Suchergebnisse

"What is the impact of political language upon public opinion towards European integration? Based upon media analysis, public opinion data and over 140 in-depth interviews with senior officials and campaigners, Ece Ozlem Atikcan examines six EU referendum votes: in Spain, France, the Netherlands and Luxembourg on the European Constitution in 2005; and in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 and 2009. In all instances, polls show that the voting public favored the referendum proposals before the campaigns began, yet this initially positive public opinion melted away in three of these six cases. Why did this occur? Atikcan demonstrates that the key to the puzzle lies in political campaigns, where argument strategies can, at least temporarily, reverse public opinion enough to affect referendum outcomes. Providing a critical analysis of campaign strategy and EU communication policy, this book will be essential reading for academics, policymakers, politicians and future campaigners"--

European Union (EU) referendums provide unique opportunities to study voters' attitudes toward a distant level of governance. Scholars have long tried to understand whether EU referendum results reflect domestic (dis-)satisfaction with the incumbent governments or actual attitudes toward the Union. Finding evidence supporting both domestic and European factors, the recent focus has thus turned to referendum campaigns. Recent studies emphasise the importance of the information provided to voters during these campaigns in order to analyse how domestic or European issues become salient in the minds of voters. These studies nonetheless overlook the asymmetrical political advantage in such campaigns. The broader literature on referendums and public opinion suggest that in a referendum, the 'No' side typically has the advantage since it can boost the public's fears by linking the proposal to unpopular issues. This article explores whether this dynamic applies to EU treaty ratification referendums. Does the anti-EU treaty campaign have more advantage than the pro-EU treaty campaign in these referendums? Campaign strategies in 11 EU treaty ratification referendums are analysed, providing a clear juxtaposition between pro-treaty ('Yes') and anti-treaty ('No') campaigns. Based on 140 interviews with campaigners in 11 referendums, a series of indicators on political setting and campaign characteristics, as well as an in-depth case study of the 2012 Irish Fiscal Compact referendum, it is found that the anti-treaty side indeed holds the advantage if it engages the debate. Nonetheless, the findings also show that this advantage is not unconditional. The underlying mechanism rests on the multidimensionality of the issue. The extent to which the referendum debate includes a large variety of 'No' campaign arguments correlates strongly with the campaigners' perceived advantage/disadvantage, and the referendum results. When the 'No' side's arguments are limited (either through a single-issue treaty or guarantees from the EU), this provides the 'Yes' side with a 'cleaner' agenda with which to work. Importantly, the detailed data demonstrate that the availability of arguments is important for the 'Yes' side as well. They tend to have the most advantage when they can tap into the economic costs of an anti-EU vote. This analysis has implications for other kinds of EU referendums such as Brexit, non-EU referendums such as independence referendums, and the future of European integration.

AbstractEuropean Union (EU) referendums provide unique opportunities to study voters' attitudes toward a distant level of governance. Scholars have long tried to understand whether EU referendum results reflect domestic (dis‐)satisfaction with the incumbent governments or actual attitudes toward the Union. Finding evidence supporting both domestic and European factors, the recent focus has thus turned to referendum campaigns. Recent studies emphasise the importance of the information provided to voters during these campaigns in order to analyse how domestic or European issues become salient in the minds of voters. These studies nonetheless overlook the asymmetrical political advantage in such campaigns. The broader literature on referendums and public opinion suggest that in a referendum, the 'No' side typically has the advantage since it can boost the public's fears by linking the proposal to unpopular issues. This article explores whether this dynamic applies to EU treaty ratification referendums. Does the anti‐EU treaty campaign have more advantage than the pro‐EU treaty campaign in these referendums? Campaign strategies in 11 EU treaty ratification referendums are analysed, providing a clear juxtaposition between pro‐treaty ('Yes') and anti‐treaty ('No') campaigns. Based on 140 interviews with campaigners in 11 referendums, a series of indicators on political setting and campaign characteristics, as well as an in‐depth case study of the 2012 Irish Fiscal Compact referendum, it is found that the anti‐treaty side indeed holds the advantage if it engages the debate. Nonetheless, the findings also show that this advantage is not unconditional. The underlying mechanism rests on the multidimensionality of the issue. The extent to which the referendum debate includes a large variety of 'No' campaign arguments correlates strongly with the campaigners' perceived advantage/disadvantage, and the referendum results. When the 'No' side's arguments are limited (either through a single‐issue treaty or guarantees from the EU), this provides the 'Yes' side with a 'cleaner' agenda with which to work. Importantly, the detailed data demonstrate that the availability of arguments is important for the 'Yes' side as well. They tend to have the most advantage when they can tap into the economic costs of an anti‐EU vote. This analysis has implications for other kinds of EU referendums such as Brexit, non‐EU referendums such as independence referendums, and the future of European integration.

AbstractFrames enable individuals to locate and label occurrences within their life space and the world at large. In this article, we study the framing of moral issues with the help of Moral Foundations Theory and by relying on rich qualitative data. Existing studies are primarily based on laboratory experiments, without a focus on how such processes are shaped in a real‐life setting. Through a detailed study of the 2018 Irish referendum on abortion, we ask: How is moral framing used in a referendum setting? This case is important not only because referendum campaigns may have higher chances of influencing public opinion than election campaigns but also because of the highly contentious nature of abortion and the recent societal changes in the Irish context. Based on in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with campaigners and politicians, as well as focus groups with voters, we find that the campaigners from opposing sides used moral foundations (the Care foundation) deliberately in their campaign to appeal to undecided voters, focusing on the health of women or the plight of unborn babies. Our findings also show that not every moral foundation is relevant for the campaigners due to the national and historical context.

AbstractDespite the impressive amount of empirical research on lobbying, a fundamental question remains overlooked. How do interest groups choose to lobby different sides of an issue? We argue that how groups choose sides is a function of firm-level economic activity. By studying a highly salient regulatory issue, the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and using a novel data set of lobbying activities, we reveal that a group's main economic sector matters most. Firms operating in finance and retail face unique costs and are incentivised to lobby against the GDPR. However, these groups are outgunned by a large, heterogeneous group of firms with superior lobbying firepower on the other side of the issue.

"The majority of policymakers, academics, and members of the general public expected British citizens to vote to remain in the European Union in the 2016 referendum. This perception was based on the well-established idea that voters don't like change or uncertainty. So why did the British public vote to take such a major economic risk? Framing Risky Choices addresses this question by placing the Brexit vote in the bigger picture of EU and Scottish independence referendums. Drawing from extensive interviews and survey data, it asserts that the framing effect--mobilizing voters by encouraging them to think along particular lines--matters, but not every argument is equally effective. Simple, evocative, and emotionally compelling frames that offer negativity are especially effective in changing people's minds. In the Brexit case, the Leave side neutralized the economic risks of Brexit and proposed other risks relating to remaining in the EU, such as losing control of immigration policy and a lack of funding for the National Health Service. These concrete, impassioned arguments struck an immediate and familiar chord with voters. Most intriguingly, the Remain side was silent on these issues, without an emotional case to present. Framing Risky Choices presents a multi-method, comparative, state-of-the-art analysis of how the Brexit campaign contributed to the outcome. Uncovering the core mechanism behind post-truth politics, it shows that the strength of an argument is not its empirical validity but its public appeal."--

Research Methods in the Social Sciences is a comprehensive yet compact A-Z for undergraduate and postgraduate students undertaking qualitative and quantitative research across the social sciences, featuring 71 entries that cover a wide range of concepts, methods, and theories.