Measuring characteristics of democracy is not an easy task, but anyone who does empirical research on democracy needs good measures. In this article, we present the Democracy Barometer, a new measure that overcomes the conceptual and methodological shortcomings of previous indices. It allows for a description and comparison of the quality of thirty established democracies in the timespan between 1995 and 2005. The article examines its descriptive purposes and demonstrates the potential of this new instrument for future comparative analyses.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.

In the last decade, support for European integration has declined and euroscepticism has risen. Using Easton's concept of political support, this paper studies the interrelationship between euroscepticism and European identity. Starting from the hypothesis that identity as a central element of political community serves as a buffer against system-threatening euroscepticism, I develop a hierarchical model of euroscepticism. My results demonstrate that there are three types of eurosceptics, two of which hold opposite implications for European integration -demand for improvement vs a halt to or even an abolishment of European integration. The difference between both types is that the first group has a European identity, while the other does not. I conclude that the large size of the eurosceptic camp challenges European integration.

This chapter is the fifth of six on the question of political representation in the EU. It analyses to what extent institutional differences between the member‐states of the EU are constraining the attitudes of representatives in respect of one major aspect—whom to represent; this is done by exploring the role orientations of members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and comparing them with those of members of 11 national parliaments (MNPs). The first section of the chapter presents a brief conceptualization of representational roles by looking at general conclusions from previous research, and defining 5 representational foci in two dimensions: group specificity (party voters; specific (interest) groups) and regional scope (constituency; all people in the nation concerned; all people in Europe). The next section looks at the distributions of these five foci of representation across parliamentary levels (MEPs or MNPs) over the 15 member‐states of the EU; data are from the 1996 European Parliamentarians Study, and indicate striking differences between countries. The last (and largest) section of the chapter looks for explanations for these differences in foci of representation. These include personal factors (social background; political experience), institutional settings (the regional dimension—the relationship between role orientation, competitiveness and electoral systems; the group dimension—the relationship between role orientation and the encompassiveness and inclusiveness of interest group systems; and the European focus of representation in relation to the size and experience of a member‐state).

No abstract