This article investigates whether public preferences for European solidarity are associated with vote choices in the 2019 European elections. After multiple crises, the politicisation of European Union affairs has increased, polarising voters and parties between those favouring the redistribution of risks across member states and those prioritising national responsibility in coping with the consequences of the crises. We expect pro-solidarity voters to be more prone to vote for green and radical-left parties and less prone to vote for conservative and radical-right parties. Testing these hypotheses in 10 European Union countries with original survey data, we find that green and radical-left parties profited from European solidarity voting only in some countries, while being pro-solidarity reduced the likelihood of voting for both moderate and radical-right parties in each sample country.
Normative democratic theory requires political actors in parliament and government to represent not only the citizens’ policy preferences, but also their issue priorities. This article investigates Italian dynamic agenda representation – the transmission of public priorities into the policy priorities of the Italian political system. To assess the public’s policy priorities, data on the Most Important Problem from the Eurobarometer polls are used, while the legislative agendas of the members of parliament (MPs) and government are built following the rules of the Comparative Agendas Project. The results of longitudinal analyses across 10 policy areas and 20 semesters (2003–13) suggest a persistent link between the public’s agenda and the prioritization of legislation by the Italian parliament, majority MPs, and government. Contrary to expectations, the opposition does not seem to be responsive to public opinion policy problems when introducing bills.
The relationship between the European Union's (EU) free movement regime and welfare has received ample scholarly attention. However, this has almost exclusively been from the perspective of destination countries. We know surprisingly little about the “other side” of the migration phenomenon, i.e., the welfare-related implications of large-scale emigration, which predominantly takes place from peripheral EU member states toward the core. In this paper, we break new ground using an original survey fielded in 15 EU member states in 2021. We ask how worries about immigration and emigration shape people's attitudes about social spending in their country of origin and whether they are associated with preferences for EU involvement in social policy. We show that, on average, immigration is salient across the board, but more so in core states (West and North), while emigration is a more salient issue in peripheral states (East and West). In terms of policy preferences, regression analyses indicate that worries about emigration versus immigration are linked in an inverted manner to social policy. Indeed, a preoccupation with incoming migration increases opposition to higher government social spending, while it is irrelevant for support for a stronger EU role in social matters; by contrast, a preoccupation with emigration increases support for both higher government social spending and a stronger EU role in social matters.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.