This article examines the relative merits of competing explanations of public support for European Union membership in thirteen Central and Eastern European candidate countries. While noneconomic factors—attitudes toward domestic politics and feelings of social identity—have a consistently strong effect, the impact of human capital is contingent on exposure to the distributive consequences of European integration. The results of an ordered logit analysis of Candidate Country Eurobarometer data are consistent with these predictions. These results suggest a revision of theories of EU support to account for the role of exposure to the consequences of integration in shaping utilitarian judgments.
Anderson, Christopher J.1998. When in doubt, use proxies: Attitudes toward domestic politics and support for European integration. Comparative Political Studies31 (5): 569-601.
2.
Anderson, Christopher J., and M. Shawn Reichert .1996. Economic benefits and support for membership in the E.U.: A cross-national analysis. Journal of Public Policy15 (3): 231-49.
3.
Carey, Sean.2002. Undivided loyalties: Is national identity an obstacle to European integration? European UnionPolitics3 (4): 387-413.
4.
Carey, Sean, and Erik R. Tillman.2005. Does the public value the euro? Understanding changing attitudes towards the single European currency . Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research General Conference in Budapest, Hungary .
5.
Christin, Thomas.2005. Economic and political basis of attitudes towards the EU in Central and East European countries in the 1990s. European Union Politics6 (1): 29-57.
6.
Cichowski, Rachel A.2000. Western dreams, eastern realities: Support for the European Union in Central and Eastern Europe. Comparative Political Studies33 (10): 1243-78.
7.
Ehin, Piret.2001. Determinants of public support for EU membership: Data from the Baltic countries. European Journal of Political Research40:31-56.
8.
European Commission, Directorate-General Press and Communication, Public Opinion Analysis Sector.2002. Candidate Countries Eurobarometer 2002.2, September-October 2002 [computer file]. ICPSR version. Budapest, Hungary: Gallup Organization Hungary (Magyar Gallup Intezet) [producer], 2002. Köln, Germany: Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialforschung/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors], 2004.
9.
Gabel, Matthew.1998. Interests and integration: Market liberalization, public opinion, andEuropean Union. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
10.
Gabel, Matthew, and Harvey Palmer.1995. Understanding variation in support for European integration. European Journal of Political Research27:3-19.
11.
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. 2005. Calculation, community, and cues. European UnionPolitics6 (4): 419-43.
12.
Long, J. Scott.1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
13.
McLaren, Lauren.2002. Public support for the European Union: Cost/benefit analysis or perceived cultural threat?Journal of Politics64 (2): 551-66.
14.
Nelsen, Brent F., and James L. Guth.2000. Exploring the gender gap: Women, men, and public attitudes toward European integration. European UnionPolitics1 (3): 267-91.
15.
Rohrschneider, Robert.2002. The democracy deficit and mass support for an EU-wide government. American Journal of Political Science46 (2): 463-75.
16.
Sanchez-Cuenca, Ignacio.2000. The political basis of support for European integration. European UnionPolitics1 (2): 147-71.
17.
Tucker, Joshua A., Alexander C. Pacek, and Adam J. Berinsky .2002. Transitional winners and losers: Attitudes toward EU membership in post-communist countries. American Journal of Political Science46 (3): 557-71.
18.
Tverdova, Yuliya V., and Christopher J. Anderson.2004. Choosing the West? Referendum choices on EU membership in East-Central Europe. Electoral Studies23:185-208.
