Despite considerable research analyzing European Union (EU) citizens’ attitudes toward enlargement, there is no scholarly consensus on what drives opposition to the accession of a particular country. To fill this gap, this paper adopts a comparative approach to examine the determinants of attitudes toward the membership of twelve candidate or potential candidate countries to the EU. Using 2005 Eurobarometer survey data from the EU-25, we examine the relative explanatory power of two leading theories—utilitarian and identity—in explaining public opposition to EU enlargement. Our results reveal that, across models, subjective variables capturing material and identity threat perceptions have a more consistent impact on enlargement attitudes compared with objective indicators. While fears of higher EU budget contribution and evaluations of national economic conditions are the most consistent utilitarian predictors of respondents’ opposition to entry of potential EU members, attachment to European identity and fears about the loss of cultural identity are the two most powerful identity-related predictors of public opposition. Contrary to expectations, religious attachment plays a limited role in shaping public opposition. Only Turkey elicits strong and uniform opposition from all religious groups, including atheists, agnostics, and seculars.
ArmingeonKlausCekaBesir. 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 Politics15 (1): 82–107.
2.
AzroutRachidVan SpanjeJoostDe VreeseClaes H.2011. “Talking Turkey: Anti-immigrant Attitudes and Their Effect on Support for Turkish Membership of the EU.”European Union Politics12 (1): 3–19.
3.
AzroutRachidVan SpanjeJoostDe VreeseClaes H.2013a. “A Threat Called Turkey: Perceived Religious Threat and Support for EU Entry of Croatia, Switzerland and Turkey.”Acta Politica48 (1): 2–21.
4.
AzroutRachidVan SpanjeJoostDe VreeseClaes H.2013b. “Focusing on Differences? Contextual Conditions and Anti-immigrant Attitudes’ Effects on Support for Turkey’s Membership.”International Journal of Public Opinion Research25 (4): 480–500.
5.
BlumerHerbert. 1958. “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position.”Pacific Sociological Review1:3–7.
6.
CaldeiraGregory A.GibsonJames L.1995. “The Legitimacy of the Court of Justice in the European Union: Models of Institutional Support.”American Political Science Review89 (2): 356–76.
7.
CareySean. 2002. “Undivided Loyalties: Is National Identity an Obstacle to European Integration?” European Union Politics3 (4): 387–413.
8.
ChristinThomas. 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.
9.
ChristinThomasTrechselAlexander H.2002“Joining the EU: Explaining Public Opinion in Switzerland.”European Union Politics3 (4): 415–43.
10.
CurleyTyler M.2009. “Social Identity Theory and EU Expansion.”International Studies Quarterly53 (3): 649–68.
11.
De VreeseClaes H.BoomgaardenHajo G.2005. “Projecting EU Referendums: Fear of Immigration and Support for European Integration.”European Union Politics6 (1): 59–82.
12.
De VreeseClaes H.BoomgaardenHajo G.2006. “Media Effects on Public Opinion about the Enlargement of the European Union.”Journal of Common Market Studies44 (2): 419–36.
13.
De VreeseClaes H.BoomgaardenHajo G.SemetkoHolli A.2008. “Hard and Soft: Public Support for Turkish Membership in the EU.”European Union Politics9 (4): 511–30.
14.
DixonJeffrey C.2006. “The Ties that Binds and Those that Don’t: Toward Reconciling Group Threat and Contract Theories of Prejudice.”Social Forces84 (4): 2179–204.
15.
DixonJeffrey C.2010“Opposition to Enlargement as a Symbolic Defense of Group Position: Multilevel Analyses of Attitudes toward Candidates’ Entries in the EU-25.”The British Journal of Sociology61 (1): 127–54.
16.
DixonJeffrey C.FullertonAndrew S.2014. “For and against European Union Expansion: Examining Mixed Opinion on Enlargement and Specific Countries’ Entries.”Journal of Comparative Sociology55 (5): 357–78.
17.
ErisenCengizKentmen-CinCigdem. 2017. “Tolerance and Perceived Threat toward Muslim Immigrants in Germany and the Netherlands.”European Union Politics18 (1): 73–97.
18.
FligsteinNeilPolyakovaAlinaSandholtzWayne. 2012. “European Integration, Nationalism and European Identity.”Journal of Common Market Studies50 (1): 106–22.
19.
FuchsDieterGuinaudeauIsabelleSchubertSophia. 2009. “National Identity, European Identity, and Euroscepticism.” In Euroscepticism: Images of Europe among Mass Publics and Political Elites, edited by FuchsDieterBertonRaul MagniRogerAntoine, 91–112. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
20.
GabelMatthew J.1998a. Interests and Integration: Market Liberalization, Public Opinion and European Union. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
21.
GabelMatthew J.1998b. “Public Support for European Integration: An Empirical Test of Five Theories.”Journal of Politics60 (2): 333–54.
22.
GabelMatthew J.PalmerHarvey D.1995. “Understanding Variation in Public Support for European Integration.”European Journal of Political Research27 (1): 3–19.
23.
GennaGaspare M.2009. “Positive Country Images, Trust and Public Support for European Integration.”Comparative European Politics7 (2): 213–32.
24.
GerhardsJürgeHansSilke. 2011. “Why Not Turkey? Attitudes towards Turkish Membership in the EU among Citizens in 27 European Countries.”Journal of Common Market Studies49 (4): 741–66.
25.
HoboltSara B.2012. “Citizen Satisfaction with Democracy in the European Union.”Journal of Common Market Studies50 (1): 88–105.
26.
HoboltSara B.BrouardSylvain. 2011. “Contesting the European Union? Why the Dutch and the French Rejected the European Constitution.”Political Research Quarterly64 (2): 309–22.
27.
HoboltSara B.Van der BrugWouterDe VreeseClaes H.BoomgaardenHajo G.HinrichsenMalte C.2011. “Religious Intolerance and Euroscepticism.”European Union Politics12 (3): 359–79.
28.
HoogheLiesbetHuoJing JingMarksGary. 2007. “Does Occupation Shape Attitudes on Europe? Benchmarking, Validity and Parsimony.”Acta Politica42 (2/3): 329–51.
29.
HoogheLiesbetMarksGary. 2005. “Calculation, Community and Cues: Public Opinion on European Integration.”European Union Politics6 (4): 419–43.
30.
HuszDora. 2003. “Public Opinion—A Stumbling Block to Enlargement? An Analysis of the Relationship between Costs and Benefits of the EU-Enlargement and their Perception in Current EU Member-States.”Perspectives20:5–39.
31.
JettenJolandaSpearsRussellMansteadAntony S. R.1997. “Strength of Identification and Intergroup Differentiation: The Influence of Group Norms.”European Journal of Social Psychology27:603–609.
32.
JonesErikVan der BijlNiels. 2004. “Public Opinion and Enlargement: A Gravity Approach.”European Union Politics5 (3): 331–51.
33.
KarpJeffrey A.BanducciSusan A.BowlerShaun. 2003. “To Know It Is to Love it? Satisfaction with Democracy in the European Union.”Comparative Political Studies36 (3): 271–92.
34.
KarpJeffrey A.BowlerShaun. 2006. “Broadening and Deepening or Broadening versus Deepening: The Question of Enlargement and Europe’s ‘Hesitant Europeans.’”European Journal of Political Research45 (3): 369–90.
35.
KritzingerSylvia. 2003. “The Influence of the Nation-State on Individual Support for the European Union.”European Union Politics4 (2): 219–41.
36.
LuedtkeAdam. 2005. “European Integration, Public Opinion and Immigration Policy: Testing the Impact of National Identity.”European Union Politics6 (1): 83–112.
37.
MarranciGabriele. 2004. “Multiculturalism, Islam and the Clash of Civilizations Theory: Rethinking Islamophobia.”Culture and Religion5 (1): 105–17.
38.
MattilaMikko. 2004. “Contested Decisions: Empirical Analysis of Voting in the European Union Council of Ministers.”European Journal of Political Research43 (1): 29–50.
39.
McLarenLauren. 2002. “Public Support for the European Union: Cost/Benefit Analysis of Perceived Cultural Threat?” Journal of Politics64 (2): 551–66.
40.
McLarenLauren. 2007. “Explaining Opposition to Turkish Membership of the EU.”European Union Politics8 (2): 251–78.
41.
MolsFrankJettenJolandaHaslamAlexander. 2009. “EU Identification and Endorsement in Context: The Importance of Regional Identity Salience.”Journal of Common Market Studies47 (3): 601–23.
42.
MolsFrankWeberMartin2013. “Laying Sound Foundations for Social Identity Theory-Inspired European Union Research: Beyond Attachment and Deeply Rooted Identities.”Journal of Common Market Studies51 (3): 505–21.
43.
NelsenBrent F.GuthJames L.2003. “Religion and Youth Support for the European Union.”Journal of Common Market Studies41:89–112.
44.
NelsenBrent F.GuthJames L.FraserCleveland R.2001. “Does Religion Matter? Christianity and Public Support for the European Union.”European Union Politics2 (2): 191–217.
45.
NelsenBrent F.GuthJames L.HighsmithBrian. 2011. “Does Religion Still Matter? Religion and Public Attitudes toward Integration in Europe.”Politics and Religion4 (1): 1–26.
46.
PapacostasAntonis. 2005. Eurobarometer 63.4: European Union Enlargement, the European Constitution, Economic Challenges, Innovative Products and Services. The Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04564.v2.
47.
RobinsKevin. 1996. “Interrupting Identities: Turkey/EU.” In Questions of Cultural Identity, edited by HallStuartGayPaul Du, 61–86. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
48.
SeulJeffrey R.1999. “Ours Is the Way of God: Religion, Identity and Intergroup Conflict.”Journal of Peace Research36 (5): 553–69.
49.
TajfelHenri. 1982. “Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations.”Annual Review of Psychology33:1–39.
50.
TajfelHenriTurnerJohn. 1979. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by AustinWilliam G.WorchelStephen, 33–47. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
51.
VerkuytenMaykel. 2007. “Religious Group Identification and Inter-religious Relations: A Study among Turkish-Dutch Muslims.”Group Processes and Intergroup Relations10 (3): 341–57.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
