IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/ipppap/halshs-03019434.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Should European integration go further? A survey of French, German and Italian members of national parliaments

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre C Boyer

    (X - École polytechnique)

  • Elie Gerschel
  • Anasuya Raj

Abstract

Summary: The European economic union is incomplete, which makes it vulnerable to macroeconomic shocks. The opportunity to move forward in the integration process was highly debated even before the Covid-19 crisis. Yet the diverging views among countries and political groups are often considered as an obstacle on the path to required agreements for completing the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). We present the results of a survey conducted in 2018 among members of national parliaments (MPs) in France, Germany and Italy on European integration in policy fields related to risk-sharing and budgetary institutions, asking for their opinion on proposals such as the creation of a European Unemployment Insurance (EUI), Eurobonds, or an EU tax. We find that nationality and political groups are key determinants of support for such proposals, the latter being the strongest. We describe how opinions are divided and try to identify policy proposals which could gather enough political support. The agreement reached on July 21st, 2020 at the last European summit includes financial transfers between States and the creation of Eurobonds, thus representing an important institutional move and an application of some of the reforms suggested by our survey. Yet what has been decided upon is only temporary and leaves open the question of the future of European integration. Key points: At first glance, the answers show diverging opinions on most questions between countries with Italy supporting more integration, and Germany opposing it for most proposals. France has an intermediate position, leaning towards Italy. A breakdown of the results by party affiliation shows a more nuanced picture. For cross-country comparisons, we build a party indicator using the affiliation of national parties to European political groups. National MPs associated with the group of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) at the European level show strong support for the creation of new fiscal institutions and a new EU tax, and for risk sharing institutions (European Unemployment Insurance, Eurobonds). On the contrary, MPs associated with the European People's Party (EPP) are mildly positive or against risk-sharing and fiscal institutions. National MPs affiliated to Renew Europe hold similar views to S&D MPs, but are less supportive of risk-sharing mechanisms. There is a substantial diversity of positions between the German AfD, the Italian Lega and the 5-star movement: the three parties have diverging views on the future of integration. Our econometric analysis shows that party affiliations have more explanatory power than nationality for all questions. This clearly shows that outcomes of national parliamentary elections could change the overall support for any issue.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre C Boyer & Elie Gerschel & Anasuya Raj, 2020. "Should European integration go further? A survey of French, German and Italian members of national parliaments," Institut des Politiques Publiques halshs-03019434, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:ipppap:halshs-03019434
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-03019434
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-03019434/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blesse, Sebastian & Bordignon, Massimo & Boyer, Pierre C. & Carapella, Piergiorgio & Heinemann, Friedrich & Janeba, Eckhard & Raj, Anasuya, 2019. "United we stand? Survey results on the views of French, German and Italian parliamentarians on EU and EMU reforms," ZEW policy briefs 1/2019, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Pierre Boyer & Anasuya Raj, 2018. "European integration and labour market policy: Political or national divides?," Institut des Politiques Publiques halshs-02520854, HAL.
    3. Boyer, Pierre & Blesse, Sebastian & Bordignon, Massimo & Carapella, Piergiorgio & Heinemann, Friedrich & Janeba, Eckhard & Raj, Anasuya, 2020. "The future of the European project: survey results from members of national parliaments in France, Italy and Germany," CEPR Discussion Papers 15021, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Blesse, Sebastian & Bordignon, Massimo & Boyer, Pierre C. & Carapella, Piergiorgio & Heinemann, Friedrich & Janeba, Eckhard & Raj, Anasuya, 2021. "The future of the European fiscal union: Survey results from members of national parliaments in France, Italy and Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-055, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Laura Arnemann & Kai A Konrad & Niklas Potrafke, 2021. "Collective memories on the 2010 European debt crisis," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 762-784, December.
    3. Didier, Tatiana & Huneeus, Federico & Larrain, Mauricio & Schmukler, Sergio L., 2021. "Financing firms in hibernation during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    4. Roel Beetsma & Brian Burgoon & Francesco Nicoli & Anniek de Ruijter & Frank Vandenbroucke, 2022. "What kind of EU fiscal capacity? Evidence from a randomized survey experiment in five European countries in times of corona," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 37(111), pages 411-459.
    5. Alpino, Matteo & Asatryan, Zareh & Blesse, Sebastian & Wehrhöfer, Nils, 2022. "Austerity and distributional policy," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 112-127.
    6. Lindner, Vincent & Eckert, Sandra & Nölke, Andreas, 2022. "Political science research on the reasons for the (non) adoption and (non) implementation of EMU reform proposals: The state of the art," SAFE Working Paper Series 339, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:ipppap:halshs-03019434. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Caroline Bauer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.