1. Who Should Politicize European Foreign and Security Policy and Why?
You Better Think Twice!
Who Should Politicize European Foreign and Security Policy and Why?
DIPARTIMENTO DI SCIENZE SOCIALI, POLITICHE E COGNITIVE
Pierangelo Isernia )
Davide Angelucci
SIENA 13/11/2017

2. Introduction: Why EFSP?
EFSP as a policy area in which European integration might be sucessfully pushed forward
What if a new round of efforts to integrate EFSP were launched?
A disciplined thought experiment :
Assumption: a policy area characterized by ‘Permissive Consensus’
Research Question: Is EFSP going to be politicized? How and by Whom?

3. A Theory of Politicization
Set of actors (political entrepreneurs) ready to politicize an issue
Issues prone to be mobilized
Voters ready to be mobilized

4. A Theory of Politicization
Issue evolution approach (Carmines & Stimson, 1986)
Sleeping giant approach (Van der Eijk & Franklin, 2007)
Top-down process
Parties as first mover
Politicization as the result of strategic calculations of political entrepreneurs
Bottom-up process
General public as first mover
Politicization as the result of contentious mass-feelings being seized by political entrepreneurs

5. Data and Research Design
EU-Engage dataset (Mass and Elite survey), 2016
Chapel Hill Expert Survey, 2014
10 European Countries (EU-Engage countries): Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, UK.
3 levels of analysis:
Systemic Level
Party Level
Individual Level

6. Is EFSP going to be politicized?
Systemic Level
Is EFSP going to be politicized?

7. Systemic Level: Dimensions of Political Conflict
2 Dimensions: Support for EFSP, Left/Right position (Mass and Elites);
Among masses correlations between the EFSP and the Left/Right dimensions are pretty low, varying in signs and across countries;
Among the elites the correlations between the two dimensions are higher –and negative;
Political elites have more ideologically structured positions on EFSP
The Left is more at ease with a Common foreign policy

8. Systemic Level: Potential for Contestation
Extremity and Agreement on EFSP and Left-Right dimensions:
Political Elites:
Higher Extremity on EFSP
Agreement on EFSP nearly equal to the level of agreement on Left-Right
Structured Polarization
General Public:
Lower Agreement on EFSP
High potential for contestation
 Unstructured Polarization

9. Source: EU-Engage (2016). Elite sample
Source: EU-Engage (2016). Mass sample
Source: CHES (2014)

10. Party Level: Are there EFSP Entrepreneurs?

11. Party Level: Are there EFSP Entrepreneurs?
Dependent variable: Issue Entrepreneurship (Hobolt & De Vries 2015)
EU Salience X (Party Position – Average Party System)
Independent variables: Two sets of factors:
Political Loss (Hobolt & De Vries 2015)
Winning Issue (Hobolt & De Vries 2015)

12. Party Level: Are there EFSP Entrepreneurs?
Variable
Indicators
Direction
DependentVariable
Issue Entrepreneurship
Salience x (Party Position - Average Party System Position)
IndependentVariables
Political Loss
Electoral Defeat +
Distance from the average party position on the dominant political dimensions (Left/Right)
Government experience -
Winning Issue
Internal coherence of the party
Distance from the mean voter position
-/ +
Party Size
Party size in terms of electoral performance (last available election)
EU DiffusedSupport
Average support for EU integration in each Country (General public)
Left-Right Position
Left-Right position of Party

13. Party Level: Are there EFSP Entrepreneurs?
VARIABLES 
Party Loss
Winning Issue
Full Model
Electoral Defeat
0.004
-0.001
(0.005)
(0.003)
Distance from the avg. Party system on the left/right dimension
0.540***
0.027
(0.169)
(0.161)
Government Experience
-0.096
-0.003
(0.081)
(0.072)
Share of Votes
0.002
0.003
(0.001)
(0.002)
Left/Right Position
0.268***
0.193**
0.193***
(0.090)
(0.073)
General Attitudes towards the EU
0.259
0.146
0.151
(0.179)
(0.133)
(0.134)
Std Deviation EFSP Dimension
-0.421**
-0.429**
(0.201)
Distance from the mean voter on EFSP
0.696***
0.688***
(0.104)
(0.116)
Constant
-0.034
0.038
0.032
(0.118)
(0.109) N 89 90 R2
0.228
0.463
0.462
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

14. Party Level: Are there EFSP Entrepreneurs?
VARIABLES 
Party Loss
Winning Issue
Full Model
Electoral Defeat
0.004
-0.001
(0.005)
(0.003)
Distance from the avg. Party system on the left/right dimension
0.540***
0.027
(0.169)
(0.161)
Government Experience
-0.096
-0.003
(0.081)
(0.072)
Share of Votes
0.002
0.003
(0.001)
(0.002)
Left/Right Position
0.268***
0.193**
0.193***
(0.090)
(0.073)
General Attitudes towards the EU
0.259
0.146
0.151
(0.179)
(0.133)
(0.134)
Std Deviation EFSP Dimension
-0.421**
-0.429**
(0.201)
Distance from the mean voter on EFSP
0.696***
0.688***
(0.104)
(0.116)
Constant
-0.034
0.038
0.032
(0.118)
(0.109) N 89 90 R2
0.228
0.463
0.462
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

15. Individual Level: Who will Listen to the Sirens’ Song?

16. Individual Level: Who will Listen to the Sirens’ Song?
Dependent variable: the ‘Betrayal Coefficient’
R= Position of respondent on EFSP;
V= Perceived position of the party R is attached to on EFSP;
P=Perceived position of the party that is the closest one to R on EFSP;
E=Issue Entrepreneurship
Direct function of the distance of R’s position from the party s/he is attached to on EFSP
Inverse function of the distance of R’s position from the closer party to her/his preferences on EFSP

17. Individual Level: Who will Listen to the Sirens’ Song?
Independent variables:
Security Concern
Individual Predispositions
Identity
Europeanism
Blame
Ideology
Ideology Political Parties
Socio-demographics

18. Individual Level: Who will Listen to the Sirens’ Song?

19. Individual Level: Who will Listen to the Sirens’ Song?

20. Individual Level: Who will Listen to the Sirens’ Song?

21. Conclusions Systemic level: Party Level:
There is room for EFSP to be politicized;
Polarized and non-structured positions among the general public;
Highly polarized and ideologically structured party positions;
Party Level:
Extreme parties are the best candidates to politicize EFSP;
Right-wing parties are better suited to act as issue entrepreneurs;
Individual Level:
Extreme voters (in particular right-wing voters) are more likely to cheat on their parties on EFSP;

22. Conclusions What’s next?
Among right-wing voters, a national (nationalistic) perspective might clash with the desire for a bigger role of Europe in the world. Is there an ideological contradiction at stake?
The establishment/anti-establishment interaction and the risky/rewarding mismatch between parties and voters. Who leads whom and in what direction?
Immigration as an interesting case of a politicized issue to be compared to EFSP