A Crisis of Trust? Popular Support
for the European Union During
the Great Recession
Besir Ceka
Max Weber Fellow
European University Institute
Indiana University
November 11, 2013
Introduction
Theory
Research Design
Findings
Conclusion
Trust in the EU during the “great recession”
Introduction
Theory
Research Design
Findings
Conclusion
Percentage points
Figure 1: Change in trust in the EU between 2007 and 2011
absolute change
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
Source: Eurobarometer
Introduction
Theory
Research Design
Findings
KEY QUESTIONS
 What explains this drop in support for the EU?

Are the austerity policies of the EU/IMF to be blamed?

Has the ‘democratic deficit’ of the EU increased?
Conclusion
Introduction
Theory
Research Design
Findings
Conclusion
ARGUMENT
 Austerity measures—only partly responsible for the drop
 National economy and support for national government more
important. Reason?
 Most Europeans know little about EU policies and their effects
 Crisis increase in the share of detached citizens
Introduction
Theory
Research Design
Findings
Types of attitudes toward national governments and EU
Conclusion
Introduction
Theory
Research Design
Findings
Conclusion
Diffuse support vs. specific support
 Easton (1965, 1975):
“Legitimacy of democracies is affected by the extent to which
citizens trust government to do what is right most of time.”
Diffuse support
“reservoir of favorable attitudes or good will that helps members
to accept or tolerate outputs to which they are opposed or the
effects of which they see as damaging to their interests”
Specific support: performance-based, short term
Introduction
Theory
Research Design
Findings
Conclusion
DATA AND METHOD
 133 Eurobarometer national surveys from 27 EU countries (2007-2011)
 Cross-classified multilevel logistic regression models
 Individual and contextual variables
 Key dependent variables:
 Trust in the EU
 EU Membership Good
measures of diffuse support for the EU
Introduction
Theory
Research Design
Findings
Conclusion
Credit: AP Photo
Ceteris paribus, being under IMF conditionality has little effect on trust in the EU
Introduction
Theory
Research Design
Findings
Conclusion
Trust in the EU
2007 and 2011
90
80
%
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2007
2011
Source: Eurobarometer
Introduction
Theory
Research Design
Findings
Conclusion
Figure 3: Effects of independent variables moving from minimum to
maximum values on predicted probability of Trusting EU
Trust national gov.
Economic situation
Introduction
Sophistication
Theory
Research Design
Findings
Figure 4: Moderating effect of sophistication
Conclusion
Introduction
Theory
Research Design
Findings
Conclusion
Figure 5: The % of respondents who distrust both levels of government,
2007 and 2011
EU 27
2011
Countries under IMF
conditionality
2007
2011
2007
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Source: Eurobarometer
Introduction
Theory
Research Design
Findings
Conclusion
Figure 6: Trust in the EU and Trust in National Government over time
70
% Tend to Trust
60
Trust the EU
50
40
Trust the National
Government
30
20
10
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Source: Eurobarometer
Introduction
Theory
Research Design
Findings
Conclusion
Figure 7. Trust in EU and Trust in National Government in 2010
90
80
% Tend to Trust
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Trust in EU
Trust in National Government
Source: Eurobarometer
Introduction
Theory
Research Design
Findings
Conclusion
CONCLUSION
 Evaluations of the national government and economy are
crucial for support for the EU
 EU is facing a democratic deficit
 But, national governments are facing an even bigger
legitimacy deficit
THANK YOU!
Contact:
Besir Ceka
[email protected]
Title