Is this crisis different? Attitudes towards EU fiscal transfers in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

IF 2.9 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE European Union Politics Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1177/14651165221112988
Markus Haverland, Reinout van der Veer, Michal Onderco
{"title":"Is this crisis different? Attitudes towards EU fiscal transfers in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.","authors":"Markus Haverland, Reinout van der Veer, Michal Onderco","doi":"10.1177/14651165221112988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To mitigate the enormous and asymmetric economic implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, the EU has adopted an unprecedented €750 billion fiscal transfer programme, financed by joint member state liabilities. The highly contested decision pitted 'frugal' northern member states against 'profligate' southern member states. However, do citizens from northern countries view EU transfers as unfavourably as their governmental positions suggest? This article focuses on the crucial case of the Netherlands, whose government has become the assertive leader of the 'frugal' coalition. We test COVID-19 specific explanations based on a large-scale survey conducted at the height of the pandemic. Our analysis suggests that citizens who experience the non-material health and social effects of the pandemic more directly are more supportive of fiscal transfers than those to whom the pandemic is more abstract, whereas those who experience negative financial effects and those who believe that COVID-19 is a conspiracy are less supportive.</p>","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"680-699"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9277315/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Union Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221112988","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To mitigate the enormous and asymmetric economic implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, the EU has adopted an unprecedented €750 billion fiscal transfer programme, financed by joint member state liabilities. The highly contested decision pitted 'frugal' northern member states against 'profligate' southern member states. However, do citizens from northern countries view EU transfers as unfavourably as their governmental positions suggest? This article focuses on the crucial case of the Netherlands, whose government has become the assertive leader of the 'frugal' coalition. We test COVID-19 specific explanations based on a large-scale survey conducted at the height of the pandemic. Our analysis suggests that citizens who experience the non-material health and social effects of the pandemic more directly are more supportive of fiscal transfers than those to whom the pandemic is more abstract, whereas those who experience negative financial effects and those who believe that COVID-19 is a conspiracy are less supportive.

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
这次危机不同吗?COVID-19大流行后对欧盟财政转移的态度
为了减轻2019冠状病毒病大流行对经济的巨大和不对称影响,欧盟通过了一项前所未有的7500亿欧元财政转移支付计划,由成员国联合负债提供资金。这个备受争议的决定使“节俭”的北方成员国与“挥霍”的南方成员国对立起来。然而,来自北方国家的公民是否像他们的政府立场所表明的那样,对欧盟的转移支付持不利态度?本文关注的是荷兰的关键案例,该国政府已成为“节俭”联盟的自信领袖。我们以疫情最严重时进行的大规模调查为基础,对COVID-19的具体解释进行了检验。我们的分析表明,与那些对大流行更为抽象的人相比,更直接地经历了大流行非物质健康和社会影响的公民更支持财政转移,而那些经历了负面财务影响和认为COVID-19是一个阴谋的人则不太支持。
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
European Union Politics
European Union Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
21.70%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: European Union Politics is an international academic journal for advanced peer-reviewed research and scholarship on all aspects of the process of government, politics and policy in the European Union. It aims to stimulate debate and provide a forum to bridge the theoretical and empirical analysis on the political unification of Europe. It represents no particular school or approach, nor is it wedded to any particular methodology. In particular it welcomes articles that offer a new theoretical argument, analyze original data in a novel fashion or present an innovative methodological approach. The Editors invite submissions from all sub-fields of contemporary political science, including international relations, comparative politics, public administration, public policy and political theory.
期刊最新文献
The Eurodisappointed: On the disenchantment with the EU's limited response to democratic backsliding Europe around the corner? How border proximity and quality of government explains European identity Free to move, reluctant to share: Unequal opposition to transnational rights under the EU's free movement principle The EU Commission: Supplying enforcement and demanding compliance Mission partly accomplished: European Union Politics at 25
×
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