EU Regional Policy and

Identification with the

European Project

AQR, University of Barcelona

Enrique López-Bazo

Vicente Royuela

Workshop on “Perceptions, public opinion and Euroscepticism towards European policies”

Seville, 10th December 2018

Motivation

• Increasing interest in determinants of support to EU project and European

identity.

• Recent threats to the EU building process / project (increasing Euroscepticism,

Brexit, growth of populism, neo-nationalisms, …).

• From utilitarian/economic perspective: costs of EU greater than benefits (?).

• Financial and sovereign debt crises may have led to negative perception of EU

institutions as well as doubts about their effectiveness in dealing with citizens’

problems.

• Cohesion Policy (CP; ~ EU Regional Policy):

– Main policy tool of the EU: one third of EU budget; bulk of funds allocated to less

developed regions (strong solidarity)

– The one with strongest impact on people everyday lives

– Expression of the redistributive function of EU policy

Yet, “research on the role of EU CP in promoting European identity remains

uncharted academic terrain” (Borz et al, 2018)

Aims and Objectives

• To explore the role that CP may play in shaping EU citizens’

identification with the European project.

• To check if impact of CP on citizens’ perception of the policy and their

identification with the European project vary across territories &

groups of individuals.

• To derive (sound) conclusions that can help to design interventions to

increase citizens’ awareness of CP and, eventually, their identification

with, and support to, the European project (counteracting some

current trends against it).

Assumptions

• The EU considers that CP is a key element of the EU project, but this

vision may not be shared by important sectors of the population.

• Public awareness of and support for CP varies across and within

European countries and regions. This may affect how CP shapes the

citizens’ identification with the EU project.

• Individuals do not make a conscious direct connection between the

intensity of the CP in the region and its identification with Europe.

Instead, it is assumed to be an indirect effect: CP funds increase

perception of the policy which, in turn, can favour European identity.

Related evidence

Since late 90s, bunch of studies has analysed the role of determinants of

citizens’ opinion on European integration and their degree of identification

with Europe (Barberio et al, 2017; Bergbauer, 2018; Royuela & López-Bazo, 2018):

Cognitive mobilization / Political awareness (Gabel, 1998; Clements, 2011;

Chalmers & Dellmuth, 2015; Luhmann, 2017)

Political values and political cues (Gabel, 1998; Marks & Hooghe, 2003; Brinegar &

Jolly, 2005; Jacquier, 2012)

National identity (Hooghe and Marks, 2004, 2005; Clements, 2011; Serricchio et al,

2013)

Political-institutional confidence (Serricchio et al, 2013; Armingeon & Ceka, 2014;

Hooghe & Verhaegen, 2017)

Related evidence

Some studies focus on the effect of the (self-perception of the) socio-

economic situation of the individual:

Utilitarian theory: individuals tend to have a positive view of the EU if integration

benefits them in a way or another (Gabel, 1998; Garry & Tilley, 2009; Serricchio et al,

2013; Verhaegen et al, 2014; Verhaegen, 2017)

Also as Political economy determinants (Hooghe and Marks, 2004, 2005) and

Winners/Losers of integration (Tucker et al, 2002)

Increasing interest on impact of economic context:

Skill endowment, Unemployment, Industrial mix, Density, Intra-EU trade, Corruption,

GDP growth, Inflation, Welfare state type, Spread of sovereign bonds, Eurozone

membership, Public debt and deficit, Social expending Decentralization (Brinegar &

Jolly, 2005; Osterloh, 2011; Serricchio et al, 2013; Verhaegen et al, 2014; Armingeon

& Ceka, 2014; Hooghe & Verhaegen, 2017; Borz et al, 2018)

Financial and debt crisis, proxied by the level and change of GDPpc and

Unemployment rate –total & youth–, growth of the public debt-GDP ratio (Braun &

Tausendpfund, 2014; Kroknes et al, 2015)

Related evidence

Focus on role of EU policies, CP/RP in particular, in recent years:

Net contribution EU budget, National net fiscal transfers (Verhaegen et al, 2014;

Chalmers & Dellmuth, 2015)

Structural Fund expenditures pc at country/region level (Osterloh, 2011; Verhaegen et

al, 2014; Chalmers & Dellmuth, 2015). ESIF pc by spending category (redistributive

and distributive exp.) and regional need indicators (Dellmuth & Chalmers, 2018)

Awareness of activities of ERDF in the country (Osterloh, 2011). CP awareness

(heard about ERDF, CF, ESF) and perception of benefits (Borz et al, 2018)

In brief, evidence so far:

Studies point to a certain effect of EU funding on attitudes to the EU, but a negligible

effect on European identity.

However, results in Borz et al (2018) suggest that when it comes to developing a

European identity what matters is the knowledge of the CP.

Related evidence

Limited evidence on the determinants of CP awareness/satisfaction:

Osterloh (2011): visibility of CP increases with the amount spent in the region.

Capello & Perucca (2017): Positive effect of matching between perceived and real

needs, and of visibility of EU actions depending on perceived/real needs.

Borz et al (2018). Focus on effect of media exposure and communication of CP. No

significant effect of intensity of CP, but its effect may be captured by inclusion of i)

measures of media exposure and CP communication, and ii) inclusion of absorption

rate of EU funds.

Framework and Hypotheses

H1: CP intensity affects policy perception

H3a: Differences across individuals

(regions; winners/losers)

Framework and Hypotheses

Identification with Europe Support to EU project

H2: CP perception affects EU identity

H3b: Differences across individuals (regions;

winners/losers)

Framework and Hypotheses

H1: CP intensity affects policy

perception

H3a: Differences across individuals (regions;

winners/losers)

H2: CP affects identification through

policy perception

H3b: Differences across individuals (regions;

winners/losers)

Data

Individual-level data from the PERCEIVE Survey (Charron & Bauhr, 2017):

• 17,147 (18+ by CATI) respondents from 15 EU countries (AT, BG, EE, FR,

DE, HU, IT, LV, NL, PL, RO, SK, ES, SE, UK). Interviewed in summer of 2017.

• Unique feature: it combines questions about identification and support to the

EU with others on perception of and support for the CP. Plus rich set of

individual determinants of identity and demographic and background

information of respondents.

• Each respondent is geocoded at the NUTS1, NUTS2 and NUTS3.

Regional data from the QoG EU Regional Dataset (Charron et al, 2017):

• Total annual SF expenditures pc (2007-13); Eligibility as Convergence region

(2007-13); socio-economic determinants such as GDPpc; employment rate,

education, …

Country-level data EUROSTAT and EC:

• Net budgetary balance; intra-EU exports; Inflation; Spread gov’t bonds; …

Key variables

Identification with Europe

People may feel different degrees of identity with their region, their country, or with

Europe on whole. On a 0-10 scale, with ‘0’ being ‘I don’t identify at all, and ‘10’ being ‘I

identify very strongly’, how strongly you identify yourself with the following?: c. Europe

Recoded as binary variable (as in Verhaegen et al, 2014): Low identification (0-5); High

identification (6-10)

Support to EU project

In general, do you think that (YOUR COUNTRY’S) EU membership is: a good thing, a

bad thing, neither good nor bad, not sure. (UK not included).

Recoded as binary variable: Support EU project (membership is a good thing); Lack

of support (membership is a bad thing, neither good nor bad, not sure)

Respondents from UK: If the referendum were held today, how would you vote?

Leave, Stay, Didn’t vote, Refused/d/k

Support EU project (Stay); Lack of support (Leave, didn’t vote, refused/d/k)

Key variables

Awareness of CP

In general, have you ever heard about the following EU policies? Yes; No

a. Cohesion Policy b. Regional Policy

c. Structural Funds d. Any EU funded project in your region or area

Perception of personal benefit of CP

To your knowledge, have you ever benefited in your daily life from any project funded by

the EU? Yes; No

_______________________________

Annual average Total Structural Fund expenditures per capita in the

region in the programming period 2007-2013.

It combines regional OP and estimate of national OP expenditures in the region (based on

population; considering the Cohesion goals). Results are robust to alternative measures

(e.g. SF data published in March 2018).

Controls

Individual-level

Utilitarian/Economic egocentric: Occupation, Income level, Perception of economic

situation in region (current; future)

Political ideology: More restriction on immigrants, Support to redistribution, Preference

for strong leader

Political awareness/Cognitive mobilization: Education, Vote in EU elections

Communal identity: Christian religion, Share common European history and culture,

Identification with country, Identification with region

Political-institutional: EU effectiveness, Corruption in EU

Match needs region with CP thematic objectives

Demographic: Gender, Age, City size

(Only for EU identity & support / Only for CP perception)

Region-level

Observable: Employment rate, GDPpc (PPS as % EU avg.), Skill endowment

Unobservable: RE

Country-level

Net contribution EU budget (% GDP), Exports to EU, Inflation rate, Eurozone,

Gov’t bonds spread, Years since accession

Descriptive evidence

Descriptive evidence

Empirical strategy

Estimation of effects based on multi-level RE probits:

1)

where 𝑦1𝑖(𝑟)∗ denotes the probability of i) awareness of CP, ii) personal benefit of CP

Interpretation: when SFpc increases by 1%, the probability of being aware of / benefit

from CP changes by 𝛽1 percentage points.

H1: CP intensity affects policy perception

2)

where 𝑦2𝑖(𝑟)∗ denotes the probability of i) supporting EU project, ii) identification with

Europe, and 𝑦1𝑖(𝑟) is the binary variable for i) awareness of CP, ii) personal benefit of CP

Interpretation: Individuals that are aware of / benefit from CP have a probability of

supporting the EU project / identifying with Europe that is 𝛽2 percentage points higher

than similar individuals living in similar regions/countries that are not aware of CP / do

not benefit from CP.

H2: CP perception affects EU identity / support

Empirical strategy

Simulations

3) Using estimates from the Mixed-effects probits, simulation of the effect of intensity of CP in

the region (based on quartiles of the SFpc distribution in the set of regions)

H1 & H2

Analysis of Heterogeneities (Territorial / Individual)

4) Marginal effects of key variables (log SFpcr , 𝑦1𝑖(𝑟)) for:

• Eligibility vs. non-eligibility as Convergence region

• Rural vs. Urban

• Support vs. no support to CP

• Winners vs. Losers (Skills; Income level)

H3a & H3b: Differences across individuals (regions; support CP; winners/losers)

Empirical strategy

Some concerns

• Endogeneity of SFpc may be an issue:

Simultaneity: decision about regional distribution of funds in the programming period

2007-13 was taken years before individuals’ responses (summer 2017). Criteria of

distribution did not take into account i) level of support/identification with EU, ii)

awareness/satisfaction with CP. No mechanism supporting EU identity/support CP

perception (particularly for awareness). Confirmed by data (territories where

identity/support is high and CP perception very low).

Confounding factors: comprehensive set of individual and contextual (region and

country) controls

Effect on support/identification through perception of CP, which in turn is highly

influenced by amount of EU funds, minimizes risk of endogeneity.

• Correlation between unobservables that affect both support/identification and

awareness/satisfaction with CP, i.e. Corr(ε1i(r), ε2i(r)) ≠ 0 and therefore biprobit

specification.

Test based on estimation of bivariate probit suggest that Corr(ε1i(r), ε2i(r)) = 0

• Data at individual and aggregate levels

Use of multi-level models (supported by tests).

Results. Estimate of the effects

H1 H2

Results. Assessing the magnitude of the effects

H1

H2

Impact of CP may be mediated by individual traits and the territorial

context (H3a & H3b):

Higher visibility of EU funded projects in Less Developed regions in comparison to

those typically funded in the More Developed ones (Mendez & Bachtler, 2016)

Difference between Convergence regions and No convergence regions

Besides sorting based on observed features (education, occupation, political

awareness), individuals in rural and urban areas may also differ in some unobserved

characteristics that can affect the impact of the CP (Tucker et al, 2002)

Difference between urban and rural areas

Support to redistribution in general and CP in particular (Chalmers & Dellmuth, 2015)

Difference between individuals that support CP and those that do not

Political awareness, cognitive ability, winners-losers of EU integration (Osterhoh, 2011;

Brinegar & Jolly, 2012; Jacquier, 2012; Armingeon & Ceka, 2014; Chalmers & Dellmuth,

2015)

Difference between individuals with high skills/income and low skills/income

Results. Heterogeneity of effects

Results. Heterogeneity (territories) H3a H3b

Results. Heterogeneity (Support to CP)

Support to CP from responses to:

Priming information: ‘As you might have heard, EU cohesion policy aims to reduce regional differences within the EU in things like economic development, and employment. While all members contribute and receive some funds, the wealthier EU countries generally contribute more and poorer EU regions receive more funding on average.’

“In your opinion, the EU should continue this policy, where wealthier countries contribute more, and poorer EU regions receive more funding.” (Strongly agree + Agree) vs. (Disagree + Strongly desagree + d/k)

H3a H3b

Results. Heterogeneity (winners/losers)

H3a H3b

Concluding comments

Results suggest that:

• There is a significant and sizeable effect of CP intensity in the region (amount of SF exp pc)

on citizens’ perception of the policy (awareness / personal benefit is 50% / 75% higher in

regions at the top of the SFpc distribution compared to those at the bottom). H1 ✓

• Although the effect of CP perception on EU identity / support is statistically significant, the

size of this effect is very small (1pp or less between top/bottom SFpc regions). H2 ✗

• Heterogeneity in effect of SFpc expenditures on CP perception:

No difference between Convergence and Non-convergence regions / Urban and Rural areas. H3a ✗

No difference between individuals that support and do no support the CP. H3a ✗

Significant and sizeable difference between winners and losers of integration. H3a ✓

• Heterogeneity in effect of CP perception on EU identity / support:

In general, no difference between Convergence and Non-convergence regions / Urban and Rural

areas. H3b ✗

Mixed evidence about difference between individuals that support and do no support the CP. H3b ?

Mixed evidence about differences between winners and losers of integration. H3b ?

Concluding comments

Communication of CP has not been effective in promoting EU

identity / support

No improvement expected by increasing citizens’ perception of the

policy (billboards, plaques, posters, media exposure, …)

Need to strength the link CP perception EU identity/support

More sophisticated tools / messages? #CohesionAlliance / Video

competitions / ”Did you know” campaign / Photo exhibitions / ”RegioStars

awards” / Debates about CP / #EUinmyRegion / Cohesion@30 / …

Targeted to specific population groups?

Concluding comments

Council conclusions on "Making Cohesion Policy

more effective, relevant and visible to our citizens"

(April 2017)

(12) RECOGNISES that further efforts are required by Member States and the Commission

to increase the visibility and the positive image of Cohesion Policy and the ESI Funds, and

to show that they represent a tangible and beneficial manifestation of the EU in the daily life

of European citizens by providing them with better living and working conditions as well as

better opportunities for the development of skills. In this context, and in order to further

increase the visibility of the policy, both towards EU citizens and political decision-makers,

INVITES:

a) Member States to communicate the advantages Europe offers to citizens; b) the Commission and Member States, including their managing authorities, to enhance

cooperation on their communication strategies on Cohesion Policy and the ESI Funds (…);

in this context, LOOKS FORWARD to the upcoming Commission action plan on

communication; c) the Commission to outline and disseminate good practice on communication measures

which can best illustrate the positive contribution made by Cohesion Policy and the ESI

Funds, in particular towards improving the life of European citizens on the ground; d) beneficiaries and authorities of the Member States to communicate widely and in a

systematic way the results, benefits and long term impact of the policy; e) all stakeholders to make the best use of available communication tools, including new

communication techniques, to increase the visibility of the policy in a way adapted to the

needs of relevant target groups;

Concluding comments

EU Commissioner for regional policy ”Bringing

opportunities to Europeans: Communicating together the

results of EU Cohesion Policy" (May 2017)

Based on the 25 April conclusions of the GAC meeting stating that Member States and the

Commission need to scale up their efforts to increase the visibility of cohesion policy, this document

aims to provide more concrete elements on the implementation of the seven proposed actions.

This communication campaign must rest on two principles:

1. Communicating on cohesion policy is a shared responsibility. For practical as well as political

reasons, the European Commission cannot, and should not be the driving force behind it. Member

States, local and regional authorities and civil society should all play their due role to ensure these

proposals are implemented with the best possible impact. The Member States have a legal obligation

to provide information about the projects funded by cohesion policy, (…)

2. To avoid reinventing the wheel, most proposed actions should use existing tools such as the 'EU in

My Region' campaign, which is already implemented in most Member States, or the European

Commission's campaign to communicate the concrete benefits of the EU for citizens. (…). By the

same token, the European Commission's representations and the Europe Direct Information Centres

as well as the European Parliament’s information offices should be mobilised.

EU Regional Policy and

Identification with the

European Project

AQR, University of Barcelona

Enrique López-Bazo

Vicente Royuela

Workshop on “Perceptions, public opinion and Euroscepticism towards European policies”

Seville, 10th December 2018