IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/127558.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why regional spending does not affect support for the European Union

Author

Listed:
  • Ward, Albert
  • Tilley, James
  • Hobolt, Sara

Abstract

It is usually assumed that spending by the European Union translates into greater support for the EU among those who benefit from that spending. Empirical work has, however, produced mixed findings as to the association between the EU’s regional development spending and EU support. To better test this relationship, we link a unique dataset on EU spending in Wales at a hyper-local level to survey panel data that measures EU support at, and in the years following, the Brexit referendum. Using this novel data, we find no evidence of an association between spending and various measures of EU support. We demonstrate that this is, at least partially, due to the fact that very few people know of spending in their local area, and that this knowledge is itself only weakly related to amounts of spending. We further show that views of spending are largely driven by perceptual biases rather than actual spending. Our findings contribute to our understanding of the drivers of EU support, but also the effect of public spending on attitudes more generally.

Suggested Citation

  • Ward, Albert & Tilley, James & Hobolt, Sara, 2025. "Why regional spending does not affect support for the European Union," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 127558, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:127558
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/127558/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael M. Bechtel & Jens Hainmueller & Yotam Margalit, 2014. "Preferences for International Redistribution: The Divide over the Eurozone Bailouts," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 835-856, October.
    2. Julia Bachtrögler & Harald Oberhofer, 2018. "Euroscepticism and EU Cohesion Policy: The Impact of Micro-Level Policy Effectiveness on Voting Behavior," Department of Economics Working Papers wuwp273, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Department of Economics.
    3. Levitt, Steven D & Snyder, James M, Jr, 1997. "The Impact of Federal Spending on House Election Outcomes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(1), pages 30-53, February.
    4. Valentina Aiello & Pierre Maurice Reverberi & Cristina Brasili, 2019. "European identity and citizens' support for the EU: Testing the utilitarian approach," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(4), pages 673-693, October.
    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. Enrique López‐Bazo, 2022. "The Impact of Cohesion Policy on Regional Differences in Support for the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1219-1236, September.
    2. Stuart Kasdin & Luona Lin, 2015. "Strategic behavior by federal agencies in the allocation of public resources," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 309-329, September.
    3. Marco R Steenbergen & Tomasz Siczek, 2017. "Better the devil you know? Risk-taking, globalization and populism in Great Britain," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(1), pages 119-136, March.
    4. Thushyanthan Baskaran & Zohal Hessami, 2017. "Political alignment and intergovernmental transfers in parliamentary systems: evidence from Germany," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 171(1), pages 75-98, April.
    5. Ernesto Dal Bó & Pedro Dal Bó & Jason Snyder, 2009. "Political Dynasties," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 115-142.
    6. Lundin, Magnus & Gottfries, Nils & Lindström, Tomas, 2004. "Price and Investment Dynamics: An Empirical Analysis of Plant Level Data," Working Paper Series 2004:7, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    7. Pierre Andre & Sandrine Mesplé-Somps, 2010. "Politics and the geographic allocation of public funds in a semi-democracy. The case of Ghana, 1996 - 2004," Working Papers halshs-00962698, HAL.
    8. 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.
    9. Stefano Gagliarducci & Marco Manacorda, 2020. "Politics in the Family: Nepotism and the Hiring Decisions of Italian Firms," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 67-95, April.
    10. Arulampalam, Wiji & Dasgupta, Sugato & Dhillon, Amrita & Dutta, Bhaskar, 2009. "Electoral goals and center-state transfers: A theoretical model and empirical evidence from India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 103-119, January.
    11. repec:onb:oenbwp:y::i:169:b:1 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Brian Knight, 2008. "Legislative Representation, Bargaining Power and The Distribution of Federal Funds: Evidence From The Us Congress," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(532), pages 1785-1803, October.
    13. Torsten Persson & Gerard Roland & Guido Tabellini, 2000. "Comparative Politics and Public Finance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(6), pages 1121-1161, December.
    14. Hansen, Ole-Petter Moe & Legge, Stefan, 2015. "Trading off Welfare and Immigration in Europe," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 22/2015, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    15. Tukiainen, Janne & Blesse, Sebastian & Bohne, Albrecht & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Jääskeläinen, Jan & Luukinen, Ari & Sieppi, Antti, 2024. "What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    16. Leonardo Bonilla-Mejía & Iván Higuera-Mendieta, 2017. "Political Alignment in the Time of Weak Parties: Electoral Advantages and Subnational Transfers in Colombia," Documentos de Trabajo Sobre Economía Regional y Urbana 15746, Banco de la República, Economía Regional.
    17. Dolls, Mathias & Wehrhöfer, Nils, 2021. "Attitudes towards euro area reforms: Evidence from a randomized survey experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    18. Dolls, Mathias, 2024. "An unemployment re-insurance scheme for the eurozone? Stabilizing and redistributive effects," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    19. Jussi Lindgren, 2021. "Examination of Interest-Growth Differentials and the Risk of Sovereign Insolvency," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-14, April.
    20. Fleck, Robert K., 2013. "Why did the electorate swing between parties during the Great Depression?," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 599-619.
    21. Marco Manacorda & Edward Miguel & Andrea Vigorito, 2011. "Government Transfers and Political Support," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 1-28, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    EU spending; EU support; euroscepticism; Brexit; Wales;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration
    • H77 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Intergovernmental Relations; Federalism
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    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:ehl:lserod:127558. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.