Interests, Identity and Political Allegiance in the European Union

Abstract

We take up a longstanding question within the field of European Union (EU) studies: What explains the variation in public support for European integration? There are two dominant explanations: the utilitarian self-interest and the national identity perspectives. The former viewpoint stresses that citizens are more likely to support European integration, if it results in a net benefit to their economy or pocketbook, while the latter perspective argues that identity considerations predominantly influence EU support. Drawing on the concept of double allegiance, we argue that these perspectives should be combined into one single explanatory framework rather than framed as alternatives. Using a multilevel model, we empirically substantiate the claim that interest- and identity-based explanations capture different sides of the same coin, as the more citizens perceive integration to threaten their (economic and social–psychological) security and well-being, the less likely they will support the EU.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    It is important to note, however, that recent studies examining the relationship between macroeconomic performance and EU support suggest that the explanatory power of macroeconomic considerations has declined after the Treaty of Maastricht. Eichenberg and Dalton (this issue) show that whereas macroeconomic performance largely explains EU support prior to the Maastricht treaty, this relationship no longer holds.

  2. 2.

    Note that for instance some EU citizens with an exclusive national identity may very well be ‘intergovernmentalists’ in their worldview and understand the EU in a Milwardian sense: a form of policy coordination and cooperation between nation-states that is capable of rescueing the nation-state and therefore the object and source of national identification (Milward, 1992, 3).

  3. 3.

    We performed a principal component analysis using the four EU support indicators. The results demonstrate that one component was extracted (factor loadings from 0.72 to 0.86), which explains 65.8% of the variance.

  4. 4.

    Appendix B provides an overview of the Eurosceptic rightwing extremist parties included in the analysis.

  5. 5.

    We employed a pooled OLS regression analysis. The model included dummy variables for those countries that are known to have an extraordinary high level of EU support, in this sample Portugal and Ireland, and those countries that are known to have an above average scepticism towards the EU, in this sample Sweden and the United Kingdom. When we add these dummies to the regression equations (simulating the contextual effect), we find that the effect of economic anxiety increases, whereas the impact of exclusive identity remains stable or decreases slightly. This result demonstrates that causal heterogeneity is a serious fact to reckon with. Hence, we employ a multilevel analysis to account for these contextual effects.

  6. 6.

    As contextual measures are constant for individual cases residing within a given country, using standard modelling techniques such as (logistic) regression violates the assumption of independent observations. The result is that estimates of standard errors are reduced that increases the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when accepting the null is more appropriate. The HLM avoids this by estimating distinct models at each level and by estimating unique level-1 models for each level-2 unit (Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992).

  7. 7.

    All estimates included in this paper were obtained using MLwiN V2.1.

References

  1. Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Regressions, Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alexander, G. (2002) The Sources of Democratic Consolidation, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, B. (1992) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson, C.J. and Reichert, M.S. (1995) ‘Economic benefits and support for membership in the EU: a cross-national analysis’, Journal of Public Policy 15 (3): 231–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson, C.J. and Kaltenthaler, K.C. (1996) ‘The dynamics of public opinion toward European integration, 1973–93’, European Journal of International Relations 2 (2): 175–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brambor, T., Clark, T.R. and Golder, M. (2006) ‘Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analysis’, Political Analysis 14 (1): 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brinegar, A. and Jolly, S. (2005) ‘Location, location, location: national contextual factors and public support for European integration’, European Union Politics 6 (2): 155–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brinegar, A., Kitschelt, H. and Jolly, S. (2004) ‘Varieties of Capitalism and Political Divides over European Integration’, in G. Marks and M.R. Steenbergen (eds.) European Integration and Political Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 62–89.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bruter, M. (2003) ‘Winning hearts and minds for Europe: the impact of news and symbols on civic and cultural European identity’, Comparative Political Studies 36 (10): 1148–1179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bryk, A.S. and Raudenbush, S.W . (1992) Hierarchical Linear Models: Application and Data Analysis Methods, London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carey, S. (2002) ‘Undivided loyalties: is national identity an obstacle to European integration?’ European Union Politics 3 (4): 387–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carey, S. and Lebo, M. (2001) ‘In Europe, but not Europeans: The Impact of National Identity on Public Support for the European Union’, Paper presented at the 29th Joint Sessions of the European Consortium for Political Research, 6–11, Grenoble, France.

  13. Debets, P. and Brouwer, E. (1989) User's Manual to MSP: A Program for Mokken Scale Analysis for Polychotomous Items Version 1.50, Groninigen: ProGAMMA.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Eichenberg, R.C. and Dalton, R.J. (1993) ‘Europeans and the European community: the dynamics of public support for European integration’, International Organization 47 (4): 507–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Franklin, M., Marsh, M. and McLaren, L. (1994) ‘The European question: opposition to unification in the wake of Maastricht’, Journal of Common Market Studies 35 (4): 455–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gabel, M.J. (1998) ‘Economic integration and mass politics: market liberalization and public attitudes in the European union’, American Journal of Political Science 42 (3): 936–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gabel, M.J. and Palmer, H.D. (1995) ‘Understanding variation in public support for European integration’, European Journal of Political Research 27 (1): 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Haesly, R. (2001) ‘Eurosceptics, Europhiles and instrumental Europeans: European attachment in Scotland and Wales’, European Union Politics 2 (1): 81–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2005) ‘Community, calculation and cues: public opinion on European integration’, European Union Politics 6 (4): 419–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kreft, I. and de Leeuw, J. (1998) Introducing Multilevel Modelling, London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lindberg, L.N. and Scheingold, S.A. (1970) Europe's Would-be Polity: Patterns of Change in the European Community, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Luedtke, A. (2005) ‘European integration, public opinion and immigration policy: testing the impact of national identity’, European Union Politics 6 (4): 83–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Marks, G. (1999) ‘Territorial Identities in the European Union’, in J. J. Anderson (ed.) Regional Integration and Democracy: Expanding on the European Experience, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 69–91.

    Google Scholar 

  24. McLaren, L. (2002) ‘Public support for European integration: cost/benefit analysis or perceived cultural threat’, Journal of Politics 64 (2): 551–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Milward, A.S. (1992) The European Rescue of the Nation-State, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Netjes, C.E. and Edwards, E.E. (2005) ‘Taking Europe to its extremes: examining cueing effects of right-wing populist parties on public opinion regarding European integration’, Discussion Paper SP IV 2005-202, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB).

  27. Ray, L. (2004) ‘Don't Rock the Boat: Expectations, Fears, and Opposition to EU-Level Policy-Making’, in G. Marks and M. R. Steenbergen (eds.) European Integration and Political Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 51–61.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Smith, A. (1991) National Identity, Handsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Steenbergen, M.R. and Jones, B.S. (2002) ‘Modeling multilevel data structures’, American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 218–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Steenbergen, M.R. and Marks, G. (2004) ‘Introduction: Models of Political Conflict in the European Union’, in G. Marks and M. R. Steenbergen (eds.) European Integration and Political Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Van Kersbergen, K. (2000) ‘Political allegiance and European integration’, European Journal of Political Research 37 (1): 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Van Kersbergen, K. (2003) ‘Welfare state reform and political allegiance’, The European Legacy 8 (5): 559–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Appendices

Appendix A

Description of variables

Table A1

Table 4 Table a1

Appendix B

Eurosceptic Rightwing Extremist Parties

Table B1

Table 5 Table a2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de Vries, C., van Kersbergen, K. Interests, Identity and Political Allegiance in the European Union. Acta Polit 42, 307–328 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500184

Download citation

Keywords

  • Euroscepticism
  • political allegiance
  • identity
  • interests
  • hierarchical models