Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:59:46.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring Public Support for European Integration across Time and Countries: The ‘European Mood’ Indicator

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2017

Isabelle Guinaudeau  and
Tinette Schnatterer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

EU supportpublic opinionmoodmethodology
Type
Notes and Comments
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , July 2019 , pp. 1187 - 1197
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Centre Emile Durkheim, Sciences Po Bordeaux (email: [email protected]); Department of Comparative Politics, Universität Konstanz (email: [email protected]). This project benefited from the financial support of the French Research Agency (Partipol project, ANR-13-JSH1-0002-01). We are especially grateful to James Stimson, Vincent Tiberj and Christian Breunig for their active support and important input at several stages of this research project. We would also like to thank the SOM Institute, particularly Sören Holmberg, for giving us access to the Swedish data, and John Bartle for sharing the GB Policy Preferences Database (Department of Government, University of Essex, June 2015). This article also owes a lot to helpful comments by Christine Arnold, Michael Becher, Céline Belot, Shaun Bevan, Amanda Kolker, Andy Smith, Peter Van Aelst and the anonymous reviewers. Previous versions of the article were presented at the 2013 ECPR General Conference, the 2013 conference of the Comparative Agendas Project and the Comparative Political Economy workshop at the University of Konstanz. Tinette Schnatterer thanks the Margarete von Wrangell Program for work completed on this article under their habilitation program. Data replication sets are available at http://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS and online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000776

References

Anderson, Christopher J. 1998. When in Doubt, Use Proxies: Attitudes Toward Domestic Politics and Support for European Integration. Comparative Political Studies 31 (5):569–601.Google Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J., and Kaltenthaler, Karl C.. 1996. The Dynamics of Public Opinion Toward European Integration, 1973–1993. European Journal of International Relations 2 (2):175–199.Google Scholar
Anderson, Christopher, and Reichert, M. Shawn. 1995. Economic Benefits and Support for Membership in the EU: A Cross-National Analysis. Journal of Public Policy 15:231–249.Google Scholar
Arnold, Christine, Sapir, Eliyahu V., and de Vries, Catherine. 2012. Parties’ Positions on European Integration: Issue Congruence, Ideology or Context? West European Politics 35 (6):1341–1362.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Mary Layton, Baumgartner, Frank R., Coggins, Elizabeth K., and Stimson, James A.. 2011. Developing Policy-Specific Conceptions of Mood: The United States. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Comparative Agendas Project, Catania, Italy, 23 June.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bartle, John, Dellepiane-Avellaneda, Sebastian, and Stimson, James A.. 2010. The Moving Centre: Preferences for Government Activity in Britain, 1950–2005. British Journal of Political Science 41 (2):259–285.Google Scholar
Bishop, Georg, Oldendick, Robert W., and Tuchfarber, Alfred J.. 1982. Political Information Processing: Question Order and Context Effects. Political Behavior 4 (2):177–200.Google Scholar
Brouard, Sylvain, and Guinaudeau, Isabelle. 2014. Policy Beyond Politics? Public Opinion, Party Politics and the French Pro-Nuclear Energy Policy. Journal of Public Policy 1 (34):137–170.Google Scholar
Bruter, Michael. 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.Google Scholar
Carrubba, Clifford J. 2001. The Electoral Connection in European Union Politics. The Journal of Politics 63 (1):141–158.Google Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M., and Harden, Jeffrey J.. 2010. New Measures of Partisanship, Ideology, and Policy Mood in the American States. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 10 (2):136–156.Google Scholar
De Vries, Catherine, and Steenbergen, Marco R.. 2013. Variable Opinions: The Predictability of Support for Unification in European Mass Publics. Journal of Political Marketing 12:121–141.Google Scholar
Diez-Medrano, Juan. 2003. Framing Europe: Attitudes to European Integration in Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Duch, Raymond, and Michaell, Taylor. 1997. Economics and the Vulnerability of the Pan-European Institutions. Political Behavior 19 (1):65–80.Google Scholar
Eichenberg, Richard C., and Dalton, Russell J.. 2007. Post Maastricht Blues: The Transformation of Citizen Support for European Integration 1973–2004. Acta Politica 42:128–152.Google Scholar
Ellis, Christopher. 2010. Why the New Deal Still Matters: Public Preferences, Elite Context, and American Mass Party Change, 1974–2006. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties 20 (1):103–132.Google Scholar
Ellis, Christopher, and Faricy, Christopher. 2011. Social Policy and Public Opinion: How the Ideological Direction of Spending Influences Public Mood. The Journal of Politics 73 (4):1095–1110.Google Scholar
Enns, Peter K., and Kellstedt, Paul. 2008. Policy Mood and Political Sophistication: Why Everybody Moves Mood. British Journal of Political Science 38 (3):433–454.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 2007. Measuring the Public’s Ideological Preferences in the 50 States: Responses Versus Roll Call Data. States Politics and Policy Quarterly 7 (2):141–151.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press and the Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Hobolt, Sara, and Klemmsen, Robert. 2005. Responsive Government? Public Opinion and Government Policy Preferences in Britain and Denmark. Political Studies 53 (2):379–402.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Marks, Gary. 2009. A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus. British Journal of Political Science 39 (1):1–23.Google Scholar
Jennings, Will, and Wlezien, Christopher. 2012. Measuring Public Preferences for Policy: On the Limits of ‘Most Important Problem’. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Elections, Public Opinion and Parties Group of the Political Studies Association, Oxford, 10–12 September.Google Scholar
Kellstedt, Paul. 2000. Media Framing and the Dynamics of Racial Policy Preferences. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2):239–255.Google Scholar
Kellstedt, Paul, McAvoy, Gregory E., and Stimson, James A.. 1993. Dynamic Analysis with Latent Constructs. Political Analysis 5 (1):113–150.Google Scholar
Link, Michael W. 1995. Tracking Public Mood in the Supreme Court: Cross-Time Analyses of Criminal Procedure and Civil Rights Cases. Political Research Quarterly 48 (1):61–78.Google Scholar
Lubbers, Marcel, and Scheepers, Peer. 2005. Political Versus Instrumental Euro-Scepticism Mapping Scepticism in European Countries and Regions. European Union Politics 6:223–242.Google Scholar
Manza, Jeff, Lomaz, Cook Fay, and Page, Benjamin. 2002. Navigating Public Opinion: Polls, Policy, and the Future of American Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Niedermayer, Oskar. 1995. Trends and Contrasts. In Public Opinion and Internationalized Governance, edited by Niedermayer Oskar and Richard Sinnott, 53–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization 44 (3):427–460.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas. 2005. Neofunctionalism, European Identity, and the Puzzles of European Integration. Journal of European Public Policy 12 (2):291–309.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Randolph T. 2001. The Economy and Policy Mood: A Fundamental Dynamic of Democratic Politics? American Journal of Political Science 45 (3):620–633.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1999. Public Opinion in America. Moods, Cycles, and Swings, 2nd Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A.. 2004. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A., Thiébaut, Cyrille, and Tiberj, Vincent. 2011. Le mood, un nouvel instrument Au service de l’analyse dynamique des opinions: Application aux évolutions de la xénophobie en France [The mood, a new instrument for analyzing opinion dynamics. An application to evolutions of xenophobia in France] (1990–2009). Revue française de science politique 60:901–926.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A., Thiébaut, Cyrille, and Tiberj, Vincent. 2012. The Evolution of Policy Attitudes in France. European Union Politics 13 (2):293–315.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A., McKuen, Michael B., and Erikson, Robert S.. 1995. Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review 89 (3):543–565.Google Scholar
Stockemer, Daniel. 2011. Citizens’ Support for the European Union and Participation in European Parliament Elections. European Union Politics 13 (1):26–46.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, Roger, Rasinskin, Kenneth A., Bradburn, Norman, and d’Andrade, Ray. 1989. Belief Accessibility and Context Effects in Attitude Measurement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 25 (5):401–421.Google Scholar
University of Gothenburg. 2015. The SOM Institute Cumulative Dataset 1986–2013. Version 1.0. Swedish National Data Service. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.5878/002635, accessed 26 January 2017.Google Scholar
Ura, Joseph Daniel, and Ellis, Christopher. 2012. Partisan Moods: Polarization and the Dynamics of Mass Party Preferences. The Journal of Politics 74 (1):277–291.Google Scholar
Van Ingelgom, Virginie. 2014. Integrating Indifference. A Comparative, Qualitative and Quantitative Approach to the Legitimacy of European Integration. Essex: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending. American Journal of Political Science 39:981–1000.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Cristopher, and Soroka, Stuart M.. 2012. Political Institutions and the Opinion-Policy Link. West European Politics 35 (6):1407–1432.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Guinaudeau and Schnatterer supplementary material

Guinaudeau and Schnatterer supplementary material 1

Download Guinaudeau and Schnatterer supplementary material(File)
File 235.5 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Guinaudeau and Schnatterer supplementary material

Guinaudeau and Schnatterer supplementary material 2

Download Guinaudeau and Schnatterer supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 34.7 KB