Light at the end of the tunnel: Eurozone bailouts and satisfaction with democracy

  • Frank SchimmelfennigEmail author
  • Dominik Schraff


How did the Eurozone bailouts affect national democracies? Recent research, including by Klaus Armingeon and his colleagues, indicates strong citizen detachment from democracy due to the external constraints imposed by bailout programs on national autonomy. This chapter re-examines the detachment thesis with the help of the generalized synthetic control method. We confirm the strong negative effect of bailouts on satisfaction with democracy, but show that the effect diminishes substantially after a number of years.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abadie, Alberto, Alexis Diamond, and Jens Hainmueller. 2010. “Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 105 (490): 493–505.Google Scholar
  2. Armingeon, Klaus, and Besir Ceka. 2014. “The Loss of Trust in the European Union during the Great Recession since 2007: The Role of Heuristics from the National Political System.” European Union Politics 15 (1): 82– 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armingeon, Klaus, Kai Guthmann, and David Weisstanner. 2016. “How the Euro Divides the Union: The Effect of Economic Adjustment on Support for Democracy in Europe.” Socio-Economic Review 14 (1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bai, Jushan. 2009. “Panel Data Models with Interactive Fixed Effects.” Econometrica 77 (4): 1229–1279.Google Scholar
  5. Bosco, Anna, and Susannah Verney. 2012. “Electoral Epidemic: The Political Cost of Economic Crisis in Southern Europe, 2010-11.” South European Society and Politics 17 (2): 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brack, Nathalie, and Nicholas Startin. 2015. “Introduction: Euroscepticism, from the Margins to the Mainstream.” International Political Science Review 36 (3): 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cordero, Guillermo, and Pablo Simón. 2016. “Economic Crisis and Support for Democracy in Europe.” West European Politics 39 (2): 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Copelovitch, Mark, Jeffry Frieden, and Stefanie Walter. 2016. “The Political Economy of the Euro Crisis.” Comparative Political Studies 49 (7): 811–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dasonneville, Ruth, and Michael S. Lewis-Beck. 2014. “Macroeconomics, Economic Crisis and Electoral Outcomes: A National European Pool.” Acta Politica 49 (4): 372–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Debomy, Daniel. 2013. EU No, Euro Yes? European Public Opinions Facing the Crisis (2007-2012). Paris: Notre Europe.Google Scholar
  11. Duch, Raymond M., and Randolph T. Stevenson. 2008. The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Frieden, Jeffry, and Stefanie Walter. 2017. “Understanding the Political Economy of the Eurozone crisis.” Annual Review of Political Science 20 (1): 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Häusermann, Silja, Thomas Kurer, and Bruno Wüest. 2018. “Participation in Hard Times: How Constrained Government Depresses Turnout among the Highly Educated.” West European Politics 41 (2): 448–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hernández, Enrique, and Hanspeter Kriesi. 2016. “The Electoral Consequences of the Financial and Economic Crisis in Europe.” European Journal of Political Research 55 (2): 203–224.Google Scholar
  15. Kosmidis, Spyros. 2018. “International Constraints and Electoral Decisions: Does the Room to Maneuver Attenuate Economic Voting?” American Journal of Political Science 62 (3): 519–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Mary Stegmaier. 2007. “Economic Models of Voting.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behaviour, edited by Russell J. Dalton and Hans-Dieter Klingemann, 518–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Matthijs, Matthias. 2017. “Integration at What Price? The Erosion of National Democracy in the Euro Periphery.” Government and Opposition 52 (2): 266–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moritz Steffen. 2018. imputeTS: Time Series Missing Value Imputation. R package version 2.6,
  19. Petersen, Thiess, and Michael Böhmer. 2012. Economic Impact of Southern European Member States Exiting the Eurozone (Future Social Market Economy Policy Brief 2012/06). Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.Google Scholar
  20. Rittberger, Berthold, and Thomas Winzen. 2015. “Parlamentarismus nach der Krise: Die Vertiefung parlamentarischer Asymmetrie in der reformierten Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion.” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 56 (3): 430–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ruiz-Rufino, Rubén, and Sonia Alonso. 2017. “Democracy without Choice: Citizens’ Perceptions of Government Autonomy during the Eurozone Crisis.” European Journal of Political Research 56 (2): 320–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scharpf, Fritz W. 2011. Monetary Union, Fiscal Crisis and the Preemption of Democracy (MPIfG Discussion Paper, No. 11/11). Cologne: Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.Google Scholar
  23. Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2015. “Liberal Intergovernmentalism and the Euro Area Crisis.” Journal of European Public Policy 22 (2): 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2015. “The Forgotten Problem of Democratic Legitimacy. ‘Governing by the Rules’ and ‘Ruling by the Numbers’.” In The Future of the Euro, edited by Matthias Matthijs and Mark Blyth, 90–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Xu, Yiqing. 2017. “Generalized Synthetic Control Method: Causal Inference with Interactive Fixed Effects Models.” Political Analysis 25 (1): 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ETH ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations