IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/bg7xh.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Political Ideology, Policy Preferences and Public Support for European Integration

Author

Listed:
  • Toshkov, Dimiter

Abstract

How does support for European integration relate to left-right political ideology? Studies of political parties and elites often find that the relationship resembles an inverted U-curve, with support highest at the center of the scale and falling both towards the extreme left and extreme right ends. The same ‘horseshoe’ pattern has been observed with respect to public opinion as well, but recent studies question its generalizability across countries, time periods and measures of support for European integration. This article reports the most comprehensive study to date of the relationships between support for European integration (operationalized in several different ways) with self-placement on the left-right ideological scale and policy preferences for redistribution, immigration and gay rights. Based on data from the European Social Survey and Eurobarometer, I chart the patterns of covariation for all countries in the European Union between 2004 and 2020. The analysis introduces the use of flexible non-parametric methods (generalized additive models) and more appropriate measures of dependence (the distance correlation coefficient) than the usually-employed Pearson’s correlation and regression coefficients. I find that the relationship between public support for European integration and left-right ideology is weak and extremely heterogeneous across countries. The exact form of the relationship depends on the operationalization of European integration support, the country and the time period, but it rarely resembles the classic inverted U-curve. In fact, EU support is typically highest at the moderate left rather than at the center. The relationship of support for European integration with immigration attitudes is much stronger, stable and almost linear; with support for gay rights is also linear but considerably weaker than with immigration; with support for redistribution there is practically no relationship at all. There is some evidence that the strength of the link with different policy preferences peaks when the salience of the policy issue is highest. But there is much remaining variation that calls for an explanation.

Suggested Citation

  • Toshkov, Dimiter, 2023. "Political Ideology, Policy Preferences and Public Support for European Integration," OSF Preprints bg7xh, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:bg7xh
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/bg7xh
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/63e10cf02781fc076a00b63b/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/bg7xh?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. Hooghe, Liesbet & Marks, Gary, 2009. "A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 1-23, January.
    2. Daniel Jackson & Seth Jolly, 2021. "A new divide? Assessing the transnational-nationalist dimension among political parties and the public across the EU," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(2), pages 316-339, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ann-Kathrin Reinl & Daniela Braun, 2023. "Who holds the union together? Citizens’ preferences for European Union cohesion in challenging times," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(2), pages 390-409, June.
    2. Nicholas Clark & Robert Rohrschneider, 2021. "Tracing the development of nationalist attitudes in the EU," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(2), pages 181-201, June.
    3. Chase Foster & Jeffry Frieden, 2021. "Economic determinants of public support for European integration, 1995–2018," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(2), pages 266-292, June.
    4. Roman Hlatky, 2023. "The politicization of European integration and support for restrictive migration policies," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 684-707, December.
    5. Julian Aichholzer & Sylvia Kritzinger & Carolina Plescia, 2021. "National identity profiles and support for the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(2), pages 293-315, June.
    6. Marco Manacorda & Guido Tabellini & Andrea Tesei, 2022. "Mobile internet and the rise of political tribalism in Europe," CEP Discussion Papers dp1877, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    7. Soetkin Verhaegen & Marc Hooghe & Ellen Quintelier, 2014. "European Identity and Support for European Integration: A Matter of Perceived Economic Benefits?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 295-314, May.
    8. Rauh, Christian, 2015. "Communicating supranational governance? The salience of EU affairs in the German Bundestag, 1991–2013," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 16(1), pages 116-138.
    9. Katjana Gattermann & Claes H De Vreese, 2017. "The role of candidate evaluations in the 2014 European Parliament elections: Towards the personalization of voting behaviour?," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(3), pages 447-468, September.
    10. Liesbet Hooghe & Tobias Lenz & Gary Marks, 2019. "Contested world order: The delegitimation of international governance," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 731-743, December.
    11. Braun, Daniela & Grande, Edgar, 2021. "Politicizing Europe in Elections to the European Parliament (1994–2019): The Crucial Role of Mainstream Parties," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 59(5), pages 1124-1141.
    12. Esther Ademmer & Anna Leupold & Tobias Stöhr, 2019. "Much ado about nothing? The (non-) politicisation of the European Union in social media debates on migration," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(2), pages 305-327, June.
    13. Ronja Sczepanski, 2023. "European by action: How voting reshapes nested identities," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 751-770, December.
    14. V. Sidenko, 2017. "The crisis processes in the EU development: origins and prospects," Economy and Forecasting, Valeriy Heyets, issue 1, pages 7-30.
    15. Michaël Tatham & Mads Thau, 2014. "The more the merrier: Accounting for regional paradiplomats in Brussels," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(2), pages 255-276, June.
    16. Daniel Pastorek, 2020. "Measuring the Public Perception of the European Integration Process: Evidence from the United Kingdom and Germany," European Journal of Business Science and Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Faculty of Business and Economics, vol. 6(2), pages 113-126.
    17. 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.
    18. Achim Hurrelmann, 2023. "Constitutional Abeyances: Reflecting on EU Treaty Development in Light of the Canadian Experience," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(3), pages 241-250.
    19. Roberta Rocca & Katharina Lawall & Manos Tsakiris & Laura Cram, 2024. "Communicating Europe: a computational analysis of the evolution of the European Commission’s communication on Twitter," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 1223-1274, October.
    20. Rauh, Christian, 2022. "Clear messages to the European public? The language of European Commission press releases 1985–2020," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue Latest Ar, pages 1-19.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:osfxxx:bg7xh. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.