Popular non-support for international organizations: How extensive and what does this represent?

Bearce, David H.; Scott, Brandy Jolliff

doi:10.1007/s11558-019-09351-3

Cited by 84 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies document that individuals who are more exposed to objective globalization risks are more supportive of protectionist and anti-immigrant policies (e.g., Dancygier & Donnelly 2013, Owen & Johnston 2017. Another robust finding is that low-skilled individuals, who face the highest globalization-related labor market risks, exhibit more globalization skepticism (Bearce & Jolliff Scott 2019, Margalit 2012). However, the evidence that those directly hurt by globalization are more likely to vote for antiglobalization parties or proposals is mixed.…”

Section: Materials or Nonmaterials Causes?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Up close, however, the picture of a large shift of public preferences is less clear than this narrative suggests. Studies that examine broad shifts in globalization-related public opinion over time are relatively rare and provide inconclusive evidence: Whereas some studies find a shift in public opinion against globalization, such as increasingly negative attitudes about international and supranational organizations (Bearce & Jolliff Scott 2019, Bølstad 2014, others show that attitudes toward globalization are surprisingly stable and sometimes even become more positive over time (Kiratli 2020, Mader et al 2019, Nguyen & Spilker 2019. Figure 1 illustrates this inconclusive picture using average survey responses from 15 countries 1 at different levels of development across the world on globalization-related topics collected by the International Social Survey Project (ISSP) in 1995(ISSP) in , 2003(ISSP) in , and 2013.…”

Section: A Popular Backlash Against Globalization?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Backlash Against Globalization

Walter

2021

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.

226

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the world has seen a rising backlash against globalization. This article reviews the nature, causes, and consequences of the globalization backlash. It shows that, contrary to a popular narrative, the backlash is not associated with a large swing in public opinion against globalization but is rather a result of its politicization. The increasing influence of globalization-skeptic actors has resulted in more protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist policies, some of which fundamentally threaten pillars of the contemporary international order. Both material and nonmaterial causes drive the globalization backlash, and these causes interact and mediate each other. The consequences are shaped by the responses of societal actors, national governments, and international policy makers. These responses can either yield to and reinforce the global backlash or push back against it. Understanding these dynamics will be an important task for future research. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 24 is May 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

show abstract

Section: Materials or Nonmaterials Causes?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Popular Backlash Against Globalization?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Backlash Against Globalization

Walter

2021

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.

226

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With polarization, legislative politics become increasingly adversarial, (coalition) governments more unstable, and policy outputs potentially more volatile. What is more, domestic political instability may trigger a backlash against international unions and organizations -such as the European Union (EU) -as increased polarization along the pro/anti-integration axis may generate negative political spillovers for supranational governance: policy deadlock, the rise in the political implementation costs of policy reforms, the undermining of public support (Bearce and Jolliff Scott 2019), or even the political unraveling of the integration process itself (Hobolt and de Vries 2016;Obermeier 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Take back control”? The effects of supranational integration on party-system polarization

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we examine the relationship between supranational integration and domestic party-system polarization (extremism). We first construct a theoretical argument that uncovers the key trade-off between the "output legitimacy" of a supranationally integrated party system and the inevitable loss of "input legitimacy" caused by externally imposed policy constraints. This translates into a strategic tradeoff between responsibility and responsiveness at the party level of electoral competition. We hypothesize that while moderate supranational policy constraints can initially speed-up platform convergence, ever-closer political integration may reverse the trend towards higher levels of party-system polarization and party extremism. We apply our framework to the case of EU integration and test our key non-monotonic prediction both at the party-system level of polarization and at the party level of ideological extremism. Finally, we apply to synthetic control method (SCM) for causal inference in comparative case studies to study how political integration and supranational policy constraints have affected their overall level of party-system polarization over time. Our overall empirical analysis strongly corroborates our theoretical argument.

show abstract

“…In the European Union, increasing party polarization in member states on the issue of closer integration has resulted in decreasing voter support for EU institutions (57) and a partial reversal of the integration process itself (58). Empirical studies using a measure of party polarization similar to that applied in this paper (the distance between party positions) have found that membership of the European Union has been associated with a nonmonotonic evolution of party polarization-initially decreasing and then increasing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

National polarization and international agreements

Perrings

Hechter

Mamada

2021

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The network of international environmental agreements (IEAs) has been characterized as a complex adaptive system (CAS) in which the uncoordinated responses of nation states to changes in the conditions addressed by particular agreements may generate seemingly coordinated patterns of behavior at the level of the system. Unfortunately, since the rules governing national responses are ill understood, it is not currently possible to implement a CAS approach. Polarization of both political parties and the electorate has been implicated in a secular decline in national commitment to some IEAs, but the causal mechanisms are not clear. In this paper, we explore the impact of polarization on the rules underpinning national responses. We identify the degree to which responsibility for national decisions is shared across political parties and calculate the electoral cost of party positions as national obligations under an agreement change. We find that polarization typically affects the degree but not the direction of national responses. Whether national commitment to IEAs strengthens or weakens as national obligations increase depends more on the change in national obligations than on polarization per se. Where the rules governing national responses are conditioned by the current political environment, so are the dynamic consequences both for the agreement itself and for the network to which it belongs. Any CAS analysis requires an understanding of such conditioning effects on the rules governing national responses.

show abstract

Popular non-support for international organizations: How extensive and what does this represent?

Cited by 84 publications

References 31 publications

The Backlash Against Globalization

The Backlash Against Globalization

“Take back control”? The effects of supranational integration on party-system polarization

National polarization and international agreements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About