its public-choice dimension. Yet, the latter may be as important as the former when it comes to sustain integration. This paper aims at filling the gap by exploring theoretically and empirically how enlargement of multi-level systems like the EU affects satisfaction with democracy . In order to assess the effects of a widening in membership, we present a novel approach that draws on the probability of being outvoted. We find that, given the institutional arrangement, enlargement tends to depress satisfaction with democracy. Our theoretical results are backed by panel-data evidence for six European economies displaying a significant decline in satisfaction with democracy with growth in EU-membership.

show abstract

Section: Where We Start Fromsupporting

confidence: 73%

EU enlargement and satisfaction with democracy: a peculiar case of immiserizing growth

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One's national identity can, for instance, intersect or interact with one's European identity and it depends on the specific interaction context which identity is experienced as most salient (Sen 2006;Fligstein 2008;Risse 2010). Numerous authors have stated that the development of a common European identity is crucial to lay the foundations for a fully legitimate and robust democratic EU (Ehin 2008;Føllesdal 2006). Jürgen Habermas (2011) is among the most vocal advocates of the claim that this sense of shared identity is the most important alternative for a bureaucratic and sometimes even undemocratic process of European integration.…”

Section: Knowledge and European Identitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Does more knowledge about the European Union lead to a stronger European identity? A comparative analysis among adolescents in 21 European member states

Verhaegen

Hooghe

2015

Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A dummy variable is constructed with the respondents who opted for Europe in the first place or in the second place receive code '1', and respondents that did not choose Europe receive code '0' 6 . Voters with a stronger European identity are expected to attach more importance to EP elections (Bruter, 2008;Ehin, 2008;Verhaegen, 2015). As a result, they are expected to invest more consideration in their vote for the EP, which is more likely to result in a split-ticket vote based on EU vote motives.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking for the European Voter: Split-Ticket Voting in the Belgian Regional and European Elections of 2009 and 2014

Kelbel

Ingelgom

Verhaegen

2016

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While European elections are often seen as remote from EU issues, considerations specifically linked to the EU came to the forefront in the wake of the 2014 European elections: the economic and financial crisis, the new process of designation of the European Commission President, and the alleged increase of Eurosceptic votes. This increased salience of political debates about the EU asks for a reconsideration of the 'second-order nature' of European elections. In this context, as in 2009, the Belgian electorate voted for the regional and European levels on the very same day. Belgian voters were thus offered the opportunity to split their ticket between both levels. This allows comparing the occurrence and determinants of these 'immediate switching' behaviours in 2014 with those of the presumably less politicized EP elections in 2009. We do that by employing the 2009 and 2014 PartiRep Election Study data. On the one hand, the article shows that split-ticket voting cannot be explained by economic voting, European identity, and attitudes towards integration in 2014. On the other hand, the unique configuration of the Belgian elections enables us to observe that the introduction of Spitzenkandidaten did enhance split-ticket voting for voters who could directly vote for this candidate (in Flanders), while this did not increase split-ticket voting among voters who could only indirectly support the candidate (in Wallonia).

show abstract

Competing Models of EU Legitimacy: the Test of Popular Expectations*

Cited by 19 publications

References 47 publications

EU enlargement and satisfaction with democracy: a peculiar case of immiserizing growth

EU enlargement and satisfaction with democracy: a peculiar case of immiserizing growth

Does more knowledge about the European Union lead to a stronger European identity? A comparative analysis among adolescents in 21 European member states

Looking for the European Voter: Split-Ticket Voting in the Belgian Regional and European Elections of 2009 and 2014

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About