IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v14y2026a11306.html

Closer or More Distant? The Congruence Between Elites and Voters on Swiss–EU Relations

Author

Listed:
  • Lukas Lauener

    (Institute of Political Studies, University of Lausanne, Switzerland / Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences (FORS), Switzerland)

  • Laurent Bernhard

    (Department of Political Science, University of Zurich, Switzerland / Centre for Democracy Studies (ZDA), Switzerland)

Abstract

Elite-citizen congruence is central to normative theories of representation. This article compares the preferences of Swiss elites and citizens about relations with the EU, examining whether patterns of elite-citizen divergence documented in EU member states extend to a non-member state with exceptionally high levels of economic integration. At a time when Switzerland and the EU are (re)negotiating their relations, this analysis is of great importance. Drawing on survey data from the 2023 Swiss Election Study (Selects) at both candidate and citizen levels, we test two hypotheses from the European integration literature. First, we expect political elites to favor closer relations with the EU more than voters. Second, we hypothesize that elites adopt more extreme positions than voters, with party elites from pro-European parties being more integrationist and those from Eurosceptic parties being more anti-integration than their respective electorates. Results support both hypotheses. Political elites are significantly more pro-EU than voters overall, while voters of the radical right Swiss People’s Party are less reluctant about closer Swiss–EU relations than party elites, and moderate party voters (social democrats, liberals, center, greens, and green liberals) favor closer ties less than their candidates. We argue that elite polarization represents the more fundamental driving factor, while the aggregate pro-EU elite bias reflects the specific balance of political forces in given contexts. This distinction has crucial implications: scholars should prioritize examining polarization dynamics across diverse settings rather than focusing exclusively on directional biases, thereby offering new analytical leverage for understanding democratic representation beyond formal EU membership.

Suggested Citation

  • Lukas Lauener & Laurent Bernhard, 2026. "Closer or More Distant? The Congruence Between Elites and Voters on Swiss–EU Relations," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 14.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v14:y:2026:a:11306
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.11306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/11306
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.11306?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. Matt Golder & Jacek Stramski, 2010. "Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 90-106, January.
    2. Strijbis, Oliver & Teney, Céline & Helbling, Marc, 2019. "Why Are Elites More Cosmopolitan than Masses?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 37-64.
    3. Rabinowitz, George & Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, 1989. "A Directional Theory of Issue Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(1), pages 93-121, March.
    4. Hooghe, Liesbet & Marks, Gary, 2009. "A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 1-23, January.
    5. Ryan Bakker & Seth Jolly & Jonathan Polk, 2018. "Multidimensional incongruence and vote switching in Europe," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 267-296, July.
    6. Hermann Schmitt & Jacques Thomassen, 2000. "Dynamic Representation: The Case of European Integration," MZES Working Papers 21, MZES.
    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. Sofia Vasilopoulou & Katjana Gattermann, 2021. "Does Politicization Matter for EU Representation? A Comparison of Four European Parliament Elections," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 661-678, May.
    2. Mikko Mattila & Tapio Raunio, 2026. "Still Out of Touch? Parties and Their Voters on the EU Dimension," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 14.
    3. Dimiter Toshkov, 2011. "Public opinion and policy output in the European Union: A lost relationship," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 169-191, June.
    4. Do Won Kim, 2020. "Populism Amidst Prosperity: Dimensionality, party competition and voter preference in the era of populism: The case of England, 2010-2017," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 160, European Institute, LSE.
    5. Roula Nezi & Zoe Lefkofridi, 2026. "Multidimensional Representation in the EU Multilevel Polity: The Role of Congruence in Vote‐Switching," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 14.
    6. Radosław Markowski & Piotr Zagórski, 2024. "The Eurodisappointed: On the disenchantment with the EU's limited response to democratic backsliding," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(2), pages 223-244, June.
    7. Femke Van Esch & Rik Joosen & Sabine van Zuydam, 2016. "Responsive to the People? Comparing the European Cognitive Maps of Dutch Political Leaders and their Followers," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(2), pages 54-67.
    8. Jørgen Bølstad, 2015. "Dynamics of European integration: Public opinion in the core and periphery," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 23-44, March.
    9. Ryan Bakker & Seth Jolly & Jonathan Polk, 2018. "Multidimensional incongruence and vote switching in Europe," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 267-296, July.
    10. Lisanne de Blok & Max Heermann & Julian Schuessler & Dirk Leuffen & Catherine E. de Vries, 2024. "All on board? The role of institutional design for public support for differentiated integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(3), pages 593-604, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Marco Manacorda & Guido Tabellini & Andrea Tesei, 2022. "Mobile internet and the rise of political tribalism in Europe," CEP Discussion Papers dp1877, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    13. Francisco Martínez-Mora & M. Socorro Puy, 2009. "Off-the-peak preferences over government size," Working Papers 2009-9, Universidad de Málaga, Department of Economic Theory, Málaga Economic Theory Research Center.
    14. 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.
    15. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Laslier, Jean-Francois, 2007. "Euclidean preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 87-98, February.
    16. Rauh, Christian, 2015. "Communicating supranational governance? The salience of EU affairs in the German Bundestag, 1991–2013," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 16(1), pages 116-138.
    17. Matthias Mader & Moritz Neubert & Felix Münchow & Stephanie C Hofmann & Harald Schoen & Konstantin Gavras, 2024. "Crumbling in the face of cost? How cost considerations affect public support for European security and defence cooperation," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(3), pages 483-503, September.
    18. Katjana Gattermann & Claes H De Vreese, 2017. "The role of candidate evaluations in the 2014 European Parliament elections: Towards the personalization of voting behaviour?," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(3), pages 447-468, September.
    19. 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.
    20. Braun, Daniela & Grande, Edgar, 2021. "Politicizing Europe in Elections to the European Parliament (1994–2019): The Crucial Role of Mainstream Parties," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 59(5), pages 1124-1141.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:cog:poango:v14:y:2026:a:11306. 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: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    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.