Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:47:51.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Treaty Ratification and Party Competition: Theory and Evidence from the EU's Constitutional Treaty*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2013

Andreas Dür  and
Nikitas Konstantinidis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What explains a party's dual decision about whether to endorse a referendum on an international treaty and whether to support that treaty in a referendum campaign? Relying on an original game of second-order electoral competition, this article argues that the relative likelihood of a party endorsing a referendum is highest at the beginning and end of the electoral cycle, and when the public supports the treaty. The study uses data on the position of 175 parties in 24 member states vis-à-vis the EU's Constitutional Treaty and its preferred mechanism of ratification to test these expectations against empirical evidence. Using a multinomial logistic regression model, it finds robust support for the argument.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , December 2013 , pp. 179 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2013 

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

*

Andreas Dür is professor of international politics, Department of Political Science, University of Salzburg, Rudolfskai 42, 5020 Salzburg, Austria ([email protected]). Nikitas Konstantinidis is Temporary University Lecturer in International Relations, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge, Alison Richard Building, 7 West Road, CB3 9DT Cambridge, United Kingdom ([email protected]). We are grateful to Leonardo Baccini, Christian H. C. A. Henning, Thomas Sattler, Bernd Schlipphak, Gerald Schneider, Robert Thomson, Oliver Treib, Johannes Urpelainen, and participants at the 7th SGIR Pan-European International Relations Conference in Stockholm, the 4th Annual Conference on the Political Economy of International Organizations in Zurich, and the 1st Annual Conference of the European Political Science Association for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2013.17

References

Ashworth, ScottBueno de Mesquita, Ethan. 2006. ‘Monotone Comparative Statics for Models of Politics’. American Journal of Political Science 50(1):214–231.Google Scholar
Ashworth, ScottBueno de Mesquita, Ethan. 2009. ‘Elections with Platform and Valence Competition’. Games and Economic Behavior 67(1):191–216.Google Scholar
Bjørklund, Tor. 1982. ‘The Demand for Referendum: When Does It Arise, When Does it Succeed?’ Scandinavian Political Studies 5(3):237–259.Google Scholar
Braun, Daniela, Salzwedel, Maike, Stumpf, Christian, Wüst, Andreas. 2007. ‘Euromanifesto Documentation’. Available at http://www.ees-homepage.netGoogle Scholar
Carrubba, Clifford J. 2001. ‘The Electoral Connection in European Union Politics’. Journal of Politics 63(1):141–158.Google Scholar
Closa, Carlos. 2007. ‘Why Convene Referendums? Explaining Choices in EU Constitutional Politics’. Journal of European Public Policy 14(8):1311–1332.Google Scholar
de Vries, Catherine E. 2007. ‘Sleeping Giant: Fact or Fairytale? How European Integration Affects National Elections’. European Union Politics 8(3):363–385.Google Scholar
de Vries, Catherine E.. 2009. ‘The Impact of EU Referenda on National Electoral Politics: The Dutch Case’. West European Politics 32(1):142–171.Google Scholar
Dow, Jay K.Endersby, James W.. 2004. ‘Multinomial Probit and Multinomial Logit: a Comparison of Choice Models for Voting Research’. Electoral Studies 23:107–122.Google Scholar
Dür, AndreasMateo, Gemma. 2011. ‘To Call or Not to Call: Political Parties and Referendums on the EU's Constitutional Treaty’. Comparative Political Studies 44(4):468–492.Google Scholar
Eurobarometer. 2003. ‘Convention on the Future of Europe – Wave 2’. Flash Eurobarometer 142(2).Google Scholar
Eurobarometer. 2003b. ‘Intergovernmental Conference’. Flash Eurobarometer 152.Google Scholar
Eurobarometer. 2004a. ‘Future European Constitution’. Flash Eurobarometer 159.Google Scholar
Eurobarometer. 2004b. ‘Public Opinion in the European Union’. Standard Eurobarometer 61.Google Scholar
Eurobarometer. 2005. ‘The Future Constitutional Treaty’. Special Eurobarometer 62(1).Google Scholar
European Election Study. 2009. Design, Data Description and Documentation, 2nd edition. Mannheim, Germany: Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
Finke, DanielKönig, Thomas. 2009. ‘Why Risk Popular Ratification Failure? A Comparative Analysis of the Choice of the Ratification Instrument in the 25 Member States of the EU’. Constitutional Political Economy 20(3/4):341–365.Google Scholar
Franklin, Mark N. 2002. ‘Learning from the Danish Case: A Comment on Palle Svensson's Critique of the Franklin Thesis’. European Journal of Political Research 41(6):751–757.Google Scholar
Gabel, MatthewScheve, Kenneth. 2007. ‘Estimating the Effect of Elite Communications on Public Opinion Using Instrumental Variables’. American Journal of Political Science 51:1013–1028.Google Scholar
Gallagher, MichaelMitchell, Paul, eds. 2008. The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garry, John, Marsh, MichaelSinnott, Richard. 2005. ‘ “Second-order” versus “Issue-voting” Effects in EU Referendums: Evidence from the Irish Nice Treaty Referendums’. European Union Politics 6(2):201–221.Google Scholar
Gelman, AndrewHill, Christopher. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B. 2006. ‘How Parties Affect Vote Choice in European Integration Referendums’. Party Politics 12(5):623–647.Google Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B.. 2009. Europe in Question: Referendums on European Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, Bakker, Ryan, Brigevich, Anna, de Vries, Catherine, Edwards, Erica, Marks, Gary, Rovny, Jan, Steenbergen, MarcoVachudova, Milada. 2010. ‘Reliability and Validity of the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill Expert Surveys on Party Positioning’. European Journal of Political Research 49(5):687–703.Google Scholar
Hug, Simon. 2004. ‘Occurrence and Policy Consequences of Referendums: a Theoretical Model and Empirical Evidence’. Journal of Theoretical Politics 16(3):321–356.Google Scholar
Hug, SimonSchulz, Tobias. 2007. ‘Referendums in the EU's Constitution Building Process’. Review of International Organizations 2(2):177–218.Google Scholar
Long, Scott J.Freese, Jeremy. 2006. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, 2nd edition. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Marsh, MichaelMikhaylov, Slava. 2010. ‘The European Parliament Elections as Second-order National Elections: A Review of Evidence’. Living Reviews in European Governance 5(1). Available at http://europeangovernance.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lreg-2010-4&page=articlese4.htmlGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1988. ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-level Games’. International Organization 42(3):427–460.Google Scholar
Ray, Leonard. 2003a. ‘Reconsidering the Link between Incumbent Support and pro-EU Opinion’. European Union Politics 4(3):259–279.Google Scholar
Ray, Leonard. 2003b. ‘When Parties Matter: the Conditional Influence of Party Positions on Voter Opinions about European Integration’. The Journal of Politics 65(4):978–994.Google Scholar
Reif, KarlheinzSchmitt, Hermann. 1980. ‘Nine Second-order National Elections: A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results’. European Journal of Political Research 8(1):3–44.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard. 2011. ‘The Case for Pan-European Referenda’. Europe's World available at http://www.europesworld.org (accessed 7 August 2013).Google Scholar
Sattler, ThomasUrpelainen, Johannes. 2012. ‘Explaining Public Support for International Integration: How Do National Conditions and Treaty Characteristics Interact with Individual Beliefs?’ Journal of Politics 74(4):1108–1124.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Hermann. 2005. ‘The European Parliament Elections of June 2004: Still Second-order?’ West European Politics 28(3):650–679.Google Scholar
Schneider, Gerald.Weitsman, Patricia A.. 1996. ‘The Punishment Trap: Integration Referendums as Popularity Contests’. Comparative Political Studies 28(4):582–607.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 2005. ‘A Valence Model of Political Competition in Britain: 1992–1997’. Electoral Studies 24(3):347–370.Google Scholar
Setälä, Maija. 1999. ‘Referendums in Western Europe: A Wave of Direct Democracy?’ Scandinavian Political Studies 22(4):327–340.Google Scholar
Steenbergen, Marco, Edwards, Ericade Vries, Catherine. 2007. ‘Who Is Cueing Whom? Mass-elite Linkages and the Future of European Integration’. European Union Politics 8(1):13–35.Google Scholar
Svensson, Palle. 2002. ‘Five Danish Referendums on the European Community and European Union: A Critical Assessment of the Franklin Thesis’. European Journal of Political Research 41(6):733–750.Google Scholar
Tillman, Erik R. 2004. ‘The European Union at the Ballot Box? European Integration and Voting Behavior in the New Member States’. Comparative Political Studies 37(5):590–610.Google Scholar
Trechsel, Alexander. 2010. ‘Reflexive Accountability and Direct Democracy’. West European Politics 33(5):1050–1064.Google Scholar
Tridimas, George. 2007. ‘Ratification through Referendum or Parliamentary Vote: When to Call a Non-required Referendum?’ European Journal of Political Economy 23(3):674–692.Google Scholar
Veen, Tim. 2011. ‘Positions and Salience in European Union Politics: Estimation and Validation of a New Data Set’. European Union Politics 12(2):267–288.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Dur Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Dur Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 368.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Dur Supplementary Material

Dur Supplementary Material

Download Dur Supplementary Material(File)
File 60.4 KB