We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please 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 account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.
Does ideological polarization undermine or strengthen people’s principled support for democracy? In this study, we suggest that different manifestations of ideological polarization have different implications in this respect. Using data from 11 surveys conducted with representative samples of the adult populations of a group of liberal democratic countries, part of the Comparative National Elections Project, we look at how people’s level of ideological extremism and their perceptions of ideological polarization in their countries’ party systems are related with their support for democracy. We show that citizens who hold more extreme ideological positions are indeed less supportive of democracy and that such a negative relationship is strengthened as citizens’ extremism increases. However, we also show that the citizens who display higher levels of principled support for democracy are those who perceive parties to be neither too distant nor too close to each other in ideological terms. In other words, while a very polarized partisan supply seems to undermine popular commitment with democracy, very low polarization may have similar consequences.
While there has been a veritable boom in literature on organized interests, their lobbying strategies, relationships with decision-makers, and their impact on policymaking, only a few studies have explored internal organizational developments and, specifically, the professionalization of interest groups. The present study focuses on the national and transnational factors driving the professionalization of interest groups in Central and Eastern Europe, a region previously neglected in much of the interest group literature. Based on a sample of more than 400 surveyed organizations operating in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovenia in the healthcare, higher education, and energy sectors, we explore three bundles of factors potentially enhancing the professionalization of interest groups – organizational funding sources, national and transnational intergroup cooperation and organizations’ standing in the domestic interest group system. Our statistical analyses show that state subsidies and tight policy coordination with the state are crucial drivers of internal organizational professionalization, suggesting rather patronistic and symbiotic relationships between the state and certain organizations. However, our data also support the notion that interorganizational collaboration, both at the national and international levels, may also be key to organizational professionalization, enabling groups that lack close ties with the state to compensate their disadvantage with intensive domestic and international networking. The study is also among the first to link increasing professionalization with organizational population density.
In 2014, the USA initiated the formation of a multilateral military operation against Daesh in Syria and Iraq. Eventually, more than 70 states joined the anti-Daesh coalition. However, contributions to the military effort have been characterized by great variance, especially among EU member states. While some states took leading roles in the airstrikes, others provided training for Iraqi and Kurdish forces, and still others did not get involved beyond voicing their support for the policy. Against this backdrop, this article makes a two-fold contribution to the literature on military coalitions and security policy. Empirically, the article provides a mapping of the then 28 EU member states’ military engagement in the fight against Daesh in Syria and Iraq. Analytically, fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) is applied to account for the observed pattern of military involvement, using an integrative framework that combines international and domestic factors. The results demonstrate that multiple paths led towards EU military involvement in the anti-Daesh coalition. At the same time, international-level incentives, such as external threat and/or alliance value feature prominently in all three identified paths. The analysis further underscores the value of a configurational perspective, because neither an external threat nor alliance value are sufficient on their own to bring about the outcome. Across the set-theoretic configurations, these conditions either combine with other ‘push’ factors or with the absence of constraints against military involvement. In line with the latter, the article highlights the policy relevance of institutional constraints, especially legislative veto rights, since most of those countries that were involved in the airstrikes of the anti-Daesh coalition did not have formal parliamentary involvement on matters of military deployment policy.
Can non-citizen enfranchisement policies reduce the turnout gap between citizens with an immigration background and native citizen voters? While increasingly common in practice, there are only a handful of studies on the political consequences of non-citizen enfranchisement on voter mobilisation. Here, we examine the impact of non-citizen voting (NCV) rights on the political participation of citizens with and without an immigration background. Focusing on Switzerland, we use high-quality household panel data (SHP) from 1999 to 2014, leveraging both longitudinal and municipal level variation of enfranchisement laws when identifying their effect on turnout. We show that NCV rights boost political participation overall, and it particularly enhances turnout among citizens with an immigration background. Our analysis adds to existing theoretical explanations and empirical debates on representation and political participation in diverse democratic societies with large immigrant populations.
How do coalitional dynamics matter for the capacity of states to maintain social inclusion in coordinated models of capitalism? Taking its departure in scholarship emphasizing the influence of employers on the extent of state intervention in post-industrial economies, this paper argues that employer influence depends on which actors they team up with – unions or parties. If unions depend on employers for their organizational influence in a policy field, unions become a strong coalitional partner for employers in weakening demands for inclusiveness from the parliamentary arena. Conversely, if unions have influence independent of any coalition with employers, both unions and employers are likely to team up with political parties aligned with their preferences. This makes the level of inclusion resulting from increased state intervention more fluctuating, depending on who holds government power. A comparative study of reforms of Danish and Austrian vocational education institutions corroborates the empirical purchase of the argument.
This book argues that core concepts in EU citizenship law are riddled with latent fissures traceable back to the earliest case law on free movement of persons, and that later developments simply compounded such defects. By looking at these defects, not only could Brexit have been predicted, but it could also have been foreseen that unchecked problems with EU citizenship would potentially lead to its eventual dismantling during an era of widespread populism and considerable challenges to further integration. Using a critical constructivist approach, the author painstakingly outlines the 'temple' of citizenship from its foundations upwards, and offers a deconstruction of concepts such as 'worker', the role of non-economic actors, the principle of equal treatment, and utterances of citizenship. In identifying inherent fissures in the concept of solidarity and post national identification, this book poses critical questions and argues that we need to reconstruct EU citizenship from the bottom up.
Europe (and its Union) has famously been described as a ‘constitutional mosaic’.1 Perhaps now it might be better described as an unconstitutional mess full of controversies, asymmetries and multiple fissures right at the heart of one its core concepts: EU Citizenship. This book has focussed for the most part on areas of law in the form of the pre-Maastricht case law on free movement of persons because, as was outlined in the Introduction, Plender and Evans famously claimed that citizenship existed in ‘incipient’ and ‘embryonic’ form because of these early cases.
This book has attempted to, in effect, go right back to where it all began and examine the case law on free movement in a genealogical sense to expose fissures: latent defects in the project that appear to have come to light fifty years later. Prior to Brexit, such latent defects were never even thought of as such, with the emphasis being, if anything, upon closer integration at all costs. Chapters 1 and 2 outlined a specific way in which the worker was outlined in a (then) Community context, leading to a further set of legal developments in how to conceptualize and legally protect those that did not count as workers.
If Chapter 1 can be understood as the incipient citizen being partially seen through the social construction of the worker, then, because its ‘final form’ was well defined in a discursive sense, understanding it is relatively straightforward. This chapter, by contrast, focusses on the complex, the contingent and, ultimately, the controversial. More specifically, it constitutes a nuanced and qualitative attempt to examine strands which, weaved together, partially constitute Union citizenship n a contemporary and contextual sense but yet is also a chapter that further illustrates a series of fissures within its very foundations. What was outlined in Chapter 1 was a rather large fissure that had formed in relation to the very essence of the ‘Community worker’ from the outset. What remained unresolved (particularly after the development in Levin/Lawrie-Blum) was where those who simply could not be classified as workers conceptually fit within the framework of free movement of persons law. Today, EU Citizens derive protection whether explicitly economically active or within socially excluded categories of individuals or not.
Citizenship is clearly considered to be integral to free movement of persons law within the European Union, but yet it technically did not legally exist until 1992. This chapter asserts that mere utterances of the phrase prior to the Citizen’s legal creation are not only worthy of analysis in their own right but that such utterances provided one of at least two vital discursive pillars upon which to situate the ‘roof’ of citizenship when it eventually emerged. This book began by examining in effect two key moments in the development of Community (now Union) law. First, as has been repeatedly mentioned, there was clearly significance in the formal inclusion of Union Citizenship into the Treaty on European Union (TEU) at Maastricht, even if it was initially dismissed as a merely symbolic plaything.
It is possible that had a vote by one of the largest Member States of the European Union on the very membership upon which Citizenship is predicated not taken place in June 2016 during an era of Pan-European populism, a critical deconstructivist approach to the evolution of free movement of persons law might have had purely academic relevance. Whilst European Union Citizenship was ‘born’ in 1992 after the original Treaty of Rome was amended to include Articles 17 and 18, its roots can be excavated to a much earlier period and this book, in a sense, seeks to replicate the Greek Temple façade envisioned by the Maastricht Treaty and examine the structure from its foundations upwards. As early as 1976, Plender famously stated that European Citizenship was ‘incipient’.