Understanding variation in public support for European integration

Abstract

Abstract. Much of the research on the European Community focuses on elites and institutions and as a result downplays the importance of the mass public in determining the direction of European integration. A common justification for this viewpoint is that members of the public provide a stable reservoir of strong support for European integration. Recent political events, however, raise doubts about this depiction of a ‘passive public’. Consequently, there is a need for a fuller understanding of European attitudes. We specify a number of hypotheses dealing with the effects of international trade interests, security concerns, and demographic characteristics on cross‐national and cross‐sectional variations in public support for European integration. Using Eurobarometer surveys and OECD data on EC trade from 1973–1989, we investigate these hypotheses in a pooled cross‐sectional model. Our statistical results reveal that an individual's level of support is positively related to her nation's security and trade interests in EC membership and her personal potential to benefit from liberalized markets for goods, labour, and money.

Euroskepticism, Income Inequality and Financial Expectations

“…Sociotropic utilitarianism regards national economic performance measured in GDP growth, inflation, unemployment, intra-EU trade or country net benefits from EU membership as decisive in shaping attitudes toward the EU (Anderson and Reichert 1995;Anderson and Kaltenthaler 1996;Eichenberg and Dalton 1993). Egocentric utilitarianism considers the individual socio-economic position measured by age, education level, and occupation as pivotal for the decision, because these characteristics are considered to be essential for being an economic winner or loser from EU integration (Gabel 1998a(Gabel , 1998bGabel and Palmer 1995;Gabel and Whitten 1997). However, there is evidence that indeed the self-characterization as an economic winner or loser determines Euroskeptic attitudes, but that this self-characterization only partly overlaps with the individual socio-economic position.…”

Public perceptions of the EU as a system of governance

“…The utiliLiving Reviews in European Governance http://www.livingreviews.org/lreg-2008-1 tarian cost-benefit approach states that as material gains within a country increase -particularly through the liberalization of trade within the EU -support for the EU will increase. Importantly, in contrast to simple macro-level economic indicators, this was particularly true of those who are positioned to take advantage or further integration, distinguished by specific SES and social location variables (Gabel and Palmer 1995;Gabel and Whitten 1997;Gabel 1998a,b). In short, this argument rests on the assumption that individuals in different socio-economic locations experience integration differently, some as winners and some as losers (Gabel 1998a).…”

“…A distinct facet of the sociotropic approach is the assessment of being a net beneficiary of the net transfers from the EU to the nation (Anderson and Reichert 1996;Gabel 1998a;Carrubba 1997Carrubba , 2001Gabel and Palmer 1995;Smith and Wanke 1993). While economic in nature, the underlying assumption is that further EU expansion implies continued market liberalization.…”

“…Born out of the economic voting literature (Lewis-Beck 1988), this individuallevel approach tried to explain why objective economic predictors (GDP, inflation rates) only weakly related to attitudes about the EU. For example, Gabel and Palmer (1995) examined how different economic benefits of integrative policy relate to individual-level differences in public support for integration. Not only did they find support for this economic explanation but also coherent and accompanying socio-economic status (SES) and social location effects in the form of education, age, income, and occupation (see below).…”

“…This instrumental approach approximates individuals' cost/benefit analysis associated with integration and in addition to advantageous economic positions, education, occupational skills, and proximity to borders impact individuals propensity to support continued EU expansion (Anderson and Reichert 1996;Gabel and Palmer 1995).…”