Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining willingness to use the European Citizens’ Initiative: Political cynicism, anti-EU attitudes and voting weight of member states

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Comparative European Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

Drawing on insights from the literatures on direct democracy and the European Union’s (EU) democratic deficit, this study is the first to analyze the likelihood of EU citizens’ use of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI). Using an ordered logistic regression analysis, it investigates whether EU citizens’ degree of cynicism, attitudes toward EU membership and their country’s vote share in the Council of the EU affect their willingness to use the ECI. The results show that European citizens who are more critical of the way the EU institutions work are less likely to intend to use the ECI. The results also indicate that attitudes toward EU membership and member states’ voting shares in the Council do not have a significant impact on the likelihood of using the ECI, after controlling for social, political and economic factors. These findings imply that cynicism at the EU level translates into further alienation from European politics rather than willingness to use the ECI to bridge democratic gaps in the EU. Thus, it seems the ECI currently does not give citizens a sense of partnership and voice in EU governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The EU currently has 27 member states that vary in population. Their population size determines their respective proportion of votes in the Council. For example, as the smallest country, Malta has three votes in the Council, whereas Germany, the most populous country, has 29.

  2. This survey was the most recent among other available surveys that included, at the time of the data analysis, questions regarding the ECI, satisfaction with EU democracy and trust in EU institutions.

  3. Factor analysis has several advantages. First, if a single variable is extracted from a larger number of survey items, then empirical analysis will be relatively easier to manage (Blondel et al, 1998). Second, Vogt (2007) suggests that when measures are ‘based on multi-item scales rather than on single items, they will be more reliable (less subject to measurement error)’. Third, factor analysis helps to deal with collinearity problems among the variables.

  4. Diagnostic tests revealed that the results of the model were robust.

References

  • Anderson, C. and Goodyear-Grant, E. (2010) Why are highly informed citizens skeptical of referenda? Electoral Studies 23 (2): 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aspinwall, M. (2002) Preferring Europe: Ideology and national preferences on European integration. European Union Politics 13 (4): 81–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson, Å. and Mattila, M. (2009) Direct democracy and its critics: Support for direct democracy and ‘stealth’ democracy in Finland. West European Politics 32 (5): 1031–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blondel, J., Sinnott, R. and Svensson, P. (1997) Representation and voter participation. European Journal of Political Research 32 (2): 243–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blondel, J., Sinnott, R. and Svensson, P. (1998) People and Parliament in the European Union: Participation, Democracy, and Legitimac. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blumler, J.G. and Fox, A.D. (1982) The European Voter: Popular Responses to the First Community Election. London: Policy Studies Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S. (2000) Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S. and Donovan, T. (2002) Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen influence on government. British Journal of Political Science 32 (2): 371–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S., Donovan, T. and Karp, J. (2003) Popular attitudes towards direct democracy. Paper Presented at the American Political Science Association Meeting; 28–31 August, Philadelphia, USA.

  • Bowler, S., Donovan, T. and Karp, J.A. (2007) Enraged or engaged? Preferences for direct citizen participation in affluent democracies. Political Research Quarterly 60 (3): 351–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunstein, R. (2004) Initiative and Referendum Voting: Governing Through Direct Democracy in the United States. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M.B. (2001) The many faces of social identity: Implications for political psychology. Political Psychology 22 (1): 115–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, J (1977) Political alienation as a social indicator: Attitudes and action. Social Indicators Research 4 (1): 381–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R.J., Bürklin, W. and Drummond, A. (2001) Public opinion and direct democracy. Journal of Democracy 12 (4): 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Haan, J. and Eijffinger, S.C.W. (2000) The democratic accountability of the European Central Bank: A comment on two fairy-tales. Journal of Common Market Studies 38 (3): 393–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vreese, C.H. (2006) Political parties in dire straits? Consequences of national referendums for political parties. Party Politics 12 (5): 581–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinan, D. (2010) Institutions and governance: A new treaty, a newly elected parliament and a new commission. Journal of Common Market Studies 48 (1): 95–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, T. and Karp, J.A. (2006) Popular support for direct democracy. Party Politics 12 (5): 671–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichenberg, R.C. and Dalton, R.J. (1993) Europeans and the European Community: The dynamics of public support for European integration. International Organization 47 (4): 507–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeli, I., Ballmer-Cao, T.-H. and Giugni, M. (2006) Gender gap and turnout in the 2003 federal elections. Swiss Political Science Review 12 (4): 217–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eur-lex. (2010) Consolidated versions of the treaty on European Union and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0001:0012:EN:PDF, accessed 23 May 2012.

  • European Commission, Directorate-General Press and Communication, Public Opinion Analysis Sector. (2010) Eurobarometer 73.4. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.

  • Fatke, M. and Freitag, M. (2012) Direct democracy: Protest catalyst or protest alternative? Political Behavior advance online publication 2 March, http://www.springerlink.com/content/pg304l21808j2537/, accessed 23 May 2012.

  • Follesdal, A. and Hix, S. (2006) Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies 44 (3): 533–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geissel, B. (2008) Reflections and findings on the critical citizen: Civic education – What for? European Journal of Political Research 47 (1): 34–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadjar, A. and Beck, M. (2010) Who does not participate in elections in Europe and why is this? European Societies 12 (4): 521–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, J.R. and Theiss-Morse, E. (2002) Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hix, S. (2008) What’s Wrong with the European Union & How to Fix It. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobolt, S.B. (2012) Citizen satisfaction with democracy in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 50 (1): 88–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2005) Calculation, community and cues: Public opinion on European integration. European Union Politics 6 (4): 419–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurrelmann, A. and Debardeleben, J. (2009) Democratic dilemmas in EU multilevel governance: Untangling the Gordian knot. European Political Science Review 1 (2): 229–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (2008) When citizens take the initiative: Design and political considerations. Direct Democracy: The International IDEA Handbook, http://www.idea.int/publications/direct_democracy/upload/direct_democracy_handbook_chapter3.pdf, accessed 28 November 2011.

  • Kentmen, C. (2010) Bases of support for the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy: Gender, attitudes toward economic integration and attachment to Europe. International Political Science Review 31 (3): 285–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klingemann, H.D. (1999) Mapping political support in the 1990s: A global analysis. In: P. Norris (ed.) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 31–56.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Magnette, P. and Nicolaïdis, K. (2005) Coping with the Lilliput syndrome: Large vs. small member states in the European Convention. European Public Law 11 (1): 83–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsusaka, J.G. (2005) Direct democracy works. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (2): 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattila, M. (2004) Contested decisions: Empirical analysis of voting in the European Union Council of Ministers. European Journal of Political Research 43 (1): 29–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. H. and Listhaug, O. (1990) Political parties and confidence in government: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science 20 (3): 357–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, E.N., Jukam, T.O. and Seligson, M.A. (1982) Diffuse political support and antisystem political behavior: A comparative analysis. American Journal of Political Science 26 (2): 240–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelsen, B.F. and Guth, J. (2000) Exploring the gender gap women, men and public attitudes toward European Integration. European Union Politics 1 (3): 267–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelsen, B.F., Guth, J. and Cleveland, F.R. (2001) Does religion matter? European Union Politics 2 (2): 191–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (ed.) (1999) Introduction: The growth of critical citizens? In: Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–28.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, L. (2003) When parties matter: The conditional influence of party positions on voter opinions about European Integration. Journal of Politics 65 (4): 978–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, D. and Toka, G. (2013) Is anyone listening? Mass and elite opinion cueing in the EU, Electoral Studies, advance online publication 8 October 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.10.001, accessed 23 May 2012.

  • Schmidt, V.A. (1997) European integration and democracy: The differences among Member States. Journal of European Public Policy 4 (1): 128–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, V.A. (2004) The European Union: Democratic legitimacy in a regional state? Journal of Common Market Studies 42 (5): 975–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Southwell, P.L. (2003) The politics of alienation: Nonvoting and support for third-party candidates among 18–30-year-olds. The Social Science Journal 40 (1): 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Startin, N. and Krouwel, A. (2013) Euroscepticism re-galvanized: The consequences of the 2005 French and Dutch rejections of the EU Constitution. JCMS:Journal of Common Market Studies 51 (1): 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallberg, J. (2008) Bargaining power in the European Council. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 46 (3): 685–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Eijk, C. and Schmitt, H. (2007) Non-voting in European Parliament elections and support for European integration. In: C. van der Eijk and W. van der Brug (eds.) European Election and Domestic Politics: Lessons from the Past and Scenarios for the Future. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 145–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogt, W.P. (2007) Quantitative Research Methods for Professionals. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels, F. and Franklin, M.N. (2009) Turning out or turning off: Do mobilization and attitudes account for turnout differences between new and established member states at the 2004 EP elections? Journal of European Integration 31 (5): 609–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Relations and the EU, Izmir University of Economics, Sakarya Cad. No. 156, Balcova, 35330, Izmir, Turkey

    Cigdem Kentmen-Cin

Authors
  1. Cigdem Kentmen-Cin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kentmen-Cin, C. Explaining willingness to use the European Citizens’ Initiative: Political cynicism, anti-EU attitudes and voting weight of member states. Comp Eur Polit 12, 301–318 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2013.4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2013.4

Keywords

Search

Navigation