Emergency politics, mass sentiment and the EU during Covid

Author:

Wang ChendiORCID,Bojar AbelORCID,Oana Ioana-ElenaORCID,Truchlewski ZbigniewORCID

Abstract

AbstractDuring crises, do emergency politics impair the EU polity by alienating Europeans? Recent literature suggests that executive decisions in hard times can spur negative European sentiment, increase polarisation in the public and thus create more problems than solutions. The Covid-19 pandemic offers an ideal opportunity to study this important issue. However, studying mass sentiment towards the EU is mostly constrained by imperfect survey data. We tackle this challenge with an empirical strategy that combines two original data sources: first, we use policy process analysis to identify key EU decisions; second, we leverage Twitter data to measure sentiment. As a result, we can study whether key EU decisions impacted EU sentiment and whether this impact is conditional on the level of EU competence, prior politicisation and problem pressure. We find that EU decisions impact EU sentiment positively and do not polarise it (even among highly politicised decisions). Low prior politicisation and healthcare-related decisions increase the positive impact of EU actions. There is thus no punishment of the EU for acting outside its remit. Our findings have important implications for the politics of polity maintenance in the EU.

Funder

European University Institute - Fiesole

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Political Science and International Relations

Reference38 articles.

1. Agamben, Giorgio. 2005. The state of exception. Durham: Duke University Press.

2. Alexander Shaw, Kate, Joseph Ganderson and Waltraud Schelkle. this issue. The strength of a weak centre: Pandemic politics in the European Union and the United States. Comparative European Politics.

3. Barberá, Pablo, Andreu Casas, Jonathan Nagler, Patrick J. Egan, Richard Bonneau, John T. Jost, and Joshua A. Tucker. 2019. Who leads? Who follows? Measuring issue attention and agenda setting by legislators and the mass public using social media data. American Political Science Review 113(4): 883–901.

4. Barberá, Pablo and Gonzalo Rivero. 2014. Political discussions on Twitter during elections are dominated by those with extreme views. LSE European Politics and Policy (EUROPP) Blog.

5. Baumgartner, Frank R, Bryan D Jones and Peter B Mortensen. 2018. Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policymaking. Theories of the policy process, 55–101.

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3