Voting for Eurosceptic Parties and Societal Polarization in the Aftermath of the European Sovereign Debt Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The question of whether people voting for Eurosceptic parties in almost every European country is simply a democratic way of expressing a political opinion, or if it presents a threat to democracy by giving a voice to Eurosceptic parties that challenge the EU in a populist manner, has not lost its currency since the 2008 European sovereign dept crisis. In fact, at the first glance, the situation of anti-Corona protestors in Canada or Germany seems comparable. But contrary to some scholars, I argue that it was the economic crisis that first visualized the interdependency of the EU members to the citizens, and was, therefore, the ideal setting for populists to create an atmosphere of mistrust, with the help of the media in some countries. This Research Note addresses the undertheorized link between populism and crisis, by developing a theoretical model focussing on the aggregate level, which shows that EU-membership duration is a crucial factor in explaining voting for Eurosceptic parties. I use data from the European Social Survey and compare a period from 2002 to 2016, conducting trend analysis and difference-in-difference-estimation. My analysis reveals that Eurosceptic parties are more successful in those countries, where anti-EU protest has already been established before. In addition, I find a delayed crisis effect. This could be important for our understanding of the current Covid-19-crisis, which is a health crisis in first place, but a threat to democratic values and instrumentalized by populists as well.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".