Pub Date : 2022-12-21DOI: 10.1177/14651165221144888
S. Hurka, Maximilian Haag, Constantin Kaplaner
Experience and loyalty have been identified as major explanations for why Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are selected as committee rapporteurs in the European Parliament. Yet, existing research implicitly assumes that these explanations operate in isolation of what the report is about. In this article, we hypothesize that the effects of experience and loyalty on MEPs’ chances to become rapporteurs should be conditioned by the complexity of the Commission's legislative proposal. We show that party group coordinators indeed distribute the most complex legislative tasks to highly experienced MEPs but cannot confirm such a conditional relationship for the effect of loyalty. Our study contributes to the literature on the legislative organization in the European Parliament by highlighting the role of proposal complexity for the report allocation process.
{"title":"Proposal complexity and report allocation in the European Parliament","authors":"S. Hurka, Maximilian Haag, Constantin Kaplaner","doi":"10.1177/14651165221144888","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221144888","url":null,"abstract":"Experience and loyalty have been identified as major explanations for why Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are selected as committee rapporteurs in the European Parliament. Yet, existing research implicitly assumes that these explanations operate in isolation of what the report is about. In this article, we hypothesize that the effects of experience and loyalty on MEPs’ chances to become rapporteurs should be conditioned by the complexity of the Commission's legislative proposal. We show that party group coordinators indeed distribute the most complex legislative tasks to highly experienced MEPs but cannot confirm such a conditional relationship for the effect of loyalty. Our study contributes to the literature on the legislative organization in the European Parliament by highlighting the role of proposal complexity for the report allocation process.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"307 - 326"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43952399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-15DOI: 10.1177/14651165221143962
Felix Lehmann
To provide accountability, Members of Parliament (MPs) are expected to publicly communicate European Union (EU) affairs. Yet, parliamentary communication of EU affairs remains underexplored and existing analyses are conflicting. Against this background, this article sheds light on what drives MPs to talk about the EU, utilizing a novel dataset based on over 20,000 plenary protocols from 17 parliaments during 2006–2019. The study highlights that EU mentions increase in connection to referendums, summits, treaty ratifications, and European elections. Additional drivers include transfers of authority to the EU level, EU legislation, and political incentives. The findings provide some nuance to more pessimistic evaluations of the EU's accountability deficit, but major legitimacy challenges remain concerning national elections and Eurozone integration.
{"title":"Talking about Europe? Explaining the salience of the European Union in the plenaries of 17 national parliaments during 2006–2019","authors":"Felix Lehmann","doi":"10.1177/14651165221143962","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221143962","url":null,"abstract":"To provide accountability, Members of Parliament (MPs) are expected to publicly communicate European Union (EU) affairs. Yet, parliamentary communication of EU affairs remains underexplored and existing analyses are conflicting. Against this background, this article sheds light on what drives MPs to talk about the EU, utilizing a novel dataset based on over 20,000 plenary protocols from 17 parliaments during 2006–2019. The study highlights that EU mentions increase in connection to referendums, summits, treaty ratifications, and European elections. Additional drivers include transfers of authority to the EU level, EU legislation, and political incentives. The findings provide some nuance to more pessimistic evaluations of the EU's accountability deficit, but major legitimacy challenges remain concerning national elections and Eurozone integration.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"370 - 389"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48716888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-01DOI: 10.1177/14651165221112988
Markus Haverland, Reinout van der Veer, Michal Onderco
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.
{"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":"10.1177/14651165221112988","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":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9277315/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41638465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-22DOI: 10.1177/14651165221140230
S. Kunst, Theresa Kuhn, H. G. van de Werfhorst
Citizens with higher levels of education are consistently found to be more open to immigration and European integration than those with less education. However, the literature has neglected the issue of whether educational divides in anti-globalisation sentiment result from people's own educational attainment or whether they are a consequence of deep-rooted positions of disadvantage across generations. In this article, we address the question to what extent the attitudes towards globalisation of intergenerationally mobile citizens, that is, those who obtain a different educational outcome than one's parents, adapt to the newly acquired social position or remain attached to the parental milieu. We apply diagonal reference models to study the influence of one's own and parental education level on attitudes to globalisation in 26 European countries using the European Social Survey between 2008 and 2018. Our results indicate that while mobile citizens adjust their attitudes to the achieved education level, there remains an enduring influence of the education level of origin. In addition, we find that the importance of parental educational attainment does not depend on the social fluidity between education levels within countries. Consequently, this study has important implications for studying political socialisation and the future of the educational divide over globalisation.
{"title":"As the twig is bent, the tree is inclined? The role of parental versus own education for openness towards globalisation","authors":"S. Kunst, Theresa Kuhn, H. G. van de Werfhorst","doi":"10.1177/14651165221140230","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221140230","url":null,"abstract":"Citizens with higher levels of education are consistently found to be more open to immigration and European integration than those with less education. However, the literature has neglected the issue of whether educational divides in anti-globalisation sentiment result from people's own educational attainment or whether they are a consequence of deep-rooted positions of disadvantage across generations. In this article, we address the question to what extent the attitudes towards globalisation of intergenerationally mobile citizens, that is, those who obtain a different educational outcome than one's parents, adapt to the newly acquired social position or remain attached to the parental milieu. We apply diagonal reference models to study the influence of one's own and parental education level on attitudes to globalisation in 26 European countries using the European Social Survey between 2008 and 2018. Our results indicate that while mobile citizens adjust their attitudes to the achieved education level, there remains an enduring influence of the education level of origin. In addition, we find that the importance of parental educational attainment does not depend on the social fluidity between education levels within countries. Consequently, this study has important implications for studying political socialisation and the future of the educational divide over globalisation.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"264 - 285"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47984881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-20DOI: 10.1177/14651165221137994
Stefanie Walter, Lucy Kinski, Zsófia Boda
Research into parliamentary speech making–behaviour of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) usually takes a static perspective. We offer an interactive and dynamic approach that understands parliamentary debates as a relational network phenomenon and investigates MEPs’ debate interactions. This allows us to uncover dynamics of inclusiveness and pluralism, self-reinforcing power relationships and transnational policy alliances. Analyzing 11,408 debate interactions between MEPs using a combination of text and dynamic network analysis, we find that male, senior and influential parliamentarians from powerful member states receive more attention with evidence for a self-reinforcing effect over time. Interestingly, seniority matters more for debate attention than leadership positions. Sharing the same nationality and a similar political leaning also shape debate coalitions with the former being more important than the latter.
{"title":"Who talks to whom? Using social network models to understand debate networks in the European Parliament","authors":"Stefanie Walter, Lucy Kinski, Zsófia Boda","doi":"10.1177/14651165221137994","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221137994","url":null,"abstract":"Research into parliamentary speech making–behaviour of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) usually takes a static perspective. We offer an interactive and dynamic approach that understands parliamentary debates as a relational network phenomenon and investigates MEPs’ debate interactions. This allows us to uncover dynamics of inclusiveness and pluralism, self-reinforcing power relationships and transnational policy alliances. Analyzing 11,408 debate interactions between MEPs using a combination of text and dynamic network analysis, we find that male, senior and influential parliamentarians from powerful member states receive more attention with evidence for a self-reinforcing effect over time. Interestingly, seniority matters more for debate attention than leadership positions. Sharing the same nationality and a similar political leaning also shape debate coalitions with the former being more important than the latter.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"410 - 423"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47672233","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-16DOI: 10.1177/14651165221138000
A. Reinl, D. Braun
Although polarisation risks breaking up the European family, such conflicts paired with transnational challenges can also raise awareness of the need for more European Union (EU) cohesion. In order to approach the hitherto underspecified concept, this article connects the recent literature on social cohesion with research on various facets of public EU support – integration preferences, identity, voting behaviour, and solidarity. Building on survey data from 10 EU countries taken at the end of 2020, a latent class analysis identifies two distinct groups of preferences for EU cohesion: its friends and its foes. EU cohesion can be achieved by highlighting personal advantages of European integration and by stressing joint approaches to crises, civic education, and democratic processes.
{"title":"Who holds the union together? Citizens’ preferences for European Union cohesion in challenging times","authors":"A. Reinl, D. Braun","doi":"10.1177/14651165221138000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221138000","url":null,"abstract":"Although polarisation risks breaking up the European family, such conflicts paired with transnational challenges can also raise awareness of the need for more European Union (EU) cohesion. In order to approach the hitherto underspecified concept, this article connects the recent literature on social cohesion with research on various facets of public EU support – integration preferences, identity, voting behaviour, and solidarity. Building on survey data from 10 EU countries taken at the end of 2020, a latent class analysis identifies two distinct groups of preferences for EU cohesion: its friends and its foes. EU cohesion can be achieved by highlighting personal advantages of European integration and by stressing joint approaches to crises, civic education, and democratic processes.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"390 - 409"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47396448","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-16DOI: 10.1177/14651165221135742
Ioannis Vergioglou, S. Hegewald
Research on differentiated integration has paid considerable attention to its causes. However, we know very little about its consequences. Using the synthetic control method and interactive factor models, this article investigates the effects of differentiated integration on citizens’ support for the EU. We find that in cases where member states are granted an opt-out or are allowed to integrate into a policy area they were previously excluded from, support increases. In contrast, support decreases when member states are not granted a requested opt-out or are excluded from a policy area they would like to join. These findings carry important implications for the EU's legitimacy. While differentiated integration has the potential to enhance citizens’ legitimacy perceptions, it can also undermine them simultaneously.
{"title":"From causes to consequences: Investigating the effects of differentiated integration on citizens’ EU support","authors":"Ioannis Vergioglou, S. Hegewald","doi":"10.1177/14651165221135742","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221135742","url":null,"abstract":"Research on differentiated integration has paid considerable attention to its causes. However, we know very little about its consequences. Using the synthetic control method and interactive factor models, this article investigates the effects of differentiated integration on citizens’ support for the EU. We find that in cases where member states are granted an opt-out or are allowed to integrate into a policy area they were previously excluded from, support increases. In contrast, support decreases when member states are not granted a requested opt-out or are excluded from a policy area they would like to join. These findings carry important implications for the EU's legitimacy. While differentiated integration has the potential to enhance citizens’ legitimacy perceptions, it can also undermine them simultaneously.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"206 - 224"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41549372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-13DOI: 10.1177/14651165221135113
Pierre Georges Van Wolleghem, Hakan G. Sicakkan
Studies have sought to explain variation in protection recognition rates between EU member states with, however, limited explanatory power. Surprisingly, few have contemplated the role of the administration, despite it being at the centre of the process through which asylum claims are examined. We posit that recognition rates are significantly affected by administrative capacity, although the administration's action may be mitigated by political factors. Our findings show that administrative effectiveness and experience in asylum matters yield higher recognition rates. We show that government preferences and the overall political context affect protection recognition, too. Importantly, we also find that the mechanisms at play are different if we consider the different forms of protection.
{"title":"Asylum seekers in the machinery of the state: administrative capacity vs. preferences. Recognition rates in EU member states","authors":"Pierre Georges Van Wolleghem, Hakan G. Sicakkan","doi":"10.1177/14651165221135113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221135113","url":null,"abstract":"Studies have sought to explain variation in protection recognition rates between EU member states with, however, limited explanatory power. Surprisingly, few have contemplated the role of the administration, despite it being at the centre of the process through which asylum claims are examined. We posit that recognition rates are significantly affected by administrative capacity, although the administration's action may be mitigated by political factors. Our findings show that administrative effectiveness and experience in asylum matters yield higher recognition rates. We show that government preferences and the overall political context affect protection recognition, too. Importantly, we also find that the mechanisms at play are different if we consider the different forms of protection.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"348 - 369"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49379078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-09DOI: 10.1177/14651165221138026
O. Kiratli
Building upon the “new” new trade theory, this article proposes that the regional business demography plays a prominent role in shaping Europeans’ preferences on globalization. Specifically, I argue, regional populations of high-growth enterprises that take advantage of internationalization and export opportunities drive positive attitudes on globalization, especially among the “losers” of import competition. Regression models on cross-sectional survey data from Eurobarometer surveys covering ten waves between 2015 and 2019 supplemented by a series of macro-level covariates establish that residents in regions with higher shares of high-growth enterprises are more likely to view globalization as an opportunity. More importantly, the positive association between regional high-growth enterprise shares and support for globalization is particularly pronounced among lower-educated and lower-skilled individuals.
{"title":"Loving globalization: High-growth enterprises and public opinion on globalization in Europe","authors":"O. Kiratli","doi":"10.1177/14651165221138026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221138026","url":null,"abstract":"Building upon the “new” new trade theory, this article proposes that the regional business demography plays a prominent role in shaping Europeans’ preferences on globalization. Specifically, I argue, regional populations of high-growth enterprises that take advantage of internationalization and export opportunities drive positive attitudes on globalization, especially among the “losers” of import competition. Regression models on cross-sectional survey data from Eurobarometer surveys covering ten waves between 2015 and 2019 supplemented by a series of macro-level covariates establish that residents in regions with higher shares of high-growth enterprises are more likely to view globalization as an opportunity. More importantly, the positive association between regional high-growth enterprise shares and support for globalization is particularly pronounced among lower-educated and lower-skilled individuals.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"286 - 306"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43850898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-03DOI: 10.1177/14651165221133671
Lisanne de Blok, Catherine E. De Vries
This study examines public preferences for two forms of differentiated integration (DI): opt-outs and multi-speed EU. Due to the low salience of DI in domestic politics, we suggest that people use ideological benchmarks when forming opinions about DI mostly relating to their general predispositions towards the EU. While pro-EU citizens are more in favor of DI in the form of multiple speeds as this might pose a solution to overcome gridlock, Euroskeptic citizens display more support for opt-outs as a means to accommodate concerns about national identity and control. These differences are in turn accentuated by people’s left-right ideology. We test our hypotheses using public opinion data from the Eurobarometer between 2004 and 2018 and complete it with novel survey data. Our results suggest that while support for DI has increased in recent years, DI preferences largely coincide with ideological predispositions. Our findings indicate that rather than overcoming preference heterogeneity within the EU, DI might entrench existing fault lines.
{"title":"A blessing and a curse? Examining public preferences for differentiated integration","authors":"Lisanne de Blok, Catherine E. De Vries","doi":"10.1177/14651165221133671","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221133671","url":null,"abstract":"This study examines public preferences for two forms of differentiated integration (DI): opt-outs and multi-speed EU. Due to the low salience of DI in domestic politics, we suggest that people use ideological benchmarks when forming opinions about DI mostly relating to their general predispositions towards the EU. While pro-EU citizens are more in favor of DI in the form of multiple speeds as this might pose a solution to overcome gridlock, Euroskeptic citizens display more support for opt-outs as a means to accommodate concerns about national identity and control. These differences are in turn accentuated by people’s left-right ideology. We test our hypotheses using public opinion data from the Eurobarometer between 2004 and 2018 and complete it with novel survey data. Our results suggest that while support for DI has increased in recent years, DI preferences largely coincide with ideological predispositions. Our findings indicate that rather than overcoming preference heterogeneity within the EU, DI might entrench existing fault lines.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"143 - 163"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44434891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：