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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
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.
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).
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.
Appendix B provides an overview of the Eurosceptic rightwing extremist parties included in the analysis.
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.
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).
All estimates included in this paper were obtained using MLwiN V2.1.
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Regressions, Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Alexander, G. (2002) The Sources of Democratic Consolidation, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Anderson, B. (1992) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso.
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.
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.
Brambor, T., Clark, T.R. and Golder, M. (2006) ‘Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analysis’, Political Analysis 14 (1): 63–82.
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.
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.
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.
Bryk, A.S. and Raudenbush, S.W . (1992) Hierarchical Linear Models: Application and Data Analysis Methods, London: Sage Publications.
Carey, S. (2002) ‘Undivided loyalties: is national identity an obstacle to European integration?’ European Union Politics 3 (4): 387–413.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Haesly, R. (2001) ‘Eurosceptics, Europhiles and instrumental Europeans: European attachment in Scotland and Wales’, European Union Politics 2 (1): 81–102.
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2005) ‘Community, calculation and cues: public opinion on European integration’, European Union Politics 6 (4): 419–443.
Kreft, I. and de Leeuw, J. (1998) Introducing Multilevel Modelling, London: Sage Publications.
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.
Luedtke, A. (2005) ‘European integration, public opinion and immigration policy: testing the impact of national identity’, European Union Politics 6 (4): 83–112.
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.
McLaren, L. (2002) ‘Public support for European integration: cost/benefit analysis or perceived cultural threat’, Journal of Politics 64 (2): 551–566.
Milward, A.S. (1992) The European Rescue of the Nation-State, London: Routledge.
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).
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.
Smith, A. (1991) National Identity, Handsworth: Penguin.
Steenbergen, M.R. and Jones, B.S. (2002) ‘Modeling multilevel data structures’, American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 218–237.
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.
Van Kersbergen, K. (2000) ‘Political allegiance and European integration’, European Journal of Political Research 37 (1): 1–17.
Van Kersbergen, K. (2003) ‘Welfare state reform and political allegiance’, The European Legacy 8 (5): 559–571.
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
- political allegiance
- hierarchical models