Joining the EU?
| Author | Alexander H. Trechsel,Thomas Christin |
| Published date | 01 December 2002 |
| Date | 01 December 2002 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1465116502003004002 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
02 christen (jk/d) 25/10/02 3:04 pm Page 415
European Union Politics
Joining the EU?
[1465-1165(200212)3:4]
Volume 3 (4): 415–443: 028516
Explaining Public Opinion in
Copyright© 2002
Switzerland
SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks CA,
New Delhi
Thomas Christin
University of Geneva, Switzerland
and University of St Galen, Switzerland
Alexander H. Trechsel
University of Geneva, Switzerland
and European University Institute, Florence, Italy
A B S T R A C T
Our model suggests that national political, economic and
cultural dimensions have to be taken into account when
explaining support for European Union (EU) membership
among the Swiss electorate. Using data from the first Euro-
barometer survey in Switzerland (1999), we empirically test
our model using structural equation modelling. We find that
institutional attachment and ‘image’ of neighbouring coun-
tries are strongly linked to the perception of threat to
national interests, which in turn is a strong predictor of
support for joining the EU. We also show that national
identity, attachment to neutrality, as well as perceived econ-
omic gain or loss from EU membership are directly linked
to attitudes towards EU membership.
K E Y W O R D S
European integration
institutional attachment
national identity
national interests
public opinion
4 1 5
02 christen (jk/d) 25/10/02 3:04 pm Page 416
4 1 6
European Union Politics 3(4)
Introduction
Until the late 1980s the process of European integration was principally
concerned with pursuing economic goals and, as a result, was ‘almost entirely
compatible with the nation-state’ (Mann, 1996: 300). Following the Treaty of
Maastricht, however, this process began to cut more deeply into member state
sovereignties. As a consequence, questions of identity, legitimacy and political
order have attained a central importance in the context of European inte-
gration (Laffan, 1996). This is particularly the case given that ‘European nation
building’ could potentially involve a significant degree of cultural
homogenization. From this perspective it is important to take a more system-
atic look at the phenomenon of national identity when trying to understand
citizens’ support for European integration.
In this paper we will focus on a non-EU state in the heart of Europe:
Switzerland. Even though Switzerland is not a member of the EU, we argue
that identity is of great consequence in relation to Switzerland’s prospects for
joining the EU. Swiss studies on popular voting concerning European inte-
gration show that identity issues as well as a cleavage between openness and
tradition strongly cut across the electorate (Kriesi et al., 1993; Vatter, 1994;
Sciarini and Listhaug, 1997; Christin et al., 2002). We argue that Swiss national
identity must be addressed in a broad sense. As many studies have demon-
strated, Swiss national identity is strongly shaped by three fundamental
political institutions: neutrality, federalism and direct democracy (see, for
example, Kriesi, 1998). A closer look at these institutions, and at citizens’ atti-
tudes towards them, is deemed to be especially illuminating given that these
institutions will, to some extent, be reshaped should Switzerland eventually
become a member of the EU. Because the Swiss electorate is required to vote
on any future measures towards European accession, research on public
opinion is crucial in order to understand future political options for this
country. As we will argue, Switzerland is also quite a distinctive case owing
to its multiple identities bound together within the same state. A corollary of
this is a strong attachment to what provides the only national glue: its political
institutions.
In this paper we will focus on citizens’ attitudes towards EU accession.
Our aim is to explain support for EU membership amongst the Swiss elec-
torate. To this end we use structural equation modelling to look more closely
at two major dimensions, namely national identity and the perception of
threat to national interests. In the following sections we present the concep-
tual background, frame our model, briefly describe the data and our opera-
tionalization, and finally present our empirical results.
02 christen (jk/d) 25/10/02 3:04 pm Page 417
Christin and Trechsel
Joining the EU?
4 1 7
Support for European integration and national identity
National identity
The concept of national identity, referred to by the literature as a rather equi-
vocal term and multidimensional concept, will be central to our study. Blank
et al. (2001: 6) mention seven (non-exhaustive) definitions of national identity
that appear in the literature. Similarly Abdelal et al. (2001) present a long list
of studies with a focus on national identity. Not only do these studies illus-
trate the importance of the concept of national identity, they also demonstrate
that there is a lack of standard and commonly accepted definitions and
measures. For the purposes of this enquiry we will use a definition of national
identity that has been proposed by the so-called social identity theory (Tajfel,
1974). This still promising theory underlines the importance and centrality of
identity for the self. As Cinnirella points out (1996: 253), ‘at the heart of social
identity theory is the notion that an individual’s membership of social
categories and social groups often constitutes an important aspect of that indi-
vidual’s self-concept’. Social identity theory contains three fundamental
elements: (a) categorization or differentiation, (b) identification and (c) social
comparison. Categorization is a cognitive process of simplification producing
some stereotypic perceptions with reference to the self (Hogg and Abrams,
1998: 19). Social identification can thus be defined as identification with a
group to which we perceive ourselves to belong. We believe ourselves to be
members of a group and perceive members of the same group as being similar
to ourselves. Finally, the process of social comparison implies that people
compare the group to which they belong with other groups. The idea is that
people gain collective self-esteem by comparing their group with others and
perceive their membership of a certain group as being positive and/or pres-
tigious.
National identity will be considered according to the strength of attach-
ment to (identification) and positive evaluation of (comparison) the national
group. In the following two subsections we will concentrate more specifically
on the content of national identity.
Constitutional patriotism
We argue that, in order to tackle the qualitative or substantive part of Swiss
national identity, we have to look more thoroughly at the concepts of political
culture and political institutions. Despite the high degree of cultural hetero-
geneity, some other factors contributed to the building of a ‘Swiss nation’ over
time. One of the elements favouring the emergence of a common attachment
02 christen (jk/d) 25/10/02 3:04 pm Page 418
4 1 8
European Union Politics 3(4)
to the ‘nation’ builds on an identity driven by a process of demarcation from
others, partially triggered by the experience of defence against superior
enemies, for example its great neighbours during the two world wars. This
is what Kriesi (1998: 16) labels as negative identity. Moreover, for Kriesi, ‘[its]
citizens are welded together by a common political culture, i.e. by a common
attachment to a set of fundamental political principles – most notably, neutral-
ity, federalism and direct democracy, buttressed by a set of myths about past
heroic struggles to defend these principles against outside aggressors’ (1999:
18). Each of these three institutions (neutrality, federalism and direct democ-
racy) has a long historical legacy that has profoundly shaped the Swiss federal
state and helped to forge a common political identity that corresponds to a
‘minimal common denominator’ (Kriesi, 1998: 15).
Social identity theory might also help us to understand the significance
of Swiss political institutions for identity issues. According to this theory, the
Swiss lack a common culture and thus cannot rely on cultural markers to
establish their group boundary. As a result they have to resort to what they
can share, namely political institutions such as federalism, direct democracy
and neutrality. Those institutional features thus have a dual status. On the
one hand, they may be valued for whatever practical benefits they offer (or
have offered in the past), such as domestic cohesion and stability. Beyond
their perceived practical usefulness, those institutional features have, on the
other hand, acquired the status of symbols, demarcating and sustaining the
internalized social category (i.e. Switzerland). Therefore, they may strengthen
individuals’ social identity, sense of self-worth and self-esteem. Among other
things, this suggests why neutrality has remained an important symbol to the
Swiss, even though, on most accounts, it has lost most of its practical signifi-
cance (see, for example, Goetschel, 1999: 132).
At the conceptual level, we describe the attitude towards a political insti-
tution as institutional attachment. For some citizens institutional attachment
may be very important. In its more radical forms it may generate intense
feelings of pride among citizens. They are proud of the fact that their repre-
sentatives must be elected by the people or, as in the Swiss context, that the
referendum process allows some form of popular control over the elite. They
may also be proud that regional problems are taken into...
To continue reading
Request your trial