Past Political Asymmetry and Present Public Opinion: How Has the Asymmetrical Federation of the EU Shaped Popular Opinion of Its Optimal Shape?

M. Moland
{"title":"Past Political Asymmetry and Present Public Opinion: How Has the Asymmetrical Federation of the EU Shaped Popular Opinion of Its Optimal Shape?","authors":"M. Moland","doi":"10.1093/publius/pjae001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Asymmetries in the formal obligations and rights afforded to sub-units are mainstays of many federations that have been extensively studied from many angles. However, we know relatively little about how these asymmetries shape views on federalism in the future. By leveraging data on differentiated integration in the European Union (EU), conceptually very similar to asymmetrical federalism, and survey data on attitudes toward the optimal future of it, I show that historical exposure to differentiated integration resulting from a bottom-up process of demands for sub-unit autonomy correlates to increased support for permanent differentiation in the future, especially among those critical of the EU. However, the opposite applies to differentiation imposed by the EU. A legacy of asymmetric federalism may thus breed opposition or support for unitary European federalism, depending on both the mode of past asymmetry that citizens have been exposed to and their views of the EU.","PeriodicalId":507126,"journal":{"name":"Publius: The Journal of Federalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Publius: The Journal of Federalism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjae001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Asymmetries in the formal obligations and rights afforded to sub-units are mainstays of many federations that have been extensively studied from many angles. However, we know relatively little about how these asymmetries shape views on federalism in the future. By leveraging data on differentiated integration in the European Union (EU), conceptually very similar to asymmetrical federalism, and survey data on attitudes toward the optimal future of it, I show that historical exposure to differentiated integration resulting from a bottom-up process of demands for sub-unit autonomy correlates to increased support for permanent differentiation in the future, especially among those critical of the EU. However, the opposite applies to differentiation imposed by the EU. A legacy of asymmetric federalism may thus breed opposition or support for unitary European federalism, depending on both the mode of past asymmetry that citizens have been exposed to and their views of the EU.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
过去的政治不对称与现在的民意:欧盟的非对称联邦如何影响了公众对其最佳形态的看法?
赋予次级单位的正式义务和权利不对称是许多联邦制的主要特点,已从多个角度对其进行了广泛研究。然而,我们对这些不对称如何影响人们对未来联邦制的看法却知之甚少。通过利用与非对称联邦制在概念上非常相似的欧盟(EU)差异化一体化的数据,以及对欧盟最佳未来的态度的调查数据,我表明,历史上因自下而上的次级单位自治要求过程而产生的差异化一体化与未来永久性差异化的支持率增加相关,尤其是在那些对欧盟持批评态度的人当中。然而,欧盟强加的分化则恰恰相反。因此,不对称联邦制的遗产可能会滋生对统一的欧洲联邦制的反对或支持,这取决于公民过去所经历的不对称模式以及他们对欧盟的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The State of American Federalism 2023–2024: Judicialization of Gridlocked Politics Armed Federalism, Gun Markets, and the Right to Bear Arms in the United States Democratic Backsliding in the American States: The Case of Judicial Independence Out of Many, One? Exploring Ethnolinguistic Identity Appeals in the Brussels Capital Region Local Fiscal Response to State Preemption: A Case Study of Massachusetts’ Proposition 2½ Tax Referendum
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1