Skip to main content

Euroscepticism in Times of Crisis: A Macro-Level Analysis of the Euro Crisis’ Effects on Public Opinion and Party Competition on European Integration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Anti-Europeanism

Abstract

In this chapter, we investigate how Euroscepticism in the public opinion and party systems of EU member states has developed since the 1990s. In particular, we analyse to what extent the Euro crisis has affected specific support for the EU regime and diffuse support for the process of European integration, as well as the party systems’ positions on European integration. Our empirical macro-level analysis relates economic indicators to voter survey data (European Election Studies) and election manifestos of political parties (Euromanifestos). The findings imply that the economic and sovereign debt crisis in Europe has led to a strong rise in output-related Euroscepticism in the most affected countries, but that it barely led to a strong opposition to the European unification process. Moreover, party systems have only partly adapted to popular Euroscepticism during the Euro crisis.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term Euroscepticism itself is not without problems, as it is a rather vague, negative construction that implies a common “ideological core where none exists” and makes “absolutely no academic sense”, partly due to its creation “by non-academics using academic jargon” (Leruth et al. 2018: 4). Yet, it has emerged as a subfield of European studies and “has given way to hundreds of publications in increasingly prominent journals” (Szczerbiak and Taggart 2018: 12).

  2. 2.

    In this chapter, we concentrate, however, more on popular Euroscepticism as a public opinion phenomenon and less on “electoral Euroscepticism”, i.e. the increasing success of Eurosceptic parties in national and European elections. Nevertheless, it has to be added that Eurosceptic attitudes have also played a big role in the electoral behaviour of citizens across Europe (see, e.g., Hernández and Kriesi 2016a, b; Nicoli 2017; Schäfer 2017).

  3. 3.

    Researchers found evidence for this in macroeconomic factors (Eichenberg and Dalton 1993), personal economic situations (Gabel 1998) and economic perceptions of citizens (Anderson and Kaltenthaler 1996).

  4. 4.

    Those factors comprise national identification (Carey 2002), perceived cultural threats (McLaren 2002), fear of immigration (de Vreese and Boomgaarden 2005) or ethnic conflict (Hooghe and Marks 2005).

  5. 5.

    They are, for example, influenced by media (Azrout et al. 2012) as well as by their preferred political parties (de Vries and Edwards 2009), and they use evaluations of their national government as proxies to form opinions about the EU (Anderson 1998).

  6. 6.

    Mudde (2012: 200) summarizes the different strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches and concludes by calling for a “more integrated approach”.

  7. 7.

    In fact, Kopecký and Mudde (2002) call this hard form of Euroscepticism “Europhobia”.

  8. 8.

    Schimmelfennig (2014: 323), for example, calls the period between the beginning of 2010 and mid-2013 “the acute Euro crisis”.

  9. 9.

    Yet, the data sets used by these studies date from the time before the Euro crisis and thus do not take into account the potential effects of the imposed austerity measures following the Euro crisis on citizens’ political support for the EU. Braun and Tausendpfund (2014), for example, insist on the necessity to distinguish between the global financial crisis and the Euro crisis, particularly because the latter potentially has had much greater socio-economic and political consequences for the EU citizens.

  10. 10.

    More information about this data source can be found on the EES website: http://europeanelectionstudies.net.

  11. 11.

    The outbreak of the Euro crisis is commonly dated to 20 October 2009, when the Greek government publicly revealed the tripling of the public deficit indicating that the figure of 3.6% of the GDP reported by the previous government was inaccurate. It was upgraded to 12.8% of the GDP (Featherstone 2011), after the pre-crisis EP elections of 2009.

  12. 12.

    While the Euro crisis could not be regarded as being over in 2014, it had certainly surpassed its “acute phase” between 2010 and 2013 (Schimmelfennig 2014: 323).

  13. 13.

    Our analyses do not comprise Croatia and Malta due to data restrictions and the fact that Croatia only joined the European Union in 2013. Tables 2 and 3 in the Appendix provide summary statistics of all variables under consideration here.

  14. 14.

    The respective item in the EES has slightly changed over the years in its wording and the response options. Slightly deviating versions have used a 4-point scale (1994) or an 11-point scale (2014), but these items are re-scaled here to match the 10-point scale of the items between 1999 and 2009. Moreover, in 1994, the wording was different, asking whether citizens are “in favour” or “against” European unification.

  15. 15.

    All figures are based on the plotplain scheme in Stata version 15.1 (Bischof 2017).

  16. 16.

    Although the three country groups distinguished here seem to be only broad geographical categorizations, they follow our reasoning to expect unique effects for countries most affected by the economic crisis (crisis countries). Moreover, we differentiate between the old member states (Western Europe) that joined the EU before 2004 and those who have joined later (Eastern Europe), since these two groups often show very different patterns in public opinion and party competition (see, e.g., Marks et al. 2006; Whitefield and Rohrschneider 2015).

  17. 17.

    Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom.

  18. 18.

    Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia.

  19. 19.

    As such, we have defined the five countries that received financial assistance by the other Eurozone countries (Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain) and Italy, a country group sometimes called “PIIGS+C”.

  20. 20.

    The stark decline between 1994 and 1999 is likely to be caused by the changes in the question wording and the number of response options.

  21. 21.

    In contrast, expert surveys like the Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) are sometimes criticized for their lack of validity, because, as Mudde (2012: 198) describes it, “rather than an expert study, this is really a peer survey”.

  22. 22.

    In the original coding, every quasi-sentence is assigned a political level that it relates to—European, national or unspecified. However, this distinction is not sustained here, as it does not seem adequate for our purposes.

  23. 23.

    Each political party is coded from the first time it was represented in the EP onwards. The coding of political parties which have not been represented in the EP for two consecutive legislative periods, however, is discontinued.

  24. 24.

    We decided not to weigh the individual party positions by the relative sizes of the parties, i.e. the vote share or seat share that the party has received in the last national or European elections. The main reason is that we do not want to confound the programmatic decisions of political parties with the electoral behaviour of citizens.

  25. 25.

    To check the robustness of our findings, we have also conducted the analyses with other macroeconomic indicators, such as the GDP growth per capita and the interest rates on government bonds. We received similar results. The reason for this is that all three macroeconomic indicators are highly correlated with each other.

  26. 26.

    We have to add, however, that the Baltic countries had experienced very severe economic conditions during the global financial and economic crisis in 2007/08 (see Calca and Gross 2019). The positive development in unemployment rates between 2010 and 2013 therefore mainly represents their economic recovery after the global crisis. Still, it is interesting that this development has been accompanied by such large increases in EU regime support.

References

  • Adams, J. (2012). Causes and electoral consequences of party policy shifts in multiparty elections: Theoretical results and empirical evidence. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 401–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J., Ezrow, L., & Somer-Topcu, Z. (2011). Is anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to European parties’ policy statements during elections. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 370–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J., Ezrow, L., & Somer-Topcu, Z. (2014). Do voters respond to party manifestos or to a wider information environment? An analysis of mass-elite linkages on European integration. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 967–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture. Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. J. (1998). When in doubt, use proxies: Attitudes toward domestic politics and support for European integration. Comparative Political Studies, 31(5), 569–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. J., & 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 

  • Armingeon, K., & Ceka, B. (2014). The loss of trust in the European Union during the great recession since 2007: The role of heuristics from the national political system. European Union Politics, 15(1), 82–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armingeon, K., & Guthmann, K. (2014). Democracy in crisis? The declining support for national democracy in European countries, 2007–2011. European Journal of Political Research, 53(3), 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azrout, R., van Spanje, J., & de Vreese C. H. (2012). When news matters: Media effects on public support for European Union enlargement in 21 countries. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(5), 691–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, M. M., Hainmueller, J., & Margalit, Y. (2014). Preferences for international redistribution: The divide over the Eurozone bailouts. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 835–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bischof, D. (2017). New graphic schemes for Stata: Plotplain and plotting. The Stata Journal, 17(3), 748–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boomgaarden, H. G., Schuck, A. R. T., Elenbaas, M., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Mapping EU attitudes: Conceptual and empirical dimensions of Euroscepticism and EU support. European Union Politics, 12(2), 241–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brack, N., & Startin, N. (2015). Introduction: Euroscepticism, from the margins to the mainstream. International Political Science Review, 36(3), 239–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D., & Tausendpfund, M. (2014). The impact of the Euro crisis on citizens’ support for the European Union. Journal of European Integration, 36(3), 231–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calca, P., & Gross, M. (2019). To adapt or to disregard? Parties’ reactions to external shocks. West European Politics, 42(3), 545–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (2002). Undivided loyalties. Is national identity an obstacle to European integration? European Union Politics, 3(4), 387–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. J. (1999). Political support in advanced industrial democracies. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government (pp. 57–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. J. (2016). Stability and change in party issue positions: The 2009 and 2014 European elections. Electoral Studies, 44, 525–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. J., & McAllister, I. (2015). Random walk or planned excursion? Continuity and change in the left-right positions of political parties. Comparative Political Studies, 48(6), 759–787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniele, G., & Geys, B. (2015). Interpersonal trust and welfare state support. European Journal of Political Economy, 39, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Sio, L., Franklin, M. N., & Weber, T. (2016). The risks and opportunities of Europe: How issue yield explains (non-)reactions to the financial crisis. Electoral Studies, 44, 483–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vreese, C. H., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2005). Projecting EU referendums. Fear of immigration and support for European integration. European Union Politics, 6(1), 59–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vreese, C. H., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Semetko, H. A. (2008). Hard and soft: Public support for Turkish membership in the EU. European Union Politics, 9(4), 511–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, C. E. (2018). Euroscepticism and the future of European integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, C. E., & Edwards, E. E. (2009). Taking Europe to its extremes. Extremist parties and public Euroscepticism. Party Politics, 15(1), 5–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinas, E., & Gemenis, K. (2010). Measuring parties’ ideological positions with manifesto data: A critical evaluation of the competing methods. Party Politics, 16(4), 427–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dotti Sani, G. M., & Magistro, B. (2016). Increasingly unequal? The economic crisis, social inequalities and trust in the European Parliament in 20 European countries. European Journal of Political Research, 55(2), 246–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1965). A framework of political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5(4), 435–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrmann, M., Soudan, M., & Stracca, L. (2013). Explaining European Union citizens’ trust in the European Central Bank in normal and crisis times. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 115(3), 781–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichenberg, R. C., & 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 

  • Eichenberg, R. C., & Dalton, R. J. (2007). Post-Maastricht Blues: The transformation of citizen support for European integration, 1973–2004. Acta Politica, 42(2), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Featherstone, K. (2011). The JCMS annual lecture: The Greek sovereign debt crisis and EMU: A failing state in a skewed regime. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(2), 193–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, M. (1998). Public support for European integration: An empirical test of five theories. The Journal of Politics, 60(2), 333–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández, E., & Kriesi, H. (2016a). The electoral consequences of the financial and economic crisis in Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 55(2), 203–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández, E., & Kriesi, H. (2016b). Turning your back on the EU. The role of Eurosceptic parties in the 2014 European Parliament elections. Electoral Studies, 44, 515–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobolt, S. B., & de Vries, C. E. (2015). Issue entrepreneurship and multiparty competition. Comparative Political Studies, 48(9), 1159–1185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobolt, S. B., & de Vries, C. E. (2016a). Turning against the union? The impact of the crisis on the Eurosceptic vote in the 2014 European Parliament elections. Electoral Studies, 44, 504–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobolt, S. B., & de Vries, C. E. (2016b). Public support for European integration. Annual Review of Political Science, 19, 413–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobolt, S. B., & Tilley, J. (2016). Fleeing the centre: The rise of challenger parties in the aftermath of the Euro crisis. West European Politics, 39(5), 971–991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2005). Calculation, community and cues. Public opinion on European integration. European Union Politics, 6(4), 419–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2007). Sources of Euroscepticism. Acta Politica, 42(2–3), 329–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2009). A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L., Marks, L., & Wilson, C. J. (2002). Does left/right structure party positions on European integration? Comparative Political Studies, 35(8), 965–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutter, S., Grande, E., & Kriesi, H. (2016). Politicising Europe. Integration and mass politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kopecký, P., & Mudde, C. (2002). The two sides of Euroscepticism. Party positions on European integration in East Central Europe. European Union Politics, 3(3), 297–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriesi, H. (2018). The 2017 French and German Elections. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(51), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krouwel, A., & Abts, K. (2007). Varieties of Euroscepticism and populist mobilization: Transforming attitudes from mild Euroscepticism to harsh Eurocynicism. Acta Politica, 42(2), 252–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T., & Stoeckel, F. (2014). When European integration becomes costly: The Euro crisis and public support for European economic governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(4), 624–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laver, M. (2014). Measuring policy positions in political space. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 207–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leconte, C. (2010). Understanding Euroscepticism. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leruth, B., Startin, N., & Usherwood, S. (2018). Defining Euroscepticism: From a broad concept to a field of study. In B. Leruth, N. Startin, & S. Usherwood (Eds.), The Rutledge handbook of Euroscepticism (pp. 3–10). Milton Park: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, L. N., & Scheingold, S. A. (1970). Europe’s would-be polity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveless, M., & Rohrschneider, R. (2011). Public perceptions of the EU as a system of governance. Living Reviews in European Governance, 6(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, W., Benoit, K., Mikhaylov, S., & Laver, M. (2011). Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(1), 123–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, G., Hooghe, L., Nelson, M., & Edwards, E. (2006). Party competition and European integration in the East and West. Comparative Political Studies, 39(2), 155–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, G., Hooghe, L., Steenbergen, M. R., & Bakker, R. (2007). Crossvalidating data on party positioning on European integration. Electoral Studies, 26(1), 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, G., & Wilson, C. J. (2000). The past in the present: A cleavage theory of party response to European integration. British Journal of Political Science, 30(3), 433–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, M. D., & Mendes, S. M. (2001). The policy space of party manifestos. In M. Laver (Ed.), Estimating policy positions of political actors (pp. 90–114). London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, L. M. (2002). Public support for the European Union: Cost/benefit analysis or perceived cultural threat? The Journal of Politics, 64(2), 551–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijers, M. J. (2017). Contagious Euroscepticism: The impact of Eurosceptic support on mainstream party positions on European integration. Party Politics, 23(4), 413–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, C. (2012). The comparative study of party-based Euroscepticism: The Sussex versus the North Carolina school. East European Politics, 28(2), 193–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicoli, F. (2017). Hard-line Euroscepticism and the Eurocrisis: Evidence from a panel study of 108 elections across Europe. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(2), 312–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser, C. (2016). Dimensionality, ideology and party positions towards European integration. West European Politics, 39(4), 731–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, L. (1999). Measuring party orientations towards European integration: Results from an expert survey. European Journal of Political Research, 36(2), 283–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, L. (2003). When parties matter: The conditional influence of party positions on voter opinions about European integration. The Journal of Politics, 65(4), 978–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, L. (2007). Validity of measured party positions on European integration: Assumptions, approaches, and a comparison of alternative measures. Electoral Studies, 26(1), 11–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrschneider, R., & Whitefield, S. (2016). Responding to growing European Union-skepticism? The stances of political parties toward European integration in Western and Eastern Europe following the financial crisis. European Union Politics, 17(1), 138–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, F., Gros, D., & Nowak-Lehmann, F. D. (2014). Crisis and citizens’ trust in the European Central Bank—Panel data evidence for the Euro area, 1999–2012. Journal of European Integration, 36(3), 303–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runge, P. (2014). Nationale und europäische Identitäten und politische Unterstützung der Europäischen Union im Kontext der Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 8(2), 55–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Cuenca, I. (2000). The political basis of support for European integration. European Union Politics, 1(2), 147–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, C. (2017). Euroskeptizismus und Wahlenthaltung. Motivationen unterschiedlicher Nichtwählertypen bei der Europawahl 2014. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 11(1), 50–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, C., & Debus, M. (2018). No participation without representation. Policy distances and abstention in European Parliament elections. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(12), 1835–1854.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (2012). Legitimacy intermediation in the multilevel European polity and its collapse in the Euro crisis. MPiFG Discussion Paper, 12(6).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelfennig, F. (2014). European integration in the Euro crisis: The limits of postfunctionalism. Journal of European Integration, 36(3), 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, H., Braun, D., Popa, S. A., Mikhaylov, S., & Dwinger, F. (2018). European Parliament election study 2014, Euromanifesto study. GESIS Data archive, Cologne. ZA5162 Data File Version 1.0.0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serricchio, F., Tsakatika, M., & Quaglia, L. (2013). Euroscepticism and the global financial crisis. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(1), 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitter, N. (2001). The politics of opposition and European integration in Scandinavia: Is Euro-scepticism a government-opposition dynamic? West European Politics, 24(4), 22–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spoon, J., & Williams, C. (2017). It takes two: How Eurosceptic public opinion and party divisions influence party positions. West European Politics, 40(4), 741–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szczerbiak, A., & Taggart, P. (Eds.). (2008). Opposing Europe? The comparative party politics of Euroscepticism. Volume 2: Comparative and theoretical perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szczerbiak, A., & Taggart, P. (2018). Contemporary research on Euroscepticism: The state of the art. In B. Leruth, N. Startin, & U. Simon (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Euroscepticism (pp. 11–21). Milton Park: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taggart, P., & Szczerbiak, A. (2002). The party politics of Euroscepticism in EU member and candidate states. Working Paper, Sussex European Institute, University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taggart, P., & Szczerbiak, A. (Eds.). (2008). Opposing Europe? The comparative party politics of Euroscepticism. Volume 1: Case studies and country surveys. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Erkel, P. F. A., & van der Meer, T. W. G. (2016). Macroeconomic performance, political trust and the great recession: A multilevel analysis of the effects of within-country fluctuations in macroeconomic performance on political trust in 15 EU countries, 1999–2011. European Journal of Political Research, 55(1), 177–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasilopoulou, S. (2018). Theory, concepts and research design in the study of Euroscepticism. In B. Leruth, N. Startin, & S. Usherwood (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Euroscepticism (pp. 22–35). Milton Park: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, H., Ezrow, L., & Dorussen H. (2011). Globalization, party positions, and the median voter. World Politics, 63(3), 509–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weßels, B. (2007). Discontent and European identity: Three types of Euroscepticism. Acta Politica, 42(2–3), 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitefield, S., & Rohrschneider, R. (2015). The salience of European integration to party competition. Western and Eastern Europe compared. East European Politics and Societies: And Cultures, 29(1), 12–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C., & Spoon, J. (2015). Differentiated party response: The effect of Euroskeptic public opinion on party positions. European Union Politics, 16(2), 176–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Constantin Schäfer or Martin Gross .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2 Summary statistics of the four macro-level variables
Table 3 Macro-level variables per country

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schäfer, C., Gross, M. (2020). Euroscepticism in Times of Crisis: A Macro-Level Analysis of the Euro Crisis’ Effects on Public Opinion and Party Competition on European Integration. In: Baldassari, M., Castelli, E., Truffelli, M., Vezzani, G. (eds) Anti-Europeanism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24428-6_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics