Advertisement

Politikbegründungen, Politisierung und die öffentliche Meinung zur europäischen Integration

  • Konstantin VössingEmail author
Chapter
  • 1.9k Downloads
Part of the Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft book series (VGPO)

Zusammenfassung

Dieses Kapitel untersucht, wie unterschiedliche Begründungen für Maßnahmen der europäischen Integration zur Politisierung des Themas beitragen und die öffentliche Meinung beeinflussen. Dazu fasse ich eine Reihe von experimentellen Studien zusammen, die ich zu dieser Frage durchgeführt habe, und erwäge dann die Bedeutung der Ergebnisse für die europäische Integration, den politischen Wettbewerb und den Zustand der Demokratie. Die experimentellen Studien zeigen, dass Politikbegründungen einen erheblichen, wenn auch oft unbeabsichtigten, Einfluss auf den Grad der Politisierung und die öffentliche Meinung zur europäischen Integration ausüben. Die Studien zeigen darüber hinaus, durch welche Mechanismen und unter welchen Umständen Politikbegründungen ihre Wirkung entfalten. Im Hinblick auf die Mechanismen diskutiere ich die zur Sprache gebrachten Ziele politischer Maßnahmen, die Rolle der Maßnahme selbst sowie die von der Verknüpfung zwischen Maßnahme und Ziel verursachten Unterschiede in der Qualität von Politikbegründungen. Hinsichtlich der Umstände diskutiere ich die Rolle von individuellen Dispositionen und die Bedeutung von verschiedenen Aspekten des Parteienkonfliktes.

Schlagworte

Politikbegründungen Europäische Integration Politisierung Politiker Eliten Parteien Experimentelle Studie Politisierung Öffentliche Meinung Parteienkonflikt 

Abstract

This chapter discusses how varying justifications for measures of European integration politicize the issue and shape public opinion. I summarize a series of experimental studies on this topic, and I discuss the significance of my results for the process of European integration, political competition, and democracy. The experimental studies show that policy justifications exercise a substantial, albeit frequently unintended, effect on politicization and public opinion about European integration. The studies also reveal the mechanisms through which, and the conditions under which, policy justifications exercise their effects. In terms of mechanisms, I focus on the goals invoked in policy justifications, the role of the policy itself, and the importance of variation in the quality of policy justifications stemming from the nature of the linkage established between policy and goal. In terms of scope conditions, I focus on the role of individual dispositions and the implications of various features of party competition.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Areni, C., und R. Lutz. 1988. The Role of Argument Quality in the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Advances in Consumer Research 15: 197-203Google Scholar
  2. Ares, M., B. Ceka, und H. Kriesi. 2016. Diffuse support for the European Union: spillover effects of the politicization of the European integration process at the domestic level. Journal of European Public Policy. Pre-published online Juni 2016.Google Scholar
  3. Armingeon, K., und B. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Benoit, W. 1995. Accounts, excuses, and apologies: a theory of image restoration strategies. Albany, NY: State University of New York PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Brinegar, A., Seth J., und H. Kitschelt. 2004. Varieties of Capitalism and political divides over European integration. In European integration and political conflict, Hrsg. G. Marks und M. Steenbergen, 62-89. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruter, M. 2003. Winning hearts and minds for Europe. Comparative Political Studies 36: 1148-1179Google Scholar
  7. Carey, S. 2002. Undivided Loyalties. Is national identity an obstacle to European integration? European Union Politics 3 (4): 387–413Google Scholar
  8. Carey, S., und J. Burton. 2004. The influence of the press in shaping public opinion towards the European Union in Britain. Political Studies 52: 623-640Google Scholar
  9. Castano, E., V. Yzerbyt, und D. Bourguignon. 2003. We are one and I like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup identification. European Journal of Social Psychology 33: 735–754Google Scholar
  10. Corner, A., und U. Hahn. 2013. Normative theories of argumentation: Are some norms better than others? Synthese 190: 3579 – 3610Google Scholar
  11. Delli Carpini, M., und S. Keeter. 1993. Measuring political knowledge: putting first things first. American Journal of Political Science 37 (4): 1179–1206Google Scholar
  12. Down, I., und C. J. Wilson. 2010. Opinion Polarization and Inter-Party Competition on Europe. European Union Politics 11 (1): 61–87Google Scholar
  13. Fenno, R., 1978. Home Style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little BrownGoogle Scholar
  14. Gabel, M. 1998. Public support for European integration. An empirical test of five theories. Journal of Politics 60 (2): 333-354Google Scholar
  15. Gabel, M., und K. Scheve. 2007. Mixed messages: party dissent and mass opinion on European integration. European Union Politics 8 (1): 37-59Google Scholar
  16. Hobolt, S., W. van der Brug, C. de Vreese, H. Boomgaarden, und M. Hinrichsen. 2011. Religious intolerance and Euroscepticism. European Union Politics 12 (3): 359-379Google Scholar
  17. Hooghe, L., und G. Marks. 2005. Calculation, Community and Cues. Public Opinion on European Integration. European Union Politics 6 (4): 419–443Google Scholar
  18. Hooghe, L., und G. Marks. 2008. A Postfunctionalist Theory of European integration: from permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science 39: 1-23Google Scholar
  19. Grande, E., und S. Hutter. 2016. Introduction: European integration and the challenge of politicization. In Politicising Europe. Integration and mass politics, Hrsg. S. Hutter, E. Grande, und H. Kriesi, 3-31. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Inglehart, R. 1970. Cognitive mobilization and European identity. Comparative Politics 3 (1): 45-70.Google Scholar
  21. Kernell, S. 1986. Going public: new strategies of presidential leadership. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Kam, C. 2005. Who toes the party line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences. Political Behavior 27 (2): 163-182Google Scholar
  23. Kuhn, T. 2012. Europa ante portas: border residence, transnational interaction and Euroskepticism in Germany and France. European Union Politics 13 (1): 94-117Google Scholar
  24. Maier, J., und B. Rittberger. 2008. Shifting Europe’s Boundaries: Mass Media, Public Opinion and the Enlargement of the EU. European Union Politics 9 (2): 243–267Google Scholar
  25. McGraw, K., R. Timpone, und G. Bruck. 1993. Justifying controversial political decisions: home style in the laboratory. Political Behavior 15: 289-308Google Scholar
  26. McGraw, K., und C. Hubbard (1996) Some of the people some of the time: Individual differences in acceptance of political accounts. In Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, Hrsg. D. Mutz, P. Sniderman und R. Brody, 145-170. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan PressGoogle Scholar
  27. McGraw, K. 1991. Managing Blame: an experimental investigation into the effectiveness of political accounts. American Political Science Review 85: 1133-1158Google Scholar
  28. McGraw, K. 2002. Manipulating public opinion. In Understanding Public Opinion, Hrsg. B. Norrander und C. Wilcox, 265-280. Washington, DC: CQ PressGoogle Scholar
  29. McGuire, W. 1985. Attitudes and Attitude Change. In Handbook of Social Psychology, Bd. 2, Hrsg. L. Gardner und E. Aronson, 233-346. New York: Random House;Google Scholar
  30. Petersen, M., M. Skov, S. Serritzlew, und T. Ramsøy. 2013. Motivated reasoning and political parties: evidence for increased processing in the face of party cues. Political Behavior 35 (4): 831-854Google Scholar
  31. Ray, L. 2003. When parties matter: the conditional influence of party positions on voter opinions about European integration. Journal of Politics 65 (4): 978-994Google Scholar
  32. Steenbergen, M., A. Bächtiger, M. Spörndli, und J. Steiner. 2003. Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. Comparative European Politics 1 (1): 21-48Google Scholar
  33. Steenbergen, M., E. Edwards, und C. de Vries. 2007. Who’s cueing whom? European Union Politics 8 (1): 13-35Google Scholar
  34. Vössing, K. 2005. Nationality and the preferences of the European public toward EU policy making. European Union Politics 6 (4): 447–469Google Scholar
  35. Vössing, K. 2014. Parteien und Bürger: wer folgt wem? Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 64 (22-23): 40-45Google Scholar
  36. Vössing, K. 2015. Transforming public opinion about European integration: elite influence and its limits. European Union Politics 16 (2): 157-175Google Scholar
  37. Vössing, K. 2016a. Policy justifications and public opinion. Paper prepared for presentation at the EUI Political Behavior Colloquium. European University Institute, Florence, March 18, 2016Google Scholar
  38. Vössing, K. 2016b. The implications of bad policy justifications for European integration. Paper prepared for presentation at the Eighth Annual Princeton Workshop on European Integration. Princeton University, May 13, 2016Google Scholar
  39. Vössing, K. und T. Weber (2017) Information behavior and political preferences. British Journal of Political Science. First View, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000600
  40. Vössing, K., und T. Weber. 2016. The Company Makes the Feast. Party Constellations, Campaign Context and Issue Voting in Multi-party Systems. In Voting experiments, Hrsg. A. Blais, J.-F. Laslier, und K. Van der Straeten, 43-66. New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  41. Vliegenthart, R., A.R.T. Schuck, H.G. Boomgaarden, und C.H. DeVreese 2008. News coverage and support for European integration, 1990-2006. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 29 (4): 415-439Google Scholar
  42. Zaller, J. 1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Institut für SozialwissenschaftenBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations