This study examines those factors that influence the issuance of reasoned opinions within the European Union’s ‘Early Warning System’. It is posited that greater aggregate public Euroskepticism results in the issuance of more reasoned opinions. This expectation is tested using data derived from the European Parliament, the Commission’s platform for European Union Interparliamentary Exchange, and longitudinal data from the Eurobarometer survey series. It is found that greater aggregate public Euroskepticism is associated with the issuance of more reasoned opinions. This study has important implications for our understandings of policy processes, political responsiveness, and democratic governance in the European Union and its member states.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowL (2004) Understanding change and stability in party ideologies: Do parties respond to public opinion or to past election results?British Journal of Political Science34(4): 589–610.
2.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowL (2006) Are Niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The cause and the electoral consequences of western European parties’ policy shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 513–529.
3.
AdamsJHauptABStollH (2009) What moves parties? The role of public opinion and global economic conditions in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies42(5): 611–639.
4.
ArnoldCSapirEVde VriesC (2012) Parties positions on European integration: Issue congruence, ideology or context?West European Politics35(6): 1341–1362.
BartleJDellepiane-AvellanedaSStimsonJA (2011) The moving centre: Preferences for government activity in Britain, 1950–2005. British Journal of Political Science41(2): 259–285.
7.
BevanS (2015) Bureaucratic responsiveness: The effects of government, public and European attention on the UK bureaucracy. Public Administration83(1): 139–158.
8.
BevanSJenningsW (2014) Representation, agendas, and institutions. European Journal of Political Research53(1): 37–56.
9.
BølstadJ (2015) Dynamics of European integration: Public opinion in the core and the periphery. European Union Politics16(1): 23–44.
10.
Casado-AsensioJLefkofridiZ (2011) Representation in the European Union: Congruence between citizens and elites in the European parliament’s two-level setting. Perspectives on European Politics and Society12(2): 161–179.
11.
CasillasCJEnnsPKWohlfarthPC (2011) How public opinion constrains the U.S. supreme court. American Journal of Political Science55(1): 74–88.
12.
CooperI (2012) A “Virtual Third Chamber” for the European Union? National parliaments after the Treaty of Lisbon. West European Politics35(3): 441–465.
13.
DahlRA (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
EichenbergRCStollR (2003) Representing defense: Democratic control of the defense budget in the United States and Western Europe. The Journal of Conflict Resolution47(4): 399–422.
15.
EriksonRSMacKuenMBStimsonJA (2002) Public opinion and policy: Causal flow in a macro system model. In: ManzaJCookFLPageBI (eds) Navigating Public Opinion: Polls, Policy, and the Future of American Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 33–52.
16.
EriksonRSWrightGCMcIverJP (1993) Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
EzrowLHellwigT (2014) Responding to voters or responding to markets? Political parties and public opinion in an era of globalization. International Studies Quarterly58(4): 816–827.
18.
FerejohnJ (1986) Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice50: 5–25.
19.
FøllesdalAHixS (2006) Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies44(3): 533–562.
20.
FragaA (2005) After the convention: The future role of national parliaments in the European Union (and the day after … nothing will happen). Journal of Legislative Studies11(3–4): 490–507.
21.
FranklinMWlezienC (1997) The responsive public: Issue salience, policy change, and preferences for European unification. Journal of Theoretical Politics9(3): 347–363.
22.
GattermanKHefftlerC (2015) Beyond institutional capacity: Political motivation and parliamentary behaviour in the Early Warning System. West European Politics38(2): 305–334.
23.
HoboltSBKlemmensenR (2008) Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies41(3): 309–337.
24.
KnutelskáV (2011) National parliaments as new actors in the decision-making process at the European level. Journal of Contemporary European Research7(3): 327–344.
25.
Leifeld P and Malang T (2014) National parliamentary coordination after Lisbon: A network approach. In: Paper presented at the 1st European conference on social networks (EUSN), Barcelona, July.
26.
LongJS (1997) Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variable (Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
27.
ManzaJCookFL (2002) A democratic polity? Three views of policy responsiveness to public opinion in the United States. American Politics Research30(6): 630–667.
28.
MarshMNorrisP (1997) Political representation in the European parliament. European Journal of Political Research32(2): 153–164.
29.
MarshMWesselsB (1997) Territorial representation. European Journal of Political Research32(2): 227–241.
30.
MillerWEStokesDE (1963) Constituency influence in congress. American Political Science Review57(1): 45–56.
31.
MoravcsikA (2002) In defence of the “Democratic Deficit”: Reassessing legitimacy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies40(4): 603–624.
32.
Neuhold C (2011) Late wake-up call or early warning? Parliamentary participation and cooperation in light of the Lisbon treaty. In: Paper presented at the UACES conference, London, September.
33.
PageBIShapiroRY (1983) Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review77(1): 175–190.
34.
PapkeLEWooldridgeJM (2008) Panel data methods for fractional response variables with an application to test pass rate. Journal of Econometrics145: 121–133.
35.
Paskalev V (2009) Lisbon treaty and the possibility of a European network democracy. European University Institute Working Paper (LAW 2009/20). Florence, Italy: European University Institute.
36.
PitkinHF (1967) The Concept of Representation, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
37.
PowellGBJr (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
38.
SorokaSNWlezienC (2004) Opinion representation and policy feedback: Canada in comparative perspective. Canadian Journal of Political Science37(3): 531–559.
39.
SorokaSNWlezienC (2005) Opinion-policy dynamics: Public preferences and public expenditure in the UK. British Journal of Political Science35: 665–689.
40.
SorokaSNWlezienC (2010) Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy, New York: Cambridge University Press.
41.
SpoonJKlüverH (2014) Do parties respond? How electoral context influences party responsiveness. Electoral Studies35: 48–60.
42.
SteenbergenMREdwardsEEde VriesCE (2007) Who’s cueing whom? Mass-elite linkages and the future of European integration. European Union Politics8(1): 13–35.
43.
SteenbergenMRScottDJ (2004) Contesting Europe? The salience of European integration as a party issue. In: MarksGSteenbergenMG (eds) European Integration and Political Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 165–191.
44.
StimsonJAMacKuenMBEriksonRS (1995) Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review89(3): 543–565.
45.
Taggart P and Szczerbiak A (2001a) Parties, positions and Europe: Euroscepticism in the EU candidate states of Central and Eastern Europe. In: Paper presented at the annual conference of the political studies association of the United Kingdom, Manchester, April.
46.
Taggart P and Szczerbiak A (2001b) Party politics, political support and Europe: Mapping Euroscepticism in the EU candidate states of Central and Eastern Europe. In: Paper presented at the 7th Biennial international conference of the European community studies association, Madison, WI, May–June.
47.
ThomassenJSchmittH (1997) Policy responsiveness. European Journal of Political Research32(2): 165–182.
48.
ThomassenJSchmittH (1999) In conclusion: Political representation and legitimacy in the European union. In: ThomassonJSchmittH (eds) Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 255–273.
49.
ToshkovD (2011) Public opinion and policy output in the European Union: A lost relationship. European Union Politics12(2): 169–191.
50.
VasilopoulouSGattermanK (2013) Matching policy preferences: The linkage between voters and MEPs. Journal of European Public Policy20(4): 606–625.
51.
Williams C (2015) Responding to Euroskepticism: The effect of negative public attitudes on directive transposition. In: Paper presented at the annual conference of the Midwest political science association, Chicago, IL, April.
52.
WilliamsCSpoonJ (2015) Differentiated party response: The effect of Euroskeptic public opinion on party position. European Union Politics16(2): 176–193.
53.
WlezienC (1995) The public as thermostat: Dynamics of preference spending. American Journal of Political Science39(4): 981–1000.
54.
WlezienC (2004) Patterns of representation: Dynamics of public preferences and policy. Journal of Politics66(1): 1–24.
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.
