Renato Vidigal European Politics Prof. M.

Rincker Persuasive Essay (first draft)

Public Opinion and EU membership: Individual Support and Educational Attainment

Public support for European integration as well as each countrys view on its membership to the European Union has been extremely unsteady since the Maastricht Treaty (1992) that established the Union with its current name. Along the process of integration, the population has not always been consulted, as in many cases national governments have avoided referendums before surrendering yet more powers to Brussels. As explained by Eichenberg and Dalton (1993), the first referendum on the European Union, held in Denmark in 1992, shocking EU advocates with the refusal of Danish voters to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. The negative vote on the EU called attention of the European elite to a greater need of attention to the populations concerns and the need to reduce a democracy deficit in the EU. (Eichenberg and Dalton, p. 23). Considering this trend, and along with other factors, public opinion across the EU has increasingly become less supportive toward the process of integration. Moreover, with the recent economic downturn and governmental debt crisis in the Eurozone area individuals throughout the continent have re-evaluated their position over his/her countrys membership to the EU negatively affecting public support to the Union. Nonetheless, using a recent Eurobarometer survey (EB 73.4, May 2010), support for an

individuals country membership to the European Union tend to be higher amongst those with more years of education than those that invested less time of their lives in full-time education. As pointed out by McLaren (2002), as the EU has become more of a point of reference for citizens living in the member states, interest in those citizens preferences also has increased. Thus, different approaches have tried to explain the motivations for EU support usually resorting to contextual factors to explain public opinion change (such as political affiliation, national economy, cultural identity, etc.). Even though the national environment and all other macro-level factors are essential to explain public attitude toward the EU, one also has to consider the individual cost/benefit rationale playing an important role in determining public perception on European integration (Contantelos & Diven, 2010). As explained by Gabel (1998), low income groups, whose jobs and social welfare benefits are threatened, are most likely to oppose the EU. Conversely, more skilled, educated individuals are better able to take advantage of greater educational and economic opportunities and tend to benefit from international integration. Thus, individuals with higher educational degrees will often express a more positive view on his/her country membership to the Union: reducing trade barriers is a boon to citizens with relatively high incomes and educational levels (Inglehart, 1970. cited in Gabel, 1998). In this paper, Eurobarometer survey question A9A (EB 73.4, May 2010) was used to measure individual support for EU Membership. The question asked if generally speaking, do you think that (your country's) membership of the European Community is...? and the options given were: (A) A good thing; (B) A Bad thing; (C) Neither good nor bad; (D) Dont Know (DK). The results were analysed on a crosstab comparing the data collected in all 27 EU countries (Appendix A). In order to measure the level of educational attainment of each individual in the

survey, the question D8, in the same Eurobarometer, asked: How old were you when you stopped full-time education? The possible answers were: (A) 15-; (B) 16-19; (C) 20+; (D) Still Studying; (E) No full-time education. (Appendix B). Then, a positive Pearsons correlation (r= 0.488741938) resulted between those who answered: *my countrys membership to the EU is+ a good thing and those with 20+ years *spent at a full-time educational institution+, indicating that level of educational attainment may lead to individual support to the EU. In a recent study, Elgun & Tillman (2007) call human capital the hypothesis that predicts a positive relationship between higher levels of human capital (educational attainment and income) and support for EU membership. Thus, individuals with higher-status occupations, years spent in full-time education, and higher levels of income are better positioned to apply their skills in an international environment and to adapt to economic integration. On the other hand, individuals with lower levels of educational attainment have lower-status employable skills and are less competitive in a common market (Gabel & Palmer, 1995, p.7). In addition to this, Elgun & Tillman further argues that even though human capital helps explain individual support for the EU, one has also to consider each individuals exposure to EU policies and his/her countrys level of accession to the Union. On a study of attitudes toward domestic politics and support for European integration, Christopher Anderson (1998) found that interest in EU politics was the most significant and consistently important variable affecting support for EU membership (p.18). The author argued that individuals with more knowledge of EU politics tend to favor their countrys membership to the EU. Anderson also analysed the education and income factors

noting that they were in the expected direction when statistically significant. The author then concludes, resorting to an intergovernmental approach, that domestic politics have a great effect on public opinion regarding European integration: attitudes toward domestic politics continue to play a key role in the formation of citizens' attitudes toward European integration, a sense of supranational community or identity (p.32). According to this argument, domestic public opinion constrains states' actions. Since EU decision making is driven by national political leaders, then the domestic political situation in each country will ultimately drive a positive or negative attitude toward each countrys membership to the European Union (Anderson, 1998). Paradoxically, Emmanuel Sigalas (2010) presented that receiving personal benefits from ones country EU membership not always lead to individual support to the Union. The author has analysed a survey on Erasmus students attitudes towards the EU. The European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (or Erasmus project) is an EU-funded exchange program that allow students currently enrolled in a European full-time secondary education to study or complete an internship in a different EU country for up to one year. Thus, Sigalas has found that beneficiaries of the EU-funded program did not strengthen their EU support overtime. Surprisingly, neither financial benefits from the EU nor personal contact with other Europeans has led to higher support for the Union. Following the Heckscher-Ohlin (H-O) model on international trade, Brinegar and Jolly (2005) reveals that individuals lower-skilled labor will only tend to Euro-skepticism if in a country with scarcity of low-skilles labor, since *national+ protection benefits the owners of scarce factors of production (p.3). However, workers in economies where low-skilled labor is abundant are more liked to support European integration, as is the case of Eastern Europes

more favorable attitude toward the EU. Thus, the authors conclude that skill levels matter but only if understood within the frame of the national economies dynamics.

APPENDIX A

Public Opinion and Membership to the EU

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% BELGIUM DENMARK GERMANY WEST GERMANY EAST GREECE SPAIN FINLAND FRANCE IRELAND ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA PORTUGAL SWEDEN GREAT BRITAIN NORTHERN IRELAND CYPRUS (REPUBLIC) CZECH REPUBLIC ESTONIA HUNGARY LATVIA LITUANIA MALTA POLAND SLOVAKIA SLOVENIA BULGARIA ROMANIA 1516-19 20+ Still Studying No full-time education

Source: Standard Eurobarometer 73.4 - May, 2010 - Demographics, Question D8.

APPENDIX B
Education Attainment Across the EU (by age)

9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% BELGIUM DENMARK GERMANY WEST GERMANY EAST GREECE SPAIN FINLAND FRANCE IRELAND ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA PORTUGAL SWEDEN GREAT BRITAIN NORTHERN IRELAND CYPRUS (REPUBLIC) CZECH REPUBLIC ESTONIA HUNGARY LATVIA LITUANIA MALTA POLAND SLOVAKIA SLOVENIA BULGARIA ROMANIA

A good thing A bad thing Neither good nor bad DK

Source: Standard Eurobarometer 73.4 - May, 2010 - Question QA9A.

References
Anderson, Christopher J. When in doubt, use proxies: attitudes toward domestic politics and support for European integration.Comparative Political Studies 31. 5 (1998): 569-615. Pdf. Brinegar, Adam. & Jolly, Seth. (2005). Location, Location, Location: National Contextual Factors and Public Support for European Integration. SAGE Publications 6. 2 (2005): 155-180. Pdf. Constantelos, John & Diven, Polly J. Public Confidence in the EU: A Multivariate Analysis of the World Values Surveys Fifth Wave. Retrieved November 1, 2011 from: http://www.jhubc.it/ecpr-porto/virtualpaperroom/173.pdf

Eichenberg, Richard C. Europeans and the European Community: the Dynamics of Public Support for European Integration. International Organization 47. 4 (1993): 507-534. Pdf. Elgtin, Ozlem. & Tillman, Erik R. Exposure to European Union Policies and Support for Membership in the Candidate Countries. Political Research Quaterly 60. 3 (2007): 391-400. Print. Gabel, Matthew. Public Support for European Integration: An Empirical Test of Five Theories. The Journal of Economic History 15. 2 (1998): 121-133. Print. Gabel, Matthew & Whitten, GuyD. Economic Conditions, Economic Perceptions, and Public Support for European Integration. Political Behavior 19. 1 (2007): 81-96. Print. McLaren, Lauren M. Public Support for the European Union: Cost/BenefitAnalysis or Perceived Cultural Threat? The Journal of Politics 64. 2 (2002): 551-566. Print. Sigalas, Emmanuel. The Role of Personal Benefits in Public Support for the EU: Learning from the Erasmus Students. West European Politics 33. 6 (2010): 1341-1361. Print.