IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v21y2020i4p590-611.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does differentiated integration strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU? Evidence from the 2015 Danish opt-out referendum

Author

Listed:
  • Dominik Schraff

    (Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland)

  • Frank Schimmelfennig

Abstract

Differentiation has become a durable feature of European integration but we know little about its effects on citizens. Does differentiated integration improve the democratic quality of the European Union and strengthen citizens’ support – or does it promote political divides and foster citizens’ alienation from European integration? This article develops a theoretical argument on the positive attitudinal effects of differentiated integration, contending that differentiation accommodates heterogeneous preferences in a diverse EU and strengthens citizens’ ownership of European integration. A quasi-experimental analysis of public opinion of the 2015 Danish Justice and Home Affairs opt-out referendum demonstrates that the public vote increased citizens’ EU efficacy, indeed. Eurosceptic voters in particular strengthen their belief that their individual voice counts in EU politics, suggesting that differentiation can have a positive effect on the perceived democratic quality of the EU.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominik Schraff & Frank Schimmelfennig, 2020. "Does differentiated integration strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU? Evidence from the 2015 Danish opt-out referendum," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 590-611, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:21:y:2020:i:4:p:590-611
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116520949698
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116520949698
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116520949698?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francis Cheneval & Frank Schimmelfennig, 2013. "The Case for Demoicracy in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 334-350, March.
    2. Marian Burk & Dirk Leuffen, 2019. "On the Methodology of Studying Differentiated (Dis)integration: Or How the Potential Outcome Framework Can Contribute to Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Opting In or Out," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(6), pages 1395-1406, November.
    3. ANDERSON, CHRISTOPHER J. & LoTEMPIO, ANDREW J., 2002. "Winning, Losing and Political Trust in America," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 335-351, April.
    4. Sveinung Arnesen & Troy S Broderstad & Mikael P Johannesson & Jonas Linde, 2019. "Conditional legitimacy: How turnout, majority size, and outcome affect perceptions of legitimacy in European Union membership referendums," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(2), pages 176-197, June.
    5. Esaiasson, Peter & Persson, Mikael & Gilljam, Mikael & Lindholm, Torun, 2019. "Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 291-314, January.
    6. André Blais & François Gélineau, 2007. "Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 425-441, June.
    7. André Blais & François Gélineau, 2007. "Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(2), pages 425-441, June.
    8. Brambor, Thomas & Clark, William Roberts & Golder, Matt, 2006. "Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 63-82, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Winzen & Frank Schimmelfennig, 2023. "National Differentiation Experience and Citizen Support for Differentiated Integration," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(5), pages 1235-1260, September.
    2. Lisanne de Blok & Max Heermann & Julian Schuessler & Dirk Leuffen & Catherine E. de Vries, 2024. "All on board? The role of institutional design for public support for differentiated integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(3), pages 593-604, September.
    3. Martin Moland, 2024. "Opting for Opt‐outs? National Identities and Support for a Differentiated EU," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 55-73, January.
    4. Martin Moland, 2024. "Past Political Asymmetry and Present Public Opinion: How Has the Asymmetrical Federation of the EU Shaped Popular Opinion of Its Optimal Shape?," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 54(2), pages 361-385.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John, Peter & Sjoberg, Fredrik M, 2020. "Partisan responses to democracy promotion – Estimating the causal effect of a civic information portal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    2. Ali Abdelzadeh, 2014. "The Impact of Political Conviction on the Relation Between Winning or Losing and Political Dissatisfaction," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, May.
    3. Stiers, Dieter & Dassonneville, Ruth, 2018. "Affect versus cognition: Wishful thinking on election day," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 199-215.
    4. Gloria Danqiao Cheng & Serena Does & Margaret Shih, 2024. "Partisan differences in perceived levels of democracy across presidential administrations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Jonathan Rose & Cees van der Eijk, 2022. "The World Isn’t Fair, but Shouldn’t Elections Be? Evaluating Prospective Beliefs about the Fairness of Elections and Referenda," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-27, May.
    6. Carolina Plescia & Jean-François Daoust & André Blais, 2021. "Do European elections enhance satisfaction with European Union democracy?," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 94-113, March.
    7. Mayne, Quinton & Hakhverdian, Armen, 2016. "Ideological Congruence and Citizen Satisfaction: Evidence from 25 Advanced Democracies," Scholarly Articles 25302405, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    8. Marlene Mauk, 2022. "Electoral integrity matters: how electoral process conditions the relationship between political losing and political trust," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1709-1728, June.
    9. Wagner, Alexander F. & Schneider, Friedrich & Halla, Martin, 2009. "The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe -- A panel analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 30-41, March.
    10. Ashley Jardina & Robert Mickey, 2022. "White Racial Solidarity and Opposition to American Democracy," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 699(1), pages 79-89, January.
    11. Angeline G. A. Nariswari & Qimei Chen, 2016. "Siding with the underdog: is your customer voting effort a sweet deal for your competitors?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 701-713, December.
    12. Barbara Dluhosch & Daniel Horgos & Klaus W. Zimmermann, 2016. "EU enlargement and satisfaction with democracy: a peculiar case of immiserizing growth," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 273-298, September.
    13. Christiansen, Petter, 2018. "Public support of transport policy instruments, perceived transport quality and satisfaction with democracy. What is the relationship?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 305-318.
    14. Badom Porbari Monbari & Ndeeue Kuapie, 2024. "Gender Inequality and Women Participation in Political Activities and Peace Processes in Rivers State, Nigeria," European Review of Applied Sociology, Sciendo, vol. 17(29), pages 25-38.
    15. Tiziana La Rocca & Maurizio La Rocca & Francesco Fasano & Alfio Cariola, 2023. "Does a country's environmental policy affect the value of small and medium sized enterprises liquidity in the energy sector?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 277-290, January.
    16. Lisanne de Blok & Max Heermann & Julian Schuessler & Dirk Leuffen & Catherine E. de Vries, 2024. "All on board? The role of institutional design for public support for differentiated integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(3), pages 593-604, September.
    17. Ehigiamusoe, Kizito Uyi & Lean, Hooi Hooi & Smyth, Russell, 2020. "The moderating role of energy consumption in the carbon emissions-income nexus in middle-income countries," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(C).
    18. Falavigna, Greta & Ippoliti, Roberto, 2023. "SMEs’ behavior under financial constraints: An empirical investigation on the legal environment and the substitution effect with tax arrears," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    19. Christoph Engel & Luigi Mittone & Azzurra Morreale, 2024. "Outcomes or participation? Experimentally testing competing sources of legitimacy for taxation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(2), pages 563-583, April.
    20. Bilin Neyapti, 2018. "Income distribution and economic crises," International Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 273-296, December.

    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:sae:eeupol:v:21:y:2020:i:4:p:590-611. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.