Pub Date : 2022-09-25DOI: 10.1177/14651165221127633
Julian Schuessler, M. Heermann, Dirk Leuffen, Lisanne de Blok, Catherine E. De Vries
This article maps and investigates public support for different types of differentiated integration (DI) in the European Union. We examine citizens’ preferences for DI using novel survey data from eight EU member states. The data reveals substantive differences in support for different types of DI. Factor analyses reveal two dimensions that seem to structure citizens’ evaluations of DI. The first dimension relates to the effect of DI on the European integration project, the second concerns the safeguarding of national autonomy. Citizens’ attitudes on this second dimension vary substantively across countries. General EU support is the most important correlate of DI support, correlating positively with the first and negatively with the second dimension. Our results underline that while citizens generally care about the fairness of DI, balancing out their different concerns can be a challenging political task.
{"title":"Mapping public support for the varieties of differentiated integration","authors":"Julian Schuessler, M. Heermann, Dirk Leuffen, Lisanne de Blok, Catherine E. De Vries","doi":"10.1177/14651165221127633","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221127633","url":null,"abstract":"This article maps and investigates public support for different types of differentiated integration (DI) in the European Union. We examine citizens’ preferences for DI using novel survey data from eight EU member states. The data reveals substantive differences in support for different types of DI. Factor analyses reveal two dimensions that seem to structure citizens’ evaluations of DI. The first dimension relates to the effect of DI on the European integration project, the second concerns the safeguarding of national autonomy. Citizens’ attitudes on this second dimension vary substantively across countries. General EU support is the most important correlate of DI support, correlating positively with the first and negatively with the second dimension. Our results underline that while citizens generally care about the fairness of DI, balancing out their different concerns can be a challenging political task.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"164 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42437358","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 : 2022-09-25DOI: 10.1177/14651165221126072
Robert Zbíral, Sebastiaan Princen, Hubert Smekal
This article analyses the extent to which European Union (EU) directives allow for variation in domestic implementation. Such flexibility in implementation may be used to deal with heterogeneity among member states. Based on an original dataset of 164 directives adopted between 2006 and 2015, we find that the use of flexibility is associated more with efforts to accommodate differences between national policies (substantive use of discretion) than with attempts to facilitate the decision-making process in and between EU legislative institutions (strategic use of discretion). Although flexibility may be used to address some of the same concerns that drive differentiated integration (DI), the situations in which each is most likely to be used are distinct because they approach the divergences between member states differently.
{"title":"Differentiation through flexibility in implementation: Strategic and substantive uses of discretion in EU directives","authors":"Robert Zbíral, Sebastiaan Princen, Hubert Smekal","doi":"10.1177/14651165221126072","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221126072","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the extent to which European Union (EU) directives allow for variation in domestic implementation. Such flexibility in implementation may be used to deal with heterogeneity among member states. Based on an original dataset of 164 directives adopted between 2006 and 2015, we find that the use of flexibility is associated more with efforts to accommodate differences between national policies (substantive use of discretion) than with attempts to facilitate the decision-making process in and between EU legislative institutions (strategic use of discretion). Although flexibility may be used to address some of the same concerns that drive differentiated integration (DI), the situations in which each is most likely to be used are distinct because they approach the divergences between member states differently.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"102 - 120"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49131913","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 : 2022-09-13DOI: 10.1177/14651165221123155
S. Hix, Clifton van der Linden, Joanna Massie, Mark Pickup, J. Savoie
The Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) is the start of a new relationship between the UK and the European Union (EU). As the consequences of Brexit unfold, there will be pressure to change the TCA, either in a “softer” or “harder” direction. To determine the potential medium-term direction of the EU–UK relationship, we conducted a conjoint survey experiment with a sample of British voters, where we asked them to choose between different hypothetical package deals. When faced with such choices, British citizens overall mostly support a softer relationship in which the UK applies EU regulatory standards in return for greater access to the single market. However, Leave voters most often support a much harder trade-off of full regulatory sovereignty but continued restrictions on UK exports.
{"title":"Where is the EU–UK relationship heading? A conjoint survey experiment of Brexit trade-offs","authors":"S. Hix, Clifton van der Linden, Joanna Massie, Mark Pickup, J. Savoie","doi":"10.1177/14651165221123155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221123155","url":null,"abstract":"The Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) is the start of a new relationship between the UK and the European Union (EU). As the consequences of Brexit unfold, there will be pressure to change the TCA, either in a “softer” or “harder” direction. To determine the potential medium-term direction of the EU–UK relationship, we conducted a conjoint survey experiment with a sample of British voters, where we asked them to choose between different hypothetical package deals. When faced with such choices, British citizens overall mostly support a softer relationship in which the UK applies EU regulatory standards in return for greater access to the single market. However, Leave voters most often support a much harder trade-off of full regulatory sovereignty but continued restrictions on UK exports.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"184 - 205"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44740240","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 : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1177/14651165221082523
Thomas M. Meyer, Katjana Gattermann
We ask whether and why European political parties receive election news coverage abroad and investigate this phenomenon by combining theoretical stipulations regarding the politicisation of European integration and the horizontal Europeanisation of national public spheres. Based on a content analysis of 64 newspapers in 16 European Union countries following the 2019 European Parliament election, we argue that contestation over European integration increases the likelihood that foreign journalists report election results from a particular member state. Eurosceptic parties are more often visible abroad than Europhile parties, unless they stood for election in a highly polarised party system. Our results have important implications for the European Union's legitimacy as contestation over European integration increases the chances for citizens to learn about election results in other European countries.
{"title":"Party contestation and news visibility abroad: The 2019 European Parliament election from a pan-European perspective","authors":"Thomas M. Meyer, Katjana Gattermann","doi":"10.1177/14651165221082523","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221082523","url":null,"abstract":"We ask whether and why European political parties receive election news coverage abroad and investigate this phenomenon by combining theoretical stipulations regarding the politicisation of European integration and the horizontal Europeanisation of national public spheres. Based on a content analysis of 64 newspapers in 16 European Union countries following the 2019 European Parliament election, we argue that contestation over European integration increases the likelihood that foreign journalists report election results from a particular member state. Eurosceptic parties are more often visible abroad than Europhile parties, unless they stood for election in a highly polarised party system. Our results have important implications for the European Union's legitimacy as contestation over European integration increases the chances for citizens to learn about election results in other European countries.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"398 - 416"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48211997","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 : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1177/14651165221082517
Maximilian Filsinger, Markus Freitag
While analysis of the impact of threatening events has moved from bit player to center stage in political science in recent decades, the phenomenon of pandemic threat is widely neglected in terms of a systematic research agenda. Tying together insights from the behavioral immune system hypothesis and standard political science models of emotional processing, we evaluate whether exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic threat is related to authoritarian attitudes and which emotions do the work. Using 12 samples with over 12,000 respondents from six European countries at two time points (2020 and 2021), we argue that pandemic threats can generate disgust, anger, and fear. Our analyses indicate that exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic threat particularly activates fear, which in turn is linked to authoritarian attitudes.
{"title":"Pandemic threat and authoritarian attitudes in Europe: An empirical analysis of the exposure to COVID-19.","authors":"Maximilian Filsinger, Markus Freitag","doi":"10.1177/14651165221082517","DOIUrl":"10.1177/14651165221082517","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While analysis of the impact of threatening events has moved from bit player to center stage in political science in recent decades, the phenomenon of pandemic threat is widely neglected in terms of a systematic research agenda. Tying together insights from the behavioral immune system hypothesis and standard political science models of emotional processing, we evaluate whether exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic threat is related to authoritarian attitudes and which emotions do the work. Using 12 samples with over 12,000 respondents from six European countries at two time points (2020 and 2021), we argue that pandemic threats can generate disgust, anger, and fear. Our analyses indicate that exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic threat particularly activates fear, which in turn is linked to authoritarian attitudes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"417-436"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8894903/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49624434","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 : 2022-08-29DOI: 10.1177/14651165221121739
David Steinecke
In light of secluded decision-making and early agreements, a binding mandate for the European Parliament’s negotiation team is essential to prevent agency loss in trilogue negotiations. In this article, I investigate the influence of the often-overlooked shadow rapporteurs on this mandate. Shadow rapporteurs are their party group’s representatives and act as checks on the rapporteur. Drawing on novel insights from network analysis, I expect shadow rapporteurs and their stance on EU integration to affect the success of amendments they are sponsoring. I draw on a novel dataset of 1524 committee amendments and employ three-level multinomial logistic regression to test these expectations. I find shadow rapporteurs to be influential policy leaders who successfully shape the committee report and, therefore, mitigate the risk of agency loss in potential trilogues. Shadow rapporteurs can successfully check the rapporteur and thereby influence the content of EU legislation.
{"title":"Shadows as leaders? The amendment success of shadow rapporteurs in the European Parliament","authors":"David Steinecke","doi":"10.1177/14651165221121739","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221121739","url":null,"abstract":"In light of secluded decision-making and early agreements, a binding mandate for the European Parliament’s negotiation team is essential to prevent agency loss in trilogue negotiations. In this article, I investigate the influence of the often-overlooked shadow rapporteurs on this mandate. Shadow rapporteurs are their party group’s representatives and act as checks on the rapporteur. Drawing on novel insights from network analysis, I expect shadow rapporteurs and their stance on EU integration to affect the success of amendments they are sponsoring. I draw on a novel dataset of 1524 committee amendments and employ three-level multinomial logistic regression to test these expectations. I find shadow rapporteurs to be influential policy leaders who successfully shape the committee report and, therefore, mitigate the risk of agency loss in potential trilogues. Shadow rapporteurs can successfully check the rapporteur and thereby influence the content of EU legislation.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"700 - 720"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41556758","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 : 2022-08-28DOI: 10.1177/14651165221120773
Sara Hagemann
Data from leading scholarly journals and publishing houses show that the gender gap in academic publishing is deep and persistent. This has considerable consequences for individual careers and for academic knowledge across disciplines. As European political science journals have started to publish their gender data for submissions and publication processes, this article evaluates this trend and the conclusions from a recent symposium on ‘The gendered distribution of authors and reviewers in major European political science journals’. It summarises a list of ‘key gender data’ that journal editors are encouraged to publish on an annual basis to achieve a more accurate and comprehensive picture for individual journals and across the discipline. It also includes suggestions for editors to ensure better citations of female scholars in their journals.
{"title":"Why does gender inequality in academic publishing persist? Lessons and recommendations","authors":"Sara Hagemann","doi":"10.1177/14651165221120773","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221120773","url":null,"abstract":"Data from leading scholarly journals and publishing houses show that the gender gap in academic publishing is deep and persistent. This has considerable consequences for individual careers and for academic knowledge across disciplines. As European political science journals have started to publish their gender data for submissions and publication processes, this article evaluates this trend and the conclusions from a recent symposium on ‘The gendered distribution of authors and reviewers in major European political science journals’. It summarises a list of ‘key gender data’ that journal editors are encouraged to publish on an annual basis to achieve a more accurate and comprehensive picture for individual journals and across the discipline. It also includes suggestions for editors to ensure better citations of female scholars in their journals.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"729 - 740"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45205804","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 : 2022-08-22DOI: 10.1177/14651165221120370
M. Gilli, P. Tedeschi
There are two main categories of counterterrorism policies: proactive and defensive measures. Proactive policies directly target terrorists and, by weakening their ability, share public good features. Defensive measures, on the other hand, seek to protect a potential target. Unilateral defensive measures may induce terrorists to replace one target with another, possibly a foreign one, as confirmed by the succession of terrorist attacks in the European Union over the last 20 years. We analyse different institutional frameworks to determine the best one for interstate cooperation considering the externationalites of various counterterrorism measures. This article highlights the combined effect of voter propensity towards defensive policies, certain intelligence policies and different institutional scenarios on the (in)efficient strategic choice of counterterrorism defensive policies in democratic countries, where efficiency means maximising the joint welfare of countries. We consider four different institutional scenarios: decentralisation, intelligence cooperation, unanimous political cooperation and full political union. We model these situations as a three-stage signalling game and show that, surprisingly, intelligence cooperation increases the probability of efficient defensive policies more than unanimous political cooperation.
{"title":"European Union, transnational terrorism and the strategic choice of counterterrorism policies in democratic countries","authors":"M. Gilli, P. Tedeschi","doi":"10.1177/14651165221120370","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221120370","url":null,"abstract":"There are two main categories of counterterrorism policies: proactive and defensive measures. Proactive policies directly target terrorists and, by weakening their ability, share public good features. Defensive measures, on the other hand, seek to protect a potential target. Unilateral defensive measures may induce terrorists to replace one target with another, possibly a foreign one, as confirmed by the succession of terrorist attacks in the European Union over the last 20 years. We analyse different institutional frameworks to determine the best one for interstate cooperation considering the externationalites of various counterterrorism measures. This article highlights the combined effect of voter propensity towards defensive policies, certain intelligence policies and different institutional scenarios on the (in)efficient strategic choice of counterterrorism defensive policies in democratic countries, where efficiency means maximising the joint welfare of countries. We consider four different institutional scenarios: decentralisation, intelligence cooperation, unanimous political cooperation and full political union. We model these situations as a three-stage signalling game and show that, surprisingly, intelligence cooperation increases the probability of efficient defensive policies more than unanimous political cooperation.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"612 - 638"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48899993","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 : 2022-08-22DOI: 10.1177/14651165221121720
F. Schimmelfennig, Thomas Winzen
Do integration crises reinforce legal differentiation in European integration? Are differentiated EU policies under stress prone to cascading opt-outs? We argue that integration crises as such are unlikely to cause further fragmentation in already differentiated EU regimes. If the EU decides to adopt new treaties and laws in response to the crises, however, these are likely to reproduce and extend pre-existing patterns of differentiation. Empirically, this study offers within-case counterfactual analyses of differentiation in the Euro and the migration crises. Whereas the Euro crisis triggered a major institutional change in the Eurozone, the member states could not agree on a thorough reform of the asylum system. Correspondingly, we observe excess differentiation in the Euro crisis but stable differentiation in the migration crisis.
{"title":"Cascading opt-outs? The effect of the Euro and migration crises on differentiated integration in the European Union","authors":"F. Schimmelfennig, Thomas Winzen","doi":"10.1177/14651165221121720","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221121720","url":null,"abstract":"Do integration crises reinforce legal differentiation in European integration? Are differentiated EU policies under stress prone to cascading opt-outs? We argue that integration crises as such are unlikely to cause further fragmentation in already differentiated EU regimes. If the EU decides to adopt new treaties and laws in response to the crises, however, these are likely to reproduce and extend pre-existing patterns of differentiation. Empirically, this study offers within-case counterfactual analyses of differentiation in the Euro and the migration crises. Whereas the Euro crisis triggered a major institutional change in the Eurozone, the member states could not agree on a thorough reform of the asylum system. Correspondingly, we observe excess differentiation in the Euro crisis but stable differentiation in the migration crisis.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"21 - 41"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65744702","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 : 2022-08-15DOI: 10.1177/14651165221119083
F. Schimmelfennig, Dirk Leuffen, Catherine E. De Vries
Research on differentiated integration (DI) in the European Union (EU) has focused on the causes, conditions, and patterns of differentiation in European integration. By contrast, we know less about its effects on institutional outcomes and public support; moreover, alternatives to de jure DI in providing flexibility are still rarely accounted for. This introduction to the special issue takes stock of, and discusses omissions, in the current literature on DI. We propose an analytical framework, centering on efficiency and legitimacy, to study the effects of different types of DI. We use this framework to motivate the choice and assess the contributions of the articles selected for this special issue.
{"title":"Differentiated integration in the European Union: Institutional effects, public opinion, and alternative flexibility arrangements","authors":"F. Schimmelfennig, Dirk Leuffen, Catherine E. De Vries","doi":"10.1177/14651165221119083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221119083","url":null,"abstract":"Research on differentiated integration (DI) in the European Union (EU) has focused on the causes, conditions, and patterns of differentiation in European integration. By contrast, we know less about its effects on institutional outcomes and public support; moreover, alternatives to de jure DI in providing flexibility are still rarely accounted for. This introduction to the special issue takes stock of, and discusses omissions, in the current literature on DI. We propose an analytical framework, centering on efficiency and legitimacy, to study the effects of different types of DI. We use this framework to motivate the choice and assess the contributions of the articles selected for this special issue.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"24 1","pages":"3 - 20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43171292","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：