IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v37y2007i01p89-114_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Government Preferences on European Integration: An Empirical Test of Five Theories

Author

Listed:
  • ASPINWALL, MARK

Abstract

This essay examines the causes of government support for European integration. It evaluates several competing theories, both material and ideological. Two dependent variables are examined: government support for European integration in Council of Ministers decisions, and in the 1997 Amsterdam intergovernmental conference. There appear to be sharp differences between the two decision-making fora in the efficacy of predictive variables. In the Council of Ministers, left–right political ideology and financial transfers from the European Union to member states provide the best explanations. In the Amsterdam conference, experience in the Second World War and financial transfers provide the best explanations. This research extends our understanding of why governments choose co-operation within the European Union. It also extends our understanding of the relationship between ideology and integration preferences. Ideology matters not just to parties, but also to governments, which represent both territorial interests and ideologies. There appears to be a linear relationship, whereby left governments are more supportive of integration than right governments.

Suggested Citation

  • Aspinwall, Mark, 2007. "Government Preferences on European Integration: An Empirical Test of Five Theories," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 89-114, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:37:y:2007:i:01:p:89-114_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123407000051/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. Oliver Treib, 2010. "Party Politics, National Interests and Government—Opposition Dynamics," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(1), pages 119-142, March.
    2. Josip Glaurdić & Vuk Vuković, 2015. "Prosperity and peace: Economic interests and war legacy in Croatia’s EU referendum vote," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(4), pages 577-600, December.
    3. Běla Plechanovová, 2011. "The EU Council enlarged: North-South-East or core-periphery?," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(1), pages 87-106, March.
    4. Austė Vaznonytė, 2020. "The rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU – Still an agenda-setter?," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 497-518, September.
    5. Patricia Esteve‐González & Helmut Herwartz & Bernd Theilen, 2021. "National support for the European integration project: Does financial integration matter?," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 357-378, July.
    6. Manuela Moschella & Nicola M Diodati, 2020. "Does politics drive conflict in central banks’ committees? Lifting the veil on the European Central Bank consensus," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(2), pages 183-203, June.
    7. Bodea, Cristina, 2015. "Fixed exchange rates with escape clauses: The political determinants of the European Monetary System realignments," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 25-40.
    8. Brian Burgoon, 2009. "Social Nation and Social Europe," European Union Politics, , vol. 10(4), pages 427-455, December.
    9. Daniel Finke, 2009. "Domestic Politics and European Treaty Reform," European Union Politics, , vol. 10(4), pages 482-506, December.
    10. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:47:y:2009:i::p:263-286 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Eric S. Nguyen, 2008. "Drivers and Brakemen," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(2), pages 269-293, June.
    12. Nathaniel Copsey & Tim Haughton, 2009. "The Choices for Europe: National Preferences in New and Old Member States," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 263-286, March.

    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:37:y:2007:i:01:p:89-114_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.