Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-5rzhg Total loading time: 0.218 Render date: 2021-11-28T03:51:31.844Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Representation through the eyes of the voter: a cost-benefit analysis of European integration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2016

Gabriela Borz*
Affiliation:
School of Government and Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Get access

Abstract

This article explains variation in the quality of representation in the context of European Parliament elections. Specifically, it clarifies how voters relate to political parties on the issue of European integration and whether they are represented, misrepresented, or indifferent to this issue. The analysis shows that perceived benefits of European integration do drive a perfect voter-party match while perceived costs, when high, drive a perfect match between Eurosceptic voters and likeminded parties and make voters less indifferent. The analysis draws attention to the high number of status quo voters who, in the absence of a party with similar views, could channel their vote towards a party promoting integration, but only if their knowledge about the EU and its benefits increases.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Società Italiana di Scienza Politica 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Azrout, R., van Spanje, J. and de Vreese, C. (2011), ‘Talking Turkey: anti-immigrant attitudes and their effect on support for Turkish membership of the EU’, European Union Politics 12(1): 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbulescu, R. (2009), ‘The economic crisis and its effects for intra-European movement: mobility patterns and state responses. the case of Romanians in Spain’. Centre on Migration, Policy and Society Annual Conference, September 21--22, University of Oxford, Oxford.Google Scholar
Belchior, M. (2013), ‘Explaining left-right congruence across European party systems: a test of micro, meso-, and macro-level models’, Comparative Political Studies 46(3): 352386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A. and Bodet, M.A. (2006), ‘Does proportional representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policymakers?’, Comparative Political Studies 39(10): 12431262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borz, G. and Rose, R. (2010), Mapping Parties Across Europe With Profiler Data, Aberdeen: CSPP Studies in Public Policy Number 470.Google Scholar
Brandenburg, H. and Johns, R. (2014), ‘The declining representativeness of the British Party System, and why it matters’, Political Studies 62: 704725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, I. and McDonald, M.D. (2007), ‘Elections and party system effects on policy representation: bringing time into comparative perspective’, Electoral Studies 26(1): 168179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, I., Keman, J.E., McDonald, M. and Pennings, P. (2012), Organizing Democratic Choice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrubba, C.J. (1997), ‘Net financial transfers in the European Union: who gets what and why?’, Journal of Politics 59(2): 469496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costello, R., Thomassen, J. and Rosema, M. (2012), ‘European parliamentary elections and political representation’, West European Politics 35(6): 12261248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, R. (1956), A Preface to Democratic Theory, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, R. (2015), ‘Party representation across multiple issue dimensions’, Party Politics, 114, first published online 16 November 2015.Google Scholar
Dalton, R., Farrell, D. and McAllister, I. (2011), Political Parties and Democratic Linkage, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vreese, C.H. and Boomgaarden, H.G. (2005), ‘Fear of immigration and support for European integration’, European Union Politics 6(1): 5982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, C.E., van der Brug, W., van Egmond, M.H. and van der Eijk, C. (2011), ‘Individual and contextual variation in EU issue voting: the role of political information’, Electoral Studies 30(1): 1628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, N.J. and Lupia, A. (2016), ‘Preference change in competitive political environments’, Annual Review of Political Science 19: 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, S.E. (1985), ‘Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: a panel analysis’, American Journal of Political Science 29(4): 891913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, M. and Wlezien, C. (1997), ‘The responsive public: issue salience, policy changes, and preferences for European unification’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 9(3): 347363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabel, M. (1998), ‘Public support for European integration: an empirical test of five theories’, Journal of Politics 60(20): 333354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A. and Hill, J. (2007), Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Golder, M. and Stramski, J. (2010), ‘Ideological congruence and electoral institutions’, American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 90106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golder, M. and Lloyd, G. (2014), ‘Re-evaluating the relationship between electoral rules and ideological congruence’, European Journal of Political Research 53(1): 200212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, S. and Marsh, M. (2007), ‘Punishment or protest?’, Journal of Politics 69(2): 495510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, S., Noury, A. and Roland, G. (2007), Democratic Politics in the European Parliament, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, S., Spoon, J.-J. and Tilley, J. (2009), ‘A vote against Europe? Explaining defection at the 1999 and 2004 European parliament elections’, British Journal of Political Science 39(1): 93115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J.D. and Powell, G.B. (1994), ‘Congruence between citizens and policy makers in two visions of liberal democracy’, World Politics 46(3): 291326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, R.S. (1980), A Theory of Parties and Electoral Systems, Baltimore, MD and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Leconte, C. (2010), Understanding Euroscepticism, Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (2003), ‘Rethinking representation’, American Political Science Review 97(4): 515528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattila, M. and Raunio, T. (2006), ‘Cautious voters, supportive parties: opinion congruence on EU dimension’, European Union Politics 7(4): 427449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, L.M. (2002), ‘Public support for the European Union: cost/benefit analysis or perceived cultural threat?’, Journal of Politics 64(2): 551566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, L.M. (2007), ‘Explaining opposition to Turkish membership of the EU’, European Union Politics 8(2): 251278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, H.F. (1967), The Concept of Representation, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G.B. (2009), ‘The ideological congruence controversy: the impact of alternative measures, data and time periods on the effects of election rules’, Comparative Political Studies 42(12): 14751497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G.B. and Vanberg, G. (2000), ‘Electoral laws, disproportionality and the left-right dimension’, British Journal of Political Science 30(3): 383411.Google Scholar
Rabe-Hesketh, S. and Skrondal, A. (2012), Multilevel and Longitudinal Modelling Using Stata, 3rd edn., College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Reif, K. and Schmitt, H. (1980), ‘Nine 2nd-order national elections – a conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results’, European Journal of Political Research 8(1): 344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, R. and Borz, G. (2015), ‘Static and dynamic views of European integration’, Journal of Common Market Studies 54(2): 370387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saward, M. (2014), ‘Shape-shifting representation’, American Political Science Review 108(4): 723736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, H. and Thomassen, J.J.A. (1999), Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenbergen, M.R. and Scott, D.J. (2004), ‘Contesting Europe? The salience of European integration as a party issue’, in G. Marks and M.R. Steenbergen (eds), European Integration and Political Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 165192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomassen, J. and Schmitt, H. (1999), ‘Policy congruence’, in H. Schmitt and J. Thomassen (eds), Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 186208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trechsel, A. and Mair, P. (2009), ‘When parties (also) position themselves: an introduction to the EU profiler’. EUI Working papers No. RSCAS 2009/65, European University Institute, Florence.Google Scholar
Van der Brug, W., van der Eijk, C. and Franklin, M. (2007), The Economy and the Vote: Economic Conditions in Fifteen Countries, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Eijk, C. and Franklin, M. (1991), ‘European community politics and electoral representation: evidence from the 1989 European Election Study’, European Journal of Political Research 19(1): 105127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Eijk, C. and Franklin, M. (2004), ‘European community politics and electoral representation: evidence from the 1989 European Election Study’, European Journal of Political Research 19(1): 105127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, W. (1999), ‘The sharing of sovereignty: the European paradox’, Political Studies XLVII(3): 503521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Representation through the eyes of the voter: a cost-benefit analysis of European integration
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Representation through the eyes of the voter: a cost-benefit analysis of European integration
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Representation through the eyes of the voter: a cost-benefit analysis of European integration
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *