Scholars have developed a large body of knowledge on the domestic underpinnings and effects of European integration. Students of the European Union (EU) have devoted considerable attention to the sources of citizen and party support for EU membership. This attention would suggest the presence of a dynamic process in which parties compete for votes by adopting stances on the EU, and citizens vote on the European issue. Evidence from the three new member states—Austria, Finland, and Sweden—shows that citizen attitudes about the EU affected vote choice in national elections in all three states before and after accession. This finding suggests the existence of an electoral dynamic between voters and parties over European integration, with mass publics having an important role in constraining future efforts at integration. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Alvarez, R. Michael,& Nagler, Jonathan. (1998). When politics and models collide: Estimating models of multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 55-96.
2.
Anderson, Christopher J. (1998). When in doubt, use proxies: Attitudes toward domestic politics and support for European integration. Comparative Political Studies, 31, 569-601.
3.
Anderson, Christopher J., & Kaltenthaler, Karl C. (1996). The dynamics of public support toward European integration, 1973-1993. European Journal of International Relations, 2(1), 175-199.
4.
Carrubba, Clifford J. (2001). The electoral connection in European Union politics. Journal of Politics, 63(1), 141-158.
5.
Eichenberg, Richard C., & Dalton, Russell J. (1993). Europeans and the European Community: The dynamics of public support for European integration. International Organization, 47(4), 507-534.
6.
Evans, Geoffrey. (1998). Euroscepticism and conservative electoral support: How an asset became a liability. British Journal of Political Science, 28, 573-590.
7.
Gabel, Matthew. (1998a). Interests and integration: Market liberalization, public opinion, and the European Union. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8.
Gabel, Matthew. (1998b). Public support for European integration: Anempirical test of five theories. Journal of Politics, 60(2), 333-354.
9.
Gabel, Matthew. (2000). European integration, voters, and national politics. West European Politics, 23(4), 52-72.
10.
Gabel, Matthew, & Palmer, Harvey D. (1995). Understanding variation in public support for European integration. European Journal of Political Research, 27(1), 3-19.
11.
Gabel, Matthew, & Whitten, Guy D. (1997). Economic conditions, economic perceptions, and public support for European integration. Political Behavior, 19(1), 81-96.
12.
Holmberg, Sören, & Gilljam, Mikael. (1994). Swedish Election Study [Computer file]. Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborg University, Department of Political Science.
13.
Huber, John, & Inglehart, Ronald. (1995). Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies. Party Politics, 1(1), 73-111.
14.
Janssen, Joseph I. H. (1991). Postmaterialism, cognitive mobilization, and public support for European integration. British Journal of Political Science, 21, 443-468.
15.
Jenssen, Anders Todal, Pesonen, Pertti, & Gilljam, Mikael. (1998). To join or not to join: Three Nordic referendums on membership in the European Union. Boston: Scandinavian University Press.
16.
Johansson, Karl M.,& Raunio, Tapio. (2001). Partisan responses to Europe: Comparing Finnish and Swedish political parties. European Journal of Political Research, 39(3), 225-249.
17.
Kaltenthaler, Karl C., & Anderson, Christopher J. (2001). Europeans and their money: Explaining public support for the common European currency. European Journal of Political Research, 40(2), 139-170.
18.
Lindberg, Leon, & Scheingold, Stuart. (1970). Europe’s would-be polity: Patterns of change in the European Community. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19.
Marks, Gary, & Wilson, Carole J. (2000). The past in the present: A cleavage theory of party response to European integration. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 433-459.
20.
McLaren, Lauren M. (2002). Public support for the European Union: Cost/Benefit analysis or perceived cultural threat?Journal of Politics, 64(2), 551-566.
21.
Melich, Anna. (1999). Eurobarometer 46.0: Personal health, energy, development aid, and the common European currency, October-November 1996 [Computer file]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
22.
Raunio, Tapio. (1999). Facing the European challenge: Finnish parties adjust to the integration process. West European Politics, 22(1), 138-159.
23.
Ray, Leonard. (1999a). Conversion, acquiescence, or delusion: The contingent nature of the party-voter connection. Political Behavior, 21(4), 325-347.
24.
Ray, Leonard. (1999b). Measuring party orientations towards European integration: Results from an expert survey. European Journal of Political Research, 36, 283-306.
25.
Scheve, Kenneth. (2000). Casting votes in the global economy: Public opinion and voting behavior in open economies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Department of Political Science.
26.
Taggart, Paul. (1998). A touchstone of dissent: Euroscepticism in contemporary Western European party systems. European Journal of Political Research, 33, 363-388.
27.
van der Eijk, Cees, & Franklin, Mark. (1996). Choosing Europe? The European electorate and national politics in the face of union. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
28.
van der Eijk, Cees, & Franklin, Mark N. (2001, August-September). The sleeping giant: Potential for contestation on European matters at national elections in Europe. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
29.
Whitten, Guy D., & Palmer, Harvey D. (1996). Heightening comparativists’ concern for model choice: Voting behavior in Great Britain and the Netherlands. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 231-260.
