IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v54y2024i2p361-385..html

Past Political Asymmetry and Present Public Opinion: How Has the Asymmetrical Federation of the EU Shaped Popular Opinion of Its Optimal Shape?

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Moland

Abstract

Asymmetries in the formal obligations and rights afforded to sub-units are mainstays of many federations that have been extensively studied from many angles. However, we know relatively little about how these asymmetries shape views on federalism in the future. By leveraging data on differentiated integration in the European Union (EU), conceptually very similar to asymmetrical federalism, and survey data on attitudes toward the optimal future of it, I show that historical exposure to differentiated integration resulting from a bottom-up process of demands for sub-unit autonomy correlates to increased support for permanent differentiation in the future, especially among those critical of the EU. However, the opposite applies to differentiation imposed by the EU. A legacy of asymmetric federalism may thus breed opposition or support for unitary European federalism, depending on both the mode of past asymmetry that citizens have been exposed to and their views of the EU.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Moland, 2024. "Past Political Asymmetry and Present Public Opinion: How Has the Asymmetrical Federation of the EU Shaped Popular Opinion of Its Optimal Shape?," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 54(2), pages 361-385.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:54:y:2024:i:2:p:361-385.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjae001
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Buuren, Stef & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Karin, 2011. "mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 45(i03).
    2. Thomas Winzen & Frank Schimmelfennig, 2023. "National Differentiation Experience and Citizen Support for Differentiated Integration," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(5), pages 1235-1260, September.
    3. Theresa Kuhn & Francesco Nicoli, 2020. "Collective Identities and the Integration of Core State Powers: Introduction to the Special Issue," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 3-20, January.
    4. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    5. Clifford J. Carrubba & Anand Singh, 2004. "A Decision Theoretic Model of Public Opinion: Guns, Butter, and European Common Defense," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(2), pages 218-231, April.
    6. Paolo Chiocchetti, 2023. "A Quantitative Analysis of Legal Integration and Differentiation in the European Union, 1958–2020," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(5), pages 1337-1359, September.
    7. John Ishiyama, 2023. "Does Ethnic Federalism Lead to Greater Ethnic Identity? The Case of Ethiopia," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 53(1), pages 82-105.
    8. Kathy L. Brock, 2008. "The Politics of Asymmetrical Federalism: Reconsidering the Role and Responsibilities of Ottawa," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 34(2), pages 143-162, June.
    9. Thomas Malang & Katharina Holzinger, 2020. "The political economy of differentiated integration: The case of common agricultural policy," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 741-766, July.
    10. Frank Schimmelfennig & Thomas Winzen, 2014. "Instrumental and Constitutional Differentiation in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 354-370, March.
    11. Dominik Schraff & Frank Schimmelfennig, 2020. "Does differentiated integration strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU? Evidence from the 2015 Danish opt-out referendum," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 590-611, December.
    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. Martin Moland, 2024. "Opting for Opt‐outs? National Identities and Support for a Differentiated EU," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 55-73, January.
    2. Philipp Genschel & Markus Jachtenfuchs & Marta Migliorati, 2023. "Differentiated integration as symbolic politics? Constitutional differentiation and policy reintegration in core state powers," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(1), pages 81-101, March.
    3. Joshua C Fjelstul, 2022. "Explaining public opinion on the enforcement of the Stability and Growth Pact during the European sovereign debt crisis," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 192-211, June.
    4. Thomas Winzen & Frank Schimmelfennig, 2023. "National Differentiation Experience and Citizen Support for Differentiated Integration," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(5), pages 1235-1260, September.
    5. Baccaro, Lucio & Bremer, Björn & Neimanns, Erik, 2020. "Is the euro up for grabs? Evidence from a survey experiment," MPIfG Discussion Paper 20/10, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    6. Ioannis Vergioglou & Sven Hegewald, 2023. "From causes to consequences: Investigating the effects of differentiated integration on citizens’ EU support," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(1), pages 206-224, March.
    7. Frank Schimmelfennig & Dirk Leuffen & Catherine E De Vries, 2023. "Differentiated integration in the European Union: Institutional effects, public opinion, and alternative flexibility arrangements," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(1), pages 3-20, March.
    8. Abhilash Bandam & Eedris Busari & Chloi Syranidou & Jochen Linssen & Detlef Stolten, 2022. "Classification of Building Types in Germany: A Data-Driven Modeling Approach," Data, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-23, April.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Boonstra Philip S. & Little Roderick J.A. & West Brady T. & Andridge Rebecca R. & Alvarado-Leiton Fernanda, 2021. "A Simulation Study of Diagnostics for Selection Bias," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 37(3), pages 751-769, September.
    12. Harald Schoen, 2008. "Identity, Instrumental Self-Interest and Institutional Evaluations," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 5-29, March.
    13. Rapp, Hannah & Fredrick, Stephanie & Nickerson, Amanda, 2025. "Cyber victimization reports between parents and children: an examination of agreement predictors," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    14. Christopher J Greenwood & George J Youssef & Primrose Letcher & Jacqui A Macdonald & Lauryn J Hagg & Ann Sanson & Jenn Mcintosh & Delyse M Hutchinson & John W Toumbourou & Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz &, 2020. "A comparison of penalised regression methods for informing the selection of predictive markers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    15. Norah Alyabs & Sy Han Chiou, 2022. "The Missing Indicator Approach for Accelerated Failure Time Model with Covariates Subject to Limits of Detection," Stats, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-13, May.
    16. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    17. Mochon, Daniel & Schwartz, Janet, 2024. "The confrontation effect: When users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    18. 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.
    19. Simon Schmidbauer & Maria Becker & Sonja Haug, 2024. "Online Political Participation of Refugees in Germany: Analysis of a Survey in Bavaria," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(4), pages 21582440241, October.
    20. Kim, Sumin & He, Hongwei, 2025. "The impact of brand activism on consumer behaviors: Examining the contrasting roles of admiration and anger," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).

    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:54:y:2024:i:2:p:361-385.. 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: 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.