International Institutions: European Union eJournal最新文献

{"title":"Transatlantic Functionalism: New Deal Models and European Integration","authors":"Peter L. Lindseth","doi":"10.33137/cal.v2i1.22516","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33137/cal.v2i1.22516","url":null,"abstract":"For many advocates of European integration in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the seeming example of technocratic independence under the New Deal offered a justification for the delegation of regulatory power to autonomous supranational bodies. The New Deal represented, from this perspective, the triumph of “functionalist” governance--that is, governance that evolved as a function of the problems it sought to address, rather than being determined by seemingly outdated constitutional categories (“separation of powers” in the purported case of the New Deal, “national sovereignty” in European integration). The irony, of course, was that Roosevelt’s New Deal was much less receptive, both in principle and practice, to the sort of technocratic independence that these advocates believed to be inevitable and desirable in the case of integration. Indeed, consistent with a more nuanced understanding of the New Deal model, European integration would eventually secure a durable institutional existence only after being brought more directly under the shared control and oversight of the national executives of the member states. Contrary to expectations of functionalist (and later so-called neofunctionalist) theorists, governance beyond the state in postwar Western Europe did not evolve merely as a consequence of functional demands for technocratic independence. Rather, two additional dimensions of change also proved decisive: the political--or the defense of existing institutional advantages and/or the struggle to realize new ones; and the cultural--or the mobilization of conceptions of “right” or legitimate governance in the face of purported functional and political pressures for change. As a consequence of the interplay of all three dimensions--functional, political, and cultural--European integration ultimately settled on a form of governance in which the political oversight and control of national executives played a decisive role, a feature of European supranationalism that persists to this day. Even if a measure of supranational technocratic autonomy was broadly recognized as functionally necessary to the European project, national executives worked successfully to preserve significant institutional advantages in the integration process by mobilizing conceptions of legitimacy that, for better or worse, remain wedded to national institutions to a significant degree. It was through national executive oversight--eventually supplemented by national parliamentary and national judicial oversight--that integration has been able to maintain a connection to conceptions of democratic and constitutional legitimacy on the national level, even as functional pressures seemed to warrant a shift in governance to autonomous supranational bodies.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"87 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128783999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Dynamics of Institutional Cooperation in the European Union: Dimensions and Effects. An Introduction","authors":"S. Vanhoonacker, C. Neuhold","doi":"10.1695/2015001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1695/2015001","url":null,"abstract":"The role and impact of institutions on policy-making have been receiving a lot of attention in the academic literature on the European Union (EU). The current special issue aims to contribute to this broader institutionalist debate in the EU literature by paying attention to institutional dynamics within and across EU institutions and different levels of governance. In this quest, it feeds into the broader political and academic debate on (changing) institutional balance and policy coherence. The contributions to this special issue reflect that a wide range of institutional mechanisms for intra- and inter-institutional cooperation have been developed. Most importantly, the contributions allow us to get a better insight into the factors that explain the success or failure of the cooperation. This introduction to the special issue provides the backdrop for the contributions and an overview of the individual articles.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123941342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Council, the European Parliament, and the Paradox of Inter-Institutional Cooperation","authors":"M. Mühlböck, Berthold Rittberger","doi":"10.1695/2015004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1695/2015004","url":null,"abstract":"Decision-making between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament is characterized by a paradox. On the one hand, there is a high potential for inter-institutional conflict. Historically, the EP and the Council have been opponents in the struggle for power. In addition, both institutions can be said to fulfill different representational roles within the political system of the EU, with the Council representing the member states and the Parliament representing the citizens. Furthermore, agreement between the two is complicated by decision rules posing high thresholds for agreement and actors with often diverging preferences. On the other hand, in day-to-day policy-making, the Council and the European Parliament display a high level of consensus and decision-making efficiency. Most legislation is decided in first reading, and early agreements provide a shortcut for cumbersome inter-institutional negotiations. To shed light on this paradox, we conceptualize the mechanisms and dynamics underlying inter-institutional cooperation and conflict by taking recourse to factors derived from historical, sociological and rational choice institutionalisms. We argue that the same logics which account for conflict also contain the explanation for cooperation. Furthermore, we demonstrate that each of the theoretical approaches is particularly well suited to highlight a certain aspect of the paradox.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131551054","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"EEU 출범과 유라시아 국제관계 변화 (The Establishment of the EEU and Changes in International Relations in Eurasia)","authors":"Hongyul Han, Park Joung-Ho, Sungwook Yoon, Hyekyung Cho","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2639952","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2639952","url":null,"abstract":"Korean Abstract: 푸틴 대통령은 집권 이후 강대국 러시아 건설에 매진해왔다. 특히 푸틴은 CIS 지역에서 러시아의 세력권 복원에 대외정책의 우선순위를 두었다. 이를 반영하듯 집권 3기에 들어서 포스트-소비에트 공간(Post-Soviet Space)을 둘러싼 국제관계의 재편성 작업이 더욱 활발하게 진행되고 있다. 이는 유라시아 지역 전체의 세력판도를 좌우할 수 있는 국제관계의 핵심 사안이나 마찬가지다. 탈소비에트 국가들은 독립 이후 국가 건설과 대외정책 추진과정에서 자신들의 정치적･경제적･군사 안보적 이해관계를 충족시킬 목적 아래 다양한 형태의 CIS 지역 통합운동(CIS, EURASEC, GUAM, CES, CSTO, SCO, CU, EEU 등)에 참여 해왔다. 포스 트-소비에트 공간의 경우 탈러시아 및 친유럽 성향의 다자협력 기구와 친러시아 성향의 지역 통합 조직이 동시에 존재하는 전략적 경쟁 지대였다. 이곳에서는 미국을 위시한 서방세력의 개입 작업과 러시아의 세력권 복원운동이 동시다발적으로 전개되고 있었다. 러시아 지도부는 탈소비에트 공간에서 서방의 세력 확산을 차단하고 자신의 영향력을 확산시킨다는 차원에서 CIS 지역 통합 작업을 적극 추진해왔던 것이다. 2014년 러시아 정부는 3대 외교정책 과제를 선정했다. 그중 하나가 바로 유라시아 대륙에서 러시아 주도의 지역 통합작업을 강화하는 것이다. 2015년에 야심차게 출범하는 유라시아 경제연합(Eurasian Economic Union)은 CIS 지역 통합운동의 완결판이라는 국제정치적 함의를 지니고 있다. 푸틴 정부는 CIS 지역 통합 프로젝트를 통해 탈소비에트 공간에서 러시아의 주도적 역할과 정치적 입지 강화를 적극 도모해 나가고 있는 중이다. 본 연구의 목적은 크게 세 가지이다. 첫째, 글로벌화와 세계경제의 공간적 재편이라는 관점에서 유라시아 경제연합이 갖는 경제적 의의를 평가한다. 둘째, 러시아의 세계전략이라는 관점에서 유라시아 경제연합이 갖는 국제정치적 함의를 분석한다. 셋째, 강대국(미국, 유럽연합, 중국)과 CIS 지역 경제권 국가의 유라시아 경제연합에 대한 기본 입장을 고찰해보고자 한다. 이를 토대로 본고는 최근 한국 사회에서 제기되고 있는 유라시아 이니셔티브, 즉 대유라시아 정책과의 접점을 파악하고 향후 관련 정책 방향과 시사점을 제시하는 데 연구의 초점을 맞추고 있다. 2장에서는 세계경제의 지역적 구도 변화의 배경과 현황을 다루고 있다. 20세기 후반 세계경제를 지배한 세계화 현상은 국민경제간의 깊은 통합(deep integration)을 이끌어낼 것으로 기대되었다. 그러나 세계시장의 통합이 가져올 규모의 경제와 효율성에 대한 기대는 작금에 발생한 다양한 부작용에 의해 좌절되고 말았다. EEU 출범의 배경이 되는 세계경제의 지역구도화 관련 이론은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 세계화 또는 세계경제의 통합과정에서 글로벌 거버넌스가 중요한 제약조건으로 작용한다는 것이며, 이는 소위 세계화 트릴레마로 설명된다. 둘째, 세계화는 기업 공정의 세계화(globalization of production process)를 촉진하는데, 이는 결과적으로 생산 활동의 집적화로 이어졌다. 이러한 현상은 경제활동에 있어서 국경의 의미를 크게 희석시키고 있으며, 특정 지역을 중심으로 경제활동이 긴밀하게 통합되는 현상을 통해 세계경제의 지역적 구도화를 촉진하고 있다. 셋째, 이러한 제반 현상은 Krugman류 New Economic Geography 이론의 현실정합성을 뒷받침해주고 있다. 생산 활동의 집적화는 시장접근에 대한 수요를 증대시킴과 동시에, 국가간 제도적 경제통합의 수요를 증가시킨다. 이는 지역간 협정의 확산이라는 현상으로 나타나고 있다. 이러한 관점에 기초할 때, EEU의 경제적 동인은 크다고 정의할 수 없을 것이다. 유라시아 지역의 제조업 생산비중은 상대적으로 미약할 뿐만 아니라 역내 국가들간의 생산활동 분업도 활발한 수준이 아니다. EEU는 규범적 관점에서 높은 수준의 경제통합을 지향하고 있으나, 이를 현실적으로 이행하기에는 각 회원국의 시장이 충분한 성숙단계에 도달하지 않았다. 경제정책적 측면에서 EEU의 발전 가능성에 대해 긍정적인 전망을 내리기는 아직 이른 시점이다. EEU는 적어도 단기적으로는 경제적 관점이 아니라 이 지역을 중심으로 한 공동체 형성이라는 규범적 관점에서 이해할 필요성이 있다. 향후 EEU가 순조롭게 발전하기 위해서는 경제적 측면의 동력을 확보해야 한다. 러시아는 EEU 주도국으로서 일정한 수준의 산업 생산력을 확보함은 물론이고, 이를 바탕으로 역내 생산 분업구조를 구축해나가야 한다. EEU 추진에 있어서 정책적 공조의 필요성이 매우 중요한 이유이다. 3장은 러시아의 세계전략과 EEU 확장정책에 대한 평가 문제를 분석하고 있다. 러시아는 역사적･정치적･경제적･문화적･영토적으로 유라시아 대륙의 국제관계에서 자신의 명확한 이해를 보유하고 있는 국가이다. 푸틴 집권 이후 러시아 정부는 미국의 일방주의를 대체할 수 있는 새로운 다극체제의 구축이라는 세계전략의 핵심 목표를 설정한 바 있다. 푸틴 정부가 제시한 ‘21세기 강대국 러시아 건설’ 전략이란 새로운 다극체제에서 하나의 극을 담당하는 지역 강대국을 건설하는 것이었다. 그 연장선상에서 푸틴 대통령은 CIS 지역을 러시아의 배타적 세력권으로 상정했으며, 그 공간에서 러시아의 영향력 강화를 위한 일명 ‘CIS 프로젝트’를 적극 추진해왔다. 특히 CIS 지역에서 러시아의 주도권 복원 작업은 2008년 조지아 전쟁에서 승리한 이후 더욱 적극적으로 추진될 수 있었다. 게다가 러시아의 최근 ‘외교정책 개념’에도 잘 나타나 있듯이, 러시아 주도의 CIS 지역 통합 프로젝트는 세계전략의 최우선적인 목표나 다름없다. 이는 러시아의 지역 패권 확보와 강대국 건설작업의 성패 여부는 물론, 탈소비에트 공간의 미래 전망과 직결된 중대한 문제이기에 더욱 그렇다. 2015년 출범 계획인 유라시아 경제연합은 러시아의 세계전략 구상과 밀접하게 연결되어 있는 중차대한 국가 프로젝트이다. 유라시아 경제연합이 러시아·벨라루스·카자흐스탄 등 옛 소비에트 연방국을 주축으로 한 ","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"586 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122764638","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Towards a Harmonization of Insider Trading Criminal Law at EU Level?","authors":"M. Faure, C. Leger","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2543964","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2543964","url":null,"abstract":"In June 2014 the European Council promulgated the directive on criminal sanctions for market abuse 2014/57/EU forcing the European member states to criminalize particular acts related to market manipulation and insider trading. In the same month the directive also entered into force. As a result of this directive the traditional freedom that member states had to decide the ways in which they would implement a directive on market manipulation and insider trading has finished. With this important step the European institutions make use of the new powers that were allocated to them to force member states to the use of the criminal law in particular areas. Previously the European institutions made use of this inter alia with respect to environmental criminal law. However, this is the first time that the European institutions not only force member states towards criminalisation, but moreover, even impose a minimum level of specific penalties, something which was equally made possible with the treaty of Lisbon.The enclosed paper describes the way in which the European institutions have addressed the enforcement of the insider trading prohibition and the role of the criminal law in this respect. Moreover, in the paper we critically question whether criminalisation and more particularly the imposition of criminal law at EU-level are appropriate tools.In order to address those questions we use an economic approach and a legal theory approach to the criminalisation of insider trading and market manipulation. Economic theory has indicated that criminalisation may only be needed in specific (exceptional) circumstances, more particularly where the gain to the perpetrator would be relatively high, the potential damage to society high and the probability of detection low. We argue that although there may be circumstances in which these conditions are fulfilled, there can also be many situations where the probability of detection is not that low and where gains to the perpetrator are not substantial. In those circumstances alternatives such as civil remedies or administrative sanctions could suffice. It is striking that the European Commission pays a lot of attention to private enforcement in other policy domains like e.g. competition policy. In the domain of enforcement of insider trading and market manipulation there is, contrary to the situation in the US, no attention to the possibilities of private enforcements. To the contrary, differently than the suggestions from economic theory, the European institutions strongly believe in the need for criminal sanctions.Not only the choice for the criminal law can be critically assessed. One can equally wonder why this criminalisation necessarily had to be imposed at EU-level. In fact, from the twenty-eight European member states only Bulgaria lacked criminal sanctions. That hence also justifies the question whether there really was a need to impose a criminalisation of insider trading and market manipulation at EU-le","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130225832","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Towards a Macroprudential Policy in the EU: Main Issues","authors":"E. Gualandri, Mario Noera","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2534450","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2534450","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of the paper is to analyze the state of the art of macroprudential policies (MAP) with a focus on the case of the European Union. To this end the institutional framework of MAP is introduced and discussed with regard to several issues: the relationships and/or the conflicts with other policies and among the different institutional bodies involved, their mandate, accountability and governance. The operative framework - intermediate and final targets and toolkit - is specifically analyzed with regard to the case of the European Union and the introduction, in 2011, of a macroprudential supervisory pillar based on the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB). Finally the main features of the new European supervisory architecture are addressed: the organization of MAP within the Single Supervisory Mechanisms (SSM), the definition of the role of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the ESRB as far as macroprudential policy is concerned. In the conclusions, we evaluate the new architecture which is quite complex and cumbersome, and the challenge that the SSM is facing: to achieve comprehensive, rational, effective and efficient supervision, avoiding overlapping of competences and clarifying the specific roles of different bodies while keeping away additional burdens for the institutions supervised.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"162 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116394802","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Right to Be Forgotten: Its Weaknesses and Alternatives","authors":"Martha A. Garcia-Murillo, I. MacInnes","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2529396","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2529396","url":null,"abstract":"In this article we argue that the European Union directive on “the right to be forgotten” is unrealistic and suggest instead a series of principles that can protect us from the potentially harmful publication of private information. The dissemination of personal information through public and private databases as well as social media is gradually educating humanity about reality: humans are weak; everyone misbehaves; and we need to learn to accept public knowledge of the imperfections of ourselves and others.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133899588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Growing Impasse: The Future of the EU's GMO Regime","authors":"M. Geelhoed","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2524340","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2524340","url":null,"abstract":"In the spring of 2014, the Greek presidency of the Council of the EU tabled a revised version of a 2010 proposal that promises to allow Member States to restrict or prohibit the commercial cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on whole or part of their territory. This study seeks to answer the question: does the proposal for partial renationalisation of the EU’s regulatory regime for the cultivation of GMOs provide an adequate solution to its current problems? It finds that the EU’s GMO regime has to this day failed to accommodate national diversity prior to authorisation through central deliberation and that it does not provide Member States with opportunities for substantial differentiation post-authorisation. An in-depth legal analysis of the Greek proposal, however, shows that the proposal is unlikely to fill this legal vacuum by empowering Member States to impose cultivation bans after authorisation, while the exercise of their newfound autonomy may well be restricted by EU internal market and international WTO law. Whereas this study makes recommendations for a more adequate redistribution of competences, it also calls into question whether renationalisation is the best solution for the regime’s problems. It thus examines the practical consequences of re-emphasising national frontiers when dealing with a cross-boundary issue like GMO cultivation, and briefly discusses underexplored opportunities to improve the inclusiveness of the EU’s centralised risk-assessment and risk-management procedures.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114378966","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"EU Banking Union. Introductory Thoughts on the Current Situation","authors":"M. Hennies, Matti Raudjärv","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2543973","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2543973","url":null,"abstract":"The decision adopted by the 28 European Union (EU) Member States in June 2012 on the establishment of the banking union expresses clear political support to the idea of common Europe. Is such a pretentious EU project an important historic step towards further integration, particularly in terms of the financial sector? Will the banking union reconsolidate the connections within the economic and monetary union and create better conditions for economic growth? After three decades of deregulation of monetary policy, which has taken the European financial situation to the verge of a precipice, it is above all important to take precautions to avoid in the future any destructive developments similar to those that occurred in the years after 2008.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116744964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"When Does Government Ideology Matter? Evidence from Subjective Well-Being in Europe","authors":"C. Bjørnskov","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2505617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2505617","url":null,"abstract":"This paper considers how lay theory and perceptions of issue ownership affect voters’ expectations of political and economic developments. These expectations are likely to mediate the effects on subjective well-being of specific developments. Estimates employing a panel of 29 European countries observed between 1975 and 2011 suggest that problems within an issue attributed to the ideological side of the incumbent government exerts much stronger well-being effects than when similar problems arise with ideologically opposite governments. The evidence suggests a ‘Nixon goes to China’ effect in well-being.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"492 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134140586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}