Beyond the Big‐Bang Enlargement: Citizens' Preferences and the Problem of EU Decision Making

Ahrens, Joachim; Meurers, Martin; Renner, Carsten

doi:10.1080/07036330701502472

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Complete centralisation would prevail for migration policies alone, whereas policies on education, research and culture, agriculture, crime, health and social welfare should all be decided at the national level. Ahrens, Meurers and Renner (2007) also use data from the Eurobarometer in their analysis of the heterogeneity of preferences across old and new EU members after the enlargement in 2004 and find that heterogeneity across countries is expected to increase significantly. Ferrera (1993) uses the Eurobarometer survey to analyse European citizens' preferences about the desired level of social policies.…”

Section: Classical and New Theories On Fiscal Federalism: What Domentioning

confidence: 99%

Centralisation versus Decentralisation of Public Policies: Does the Heterogeneity of Individual Preferences Matter?*

Mazzaferro

Zanardi

2008

Fiscal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the role of the heterogeneity of fiscal preferences in the assignment of policy tasks to different levels of government (decentralisation versus centralisation). With reference to a sample of European countries, a median-voter mechanism of collective decision is assumed to work at both a national and a supranational level. Using data from a large international survey (the International Social Survey Programme, ISSP), a series of econometric models are estimated in order to make individual attitudes representative of different categories of public expenditure and of different countries. The dominance of decentralisation over centralisation or vice versa is determined on the basis of the utility loss that each individual suffers in connection with the distance between his or her own most preferred level of public expenditure and that chosen by the national/supranational median voter. The main finding is that, differently from the predictions of Oates's decentralisation theorem, the assignment of responsibilities at the supranational level (centralisation) for a number of public expenditure programmes (healthcare, education, unemployment benefits) dominates (or is close to dominating) decentralisation, even in the absence of economies of scale and interregional spillovers. However, when the possibility of interjurisdictional mobility is explicitly considered, in line with the predictions of Tiebout's model, decentralisation dominance becomes more and more substantial and also prevails in the sectors where, under the nonmobility assumption, the assignment of responsibilities at the supranational level is efficient. Copyright (c) 2008 The Authors.

show abstract

Section: Classical and New Theories On Fiscal Federalism: What Domentioning

confidence: 99%

Centralisation versus Decentralisation of Public Policies: Does the Heterogeneity of Individual Preferences Matter?*

Mazzaferro

Zanardi

2008

Fiscal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…also Green 2001). Hooghe, similarly, noted that European publics as well as elites are 'least enthusiastic about Europeanizing high-spending policies' (Hooghe 2003: 281), while Ahrens, Meurers and Renner (2007) identify the least popular areas for European integration as those that 'represent issues of national identity' or 'can clearly be regarded most efficient when decentralised decisions are taken' (Ahrens, Meurers and Renner 2007: 460).…”

Section: Theorising Preferences For Issue-specific Eu Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The logic of democratic representation suggests that governments should be responsive to public preferences (e.g. Ahrens, Meurers and Renner 2007). However, integration was long supported by a 'permissive consensus' which placed few pressures or constraints on governments in this respect (cf.…”

Section: Theorising Preferences For Issue-specific Eu Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Fifty Years of Public (Dis)Satisfaction with European Governance: Preferences, Europeanization and Support for the EU

Veen

2015

JCER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its beginnings in the 1950s, the policymaking scope and authority of the European Union have dramatically expanded across a wide range of issue areas. Yet much remains unknown about the interaction between public preferences for EU-level governance, changes in such governance and overall support for European integration. This article analyses surveys ranging from 1962 to 2010 to show that while support for integration in different policy areas has fluctuated over time, it has been surprisingly stable overall; moreover, the relative preference ordering across issue areas has been even more consistent. In addition, this consistency is not affected by changes in Europeanization, nor do such changes appear to be driven by the relative strength of preferences. Finally, issue-specific support for EU-level governance has an impact on overall EU support that becomes stronger as Europeanization in that issue area increases, an effect that increases further with greater political knowledge. These findings call into question understandings of rising Euroscepticism as a reaction to Europeanization taking place primarily in areas where publics oppose it. In addition, they indicate that public awareness of European integration is far greater than political knowledge tests appear to indicate.

show abstract

Who Shall Decide What? Citizens’ Attitudes Towards Political Decision Making in the EU

Ahrens

Meurers²,

Renner³

Subsidiarity and Economic Reform in Europe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beyond the Big‐Bang Enlargement: Citizens' Preferences and the Problem of EU Decision Making

Cited by 4 publications

References 12 publications

Centralisation versus Decentralisation of Public Policies: Does the Heterogeneity of Individual Preferences Matter?*

Centralisation versus Decentralisation of Public Policies: Does the Heterogeneity of Individual Preferences Matter?*

Fifty Years of Public (Dis)Satisfaction with European Governance: Preferences, Europeanization and Support for the EU

Who Shall Decide What? Citizens’ Attitudes Towards Political Decision Making in the EU

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About