Suchergebnisse

The EU may get more politicized (in the sense of salience, polarization and extension of actors, see de Wilde and Zürn, 2012; de Wilde, Leupold and Schmidtke, 2016) but also, and mostly, acts as an agent of depoliticization, along with other institutions at the EU and domestic level (Hay, 2007; Papadopoulos, 2013; Wood and Flinders, 2014). We suggest to go one step further than the existing literature that suggests that economic voting may be decreasing in times of globalization (Hellwig, 2008; Lobo and Lewis-Beck, 2012) or that citizens are increasingly aware of their government's limited autonomy when facing external constraints (Ruiz Rufino and Alonso, 2017). This paper argues that EU policy, in particular in the social and economic realms, its media coverage at the national level and national politicians' usages of Europe, depoliticize economic and social issues. Specifically, EU policy preferred options are framed not only as being beyond the reach of national governments and politicians, but also, and more importantly, without alternative (Dupuy and Van Ingelgom, 2015; Karremans, 2017). While denying choice, these depoliticized policies, in return, feedback citizens' attitudes toward politics in general. This paper therefore intends to bring in (EU) public policy in the analysis of citizens' disaffection towards politics in contemporary Western Europe. At the most general level, it contends that citizens' growing disregard for politics is partly an outcome of policy changes and changes in state structures and administrations. Thereby, the paper articulates changes at the macro level to changes at the individual level.

Across Western Europe since the 1970s, welfare states have been under considerable pressures. Over the midterm, two main challenges surface. First, the trend toward neoliberal social policy, however varied in its shape and scope, has come to characterize most policy changes of the period. It has impacted levels of generosity, eligibility criteria, welfare providers as well as the process of benefit allocation. Second, the growing supranationalisation of welfare states, by way of budget consolidation objectives and enforcement mechanisms and monetary integration, has greatly influenced, that is, reduced, Western European governments' ability to act upon welfare states' design and reforms. This paper takes stock of these developments from a ordinary citizens' perspective. It departs from the mainstream policy elite perspective and the political economy analysis as the paper focuses on citizens' political perceptions and experiences of both trends. It intends to theoretically lay out an analysis of the political outcomes of neoliberalism and supranationalisation of European welfare states. Based on the policy feedback literature, that hypothesizes that attitudes and behaviours are outcomes of past policy, the paper suggests that both neoliberalism and supranationalisation of social policy may contribute to explaining patterns of citizens' (dis-)affection towards politics in the past decades. The paper therefore investigates policy citizenship, that is how neoliberalisation and supranationalisation of social policy shape attitudinal and behavioural democratic linkages (political trust, political support, loyalty, formal and informal participation). By doing so, it supplements existing research on individual determinants and contextual explanations of disengagement and disaffection towards politics.

The EU may get more politicized (in the sense of salience, polarization and extension of actors, see de Wilde and Zürn, 2012; de Wilde, Leupold and Schmidtke, 2016) but also, and mostly, acts as an agent of depoliticization, along with other institutions at the EU and domestic level (Hay, 2007; Papadopoulos, 2013; Wood and Flinders, 2014). We suggest to go one step further than the existing literature that suggests that economic voting may be decreasing in times of globalization (Hellwig, 2008; Lobo and Lewis-Beck, 2012) or that citizens are increasingly aware of their government's limited autonomy when facing external constraints (Ruiz Rufino and Alonso, 2017). This paper argues that EU policy, in particular in the social and economic realms, its media coverage at the national level and national politicians' usages of Europe, depoliticize economic and social issues. Specifically, EU policy preferred options are framed not only as being beyond the reach of national governments and politicians, but also, and more importantly, without alternative (Dupuy and Van Ingelgom, 2015; Karremans, 2017). While denying choice, these depoliticized policies, in return, feedback citizens' attitudes toward politics in general. This paper therefore intends to bring in (EU) public policy in the analysis of citizens' disaffection towards politics in contemporary Western Europe. At the most general level, it contends that citizens' growing disregard for politics is partly an outcome of policy changes and changes in state structures and administrations. Thereby, the paper articulates changes at the macro level to changes at the individual level.

Resentment is a complex, multi-layered emotion, within which perceptions of unfairness and feelings of anger are central. When linked to politics, it has predominantly been associated with the alleged "crisis of representative democracy" and populism. However, recent studies have shown that resentment can intervene positively in people's relations to politics and political institutions by facilitating certain types of political participation (Capelos & Demertzis, 2018). Despite this, the concept of resentment, and hence its role in contemporary representative democracy, is often poorly defined, with empirical investigations of its manifestation(s) remaining scarce. Borrowing a conceptualization of resentment as "resentful affectivity," our article draws on the analysis of focus groups carried out in Belgium (2019–2020) with individuals where resentful affectivity is likely to be observed (i.e., contemporary movements of contestation such as the Yellow Vests, Youth for Climate, and individuals who occupy a socially disadvantaged position). We find that experiences of intense anger, fear, disappointment, and the unfairness of representative democracy, i.e., of how representative democracy works on the ground, coexist simultaneously with remaining hopes in the democratic system. We show how this complex blend of emotions confronts citizens with what we call a "democratic dilemma." We document the different ways in which citizens cope with this dilemma and conclude by highlighting both the positive and negative ways in which resentment intervenes in the contemporary "crisis of representative democracy."

Resentment is a complex, multi-layered emotion, within which perceptions of unfairness and feelings of anger are central. When linked to politics, it has predominantly been associated with the alleged "crisis of representative democracy" and populism. However, recent studies have shown that resentment can intervene positively in people's relations to politics and political institutions by facilitating certain types of political participation (Capelos & Demertzis, 2018). Despite this, the concept of resentment, and hence its role in contemporary representative democracy, is often poorly defined, with empirical investigations of its manifestation(s) remaining scarce. Borrowing a conceptualization of resentment as "resentful affectivity," our article draws on the analysis of focus groups carried out in Belgium (2019–2020) with individuals where resentful affectivity is likely to be observed (i.e., contemporary movements of contestation such as the Yellow Vests, Youth for Climate, and individuals who occupy a socially disadvantaged position). We find that experiences of intense anger, fear, disappointment, and the unfairness of representative democracy, i.e., of how representative democracy works on the ground, coexist simultaneously with remaining hopes in the democratic system. We show how this complex blend of emotions confronts citizens with what we call a "democratic dilemma." We document the different ways in which citizens cope with this dilemma and conclude by highlighting both the positive and negative ways in which resentment intervenes in the contemporary "crisis of representative democracy."

Resentment is a complex, multi-layered emotion, within which perceptions of unfairness and feelings of anger are central. When linked to politics, it has predominantly been associated with the alleged "crisis of representative democracy" and populism. However, recent studies have shown that resentment can intervene positively in people's relations to politics and political institutions by facilitating certain types of political participation (Capelos & Demertzis, 2018). Despite this, the concept of resentment, and hence its role in contemporary representative democracy, is often poorly defined, with empirical investigations of its manifestation(s) remaining scarce. Borrowing a conceptualization of resentment as "resentful affectivity," our article draws on the analysis of focus groups carried out in Belgium (2019-2020) with individuals where resentful affectivity is likely to be observed (i.e., contemporary movements of contestation such as the Yellow Vests, Youth for Climate, and individuals who occupy a socially disadvantaged position). We find that experiences of intense anger, fear, disappointment, and the unfairness of representative democracy, i.e., of how representative democracy works on the ground, coexist simultaneously with remaining hopes in the democratic system. We show how this complex blend of emotions confronts citizens with what we call a "democratic dilemma." We document the different ways in which citizens cope with this dilemma and conclude by highlighting both the positive and negative ways in which resentment intervenes in the contemporary "crisis of representative democracy."

Resentment is a complex, multi‐layered emotion, within which perceptions of unfairness and feelings of anger are central. When linked to politics, it has predominantly been associated with the alleged "crisis of representative democracy" and populism. However, recent studies have shown that resentment can intervene positively in people's relations to politics and political institutions by facilitating certain types of political participation (Capelos & Demertzis, 2018). Despite this, the concept of resentment, and hence its role in contemporary representative democracy, is often poorly defined, with empirical investigations of its manifestation(s) remaining scarce. Borrowing a conceptualization of resentment as "resentful affectivity," our article draws on the analysis of focus groups carried out in Belgium (2019–2020) with individuals where resentful affectivity is likely to be observed (i.e., contemporary movements of contestation such as the Yellow Vests, Youth for Climate, and individuals who occupy a socially disadvantaged position). We find that experiences of intense anger, fear, disappointment, and the unfairness of representative democracy, i.e., of how representative democracy works on the ground, coexist simultaneously with remaining hopes in the democratic system. We show how this complex blend of emotions confronts citizens with what we call a "democratic dilemma." We document the different ways in which citizens cope with this dilemma and conclude by highlighting both the positive and negative ways in which resentment intervenes in the contemporary "crisis of representative democracy."

Resentment is a complex, multi‐layered emotion, within which perceptions of unfairness and feelings of anger are central. When linked to politics, it has predominantly been associated with the alleged "crisis of representative democracy" and populism. However, recent studies have shown that resentment can intervene positively in people's relations to politics and political institutions by facilitating certain types of political participation (Capelos & Demertzis, 2018). Despite this, the concept of resentment, and hence its role in contemporary representative democracy, is often poorly defined, with empirical investigations of its manifestation(s) remaining scarce. Borrowing a conceptualization of resentment as "resentful affectivity," our article draws on the analysis of focus groups carried out in Belgium (2019–2020) with individuals where resentful affectivity is likely to be observed (i.e., contemporary movements of contestation such as the Yellow Vests, Youth for Climate, and individuals who occupy a socially disadvantaged position). We find that experiences of intense anger, fear, disappointment, and the unfairness of representative democracy, i.e., of how representative democracy works on the ground, coexist simultaneously with remaining hopes in the democratic system. We show how this complex blend of emotions confronts citizens with what we call a "democratic dilemma." We document the different ways in which citizens cope with this dilemma and conclude by highlighting both the positive and negative ways in which resentment intervenes in the contemporary "crisis of representative democracy."

La science politique centre traditionnellement ses objets d'étude sur le phénomène du pouvoir politique dans les sociétés contemporaines en privilégiant l'angle des acteurs politiques et institutionnels. Qui gouverne ? Pour quoi faire ? Quelles sont les institutions qui forment l'État ? Quelle est la teneur des politiques publiques ? Comment se renouvelle la classe politique à travers le jeu électoral ? Quels sont les États qui comptent sur le plan de la politique internationale ? Comment se constituent des pouvoirs politiques supranationaux ? La population gouvernée, quant à elle, semble souvent être un objet de l'ombre dont l'étude est généralement réservée aux spécialistes de l'opinion publique ou des études électorales. Sauf à quelques moments épisodiques où les spots médiatiques l'éclairent : ce n'est qu'à l'occasion de scrutins électoraux ou de référendums que l'on s'intéresse à l'électorat, à l'opinion publique, masse sans visage que l'on s'attend à être capricieuse, indécise jusqu'à la dernière minute, voire malavisée. À d'autres rares moments aussi, le peuple conteste, menace, surprend : l'on s'aperçoit alors qu'il peut être un acteur politique sur lequel il faut compter. Cette question est pourtant au coeur d'une dimension fondamentale de la chose publique, celle de la légitimité des acteurs, des institutions et des politiques menées. À l'occasion de ce Congrès international, réunissant cinq associations francophones de science politique, ainsi que des politologues invités venant notamment d'autres continents que l'Europe, il a semblé important à l'ABSP-CF, d'offrir l'occasion de faire le point sur les multiples façons dont notre discipline analyse le comportement politique des gouvernés mais aussi plus généralement le statut accordé à ceux-ci et le traitement politique dont ils font l'objet.

La science politique centre traditionnellement ses objets d'étude sur le phénomène du pouvoir politique dans les sociétés contemporaines en privilégiant l'angle des acteurs politiques et institutionnels. Qui gouverne ? Pour quoi faire ? Quelles sont les institutions qui forment l'État ? Quelle est la teneur des politiques publiques ? Comment se renouvelle la classe politique à travers le jeu électoral ? Quels sont les États qui comptent sur le plan de la politique internationale ? Comment se constituent des pouvoirs politiques supranationaux ? La population gouvernée, quant à elle, semble souvent être un objet de l'ombre dont l'étude est généralement réservée aux spécialistes de l'opinion publique ou des études électorales. Sauf à quelques moments épisodiques où les spots médiatiques l'éclairent : ce n'est qu'à l'occasion de scrutins électoraux ou de référendums que l'on s'intéresse à l'électorat, à l'opinion publique, masse sans visage que l'on s'attend à être capricieuse, indécise jusqu'à la dernière minute, voire malavisée. À d'autres rares moments aussi, le peuple conteste, menace, surprend : l'on s'aperçoit alors qu'il peut être un acteur politique sur lequel il faut compter. Cette question est pourtant au coeur d'une dimension fondamentale de la chose publique, celle de la légitimité des acteurs, des institutions et des politiques menées. À l'occasion de ce Congrès international, réunissant cinq associations francophones de science politique, ainsi que des politologues invités venant notamment d'autres continents que l'Europe, il a semblé important à l'ABSP-CF, d'offrir l'occasion de faire le point sur les multiples façons dont notre discipline analyse le comportement politique des gouvernés mais aussi plus généralement le statut accordé à ceux-ci et le traitement politique dont ils font l'objet.

There is an established connection between neoliberal British austerity welfare reforms that began in 2010 and British citizens' dissatisfaction with the EU leading up to Brexit. However, scholars have yet to analyze how British citizens delegitimated the EU in the context of Brexit or if these delegitimations were linked to neoliberal EU integration policy. Using abduction, we responded to these two gaps through a longitudinal qualitative investigation of Euroscepticism in the UK from 2005 until the months following Brexit in 2016. We discovered the existence of a moral economy of Euroscepticism that was a hybrid of neoliberal and nationalist ideology. Our study provides evidence that British citizens' delegitimations of the EU—both pre-and post-Brexit—stemmed from this hybrid moral economy. Furthermore, building on the "normative policy feedback" literature, we found that the illegitimacy of the EU–and the legitimacy of Brexit–among British citizens stemmed partially from neoliberal policy reforms.

There is an established connection between neoliberal British austerity welfare reforms that began in 2010 and British citizens' dissatisfaction with the EU leading up to Brexit. However, scholars have yet to analyze how British citizens delegitimated the EU in the context of Brexit or if these delegitimations were linked to neoliberal EU integration policy. Using abduction, we responded to these two gaps through a longitudinal qualitative investigation of Euroscepticism in the UK from 2005 until the months following Brexit in 2016. We discovered the existence of a moral economy of Euroscepticism that was a hybrid of neoliberal and nationalist ideology. Our study provides evidence that British citizens' delegitimations of the EU—both pre-and post-Brexit—stemmed from this hybrid moral economy. Furthermore, building on the "normative policy feedback" literature, we found that the illegitimacy of the EU–and the legitimacy of Brexit–among British citizens stemmed partially from neoliberal policy reforms.

À la veille d'élections européennes déterminantes pour l'avenir de l'Europe, l'ambition de ce court ouvrage est d'offrir au grand public un diagnostic sur l'état de la démocratie européenne et de proposer des pistes pour sortir l'Union européenne du marasme dans lequel elle semble plongée. Alors que plus de 350 millions d'électeurs seront appelés aux urnes, cet ouvrage vient dresser l'état des lieux du rapport dégradé entre l'Union européenne, les citoyens et les politiques menées. Pourquoi l'Union européenne ne semble-t-elle pas répondre aux attentes des citoyens ? Les élections européennes permettront-elles de changer la donne ? Quelles solutions existent pour que les institutions européennes soient plus réactives et au service de l'intérêt général ? La notion d'intérêt général a-t-elle un sens dans un espace aussi divers ? Centrés sur des questions formulées de manière volontairement polémique, les chapitres constitutifs de cet ouvrage sont rédigés par des spécialistes de plusieurs disciplines de sciences sociales issus de plusieurs grandes universités européennes. Chaque chapitre permet ainsi de disposer d'un état des lieux clair, court et informé de la réflexion sur le sujet, appuyé sur les résultats scientifiques. De plus, chaque chapitre esquisse des pistes pour « sauver l'Europe », en présentant des propositions de réforme précises et opérationnelles qu'il serait possible de mettre en œuvre (plus ou moins) facilement. Avec un seul objectif : permettre à chacune et chacun de mieux saisir les enjeux démocratiques de la construction européenne et décider en connaissance de cause lors du scrutin.

À la veille d'élections européennes déterminantes pour l'avenir de l'Europe, l'ambition de ce court ouvrage est d'offrir au grand public un diagnostic sur l'état de la démocratie européenne et de proposer des pistes pour sortir l'Union européenne du marasme dans lequel elle semble plongée. Alors que plus de 350 millions d'électeurs seront appelés aux urnes, cet ouvrage vient dresser l'état des lieux du rapport dégradé entre l'Union européenne, les citoyens et les politiques menées. Pourquoi l'Union européenne ne semble-t-elle pas répondre aux attentes des citoyens ? Les élections européennes permettront-elles de changer la donne ? Quelles solutions existent pour que les institutions européennes soient plus réactives et au service de l'intérêt général ? La notion d'intérêt général a-t-elle un sens dans un espace aussi divers ? Centrés sur des questions formulées de manière volontairement polémique, les chapitres constitutifs de cet ouvrage sont rédigés par des spécialistes de plusieurs disciplines de sciences sociales issus de plusieurs grandes universités européennes. Chaque chapitre permet ainsi de disposer d'un état des lieux clair, court et informé de la réflexion sur le sujet, appuyé sur les résultats scientifiques. De plus, chaque chapitre esquisse des pistes pour « sauver l'Europe », en présentant des propositions de réforme précises et opérationnelles qu'il serait possible de mettre en œuvre (plus ou moins) facilement. Avec un seul objectif : permettre à chacune et chacun de mieux saisir les enjeux démocratiques de la construction européenne et décider en connaissance de cause lors du scrutin.

Voters are growing increasingly disenchanted with politics—and democracy more generally. Scholars tend to explain this disaffection in terms of voter characteristics or attitudes—such as socioeconomic status or dissatisfaction with the political establishment. However, there is a gap in the literature concerning the effects of policy implementation on this key link between voters and their corresponding national political system. Welfare state retrenchment, largely in the form of neoliberal social and educational policies, has been a staple of European politics over the past forty years. Is there a causal relationship between the implementation of neoliberal social and educational policies and voter democratic disaffection? To answer this question we use data from the European Election Study from 1979, 1989, and 2004 to conduct a natural experiment. We investigate if—in analogous phases of policy implementation—democratic disaffection converges or diverges between France and the UK. This comparative analysis allows us to investigate arguments about how political institutional environments mediate the effects of neoliberal policy implementation (Fourcade and Babb 2002). Our study builds on and expands the comparative natural experimental design of Svallfors (2010) and helps to produce findings that meaningfully speak to the causal effects of neoliberal policy implementation on democratic disaffection within and between the UK and France.