IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v52y2022i4p655-674..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Tale of Two Regions: An Analysis of Two Decades of Belgian Public Opinion
[Institutional change, economic conditions and confidence in government: Evidence from Belgium]

Author

Listed:
  • Marc Hooghe
  • Dieter Stiers

Abstract

It has been assumed that a trend toward devolution within a federal country would be associated with a growing apart of public opinion, and the federal kingdom of Belgium is routinely cited as an obvious example in this regard. Since the publication of the seminal Billiet et al. article, more competences have been devolved toward the autonomous regions, and in this research note we update the expectation that this has led to a further growing apart of public opinion in the country. Based on both electoral studies (2009/2014/2019), and the European Social Survey (2002–2018) we investigate whether these institutional differences are associated with a growing apart of public opinion in the regions of Belgium. Our results suggest that while there are clear attitudinal differences between the two major groups in the country, these differences are stable throughout the three-decade observation period. Differences are becoming more outspoken, however, with regard to the preferred extent of federalism. Interestingly, however, the dynamics in public opinion in this regard do not follow the same pattern as electoral results would suggest.

Suggested Citation

  • Marc Hooghe & Dieter Stiers, 2022. "A Tale of Two Regions: An Analysis of Two Decades of Belgian Public Opinion [Institutional change, economic conditions and confidence in government: Evidence from Belgium]," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 52(4), pages 655-674.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:52:y:2022:i:4:p:655-674.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjab039
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:52:y:2022:i:4:p:655-674.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.