European Journal of Political Research最新文献

{"title":"Correction to (When) do electoral mandates set the agenda? Government capacity and mandate responsiveness in Germany","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/1475-6765.12681","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1475-6765.12681","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Guinaudeau, B., & Guinaudeau, I. (2023). (When) do electoral mandates set the agenda? Government capacity and mandate responsiveness in Germany<i>. European Journal of Political Research, 62</i>(4), 1212–1234. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12557</p><p>Page 1226, the following comment on Model 5 is incorrect: ‘The interaction term is not significant, suggesting that Bundesrat control does not significantly affect mandate responsiveness’. The interaction term is in fact significant and negative. This should have read: ‘Surprisingly, the negative and significant interaction effect suggests that having a majority in the Bundesrat even goes hand in hand with lower levels of mandate responsiveness’.</p><p>Still on page 1226, the number of the model in the following sentence is wrong: ‘The constitutive term for platform priorities in Model 7 shows that their relationship with legislative subjects is significant for areas immune to any Europeanization…’ Europeanization is analysed in Model 8 and not in Model 7. Therefore, the correction is: ‘The constitutive term for platform priorities in Model 8 shows that their relationship with legislative subjects is significant for areas immune to any Europeanization…’</p><p>Page 1228, a whole paragraph went lost in the finalization process. This paragraph was initially located between the second paragraph (‘Our findings also confirm the conditioning impact of budget conditions. The constitutive term for platform priorities shows that for a positive budget balance their impact on legislation is significant. The marginal effects displayed in Figure 4 show this is no longer the case when the account balance gets negative, however, as in the period from the early 1990s to the early 2000s’.) and the third one (‘This first empirical account of how mandate responsiveness is constrained by vertical and operational capacity generally supports the concerns that the relationship between electoral and legislative priorities relies on a certain level of national sovereignty and favourable budget conditions. When these conditions are not met, electoral and legislative priorities appear to be statistically disconnected from each other’.). The lost paragraph needs to be reinserted: ‘‘Finally, we examine how public pressure circumscribes the government's ability to focus lawmaking on mandate priorities. The marginal effects presented in Figure 5, based on Model 10, confirm the intuition that while popular governments enjoy comfortable latitude, unpopular governments face more difficulties in legislating on mandate priorities. We knew from past studies that popularity crises prompt them to tackle problems that are most salient among voters (e.g. Bernardi, 2020) and that this diverts executives away from their “owned” issues (Green & Jennings, 2019). These new findings reveal that this has important implications for mandate responsiveness as well: government have reasons to respond to salient public priorities, no mat","PeriodicalId":48273,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Research","volume":"63 4","pages":"1724-1725"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1475-6765.12681","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141696823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patterns of democracy and democratic satisfaction: Results from a comparative conjoint experiment","authors":"ZSÓFIA PAPP,&nbsp;JULIEN NAVARRO,&nbsp;FEDERICO RUSSO,&nbsp;LAURA EMŐKE NAGY","doi":"10.1111/1475-6765.12674","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1475-6765.12674","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study presents the results from a series of conjoint experiments evaluating how the various components of political systems affect citizens’ satisfaction with democracy (SWD). Compared to earlier studies, our approach is unique in that we were able to disentangle the effects of otherwise highly collinear variables corresponding to three defining features of any political system, namely (1) access to power, (2) the policy-making process and (3) performance. We fielded identical conjoint experiments in countries with significant variations across the key independent variables: France, Hungary and Italy. Overall, our study supports the view that citizens are more satisfied with democracy in consensus systems than in majoritarian democracies, while it also contributes to identifying the respective weight of the specific components of political systems. Respondents across all countries recognize that proportionality and party system fragmentation magnify their voices by creating a more representative political climate. With regard to output legitimacy, we find that respondents identify good economic performance and public probity as important features of a well-performing democracy. The positive effect of the legislators’ constituency orientation on SWD is a particularly noteworthy result that is currently understudied in the literature. Moreover, the state of the economy has by far the biggest impact on SWD, which indicates a highly materialistic view of democracy in all three countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":48273,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Research","volume":"63 4","pages":"1445-1470"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1475-6765.12674","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140739531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Differentiation, dominance and fairness in the European Union: Bringing in the citizens’ perspective","authors":"MAX HEERMANN,&nbsp;DIRK LEUFFEN,&nbsp;JULIAN SCHUESSLER","doi":"10.1111/1475-6765.12672","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12672","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article analyses whether and how fairness considerations affect citizens’ support of European Union (EU) policies and integration. While past literature has revealed that perceptions of procedural and substantive fairness impact on public opinion at the level of the nation state, we know less about the fairness-support nexus when it comes to international cooperation. We here make use of the case of differentiated integration (DI) to experimentally dissect normative and utility-oriented considerations in the evaluation of EU policies. DI as an instrument to overcome heterogeneity-induced gridlock has been linked to both autonomy and dominance, and it can generate winners and losers in the EU. Our experiments reveal that citizens largely support DI. However, they are opposed to forms of DI which impose negative externalities on a subgroup of EU member states. This holds irrespective of the affectedness of citizens’ own member states. We take these findings as a first experimental confirmation that citizens, indeed, care about the fairness of the EU and its policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":48273,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Research","volume":"63 4","pages":"1622-1641"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1475-6765.12672","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142404855","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"From bonus to burden: The cost of ruling from a new(s) perspective","authors":"GUNNAR THESEN,&nbsp;CHRISTOFFER GREEN-PEDERSEN,&nbsp;PETER MORTENSEN","doi":"10.1111/1475-6765.12670","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1475-6765.12670","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Studies have repeatedly documented the <i>cost of ruling</i>: governing parties generally suffer electoral defeats. We approach this empirical law of political science from the perspective of another empirical law: the <i>incumbency bonus</i>, the fact that incumbents get more media attention than the opposition. Our claim is that the bonus constitutes an electoral liability because it reflects the critical approach of media to government power. News featuring incumbents is therefore associated with a more negative tone than news featuring the opposition. This <i>incumbency burden</i> in turn affects government support negatively. Empirically, we draw on an extensive news corpus covering four European countries over two decades, combined with monthly poll data. Analyses show that the incumbency burden in political news is an empirical reality, and that variations in the burden contribute substantially to predictions of government support. Finally, the negative burden effect is stronger for single-party cabinets, but stable throughout government tenure.</p>","PeriodicalId":48273,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Research","volume":"63 4","pages":"1601-1621"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1475-6765.12670","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140247083","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The backlash against free movement: Does EU-internal migration fuel public concerns about immigration?","authors":"LUKAS F. STOETZER,&nbsp;MARTIN KROH,&nbsp;LEONARD DASEY","doi":"10.1111/1475-6765.12666","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1475-6765.12666","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The free movement of people is a fundamental principle of the European Union (EU) that has led to an increase in EU-internal migration. This study investigates the impact of increased immigration to Germany resulting from the 2004 and 2007 eastern enlargement of the EU on concerns about immigration within the German population. By merging 20 years of annual migration statistics with panel data on individual attitudes and exploiting exogenous variation in the gradual enlargement of the free movement policy, we examine the causal effects of EU-internal migration on immigration concerns. Our findings suggest that the influx of immigrants from new member states did not have a clear average effect on concerns about immigration, but increased concerns among German natives with materialist-survival values. The study provides insights into the societal division caused by opposition to immigration as part of the European integration process.</p>","PeriodicalId":48273,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Research","volume":"63 4","pages":"1578-1600"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1475-6765.12666","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140077505","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Mainstreaming democratic backsliding: The role of gender stereotypes","authors":"JULIA ELAD-STRENGER,&nbsp;LIHI BEN-SHITRIT,&nbsp;SIVAN HIRSCH-HOEFLER","doi":"10.1111/1475-6765.12667","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1475-6765.12667","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Radical-right parties have gradually penetrated the political mainstream in many liberal democracies, marking a trend of ‘democratic backsliding’. We propose that women's increasing visibility as representatives of radical-right agendas makes democratic backsliders, their policies and their parties seem more legitimate, and may help explain their growing public acceptance. Our studies provide the first systematic examination of this hypothesis in three countries – Israel, Germany and the United States (N = 7203). In Studies 1a-c, we show that voters perceive democracy-eroding policies through a gendered lens – they attribute gender stereotypes to the parties promoting these policies and to the public supporting these policies. In Studies 2a-c, we experimentally demonstrate the effect of politicians’ gender on public acceptance of democracy-eroding policies, politicians and parties, and demonstrate the role of gender stereotypes in mediating this effect. Finally, we show that the audiences susceptible to the mainstreaming effect of politicians’ gender are precisely those that are often particularly repelled by radical-right agendas and their perceived masculine image: Women and left-wing voters.</p>","PeriodicalId":48273,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Research","volume":"63 4","pages":"1397-1425"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1475-6765.12667","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140260579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Multidimensional and intersectional cultural grievances over gender, sexuality and immigration","authors":"GEFJON OFF","doi":"10.1111/1475-6765.12665","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1475-6765.12665","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In addition to immigration grievances, research shows that radical right voters grieve societal developments regarding gender equality and sexual freedom. Adding to research treating these grievances separately, this article advances a joint understanding of these grievances. I analyse interviews with voters of the German radical right <i>Alternative für Deutschland</i> for perceptions about discrimination and (dis)advantages of natives versus immigrants, men versus women and cis-hetero versus LGBTQI+ people. I find similar argumentations about these social groups: Most interviewees do not perceive existing structural discrimination. They further perceive zero-sum dynamics between advances for outgroups and losses for ingroups. In doing so, they consider different ingroup and outgroup characteristics, resulting in perceptions of different material and symbolic (dis)advantages for different groups and a hitherto under-researched perception of legal (dis)advantages. Additionally, some interviewees jointly refer to various social groups in an expression of ‘multidimensional’ grievances, and some refer to the intersections between several ingroup and outgroup identities in determining a person's (dis)advantages. The parallels in argumentation and the perceptions of multidimensional and intersectional grievances highlight the importance of jointly studying different kinds of cultural grievances.</p>","PeriodicalId":48273,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Research","volume":"63 4","pages":"1351-1373"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1475-6765.12665","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140438791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"It's trade, stupid! How changes in trade competitiveness affect incumbents' electoral success","authors":"ANDREAS DÜR,&nbsp;ROBERT A. HUBER,&nbsp;YANNICK STILLER","doi":"10.1111/1475-6765.12663","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1475-6765.12663","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The consequences of economic globalization on electoral outcomes have recently become a prominent topic of research. We complement the emerging literature on this topic by studying whether changes in a subnational region's trade competitiveness affect the incumbent's vote share in that region. Using a novel dataset that relates subnational trade competitiveness to election results in 29 countries over a 20-year period, we show that this is indeed the case. We also show that this effect is most pronounced for elections where the clarity of responsibility is high. Finally, we find mixed evidence for a moderating effect of incumbents' economic ideology as a moderator. These findings also contribute to the broader economic voting literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":48273,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Research","volume":"63 4","pages":"1712-1723"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1475-6765.12663","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140451342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"For every action a reaction? The polarizing effects of women's rights and refugee immigration: A survey experiment in 27 EU member states","authors":"AMY ALEXANDER,&nbsp;NICHOLAS CHARRON,&nbsp;GEFJON OFF","doi":"10.1111/1475-6765.12664","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1475-6765.12664","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Building on research on cultural threat-induced polarization, we investigate the effect of the individual-level salience of cultural threats on polarization between social liberals and conservatives. In a unique survey experiment conducted with 129,000 respondents nested in 208 regions in 27 European Union (EU) member states, we manipulate the presence of two cultural threats, women's rights, and refugee immigration, to test their polarizing effects on social liberals’ and social conservatives’ support for traditional values. We find that priming the threat of refugee immigration polarizes conservatives and liberals equally. Yet, introducing the salience of women's rights leads to lower preferences for traditional values, particularly among more liberal respondents. Our findings demonstrate: 1) the study of backlash should distinguish individuals by their predisposition to backlash, rather than studying the population as a whole; and 2) social conservatives’ backlash should be studied conjointly with social liberals’ counter-reactions to backlash. Future research may investigate why different cultural threats provoke different reactions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48273,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Research","volume":"63 4","pages":"1557-1577"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1475-6765.12664","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139963352","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Russian aggression and Europeans’ attitudes toward the EU – Evidence from the 2014 annexation of Crimea","authors":"OSMAN SABRI KIRATLI","doi":"10.1111/1475-6765.12662","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1475-6765.12662","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This research note investigates whether external military crises, short of war, in the neighbourhood of the European Union (EU) affects attitudes toward the EU. Specifically, I explore whether the Russian aggression against Ukraine in 2014 fostered higher levels of trust in the EU and support for deeper integration among European citizens. Methodologically, I exploit the coincidental timing of the Russian annexation of Crimea on 18 March, 2014 with the fieldwork of the Eurobarometer survey (81.2) conducted in the spring of that year. The quasi-experimental evidence establishes that European citizens who were surveyed after the Russian annexation became more trusting of the EU and presented a greater willingness for further European integration, particularly so among EU-15 members. Moreover, the treatment effects were strongly moderated by individuals’ education levels, with the intervention exerting its greatest effect among the higher educated.</p>","PeriodicalId":48273,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Research","volume":"63 4","pages":"1699-1711"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139779875","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}