This study examines the implications of EU decision-making for national parties’ support for European integration. We argue, first, that EU decision-making promotes the support of parties that were closely located to EU outcomes. Second, we expect higher support of parties with governmental experience due to their access to key offices in EU decision-making. For the period from 1979 to 2012, we measure and interact both variables with the political, parliamentary and decentralizing nature of EU acts. In addition to the expected effects of outcome distance and government participation, we find that non-bureaucratic legislation generally improves national parties’ attitudes towards European integration. The involvement of the European Parliament increases the support of more distant parties, but discourages parties with high governmental experience. Finally, peripherally located (government) parties appreciate the decentral discretion of directives.
AdamsJ (2001) A theory of spatial competition with biased voters: Party policies viewed temporally and comparatively. British Journal of Political Science31(1): 121–158.
CaramaniD (2017) Will vs. reason: The populist and technocratic forms of political representation and their critique to party government. American Political Science Review111(1): 54–67.
4.
CrombezC (1996) Legislative procedures in the European Community. British Journal of Political Science26(2): 199–228.
5.
CrombezCHixS (2015) Legislative activity and gridlock in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science45(3): 477–499.
6.
CrombezCVangervenP (2014) Procedural models of European Union politics: Contributions and suggestions for improvement. European Union Politics15(2): 289–308.
7.
De VriesCE (2007) Sleeping giant: Fact or fairytale? How European integration affects national elections. European Union Politics8(3): 363–385.
8.
De VriesCEHoboltSB (2012) When dimensions collide: The electoral success of issue entrepreneurs. European Union Politics13(2): 246–268.
9.
European Commission (2000) External and Intra-European Union Trade – Statistical Yearbook 1958–1999, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
10.
FollesdalAHixS (2006) Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies44(3): 533–562.
11.
GabelMHixSSchneiderG (2002) Who is afraid of cumulative research? Improving data on EU politics. European Union Politics3(4): 481–500.
12.
GabelMPalmerHD (1995) Understanding variation in public support for European integration. European Journal of Political Research27(1): 3–19.
13.
GarrettGTsebelisG (1996) An institutional critique of intergovernmentalism. International Organization50(2): 269–299.
14.
GilliganTWKrehbielK (1987) Collective decisionmaking and standing committees: An informational rationale for restrictive amendment procedures. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization3(2): 287–335.
15.
GolderM (2016) Far right parties in Europe. Annual Review of Political Science19(1): 477–497.
16.
GrandeEKriesiH (2015) The restructuring of political conflict in Europe and the politicization of European integration. In: RisseT (ed.) European Public Spheres: Politics is Back, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 190–224.
17.
GrosecloseTKingDC (2001) Committee theories reconsidered. In: DoddLCOppenheimerBI (eds) Congress Reconsidered, 7th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 191–216.
18.
HellströmJ (2008) Partisan responses to Europe: The role of ideology for national political parties’ positions on European integration. Journal of European Public Policy15(2): 189–207.
19.
HixS (1999) Dimensions and alignments in European Union politics: Cognitive constraints and partisan responses. European Journal of Political Research35(1): 69–106.
20.
HixSHøylandB (2011) The Political System of the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
HixSMarshM (2007) Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections. Journal of Politics69(2): 495–510.
22.
HoboltSB (2009) Europe in Question: Referendums on European Integration, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
HoogheLMarksG (2008) Postscript to ’making of a polity’. EUSA Review21(2): 5–8.
24.
ImigD (2004) Contestation in the streets: European protest and the emerging Euro-polity. In: MarksGSteenbergenMR (eds) European Integration and Political Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 216–234.
25.
IvarsflatenE (2008) What unites right-wing populists in Western Europe? Re-examining grievance mobilization models in seven successful cases. Comparative Political Studies41(1): 3–23.
26.
JungeDKönigTLuigB (2015) Legislative gridlock and bureaucratic politics in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science45(4): 777–797.
27.
KatzRSMairP (2009) The cartel party thesis: A restatement. Perspectives on Politics7(4): 753–766.
28.
KitscheltH (2013) Social class and radical right: Conceptualizing political preference formation and partisan choice. In: RydgrenJ (ed.) Class Politics and the Radical Right, London: Routledge, pp. 224–251.
29.
KönigTLuigB (2012) Party ideology and legislative agendas: Estimating contextual policy positions for the study of EU decision-making. European Union Politics13(4): 604–625.
30.
KönigTLuigB (2014) Ministerial gatekeeping and parliamentary involvement in the implementation process of EU directives. Public Choice160(3): 501–519.
31.
KriesiHGrandeELachatRet al. (2008) West European Politics in the Age of Globalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
LindbergBRasmussenAWarntjenA (2008) Party politics as usual? The role of political parties in EU legislative decision-making. Journal of European Public Policy15(8): 1107–1126.
33.
LoweWBenoitKMikhaylovSet al. (2011) Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly36(1): 123–155.
34.
LucassenGLubbersM (2012) Who fears what? Explaining far-right-wing preference in Europe by distinguishing perceived cultural and economic ethnic threats. Comparative Political Studies45(5): 547–574.
35.
MairP (2000) The limited impact of Europe on national party systems. West European Politics23(4): 27–51.
36.
MarksGSteenbergenM (2002) Understanding political contestation in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies35(8): 879–892.
37.
MarksGWilsonCJ (2000) The past in the present: A cleavage theory of party response to European integration. British Journal of Political Science30(3): 433–459.
38.
MoravcsikA (1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
39.
NorrisP (2005) Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
PerkinsRNeumayerE (2007) Do membership benefits buy regulatory compliance? An empirical analysis of EU directives 1978–99. European Union Politics8(2): 180–206.
41.
PrinceDWOverbyLM (2005) Legislative organization theory and committee preference outliers in state senates. State Politics & Policy Quarterly5(1): 68–87.
42.
ReifK (1993) Ein Ende des ’permissive consensus’? Zum Wandel europapolitischer Einstellungen in der öffentlichen Meinung der EG-Mitgliedstaaten. In: HrbekR (ed.) Der Vertrag von Maastricht in der wissenschaftlichen Kontroverse, Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 23–40.
43.
RovnyJ (2013) Where do radical right parties stand? Position blurring in multidimensional competition. European Political Science Review5(1): 1–26.
44.
StataCorp (2013) Stata Multilevel Mixed Effects – Reference Manual. Release 13, College Station: Stata Press.
45.
TavitsM (2012) Organizing for success: Party organizational strength and electoral performance in postcommunist Europe. Journal of Politics74(1): 83–97.
46.
TopaloffLK (2012) Political Parties and Euroscepticism, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
47.
Van der EijkCFranklinMN (2004) Potential for contestation on European matters at national elections in Europe. In: MarksGSteenbergenMR (eds) European Integration and Political Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 32–50.
48.
Volkens A, Bara J, Budge I, et al. (eds) (2013) Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts III: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
WeingastBRMarshallWJ (1988) The industrial organization of Congress; or, why legislatures, like firms, are not organized as markets. Journal of Political Economy96(1): 132–163.
50.
WilliamsCSpoonJJ (2015) Differentiated party response: The effect of Euroskeptic public opinion on party positions. European Union Politics16(2): 176–193.
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.
