IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jcmkts/v59y2021i2p222-241.html

Eurovisions: An Exploration and Explanation of Public Preferences for Future EU Scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas C. Goldberg
  • Erika J. van Elsas
  • Claes H. De Vreese

Abstract

Public opinion on the EU has received growing attention in the last decades, with an ever‐increasing number of studies examining various aspects of it. Surprisingly, most studies focus on attitudes towards the past and present of the EU, yet we know very little about public attitudes towards the future of the EU. This study helps to fill this research gap by examining attitudes towards the EU's long‐term future using a novel approach. We developed eight concrete future EU scenarios based on an inductive analysis of qualitative survey data. Subsequently, respondents (in an independent survey) ranked their top three scenarios according to individual preferences. Using multidimensional unfolding, we show that these preferences form three clusters ordered along a more versus less EU dimension. In a second step, we used multinomial logistic regression to examine not only who supports which scenario (socio‐demographics) but also which EU attitudes lead to which future preferences. The analyses identify distinct characteristics and attitudes that drive people's preference for a given scenario. Overall, we find that factors such as occupational levels or left–right attitudes are strong determinants of preferences for the future of the EU, and that specific EU support (performance and utilitarian evaluations) is more important than diffuse EU support (identity and affect).

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas C. Goldberg & Erika J. van Elsas & Claes H. De Vreese, 2021. "Eurovisions: An Exploration and Explanation of Public Preferences for Future EU Scenarios," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 222-241, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jcmkts:v:59:y:2021:i:2:p:222-241
    DOI: 10.1111/jcms.13057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13057
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jcms.13057?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luskin, Robert C. & Fishkin, James S. & Jowell, Roger, 2002. "Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 455-487, July.
    2. Niclas Meyer, 2018. "EU break-up? Mapping plausible pathways into alternative futures," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 136, European Institute, LSE.
    3. Peter Neijens & Jan Ridder & Willem Saris, 1992. "An instrument for collecting informed opinions," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 245-258, August.
    4. Claes H. De Vreese & Hajo G. Boomgaarden, 2006. "Media Effects on Public Opinion about the Enlargement of the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 419-436, June.
    5. Easton, David, 1975. "A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 435-457, October.
    6. Teney, Céline & Lacewell, Onawa Promise & De Wilde, Pieter, 2014. "Winners and losers of globalization in Europe: attitudes and ideologies," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 6(4), pages 575-595.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andreas C Goldberg & Erika J van Elsas & Claes H de Vreese, 2021. "One union, different futures? Public preferences for the EU's future and their explanations in 10 EU countries," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 721-740, December.

    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. Andreas C Goldberg & Erika J van Elsas & Claes H de Vreese, 2021. "One union, different futures? Public preferences for the EU's future and their explanations in 10 EU countries," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 721-740, December.
    2. Irina Ciornei, 2025. "Supranational redistribution and support for European integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 26(3), pages 526-551, September.
    3. Hajo G. Boomgaarden & Andreas R. T. Schuck & Matthijs Elenbaas & Claes H. de Vreese, 2011. "Mapping EU attitudes: Conceptual and empirical dimensions of Euroscepticism and EU support," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 241-266, June.
    4. Enrique Hernández & Roberto Pannico, 2020. "The impact of EU institutional advertising on public support for European integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 569-589, December.
    5. Julian Aichholzer & Sylvia Kritzinger & Carolina Plescia, 2021. "National identity profiles and support for the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(2), pages 293-315, June.
    6. Soetkin Verhaegen & Marc Hooghe & Ellen Quintelier, 2014. "European Identity and Support for European Integration: A Matter of Perceived Economic Benefits?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 295-314, May.
    7. Arjan H Schakel & A J Brown, 2022. "Dissecting Public Opinion on Regional Authority: Four Types of Regionalists Based on Citizens’ Preferences for Self-Rule and Shared Rule," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 52(2), pages 310-328.
    8. repec:gig:joupla:v:3:y:2011:i:1:p:29-64 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Liesbet Hooghe & Tobias Lenz & Gary Marks, 2019. "Contested world order: The delegitimation of international governance," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 731-743, December.
    10. Delhey, Jan, 2002. "Korruption in Bewerberländern zur Europäischen Union: Institutionenqualität und Korruption in vergleichender Perspektive," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Social Structure and Social Reporting FS III 02-401, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    11. Daicia Price & Tore Bonsaksen & Mary Ruffolo & Janni Leung & Vivian Chiu & Hilde Thygesen & Mariyana Schoultz & Amy Ostertun Geirdal, 2021. "Perceived Trust in Public Authorities Nine Months after the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Cross-National Study," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, September.
    12. Luís Aguiar-Conraria & Pedro C. Magalhães, 2018. "Procedural Fairness, the Economy, and Support for Political Authorities (Forthcoming at Political Psychology (submitted pre-print version))," NIPE Working Papers 05/2018, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
    13. Delshad, Ashlie B. & Raymond, Leigh & Sawicki, Vanessa & Wegener, Duane T., 2010. "Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3414-3425, July.
    14. Briguglio, Marie & Delaney, Liam & Wood, Alex, 2018. "Partisanship, priming and participation in public-good schemes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 136-150.
    15. Robert E. Goodin & Simon J. Niemeyer, 2003. "When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(4), pages 627-649, December.
    16. Caroline Mcevoy, 2016. "The Role of Political Efficacy on Public Opinion in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 1159-1174, September.
    17. Fenja Søndergaard Møller, 2019. "Blue blood or true blood: Why are levels of intrastate armed conflict so low in Middle Eastern monarchies?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(5), pages 517-544, September.
    18. Anna Kern, 2017. "The Effect of Direct Democratic Participation on Citizens’ Political Attitudes in Switzerland: The Difference between Availability and Use," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 16-26.
    19. André Blais & Damien Bol & Carolina Plescia, 2026. "What Electoral Outcomes Foster Electoral Consent and Dissent?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 14.
    20. Newton, Kenneth, 2005. "Support for democracy: Social capital, civil society and political performance," Discussion Papers, Research Group Civil Society, Citizenship and Political Mobilization in Europe SP IV 2005-402, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    21. Chun Yang & James Price Dillard & Ruobing Li, 2018. "Understanding Fear of Zika: Personal, Interpersonal, and Media Influences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2535-2545, December.

    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:bla:jcmkts:v:59:y:2021:i:2:p:222-241. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-9886 .

    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.