Why vote when you cannot choose? EU intervention and political participation in times of constraint
Why vote when you cannot choose? EU intervention and political participation in times of constraint
This article analyses how economic intervention affects individuals’ political behaviour by assessing the impact of intervention on aggregate and individual turnout. The intervention of the European Union in a selection of member states is viewed as having negative consequences for democratic choice, reducing the ability of voters to select between distinct policy alternatives, resulting in the absence of the primary benefit of voting: choice. It is argued that when voters are faced with electoral choices without the ability to shape policy alternatives, they are less likely to vote. Moreover, the negative effect of intervention is found to be conditioned by both individuals’ level of education and ideological identification. Voters on the centre and the left who feel abandoned by left-leaning parties, who have prioritised being responsible to their European paymasters, are significantly more likely to abstain when exposed to intervention. Empirical support for the argument is found via the analysis of aggregate turnout as well as individual level data from the European Social Survey data from across fifteen Western European states.
Election turnout, Eurozone crisis, Troika, bailout, diff-in-diff, economic crisis, intervention, political participation, voting
406-428
Turnbull-Dugarte, Stuart J.
e25c6280-842c-407f-a961-6472eea5d845
1 September 2020
Turnbull-Dugarte, Stuart J.
e25c6280-842c-407f-a961-6472eea5d845
Turnbull-Dugarte, Stuart J.
(2020)
Why vote when you cannot choose? EU intervention and political participation in times of constraint.
European Union Politics, 21 (3), .
(doi:10.1177/1465116520910476).
Abstract
This article analyses how economic intervention affects individuals’ political behaviour by assessing the impact of intervention on aggregate and individual turnout. The intervention of the European Union in a selection of member states is viewed as having negative consequences for democratic choice, reducing the ability of voters to select between distinct policy alternatives, resulting in the absence of the primary benefit of voting: choice. It is argued that when voters are faced with electoral choices without the ability to shape policy alternatives, they are less likely to vote. Moreover, the negative effect of intervention is found to be conditioned by both individuals’ level of education and ideological identification. Voters on the centre and the left who feel abandoned by left-leaning parties, who have prioritised being responsible to their European paymasters, are significantly more likely to abstain when exposed to intervention. Empirical support for the argument is found via the analysis of aggregate turnout as well as individual level data from the European Social Survey data from across fifteen Western European states.
Text
EUP accepted manuscript
- Accepted Manuscript
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 12 February 2020
e-pub ahead of print date: 13 March 2020
Published date: 1 September 2020
Additional Information:
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2020.
Keywords:
Election turnout, Eurozone crisis, Troika, bailout, diff-in-diff, economic crisis, intervention, political participation, voting
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 438138
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/438138
ISSN: 1465-1165
PURE UUID: b4f7eea2-f51a-4d75-8c41-0a998d5f9b50
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 03 Mar 2020 17:30
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:01
Export record
Altmetrics
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
