IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v21y1991i04p443-468_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Postmaterialism, Cognitive Mobilization and Public Support for European Integration

Author

Listed:
  • Janssen, Joseph I. H.

Abstract

This article reviews the trends in public support for European integration in West Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain. The first conclusion is that the picture one gets depends heavily on the indicator one uses to measure support. This finding is probably a consequence of the fact that many people are only dimly aware of the issue. Furthermore, it appears that there are striking cross-national differences in support and in the development of support through time. To explain these differences, as well as the formation of individual attitudes towards integration, Inglehart's theory of the Silent Revolution is used. The theory and its central concepts – postmaterialism and cognitive mobilization – are put on trial at three levels of aggregation. The results are poor. Postmaterialism appears to be unrelated to attitudes towards European integration, while the concept of cognitive mobilization makes sense only at the individual level. The conclusion is therefore that Inglehart's theory is of almost no use in explaining attitudes towards integration and cross-national differences in support.

Suggested Citation

  • Janssen, Joseph I. H., 1991. "Postmaterialism, Cognitive Mobilization and Public Support for European Integration," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(4), pages 443-468, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:21:y:1991:i:04:p:443-468_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123400006256/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias, 2010. "Problem perception and public expectations in international institutions: Evidence from a German representative survey," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2010-302, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    2. Sylvia Kritzinger, 2003. "The Influence of the Nation-State on Individual Support for the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 4(2), pages 219-241, June.
    3. Jordi Muñoz & Mariano Torcal & Eduard Bonet, 2011. "Institutional trust and multilevel government in the European Union: Congruence or compensation?," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(4), pages 551-574, December.
    4. Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias, 2013. "Why do they want the UN to decide? A two-step model of public support for UN authority," TranState Working Papers 171, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    5. Hans Rattinger, 1994. "Public Attitudes to European Integration in Germany after Maastricht: Inventory and Typology," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 525-540, December.
    6. Roxana-Otilia-Sonia HRITCU, 2015. "European Integration: A Multilevel Process That Requires A Multilevel Statistical Analysis," CES Working Papers, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 7(3), pages 728-739, September.
    7. Ignacio Sánchez-Cuenca, 2000. "The Political Basis of Support for European Integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 1(2), pages 147-171, June.
    8. Christopher J Anderson & Jason D Hecht, 2018. "The preference for Europe: Public opinion about European integration since 1952," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(4), pages 617-638, December.
    9. Jo Saglie, 2000. "Values, Perceptions and European Integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 1(2), pages 227-249, June.
    10. Leonard Ray, 2003. "Reconsidering the Link between Incumbent Support and Pro-EU Opinion," European Union Politics, , vol. 4(3), pages 259-279, September.
    11. Brent F. Nelsen & James L. Guth, 2000. "Exploring the Gender Gap," European Union Politics, , vol. 1(3), pages 267-291, October.
    12. Ronald D. Gelleny & Christopher J. Anderson, 2000. "The Economy, Accountability, and Public Support for the President of the European Commission," European Union Politics, , vol. 1(2), pages 173-200, June.
    13. Roxana-Otilia-Sonia Hritcu, 2015. "Multilevel Models: Conceptual Framework and Applicability," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 11(5), pages 72-83, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:21:y:1991:i:04:p:443-468_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.